Note: This blog was originally published in the August 8, 2013 edition of Politics in Minnesota.
Barack Obama’s presidency is a paradox. At no point has a president been so powerful
yet so weak. He is a brilliant orator,
capable of inspiring millions, but horrible at influencing Congress. His first
term legislative record was a laundry list of major accomplishments, his second
term is already over. He wanted to be a
post-partisan, post-racial president, but all the polls suggest he is one of
the most polarizing modern presidents.
How do we explain the president that Barack Obama became, and understand
the one that many hoped he would be but failed to achieve?
First,
consider the president that everyone thought Obama would be. He was to be the candidate of change. He was to be the president of peace, the
anti-Bush who would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would end torture, close Guantanamo Bay,
and bring peace to the Middle East. He
would do that while consulting with allies and not going it alone. He was also to be the president of universal
health care, more alternative energies, and fixing the economy in a way that
would produce more good paying jobs in the green economy of the future.
Obama
promised a lot, and he delivered, sort of.
We sort of have universal health care with Obamacare, yet it is not
clear how well it will work, whether it will save money, or really lead to a
change in American health. The economy
is sort of on the mends. Millions of new
jobs have been created, but we are still years from recovering all the losses
from 2008. Wall Street has rebounded,
but the gap between the rich and is at record levels. Home values have returned for many, but for millions
others their mortgages are still underwater.
Corporations have record profits, but salaries and family incomes are flat or lower than they were before he
became president. We are officially out
of Iraq and close to the same with Afghanistan, but one can hardly say that
mission was really accomplished with either.
The list could go on. Obama’s
accomplishments are significant, but so many of them since incomplete or fragile.
Conversely,
who would have ever thought Obama would have been the president to deport more
individuals than any other president in history. He has prosecuted more leaks than any other
president. He asserted the right to use drones to kill Americans, and he
vigorously defends a vast network of NSA spying on Americans. He bailed out the banks but did little for
homeowners. Dodd-Frank restructured Wall
Street but not a lot for Main Street. His green energy economy went nowhere and
most people expect will he endorse the Keystone Pipeline. This is on the heels of him wanting to push
more nuclear and “clean coal” technology.
It now even looks like he will place Larry Summers instead of Janet
Yellen at the head of the Federal Reserve Board.
To
his defenders many argue that Obama is still cleaning up Bush’s mess. To liberals he has done no more than warm
over Bush era policies. To
conservatives, he is a detested socialist.
To watch Obama now one gets the sense that he has given up on his
presidency and that his second term is already over. He still offers lofty rhetoric about the
economy and jobs but no one thinks he can deliver because of Republicans in
Congress. True they have fought him all
the way but Obama has yet to learn how to negotiate with them. He does not scare them and he cannot seem to
beat a dysfunctional and unpopular Republican Party that has fallen out of the
ideological mainstream for most Americans.
And now it is also clear that eight months into his second term, he has
lost the support of his own party.
Democrats want Yellen not Summers, they are critical of the NSA but
Obama will not budge. His party does not
want to negotiate away Social Security and other entitlement programs, Obama
seems almost eager to put them on the table to get a grand budget deal. Obama looks
increasingly irrelevant politically.
So
how did it all happen? Why has Obama always cast his eyes to the side when he
looks history or destiny in the eye?
Richard Neustadt once said that the power of the presidency is the power
to persuade. This power is a combination
of many things, including party support, electoral majorities, public opinion, and a host of
other factors. But the presidency is
more than the formal powers of Article II of the Constitution. It is also a product of the person who is he
president. More particularly, presidencies
are defined in part by the character of the person who is president.
In Presidential Character, political
scientist James David Barber sought to construct a means to describe and
categorize presidents. The basic problem
we all face is to make an accurate guess to what type of president a candidate
will be. According to Barber, a person's
personality, psychology, or "character" shapes performance and thus
knowing something about a president's character will tell us about possible
future performance. In effect, the
psychological character of the president melds with the formal office of the
presidency to determine governing style.
What
types of presidential characters are there?
Barber thinks we can make that assessment along two dimensions. There is activity-passivity: How much energy will a person invest in the
Presidency? Second there is a
positive-negative affect: How does one
feel about what one does? Thus, these two dimensions allow for four different
types of presidents each having specific examples. Early in his presidency Obama was an
active-positive. This is the type of
president John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson were. These
are presidents as doers–they are results-orientated, flexible, and demonstrate
a sense of growth and happiness in their job.
This is less the Obama we now see.
He displays more the rigidity of active-negative presidents such as
Richard Nixon, or the withdrawn passive-negative dimension of Calvin Coolidge,
or maybe even the passive-positive of Warren Harding, a president unwilling or
unable to act or make decisions.
It is
not clear how to classify the current Obama as president but he certainly is
not the active-positive one he once was.
Moreover, his lack of legislative and administrative experience prior to
being president is showing, and his refusal to consult but a handful or close
advisors has prevented him from changing his governing style. Whatever energy or character he does have,
the clock of his presidency continues to tick, pushing him further and further
into a second term lame duck status.
Obama’s legacy now is almost beyond his control and absent a surprise,
he will leave office a paradox for what he did, could have done, and what he
became as president.
No comments:
Post a Comment