Clive Crook of the Financial Times on Obama's Change
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c25583cc-1c87-11de-977c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Nice-guy image buys Obama only so much goodwill
Published: March 29 2009 20:06 | Last updated: March 29 2009 20:06
During last year’s election campaign, Barack Obama’s supporters stressed his promise as a leader who could restore US standing in the world. Even at home, despite the worsening economy, many of Mr Obama’s fans deemed this his most important virtue. The rest of the world agreed. Understanding that nothing happens unless America takes charge, few other governments were opposed to a renewal of US leadership. On the contrary, most longed for it.
As the Group of 20 developed and emerging nations’ summit in London approaches, how is that going? About as well as could be expected.
Mr Obama’s campaign always exaggerated the difference he would make on foreign policy. His style could hardly be more different from the caricature of US supremacism projected by George W. Bush, but the underlying issues were unlikely to be any easier to deal with. So it has proved. In many areas of foreign and security policy, in contrast to the clear break he is attempting in domestic policy, Mr Obama is mostly rebranding Mr Bush’s approach.
On Iraq, things are moving much as they would have done if Mr Bush were still in office. Likewise in Afghanistan, where the administration is proposing a surge not unlike the one in Iraq – overseen by the same general, under the political supervision of the same defence secretary – which Mr Obama found so unimpressive last year.
On Iran, Mr Obama has for the moment adjusted the rhetoric, but not the underlying condescension, the key demands, or the implicit “do as we say or else”. “War on terror” terminology is used less often and less eagerly than it was by the Bush administration. This has not stopped the US attacking targets in Pakistan, a legally dubious enterprise to put it mildly, and one that looks a lot like waging war on terror. Lately the administration has even wanted North Korea’s leaders to believe that the US might shoot down the rocket they are preparing to launch. How George W. Bush can you get?
What about Guantánamo, which many Americans see as a scar on the country’s conscience and reputation? Mr Obama has reaffirmed his campaign promise to close the prison, and plans are afoot to do this. But the administration is in no hurry to release the people it no longer calls “enemy combatants”. In a recent television interview, the president criticised some of the releases carried out by the Bush administration, mentioning that people let go have rejoined terrorist groups. To the dismay of civil-rights lawyers, the government’s legal posture towards prisoners trying to challenge their detention in court is in most ways indistinguishable from that of the previous administration.
This strategy of mostly persisting with the foreign and security policies of Mr Bush while insisting that those policies have been overthrown has not yet met organised resistance from US allies. The fact that Mr Obama is so much better liked buys him a great deal of goodwill, and the desire to suck up to him still predominates.
Nonetheless, as the new president continues to seek material support for his fundamentally Bush-like security policies – more European troops in Afghanistan, a united front in dealing with Iran and other troublemakers, overseas dispersal of the G-Bay detainees – he is often going to come up empty-handed, leading to disillusionment on both sides. Friction with the allies is likely to increase.
It has already increased markedly in trade and economic policy. The administration is frustrated that Europe’s governments are failing to pull their weight on fiscal stimulus. It talks openly of Europe’s “free-riding” on the much bolder US fiscal expansion.
Each side’s position is defensible. The US is right that a big temporary fiscal stimulus is needed, and that countries such as France and Germany have scope to do more. Europeans are right that their automatic fiscal stabilisers, under the influence of their higher tax rates and bigger welfare states, are more powerful than those of the US, and that comparing discretionary fiscal boosts in isolation is wrong; in most cases their prudent borrowing capacity is also less than that of the US. At the G20 these disagreements will again be papered over.
Even so, they could easily be the prelude to worsening tension over trade. True, the “Buy American” provisions in the fiscal stimulus law were partially defanged at the administration’s request, but the Obama administration has made and continues to emphasise the link between willing fiscal co-operation and commitment to open markets. Given Europe’s relative caution on fiscal policy, this is ominous.
But surely, you say, I am forgetting climate change – where US leadership is so badly needed, and where the Obama administration has promised a clean break with past policy. Thanks for mentioning it.
Mr Obama’s recent budget proposed a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions and raise more than $600bn (€451bn, £420bn) in new revenues over 10 years. Equipped with this bold new initiative, Mr Obama’s team could head to the Copenhagen climate conference in December and assume the leadership role on global warming that the US has hitherto shunned.
The trouble is, many Democrats as well as most Republicans are opposed to cap and trade. They see it as a big new tax – a position that the administration, curiously enough, wishes to deny. Asked this week whether cap and trade would be “a tax on gasoline, electricity and other forms of energy”, Peter Orszag, budget chief, said: “I wouldn’t characterise it like that.” However Mr Orszag would characterise it, Congress now seems likely to leave cap and trade out of the budget, and so far the administration is failing to put up a fight. US negotiators may have to go to Copenhagen with good intentions but no actual policy.
Opinion polls in the US show a disparity between Mr Obama’s personal approval rating, which remains high, and views about his policies, which are less favourable. A poll of world leaders would likely echo the sentiment. At home and abroad, then, the same two questions arise. How long can Mr Obama remain popular if his actions, for one reason or another, are not? And what is popularity worth anyway, where the calculus of ends and means remains unmoved?
clive.crook@gmail.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Nice-guy image buys Obama only so much goodwill
Published: March 29 2009 20:06 | Last updated: March 29 2009 20:06
During last year’s election campaign, Barack Obama’s supporters stressed his promise as a leader who could restore US standing in the world. Even at home, despite the worsening economy, many of Mr Obama’s fans deemed this his most important virtue. The rest of the world agreed. Understanding that nothing happens unless America takes charge, few other governments were opposed to a renewal of US leadership. On the contrary, most longed for it.
