ALL UNITED States presidents are locked in by their record at this stage of the electoral cycle. Evaluating President Barack Obama’s becomes politically necessary following his recent trend-setting budget deal with the Republicans and looking forward strategically to next year’s presidential elections.
Mr Obama was elected on a promise of change after the Bush years, but since 2009 he has governed towards the centre on a platform of compromise and national unity. That expectation of bipartisanship has been brutally rebuffed by his Republican opponents, exposing it as unrealistic or naive. If Mr Obama has flopped, can his fortunes revive?
There is a clear contrast between his electoral success and his record in office. His November 2008 majority brought together a coalition that included many new voters who did not usually vote but were mobilised in a well-funded campaign using new social media to great effect. Hopes for change were vividly displayed after the result and at the inauguration, but following it their grassroots organisation was folded into his governing apparatus; not maintained intact. His supporters were then sidelined by growth of the alternative Tea Party populists over the past two years, giving the Republicans a remarkable boost in the 2010 congressional elections.
His supporters’ political priorities were partly met by his healthcare reforms and disengagement from Iraq. But they were disappointed by continuous accommodations with Wall Street during the financial crisis, by the half-hearted fiscal stimulus and now by the budget agreement which rules out new tax increases on the richest and insists on major cuts in public spending. Internationally last week’s downgrading of the US by one of the major credit agencies seems to symbolise a turning point in its global leadership and hegemony. Afghanistan is a running sore, and the US has been left in a passive role during this year’s Arab uprisings. Its growing engagement with China, while prudent, appears to confirm its declining power.
Policy shortcomings are compounded by Mr Obama’s leadership style. Confronted with Republican dogmatism he has persisted in his search for bipartisan, more balanced outcomes. His pragmatic approach appears passive and academic rather than engaged and he seems to avoid conflict with such intransigence. As a result he comes across as more weak than he is in reality, making a less convincing case than he is capable of.
It is too soon to say if these are enduring political weaknesses. All politics are relational and Mr Obama is more fortunate than he currently looks with his political opponents. The Republicans are deeply divided between mainstream conservatives and the new hard-edged populism fanned by a much more polarised right-wing media. Mr Obama can readily exploit these differences if he can rediscover his ability to confront and blame them forthrightly for his country’s many problems. At the same time he needs to articulate an enduring vision on how he will restore the United States of America to a position of strength, globally and domestically.