Barack Obama completes his first year as President with his public approval ratings having fallen from a high of 68 per cent when he entered office to the current low of 47 per cent.
Is this common to American presidents after their first 365 days in power? Does this set a trend line that will persist? Can Obama turn this situation around? The answer to the first two questions is no, not necessarily. The first year certainly sets the momentum and direction for subsequent years but it isn’t the only determinant of the rest of the Presidential term. As for the third question, much depends on what Obama does from now on, especially how he manages the economy and handles the two conflicts that America is entangled in. Three aspects of the Obama Presidency are significant in assessing his record so far: a difficult inheritance; the unrealistic expectations raised by his historic victory; and his pursuit of a liberal agenda at home while yielding to the Right on national security strategy and conducting a foreign policy on key geo-political issues marked more by continuity than a break from the past.
President Obama inherited a daunting agenda from a troubled legacy that sharply constrained his room to manoeuvre: two divisive and protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the severest economic crisis since the Depression and a level of debt incompatible with America’s status as the world’s pre-eminent economic power.
In this backdrop, he devoted much of his attention to domestic affairs: addressing the economic crisis and trying to revive confidence. He made reasonable progress: passing a stimulus package and halting a financial free fall. But high jobless figures at year end and a yawning fiscal deficit served as reminders of the obstacles ahead to achieving an economic recovery.
Obama is also on the verge of securing a health care bill — his signature reform measure that represents a significant piece of social welfare legislation. This may not go as far as the liberal wing of his party may have wished, but will still mark an important accomplishment for Obama. All told not a bad domestic record given the weak hand he inherited. Why then have his job approval numbers steadily dropped during the year? Part of the answer lies in the extraordinary expectations that Obama himself raised by his promise of being a “transformational President.” As campaign rhetoric confronted the sobering realities of governance, the inevitable compromises that were made left many of his supporters disappointed and his critics accusing him of naiveté about statecraft. In the transition from a powerful orator of soaring campaign rhetoric to the real world of tough policy choices questions were raised about whether Obama had the determination to pursue the agenda he had set. And priorities there were aplenty, inviting the charge that he had scattered his focus. Critics portrayed him as a leader good at launching initiatives but inconsistent in executing or making them work.
Meanwhile his kid-glove treatment of bankers in the financial bailout, failure to close down Guantanamo and watering down of the health care plan evoked dismay within the Democratic base amid cries of betrayal of the “transformational agenda”. But it was in the realm of national security and foreign policy that his first year fell woefully short of the promise. In his initial days in office President Obama offered a fresh start to America’s engagement with the world, pledging to temper power by “humility and restraint”, reach out to the Muslim world and place a greater emphasis on diplomacy to secure its goals. Other than the welcome change in tone, this did not translate, in practice, into a substantially new approach. Nowhere was this more evident than in the revised strategy on Afghanistan. Obama’s decision to escalate the war marked continuity rather than a break with the Bush paradigm.
Together with other decisions (Guantanamo) this suggested that on security policy Obama conceded to the Right rather than respond to the liberal base of his party. The inclination to pursue a conservative international agenda was also signaled by the lack of progress made in the Middle East peace process. Washington’s unwillingness to press Israel to halt its settlements in East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank meant that the Obama administration failed the litmus test of the change in relations with the Muslim world promised by his inspiring Cairo speech.
Pages: 1 2
