Contact
Obama’s once and future failed presidency
Photo by Pete Souza/The White House
Even at this late date, I can think of nothing about President Barack Obama as a person not to like. He is intelligent, informed, sensible, sensitive, articulate, gracious, amusing and decent. But about Obama as a president – well, that is a different story.
For months, I have been detailing Obama’s failings as president. Between late April 2009, just three months after his inauguration, and early December 2010 – a period of over a year and a half – I wrote half a dozen columns or blogs (published in various places including here) that repeatedly called into question not only his competence, but also his capacity, to lead.
The gist of my increasing discontent has been Obama’s lack of convictions and courage, thus a lack of decisiveness and persistence. Perhaps my happiest phase summarizing his failings: “This Prince Hamlet decides and does nothing; instead, he dithers and dodges.”
As I said at the end of these writings, “Increasingly, Democrats, liberals, progressives hope and pray that Obama will assert leadership on this or that issue. Sorry, my friends on the left, give it up. It ain’t gonna happen.”
The reasons for Obama’s failure
It gives me no pleasure to predict that Obama’s presidency, whether for two terms or, more likely, only one, has failed and, so long as he is in office, will to continue to fail, for three reasons.
One, by circumstances, he became temperamentally unsuited to succeed in a national politics torn by sharp and sustained partisan divisions. Undoubtedly, racism plays a role in opposition to him and his policies – it inspires the birther movement – but his failure does not result from racism. Instead, it results in part from his acquired reflex, shared by some blacks rising into the higher circles of the society in which they find themselves, to be ingratiating almost above all else.
Michael L. Hays
However, disciplining oneself to be ingratiating is poor training for making executive decisions, implementing them, and running the risk of offending some people in discharging one’s responsibilities.
Two, as a result, he has displayed an inability to articulate, advocate and advance clear policies. He has repeatedly shown himself to be – unlike Bush the Decider – Obama the Undecider, advocate of interminable debate, adopter of half-measures, promoter of pullback from their implementation – all under the cover of a bogus bipartisanship.
The result is that he splits the difference with Republicans as they raise the bar. If the choice is between 2+2=4 and 2+2=6, he goes for 2+2=5; when the next choice is between 2+2=5 and 2+2=7, he goes for 2+2=6. Incremental abandonment of traditional Democratic, liberal or progressive positions will doom him not only with his natural constituencies, but also with independents, who most respect decisiveness and determination on issues.
Three, as another result, he cannot effectively lead the country to achieve many of the changes he advocated in his campaign and that attracted the electorate to him. I give him partial credit on health-care reform, the recovery of financial and automotive industries, and the end of DADT. But what else? Not much.
In foreign and military affairs, he did not close Guantanamo, pursue or even investigate the civil and human rights abuses of the Bush administration, or end American involvement in two Middle East wars. In domestic issues, he dropped immigration reform, abandoned his energy policy, and weakened the social safety net. When Republicans insist on major program cuts to avoid a debt-ceiling crisis, trust him to further weaken them.
Inattention to the economy
All three reasons reflect his lack of leadership, the monument to which is a still-weak economy. From first to last, Obama has demonstrated a marked degree of inattention to the economy, especially unemployment, and a callous disregard for the unemployed – a few speeches to the contrary cannot erase his save-the-rich-suffer-the-rest approaches.
In the face of rising gasoline prices and in the context of his caving on his energy policy, I expect him to cave to demands for more oil and gas drilling in sensitive areas and for less regulation, at the cost of endangering the safety and health of Americans, and of further despoiling the environment, though such steps will not depress gasoline prices one cent. Are many Americans becoming an endangered species?
One note: I had thought that, by linking economic recovery, new alternative-energy energies, and a cleaner environment, Obama had created a synergistic approach to inspire Americans to work together to build a better future. Now, in his presidency, each area – economy, energy, and environment – are, if not weaker, at least not stronger, than before.
This change is not the one in which anyone believed.
