The Obama Years.... My Two Cents

There's something about great political theater that makes it impossible to ignore. Debates, campaign speeches, congressional hearings,.... all of it great theater. State of the Union Addresses (SOTU) are no different, but Tuesday night's SOTU was special because it was President Obama's last. Obama's presidency will be debated and re-hashed by historians for years to come. But since I've been asked about the President's speech, and his legacy, in the days since, I thought I'd throw out a few early observations about his presidency as he heads for the exit.

The laundry list that follows is both incomplete and, in most cases, deserving of book-length treatment. Moreover, it's just my two cents.

Expectations
In 2008-2009, Barack Obama was electrifying. Full stop. A war-weary country looking over the cliff into a financial abyss, was hungry for change. Most didn't get what they were hoping for, including among many of the President's most ardent supporters. In many ways, it's not Obama's fault. It's ours. We expect too much of presidents. We imbue in them the capacity to do things that are extraordinarily difficult to achieve. A lot of that difficulty is intentionally built into the U.S. political system. For that, we have James Madison to thank. Yet, in my view, the expectations we heaped on President Obama went far beyond those we normally assign. I was among them. Like many, I am also disappointed in the last 7 years. But in many ways, our hyperinflated expectations set a standard of judgement that set us all up for disappointment.

Obama is a transformational figure because of who he is and what he represented as the nation's first African-American president. It was a presidency the country needed. But sadly, and undoubtedly because of some of my own inflated expectations, I'm not sure his presidency will be seen as especially transformative.
Domestic Policy
Obama Care. It's over domestic policy that my criticism of President Obama begins, and perhaps where some of the President's biggest failings rest. First up, Obama Care, or as it's officially known, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It increasingly looks like Obama Care will survive the various political and court challenges it has faced. While the initial public roll-out for Obama Care was an abject disaster, it has recovered and unquestionably given a large number of Americans access to healthcare they didn't have before. On that basis alone, Obama Care is here to stay. However, I am a little surprised he accepts the commonplace usage of Obama Care to describe a law he had little input in drafting.

Historically, the White House has been one of the most important legislative bodies in Washington. Yes, legislative body. Why? The White House often drafts pieces of legislation that are key to a president's agenda, and then seeks sponsors in the House and Senate to introduce them and shepherd them through the legislative process. The White House also become one of the most important and powerful lobbyist in Washington, with White House staff haranguing Members to support the legislation. Moreover, the details contained in the White House draft serve as a clear set of markers for Members as to what should and should not be in the legislation.

Obama didn't do much of this and effectively turned control of his signature piece of domestic legislation over the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom saw the President as a plucky upstart and rival. Chalk it up to the President's relative inexperience on Capitol Hill-- he'd only just been elected to the Senate when he decided to run for President-- or Obama's disdain for the messy legislative process. It matters not. The end result was the expenditure of more than a year of the president's political capital and a 900pg legislative monstrosity (though even the number of pages is subject to partisan bickering) that has become a political hot potato.

The last 7yrs have given me pause to think about Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was hardly perfect (Vietnam is a big blemish). However, he was very good at browbeating his former colleagues on Capitol Hill into supporting his initiatives, particularly where his Great Society programs and civil rights legislation were concerned. 

Immigration Reform. One of Obama's big 2008 campaign promises was to get some kind of immigration reform passed. In selecting Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to be Secretary of Homeland Security in 2009, it looked like the Obama Administration was setting the stage to get serious about immigration. Republican opposition in the House of Representatives after 2010 didn't help. But, Obama enjoyed majorities in both the House and Senate 2008 and 2010. Obama Care sucked all the political oxygen away from anything else, including immigration reform. It's been downhill since then, including the recent announcement that DHS was going to begin large-scale deportations of those who recently entered the country. That will certainly make great optics for Democrats as the 2016 campaign rolls along. I don't think Democrats have scored an own goal on immigration the way Republicans did in 2007 when George W. Bush's proposals were rejected in a cloud of xenophobia by his own party. But, it would be a mistake for Democrats to assume xenophobia in the GOP primary contest has turned Latinos into a monolith for Democrats.