As the Group of 20 developed and emerging nations’ summit in London approaches, how is that going? About as well as could be expected.
Mr Obama’s campaign always exaggerated the difference he would make on foreign policy. His style could hardly be more different from the caricature of US supremacism projected by George W. Bush, but the underlying issues were unlikely to be any easier to deal with. So it has proved. In many areas of foreign and security policy, in contrast to the clear break he is attempting in domestic policy, Mr Obama is mostly rebranding Mr Bush’s approach.
On Iraq, things are moving much as they would have done if Mr Bush were still in office. Likewise in Afghanistan, where the administration is proposing a surge not unlike the one in Iraq – overseen by the same general, under the political supervision of the same defence secretary – which Mr Obama found so unimpressive last year.
On Iran, Mr Obama has for the moment adjusted the rhetoric, but not the underlying condescension, the key demands, or the implicit “do as we say or else”. “War on terror” terminology is used less often and less eagerly than it was by the Bush administration. This has not stopped the US attacking targets in Pakistan, a legally dubious enterprise to put it mildly, and one that looks a lot like waging war on terror. Lately the administration has even wanted North Korea’s leaders to believe that the US might shoot down the rocket they are preparing to launch. How George W. Bush can you get?
What about Guantánamo, which many Americans see as a scar on the country’s conscience and reputation? Mr Obama has reaffirmed his campaign promise to close the prison, and plans are afoot to do this. But the administration is in no hurry to release the people it no longer calls “enemy combatants”. In a recent television interview, the president criticised some of the releases carried out by the Bush administration, mentioning that people let go have rejoined terrorist groups. To the dismay of civil-rights lawyers, the government’s legal posture towards prisoners trying to challenge their detention in court is in most ways indistinguishable from that of the previous administration.
This strategy of mostly persisting with the foreign and security policies of Mr Bush while insisting that those policies have been overthrown has not yet met organised resistance from US allies. The fact that Mr Obama is so much better liked buys him a great deal of goodwill, and the desire to suck up to him still predominates.
Nonetheless, as the new president continues to seek material support for his fundamentally Bush-like security policies – more European troops in Afghanistan, a united front in dealing with Iran and other troublemakers, overseas dispersal of the G-Bay detainees – he is often going to come up empty-handed, leading to disillusionment on both sides. Friction with the allies is likely to increase.
It has already increased markedly in trade and economic policy. The administration is frustrated that Europe’s governments are failing to pull their weight on fiscal stimulus. It talks openly of Europe’s “free-riding” on the much bolder US fiscal expansion.
Each side’s position is defensible. The US is right that a big temporary fiscal stimulus is needed, and that countries such as France and Germany have scope to do more. Europeans are right that their automatic fiscal stabilisers, under the influence of their higher tax rates and bigger welfare states, are more powerful than those of the US, and that comparing discretionary fiscal boosts in isolation is wrong; in most cases their prudent borrowing capacity is also less than that of the US. At the G20 these disagreements will again be papered over.
Even so, they could easily be the prelude to worsening tension over trade. True, the “Buy American” provisions in the fiscal stimulus law were partially defanged at the administration’s request, but the Obama administration has made and continues to emphasise the link between willing fiscal co-operation and commitment to open markets. Given Europe’s relative caution on fiscal policy, this is ominous.
But surely, you say, I am forgetting climate change – where US leadership is so badly needed, and where the Obama administration has promised a clean break with past policy. Thanks for mentioning it.
Mr Obama’s recent budget proposed a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions and raise more than $600bn (€451bn, £420bn) in new revenues over 10 years. Equipped with this bold new initiative, Mr Obama’s team could head to the Copenhagen climate conference in December and assume the leadership role on global warming that the US has hitherto shunned.
The trouble is, many Democrats as well as most Republicans are opposed to cap and trade. They see it as a big new tax – a position that the administration, curiously enough, wishes to deny. Asked this week whether cap and trade would be “a tax on gasoline, electricity and other forms of energy”, Peter Orszag, budget chief, said: “I wouldn’t characterise it like that.” However Mr Orszag would characterise it, Congress now seems likely to leave cap and trade out of the budget, and so far the administration is failing to put up a fight. US negotiators may have to go to Copenhagen with good intentions but no actual policy.
Opinion polls in the US show a disparity between Mr Obama’s personal approval rating, which remains high, and views about his policies, which are less favourable. A poll of world leaders would likely echo the sentiment. At home and abroad, then, the same two questions arise. How long can Mr Obama remain popular if his actions, for one reason or another, are not? And what is popularity worth anyway, where the calculus of ends and means remains unmoved?
clive.crook@gmail.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Comment
About
Birthdays
There are no birthdays today
Events (NOT NECESSARILY AFFILIATED WITH MAFO)
Poll
Badge
© 2010 Created by Zeba Khan on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Muslim-Americans for Obama to add comments!
Join Muslim-Americans for Obama