The GOP field
Whether Obama’s presidency is a one-term or a two-term failure, his re-election is doubtful unless he is saved by a weak opponent from among those already positioning themselves on the right. The changing line-up of weaklings now includes Bachmann, Daniels, Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney and Trump. None of them (I omit Huntsman and Johnson as presently invisible to the public) can succeed without taking the gamble of distancing themselves from the economic or social ideologues on the right.
You can safely bet that most or all will not take the risk.
That said, I think Romney might have some chance of securing the nomination if he dares to take two steps. One is to oppose the crazies and appeal to other conservative voters willing to support someone stable and sane (despite some Christian resistance to a Mormon, especially among many fundamentalists who will never warm to him despite his best efforts). Two is to flip back from his flip-flop on health care – that is, to endorse, instead of disavow, his smart state program that Obama acknowledges influenced his federal program now liked by majorities of all political stripes.
If Romney took these difficult steps, he would make a convincing display of decisiveness and determination, boldness and grit, which would most starkly contrast with Obama’s dithering and back-downing. He would also disarm Democratic attacks on his politically expedient but ineffectual effort to win far-right support, and he would re-assure all Americans that he will protect at least this part of the social safety net.
Meanwhile, more sensible conservative candidates are likely sitting on the sidelines, biding their time, watching celebrities make a degrading spectacle of themselves and damage others and their side, and quietly preparing to enter the race if and when the electorate tires of their inanities. Their wait-and-see strategy may be wrong, however; the electorate may be so eager for change that it might go for anyone other than Obama, however loony, and give solid candidates no chance to get into the race at a later date.
If not Romney, maybe Bloomberg. But, after a failed experiment with a black president, I doubt Americans will opt to try a Jewish one.
Continuing to lose
My problem is that, even if Obama wins against mounting odds, I think we will continue to lose. We are losing now in his first term as he acquiesces in the erosion of the social compact. Given the history of two-term presidents, we cannot hope for better from him in a second term.
And, if Democrats lose control of the Senate – and Obama will not try to help them keep it and should probably do them the favor of not trying – things will go from bad enough to worst of all.
Michael L. Hays (Ph.D., English) is a retired consultant in defense, energy and environment; former high school and college teacher; and continuing civic activist. His bi-monthly Saturday column appears in the Las Cruces Sun-News; his bi-monthly blog, First Impressions & Second Thoughts, appears on the intervening Saturdays at firstimpressionssecondthoughts.blogspot.com.
18 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Response to ConradDJames
Right-wing Republican NM State lawmaker Rep. James blogs, “…he [President Obama] is inexperienced as an executive and does not have strong leadership qualities.”
We strongly raise our objections to this comment by Rep. James, a young man who moved to New Mexico from Iowa, and was selected by right-wing Republican Party elites to replace former State Representative Janice Arnold-Jones.
Rep. James is entitled to his opinions. However, we are also entitiled to challenge his opinions, his faulty assertions, and his right-wing Republican talking points.
We’re curious. Does Rep. James hold similar opinions about former President Bush II, a C-student from Yale?
We don’t remember much about President Bush II other than:
1. He was hand-picked by right-wing Republican Party elites to run for president;
2. He lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a war; and,
3. He was in charge when the USA economy crashed in 2008.
The opinions of Rep. James might carry weight if he will tell us President Bush II was also “inexperienced as an executive” and did not have “strong leadership qualities.”
Otherwise, we will simply check Rep. James off as just another young right-wing Republican whipper-snapper, out-of-state carpetbagger, who fails in his attempts to tell New Mexicans what’s politically best for them.
ConradDJames, if you are going to insist on affirming that I say something which I deny in order to argue with me, I suppose that I cannot stop you. But you alone are making it up that I am psychoanalyzing Obama or any other blacks, and I certainly am not making connections between the fact of melanin and any causal effect on the mentality or personality of . a black. I note that others seem to understand my comments.