Gun Control. I actually feel for the President on this topic. The number of mass shootings that have taken place during is presidency is, indeed, very depressing. However, I am not sure he's struck the right tone in responding to the December 2 San Bernadino terrorist attacks with a renewed effort on gun control. Most Americans agree with him that sensible gun control is needed, but I'm not sure about these measures as a way to curb terrorism.

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in 2012, the President tried, and failed, to get Capitol Hill to legislate changes to how guns are controlled in the U.S. Hindsight on all of these things is 20/20, but I wonder if a more experienced legislator-in-chief could have successfully taken this issue on (re: LBJ).

The Economy
The Financial Crisis. The President gets credit for building upon the measures started in the last months of the Bush Administration and essentially saving the American economy.... at least for now. Any account of the evolution of the financial crisis 2008-2010 makes for sober reading. In my view at least, one of the biggest takeaways from it all is that people were making things up as they went along. As one mess abated, another stared everyone in the face. It's hard to know how severely having to deal with the Financial Crisis undercut the President's other priorities. At a minimum, having to deal with it consumed a lot of intellectual and administrative energy. Who knows what might have been had there been no crisis?

Inequities. Rahm Emmanuel, one of President Obama's closest advisers in the first time, quipped that we should never let a good crisis go to waste. Well, this one might have been wasted. While the President's efforts went a long way toward saving the economy as a whole, it has been a weak and uneven recovery that no one seems sure is actually reviving itself on a solid foundation. While unemployment is now around 5% again, there is tremendous economic insecurity being felt around the country; an insecurity that Obama didn't really acknowledge during the SOTU speech when he took a small victory lap over America's economic performance. Indeed, any observer of the presidential primary campaigns in both parties can't help but be struck at how economic insecurity, xenophobia over foreign competition (abroad or from new immigrants), and the growing income gap between the wealthiest 1% and everyone else are driving candidacies on the populist left (Sanders) and right (Trump).

Quantitative Easing.  The intervention in the economy by the Federal Government in response to the financial crisis was unprecedented; nationalizing Fannie and Freddie, auto sector bailout, rescue of AIG, shotgun marriage of Bear Stearns and JP Morgan, arranged mergers of other banks, and the demise of Lehman Brothers. The Federal Reserve has been given important new financial system oversight responsibilities. In addition, between December 2008 and October 2014, the Fed engaged in a massive asset purchase program (Quantitative Easing) designed to free up lending by banks. In the process, the Fed accumulated more than $4 trillion worth of assets that now sit on its balance sheet.

Is that all on Obama? Was there an alternative? Perhaps not. But as I alluded to in my previous post, I am unsure what all of this means for monetary policy generally, or how all these asset purchases get "wound down?" The GM and AIG bailouts seem to have resulted in a modest profit on tax-payer funds as those firms recovered and their assets increased in value. Is it possible that all of the assets on the Fed's books will do the same? There might be a path forward, but I haven't read it yet. No economic victory laps until I do.

Trans-Pacific Partnership.  I've already written a lot about this (here, here, and here), so I won't belabor things. I'll just say that in the laundry list of initiatives Obama mentioned during the SOTU Tuesday night, my bet is that this is the only one that could see the legislative light of day. As things stand now, my bet is that it will be during the lameduck session of Congress after Election Day (November 8). Obama is a recent convert to the virtues of trade liberalisation, and I suspect only because trade is a key part of a president's foreign policy agenda, and the TPP a key part of the Administration's so-called "pivot to Asia."

Foreign Policy
It has been my strong feeling for some time that President Obama would rather the world had gone away and let him alone to focus on domestic policy. Unfortunately for Obama, he is President of the United States. Ignoring the rest of the world isn't really an option. My central complaint here is that if you are going to be the 500lb gorilla on the international stage, act like it. It doesn't mean unilateralism. It doesn't mean dictating to everyone else. But it does mean recognizing that, for good or for ill, there's an indispensability about America's role in the world and acting upon it.

