When Barack Obama ran for president of the United States in 2008, there was no shortage of skeptics. Chief among the many questions raised about him was, “Has he accomplished anything?” (Defenders often responded, only half jokingly, “Wasn’t creating the charismatic and remarkable personality of Barack Obama enough of an accomplishment?”)
Today, more than two years later, the question about Obama is not so much whether he has accomplished anything but, rather, “has he accomplished the right things?” or “why has he not been able to convince the American people about the merits of his accomplishments?”
Obama supporters (based on media coverage you would not necessarily know that, despite all of his problems, he has maintained a steady 45 percent approval) argue that so far his presidency has been enormously successful by most historical measures. There is, his backers note, a communications problem, which is complicated by the inconvenient fact that unemployment remains stubbornly high, at 9.6 percent.
They have ample evidence to support their case. Obama not only succeeded in passing a significant overhaul of the health care system. He also delivered a major fiscal stimulus package (Recovery Act) and Wall Street regulation and financial reform, among other legislative measures. Not a bad record for a president who was accused of coming to office with no accomplishments.
Indeed, Obama arguably produced more sweeping, progressive change in 20 months than the previous two Democratic administrations did in 12 years. As historian Doris Kearns Goodwin told Rolling Stone, “When you look at what will last in history, Obama has more notches on his presidential belt.” For all of the criticism, Obama’s opening months could be judged as more impressive than any president’s – Democratic or Republican – since the mid-1960s. As Norman Ornstein, a political observer with the conservative American Enterprise Institute says, “If you are looking at the first two-year legislative record, you really don’t have any rivals since Lyndon Johnson – and that includes Ronald Reagan.”
And yet, it is hard to challenge the interpretation that Obama’s agenda and performance suffered a serious rebuke in legislative and state elections on November 2. The Republicans picked up a stunning 63 seats and regained control of the House of the Representatives, along with important gains in the Senate. All of these accomplishments aside, the political energy and enthusiasm had been with Obama’s opposition. Why? His supporters point to his ghastly inheritance from George Bush – including two unpopular wars, the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression and massive debt. They argue that Obama succeeded in averting the worst effects of these monumental problems, though they concede that, unlike in his electrifying campaign, Obama has had a hard time connecting with the American people (it is probable he would have an easier time connecting if unemployment was 4 or 5 percent!)
The parts of the US electorate who question whether Obama has focused on the right things – and has pursued the right agenda – fall into two camps. The first are the so-called left or progressives, who had not only hoped that Obama would have pushed for more radical heath care reform, but who were disappointed that he didn’t tackle their favorite issues. In this group some considered the fiscal stimulus too modest, others were expecting immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, closing of Guantanamo or lifting of the embargo against Cuba, while others were disappointed that Obama didn’t push for comprehensive immigration reform or end restrictions on gays serving in the military.
It was easy to predict that change would be more difficult and take a lot of time, but that hasn’t helped lessen the sense of disappointment among this group. Obama’s main political strength – the fact that he was a vessel on to which everyone projected their hopes and dreams – has also turned out to be a serious weakness. As presidential historian Douglas Brinkley comments, “Expectations were so sky-high for him that they were impossible to fulfill. Obama’s partly to blame for this: People were expecting a progressive revolution. What the president has delivered instead is gritty, nuts-and-bolts, political legislative work — and it’s been rough.”
The other camp is made up of Republicans, who didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, and, most critically, independents, a majority of whom did vote for him, which in part explains his victory. Both groups have taken advantage of the Obama administration’s miscalculation, that the fiscal stimulus would bring an improved employment outlook in the country. That the economy continues to struggle has helped fuel the criticism that instead of spending so much time and political capital on health care reform, Obama would have been smarter to have concentrated from the outset on creating jobs. Obama’s opposition has shrewdly exploited this vulnerability and has added to their mounting concerns the country’s glaring deficit and unsustainable debt. (Curiously, many in this camp who are now making a lot of noise about the deficit were silent about the issue during the Bush administration, which in 2001 had inherited a surplus from the Clinton government.)
The most powerful expression of this discontent can be seen in the Tea Party, which is less a party than a movement, or even a mood, reflecting profound distrust of the political process, which has a long history in the United States. Though conservative in many respects, the Tea Party is not entirely a right-wing phenomenon and should be taken seriously by both Democrats and Republicans. It has greater affinity with the Republicans, to be sure, but it has also drawn a significant number of independents that Obama would be wise to try and win back over the next two years, especially with his sights on a possible reelection in 2012. The movement of independent voters over the past four years shows that these days US politics is just as volatile as US markets: In 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, 57 percent of independents voted Democratic, and 39 percent Republican, whereas in 2010 those numbers were reversed, with 56 percent of independents voting Republican and 38 percent Democratic. As it turned out, the experts who had proclaimed a new Republican majority in 2004, or a new Democratic majority in 2008, got it all wrong.
Indeed, it would be a mistake to interpret November’s election results as an endorsement of the Republican Party. Rather, they should be viewed as a product of public anger and frustration aimed at a political establishment and vested economic interests (Wall Street especially) that seem oblivious to public demands for real change. Marco Rubio, the young (39) and appealing Cuban-American Republican senator-elect from Florida who was backed by the Tea Party, got it right on November 2, “We make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party.”
For all of his political problems, Obama can take some comfort in the fact that the Republican Party is badly divided between an establishment faction, and the insurgent Tea Partyers, led by former Republican vice presidential candidate (and possible 2012 candidate) Sarah Palin, who are energized and seem intent on changing “politics as usual.” How those factions deal with one another will be very interesting to follow in the next two years. Obama can also take political advantage of the fact that the Republicans are not advancing viable ideas to address the problems they are identifying. It is hard to reconcile a pledge to reduce the deficit with a commitment to continue lowering taxes – and leaving untouched the most costly items in the federal budget, including Social Security, Medicare and defense. The numbers simply do not add up.
The bizarre and often disagreeable political environment reflects deeper changes in American society, and the declining influence of the United States in the world (seen in the latest G-20 meeting in Seoul, South Korea). Polls show an increasing number of Americans believe their children will not enjoy the same standard of living as they have. Tea Party members often use phrases like “we are losing our country and want it back.” The sense of American triumphalism or exceptionalism is almost surreal, as seen in Rubio’s acceptance speech, “”The United States is simply the greatest nation in all of history. A place without equal in the history of all mankind. But we know that something doesn’t seem right.” In 2010 it was striking, for example, how many TV campaign ads referred to the economic challenge posed by China.
The country’s problems are profound, and Obama, whose intelligence is beyond question, understands them as well as anyone. His tasks ahead are formidable. He has to explain more effectively than he has so far the changes that are underway in the world, and the US position in it. He will need to figure out how to bring the 9.6 unemployment level down, while at the same time focusing on reducing the debt and deficit. It is hard to see how he can be reelected in 2012 unless he wins back some of the disenchanted independent voters — yet he has to worry about keeping his own constituency that expected more from him. For Obama, only one thing is certain: Accomplishing all of this in the next two years will demand the sharpest political instincts he can muster, and will be far from easy.
Download the PDF below.