What I note in your most recent comment is a confusion of what is a matter of psychology and what is a matter of character. I also note a misunderstanding of what is “racial prejudice” and what is not. A racial prejudice, as it is usually understood, is a negative evaluative prejudgment of all members of a certain race. If I say that many blacks have learned to deal with people in a certain way, I am not talking about all blacks and I am not a rendering judgment of their worth as human beings. If Obama as a black has learned to negotiate the world by ingratiating himself with whites, I am talking about one man and not judging his moral worth. I may be judging his capacity for leadership–which, by the way, is what I do.
I suggest going back to my first paragraph to see that I am not making any sort of judgment based on Obama’s being black. I am not a patronizing liberal, and I do not need to be black to know something about blacks or to believe that only blacks are experts about blacks. Some have views about blacks which are distorted by their experience as blacks. But you know this truth as well as I do.
Hays – claiming some blacks have a psychological weakness that makes them servile is a good example of racial prejudice outside of birtherism. Luck has nothing to do with why I and many others have never been afflicted with an urge to “ingratiate” – we simply work hard and ignore condescension and accusations of inferiority. And no one made the claim that racism doesn’t exist – that is off the topic and has nothing to do with my original contention with your psychoanalysis. Just like this column, the Milbank column which I read earlier this week (thanks for linking to it Dr.J) is another example of being too smart by half with regard to the POTUS. Occam’s razor will provide a much better explanation for the POTUS’s “analysis paralysis” – he is inexperienced as an executive and does not have strong leadership qualities. There is no need to apply fancy psychological methodology or resort to his race and class to come up with a more complicated answer than that. I agree with your conclusion on the POTUS’s lack of leadership Hays, but your reasoning is faulty.
Michael L. Hays could not be more wrong with his predictions. Thus far, on most matters that count, President Obama is the leader, and doing a better job than expected considering the USA’s extreme challenges.
As Newsweek wrote a couple of years ago, after the Economic Crash of 2008, “Obama will be judged on whether or not he is able to save capitalism.”
It’s going to be close, but we side with Ralph Nader who wrote this week on bloomberg.net:
Well, I don’t see any anti-war protest though I’ve heard that there are a few.
I don’t see any criticism at all with regard to PATRIOT Act.
Remember signing statements? They’re OK for Obama?
I understand that politics makes hypocrites of us all.
But the hypocrisy of the left is galling in this regard.
Actually, this was a great success. The money, which averted a liquidity crisis, has been largely paid back with interest.
Even then, it is only Congress which can appropriate funds and it was the Republicans who
first opposed the measure ( remember when the first vote failed and the stock market tanked in Sep 2008? ).
Fortunately, there were enough grown ups in the room who rose above politics.
What are the top three failures of the Bush presidency you would cite?
Some would say that the press was the source of inflamed Bush hatred.
Uhm…
The majority of voters voted for him. I don’t believe they were conditional racists.
Obama had the overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. We may assume, then that
if there was racism to blame for his failures, then it was from democrats.
The left should (wo)man up and accept that there is legitimate criticism of Obama and not go scurrying for
a race card. It makes them appear as racist and crazy as those ‘birthers’.
The truth is Obama was always a neophyte – that was on purpose.
A candidate without a record hasn’t taken any positions which might peel away support from single issue voters.
Bush was very unpopular, so all Obama had to do was ‘not be Bush’.
And run on the insipid platform of ‘Change’.
Don’t you feel embarrassed for voting for such a empty platitude?
“Change’ – of course it’s change if it’s a different person.
‘Change’ is a great blank screen on to which voters could project whatever they wanted to believe.
But now we’re paying for having such a candidate win.
Rant away about racism, but I always had a big problem with Obama’s color.
Not skin color but GREEN.
As in inexperienced.
The dithering comes from lack of executive experience.
The apparent complete lack of understanding about economics comes from a lack of
employment in the real economy. (‘Making Work Pay, gracie?’)
This was all painfully obvious before the election, but the emotion of Bush hatred made it irrelevant.
And the ultimate dismissal from Congress of the democrats was also predicted.