Gitmo. President Obama's 3rd Executive Order after he assumed office was a commitment to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It's still open. It's also unlikely to be fully closed before Obama leaves office. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle didn't make things any easier by blocking funds to do so. But moving the remaining prisoners out of the facility has also been fraught with challenges.

Syria/Iraq/ ISIS. Obama owns a bunch of this now. While George W. Bush can be blamed for hamfistedly laying the foundation for some of the chaos that has overtaken Iraq and Syria in the last few years, Obama can be taken for task for allowing "red lines" to be crossed, downplaying the problem of ISIS, not least by calling them a "JV squad," but more generally equivocating on intervening in what has become a horrific humanitarian catastrophe. Moreover, it's a catastrophe that has periodically extended its reach well outside the bounds of the region (both violently and in terms of the migrant crisis in Europe). I grant that resolving the Syrian conflict and dealing with ISIS is a monstrously complicated problem. But doing nothing has arguably made things worse. As I watch the Syrian mess get worse (Saudi Arabia hasn't helped matters of late), I am reminded of both the Rwandan Genocide and the break up of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Those were complicated too. President Clinton went to Rwanda in 1998 and later acknowledged that perhaps 300, 000 lives could have been saved had the international community acted earlier. I wonder if Barack Obama might do the same in Syria years from now. It's a profoundly heavy burden to bear.

Arab Spring/Libya. Also a huge mess that is on Obama. The hastily organized effort to get rid of Muammar Gaddafi in 2012 only left the country to swing in the wind, and spiral into chaos. After encouraging the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and later deciding that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't to the Administration's liking after all, we are once again supporting military dictatorship. This outcome is striking, in part, because of the criticism that the Obama campaign leveled at the Bush White House 2008 about the folly of democracy promotion in the Middle East. The critique was that America should stop meddling lest you get something you don't like.

Iran Nuclear Deal. The Iran nuclear deal may yet prove to have been a master stroke of diplomacy that pays long-term dividends in the region. I really hope so. From a strategic point of view, I think the Agreement has the potential to usefully re-write the rules of American diplomacy in the region. It's been a rocky road getting this far. Recall the circumstances that led to this:

Obama's reputation in foreign affairs could be made or broken on whether the nuclear deal works. Today (January 16) is actually the deal's official implementation day. The Iranian seizure of 10 American sailors last Tuesday was quickly diffused and all parties seem to be taking measures to come into compliance with the agreement; this includes a series of prisoner swaps, the decommissioning of Iranian reactors, the easing of sanctions, and unfreezing of Iranian assets. There are lots of critics who think it's failed already.

Russia. What can you say? The picture below says a lot. In February 2009, Vice President Biden called for a "reset" of relations with Russia at a European Security Policy Conference. Things haven't gone so well. The President recently joked about accusations of critics who say Putin has been kicking dirt in Obama's face (see 2:50 in this link). Well, Ukraine, MH17, Syria? You be the judge.

Drone War. No matter how you count it, there was a dramatic expansion of the use of drone warfare under Obama. Some of that was to be expected since by the time George W. Bush left office, drone technology had reached the point of rapid improvement. No matter how you slice it, the Obama Administration expanded the use of drones. The misgivings I have about drone warfare might make me seem like a Luddite to some. However, what troubles me about the drone war isn't the delpoyment of the technology, per se. Instead, I am troubled by the "out of sight, out of mind" qualities and the lack of public debate about it. Moreover, I see their deployment as yet another way to avoid the tough politics and hard slogging that "boots on the ground" entail. The formal exit of Iraq and Afghanistan by soldiers has simply been replaced by machines that float around overhead waiting for the opportunity to kill bad guys; or a lot of civilians as the case may be. Coffins draped with American flags may not fill our television screens, but neither do images of civilians inadvertantly killed by drones.

Surveillance. Like the Drone War, the expansion of the U.S. intelligence and national security bureaucracy has continued its expansion under Obama. The libertarian in me is alarmed at what Edward Snowden revealed (Citizenfour is a surprisingly compelling film). The fallout from the Snowden revelations has been significant-- perhaps even more than we know-- including contentious legislative changes to the renewal of the Patriot Act in June 2015. I suppose I am a little surprised the Snowden revelations didn't create a more long-lasting public debate about surveillance. Could be my libertarian streak, but it could also be more generational and technological in that we are all addicted to and dependent upon our linked mobile gadgets.