Before 2008, John Zogby, on Bob Brinker program predicted the super majorities,
He also predicted the ultimate elimination of the super majorities because super majorities always
over-reach to the offense of the voters.
And that’s what happened.
And that’s what is reflected in disappointment of the left.
For those of you yearning for the psychoanalysis of Obama’s brain that Dr. Hays did not do, this is a good read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-lost-in-thought/2011/04/26/AF0FrwsE_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
skeptic, you seem to think that the left has gone to sleep over the issues of America’s illegal wars, illegal spying and wiretapping of US citizens, Guantanamo, and the Bush tax cuts. We haven’t gone to sleep, and the organizations pushing for the end to these four progressive targets you point to are still out there, working. However, the left have been marginalized by a Democratic Party that cares more about keeping power than in doing what we want.
The same thing happens in regards to the Republican Party and conservatives; the latter gets used for fundraising purposes but at the end of the day the Republican Party does little to placate conservatives besides give them more talking points to make them feel better about themselves. Your list of things conservatives should be annoyed at Bush for should include the late 2008 bailout by Bush which, for some reason, many voters seemed to think happened during Obama’s first year in office.
Honestly, government is not the sole path to improving America and so I don’t expect much out of a President or any politician. Obama’s failings are partially motivated by a country which allows too much media time to the 27% of people who thought that Bush was still doing a good job near the end of his term. They backed a truly failed presidency and their input into the democratic process should have been noted but dismissed as less important than those of the other 73% of the country that wanted truly different governance.
Of course Obama has the additional hurdle of being not completely white, so he has passive (and active) racist resistance to any of his ideas from huge swaths of the country. But let’s not talk about that, apparently it is unpopular to discuss the 900 pound elephant in the room.
I think Obama doesn’t get the credit he deserves. Much if not most is racism as so many unbiased TV personalities claim. We “minorities” are so victimized. I think he has delivered on everything he promised. As he said when he went over the top in pledged delegates required for the nomination; “…..we’ll tell our children this was the moment we began to care for the sick, good jobs for the jobless, the rise in the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal”……..He didn’t claim he would do it all himself. He turned much of it over to Reid and Pelosi and they done good, especially in good jobs for the jobless. Here in NM his followers are helping him “heal the planet” by fighting the oil companies and maybe even blocking Los Alamos Nat Lab from going any further. I haven’t read much about ocean levels but i would guess they’re doing better.
Obama is a true liberal and it’s the wave of the future. I saw a bumper sticker in Wacko City that says it all in a nutshell;
Liberals treat their dogs like people….Conservatives treat people like dogs. Isn’t that great?
ConradDJames, you say, “Plenty of us navigate this world without such problems.” Lucky you and the others included in your “us.” But you and they are not the center of the universe or the measure of everyone else in it. You are right about one thing: it is not 1950. So? Change occurs overnight–right? Please. Do me a few favors: explain the survival of racism in birtherism, persuade me that no racism exists outside birtherism, persuade me that blacks are free and clear of any residual concerns about racism, persuade me that some black students in integrated schools do not create difficulties for other black students for “acting white.” Are things better for blacks than they were?–absolutely. Has racism and its effects disappeared?–absolutely not. Do blacks still respond to its survival and its continuing effects?–absolutely. (If you want, substitute ” a few blacks” or “some blacks” or “many blacks” for “blacks.”)
Tocqueville observed that Americans spent their energies in the Revolution
and formation of a new government getting rid of a king,
only to try and elect one every four years.
It is understandable, then, that we are frustrated with inaction from the president,
because we purposefully established a government with a limited executive.
This explains some of the emotion surrounding presidents.
The left is disappointed with Obama. Indulge this perspective for a moment that they’re not disappointed enough.
Imagine you supported Bush.
Daily protest met Bush’s involvement in two wars.
Obama presides over three wars now with little dissent.
The protests were about Bush, not the wars.
Rightful suspicion and outright derision went to Bush for the ‘PATRIOT’ Act.