Commander in Chief. Tell-all memoirs from officials represent a juicy, perhaps unsavory, little cottage industry that we all love. The inside scoop about what happened always makes for a great read. However, Obama's foreign policy failures have been reinforced by three of his own Secretaries of Defense (Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, ) all of whom describe a president wracked by indecision stuck in a broken decision-making process. There was also the well-documented dust-up with General Stanley McChrystal in 2010 over Afghanistan strategy, although I'll concede that McChrystal screwed by offering such a public criticism of the President in Rolling Stone.

Climate Change
The President deserves a pat on the back here. There are many who think the President hasn't gone nearly far enough in getting national policy in line with meeting global objectives outlined by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. I think the President gets a bit our over his skis in proclaiming the United States a global leader on climate change, but he deserves credit nevertheless.

As I have noted in several places in this blog (here and here, for example) the President has been serious about dealing with climate change for some time. I think he's done about as much as he could given the polarized political landscape he faced. The climate change agreement reached with China in 2014 was pivotal in making the Paris COP talks in late 2015 work. Again, was it enough to satisfy critics who say the US needed to go further? No. Do others thing he behaved like an imperious dictator in taking administrative action? Sure.

I think he restored some U.S. credibility on the issue. That's something.

Polarization of American Politics
There's also the issue of polarization in American politics. At present, there seem to be divisions everywhere. Race relations are arguably at their lowest ebb in many years. Police departments around the country seem a little trigger happy, perhaps a little too eager to use their military-grade kit to go out and find bad guys (see my complaints about the Security Industrial Complex). Then, of course, there's the anger in the 2016 Presidential Election campaign.

I would, again, simply point to my comments above about inflated and unrealistic expectations. President Obama was referred to in 2009 and 2010 as the nation's first post-racial president. That's a heavy burden to put on anyone leading a country where fraught race relations are such a profound part of it's history. More than 150yrs after its end, you still cannot really understand the United States without understanding the political, social, and economic trauma of the Civil War.

I certainly wouldn't argue that things have improved under Obama. However, when I think about the polarization of the United States, I am reminded that Obama inherited political divisions that I could trace to at least 1994 and the Gingrich-led Republican Revolution that seized the House of Representatives. It's been downhill since then. Does anyone remember Whitewater, Kenneth Starr, Monica Lewinsky, or President Clinton's Impeachment? The only other thing I'd say here is that the advent and expansion of 24hr cable television and, more recently, varieties of social media, have created an echo-chamber environment wherein partisans of all stripes can readily find those who agree with them. That's not terrible, except that it leave us all in silos of like-minded people that tends toward the demonization of those in other silos. The anonymity of social media seems to embolden a kind of vitriolic discourse that isn't helpful. That particular genie may be hard to put back into the bottle....

POTUS Himself
Some people like to poke at the president because he gives good speeches. Although I think there has been a gap between the President's rhetoric and his delivery, I am going to miss his ability to speak. He had a cadence in his speech with just twinge of tent-preacher revivalist that was great. One of my favorite examples of this was the eulogy he delivered after the shootings at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina (linked here). There's no one in the current crop of presidential candidates from either party that is as inspiring. Full stop!

While his ability to inspire with words waned as the gap between words and action seemed to grow (in my mind, at least), he has been one of our most thoughtful presidents; so thoughtful, in fact, that it has seemed to paralyze decision-making. All of that said, I really like him. Maybe it's the cool factor? Perhaps it's his easy way? I'm not sure. But it's been difficult to go down a critical road with my views of his policies when I fundamentally wanted to see more success. Perhaps one of the things I actually like most about President Obama was his comic timing. I end with two of my favorites; the 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner in which Obama skewered Republicans (including Donald Trump) over the so-called "birther" issue; and his appearance on "Between Two Ferns" with Zack Galifianakis. Both are vintage Obama.....