Of course, Obama voted twice for the PATRIOT Act as Senator and signed it as President.
The derision was about Bush, not the PATRIOT Act.
Bush said he wanted to close down Guantanamo but was criticized for not doing so.
Obama, it seems, is no better at closing down Guantanamo.
But there’s no equity in the outrage.
Bush signature legislative proposal was the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’.
But they expired in 2010. Obama signed an extension this year, so they are now the ‘Obama Tax Cuts’.
Where’s the outrage?
Of course, it’s a two way street.
Obama’s high water mark is the unfunded mandate of ‘Obamacare’
But where was the outrage from Republicans when Bush signed the unfunded Medicare Prescription Benefit?
Obama sought and signed the ‘Stimulus Bill’,
but Bush had a preliminary stimulus with rebate checks in 2008( or was it ’07?)
And Republicans passed their own stimulus in the ’83 recession.
But the Obama transgressions are truly Bush like in nature.
So, go ahead.
Denounce him, and get on board the Gary Johnson train!
Whitehouse for the Veto Vato in 2012!
This isn’t 1950 – black Americans are already in the “mainstream” society and have been so for many years. The President is a good example as he has lived all around the world and has been attending majority non-black schools since he was a child. To ascribe his lack of leadership as a “reflex” to trying to integrate himself into mainstream society when he has already been there for the bulk of his life doesn’t make any sense.
What is offensive is making such a tenuous connection between a person’s character and their race. And using 2 or 3 personal anecdotes to diagnose the President’s character problems is just generalization. Treating blacks as “other” is paternalistic and denies us the full humanity of being treated like anyone else. No white President would be subjected to such race-based psychoanalysis or character assessment and their actions would stand or fall on the merits. If you find the President to be obsequious, then point it out and complain about it – just don’t ascribe its origins to him being a rising black trying to navigate a white-ruled world as you haven’t presented the evidence to back-up that assertion. Plenty of us navigate this world without such problems.
ConradDJames, I have expected some such comment, but I have no idea why you find it offensive. I shall not attempt a guess since you have not made an allegation.
In previous columns, perhaps unknown to you, I have challenged the president’s lack of leadership experience and lack of leadership; in this column, my second and third reasons imply as much–no leadership.
I have to disagree on your main point. I perform no psychoanalysis and conclude nothing on the basis of one. Interpreting character is different from psychoanalysis; I do the former, not the latter. Character is acquired by and shaped by experience, but requires no special training to assess. Some people in situations in which they feel themselves under the control of others–children of abusive parents, say; employees with abusive bosses–often adopt a strategy of ingratiating behavior to protect or promote themselves. I base my analysis of Obama’s character on my understanding of his behavior in academe and my experience, including my discussions, with many blacks with whom I have served in the military and in my professional life, or known socially, while black men and women, in relatively large numbers, have been negotiating circumstances new to many of them in their efforts to make the problematic transition into the mainstream of a society mainly white and white-ruled.
This op-ed is a good example of what I have been saying for several years: left-wing paternalism is the worst threat facing the black community. After witnessing the President’s poor leadership and indecisiveness, the average person would ascribe it to the President’s lack of executive experience and thin resume’. But instead Hays performs a psychoanalysis and concludes that some “rising” blacks have a reflex to be “ingratiating” and that this is partly to blame for the President’s performance. That assertion is more offensive than anything I’ve heard from the misguided birthers.
I can’t disagree with much of Dr. Hays’ comments even though I wish I could. As an independent, I voted for Obama. Bush and his nut bags nearly ruined the country. At the time, given his campaign promises, Obama seemed the clear choice.
Anyway, my dismay with President Obama is as Dr. Hay describes: a lack of direction, conviction, determination, leadership, and boldness. What Obama has shown is weakness, compromise, kowtowing (to the right), back-pedaling, and acquiescence on the legal pursuits and policy decisions his administration should have taken or pursued.
Perhaps the best measure of a president is how they lead and succeed during times of crises. For certain, President Obama is no Lincoln, Washington, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Truman, nor even Reagan for that matter – leaders with vision, determination and cajones. But neither was George W. Bush, probably the worst president the US will ever have even after Obama leaves office.
President Obama has done some things, but has failed in others as Dr. Hays has pointed out. Unfortunately, it seems he’s in over his head and is unwilling to fight the political battles to further his now weakened agenda. And, with Obama placing many conservative financial advisors in his administration, stepping up the war in Afghanistan, and not dealing effectively with unemployment, he has weakened his support base.
Unfortunately, many on the right continue to demean and denigrate Obama with the racially motivated and nonsensical rhetoric about his birth, his religion, and now, his education. It could all backfire as more reasonable and open-minded people will see through these attacks and continue to back him.
The current slate of republican presidential contenders is dismal. But one person that offers more appeal than any others is Jeb Bush, who has an accomplished record as governor of Florida. While some might say his name would be an issue, he would appeal to most independents and even to many democrats. The latter because of his popularity among Hispanics in his state and across the nation. Thus, unless someone like Jeb Bush shows up as an accomplished, popular and competent leader, I wouldn’t count Obama out just yet.
I think you are correct about the downside of Obama being joined at the hip with the Pelosi-Reid agenda, stever. He also made initial mistakes in that most all of his cabinet and close advisors were liberal, non-business experienced, and his old Chicago cronies’ network. Now he has tried, and succeeded for the most part, in correcting many of those mistakes. Dr. Hays, I think it will be exceedingly difficult for Obama to give speeches (repeated or not) that energize and unite the majority of the people. He still tends to focus on selective groups and thus excludes many others. His chiding of a supporter who complained about high gasoline prices yet drove a large vehicle (as it turned out he needed it as he has 10 kids) is typical of his problem Obama has relating to average folks. Obama has lived in an elite and rarefied slice of society for a long time now, and he needs to try and understand how average people live. But the real issue is that when he gives a speech it just seems like he is separating people out, not uniting them all together. He has not found a way to do this yet, and that is a huge failing for a leader who aspires to connect us all as Americans and reduce all our differences.
I agree with Dr J, Obama will very likely win another term. Just watch as the Republicans self destruct.
I feel Obama made a mistake being seen as too chummy with Reid and Pelosi. However “intelligent, informed, sensible, sensitive, articulate, gracious, amusing and decent” Obama is, they are not. But your critique is well stated.
Dr. J., thank you for this thoughtful response. I am not sure that I entirely disagree with you. (I do disagree with you that, even with weak opposition, the 2012 election will be a cakewalk; there will be too much money, too much character assassination, too much misinformation, too much voter suppression by the GOP and Tea Party to think so, so I think. )But I think that push-back is also part of negotiating. For instance, once he gets to 2+2=5, he could stick with it and refuse to go to 2+2=6 when the GOP wants 2+2=7. Moreover, he gives presidential speeches the way academics give papers–once. What his 3 x E synergism required was a constant campaign in all parts of the country, each speech tying the local economy, energy regime, and environment to his larger policy. All politics is local, but all localities can be woven together into a web of interlocking relationships serving to strengthen all elements of 3 x E.
For the most part, extremely well said Dr. Hays. I think you have nailed the main issues and Obama’s failings. But I think there is no way he will not win a second term. If the present field of unqualified and incompetent Repubs continues limping toward 2012, it will be a cakewalk for Obama. Given the present Repubs in the running, I would easily choose to vote for Obama once again. Obama has this “failing” of wanting to get things done, and today that takes compromise and yielding liberal principles. There is no other way for him to operate (given the polarized society and Congress we have), so I really don’t fault him for that. Compromise (bringing more ideas into play and thus pleasing more people) is always better than mindless adherence to strict ideological dogma anyway. Now if you think he or anyone else can bring us all together as one United States (no red or blue states) and tackle the economy, energy, and the environment, you are truly an idealist and dreamer. It just can’t happen today considering the sorry state of our polarized politics.