Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 - 3:18 PM
Share
Although I voted for him with enthusiasm and was delighted when he won, I've tried to maintain a critical stance towards the Obama administration's efforts so far. As readers of this blog will know, I've been critical of their approach to AfPak, ambivalent about their Middle East policy, troubled by the backsliding on torture and indefinite detentions, and concerned that they were trying to do way too much too soon. But I've also tried to cut them some slack, knowing that they inherited an economy in free fall and a set of intractable foreign policy problems. Even a great president and a competent team would find it difficult to work instantaneous miracles, especially in a political system that has many veto points and was designed to make far-reaching change difficult to impossible.
That said, I am starting to wonder. In particular, I think Obama is going to have to pick an issue and demonstrate that there is a price to pay for thwarting him. Not every opponent is amenable to sweet reason and calm deliberation, and adversaries abroad --and at home -- need to understand that the President can be tough too. Like the early Bill Clinton, so far he's been better at punishing supporters (e.g., Van Jones, Charles Freeman) than opponents.
So I keep thinking about Ronald Reagan's decision to go after the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) back in 1981. When the union went out on strike over demands for better pay and working conditions, thereby violating a federal law barring walkouts by federal employees, Reagan ordered them back to work and fired any members who didn't comply. In fact, he barred the strikers from further federal employment (a ban he later rescinded), while the administration improvised a replacement system that kept the airplanes flying. Whatever the merits of Reagan's action, it showed he could play hardball and it made him appear to be a decisive leader who wasn't afraid to go to the mat.
Bottom line: Obama and his team need to pick a fight with someone and win, so that both rivals and fence-sitters recognize that foot-dragging, malicious distortion, etc., are not without costs and risks. But one word of advice: a war with Iran is not the sort of fight I have in mind.
John Moore/Getty Images
Obama's critics are, increasingly, verging on treachery. They are attacking the integrity of the Presidency and the election system -- "he's not really a citizen." They hoped that the economic stimulus would fail. They hope to sabotage reform of the health care system. They believe that Obama is out of line in encouraging children to excel _for the good of the nation_.
I tend to think it is one of the reasons why the wingnuts squeal so loudly (and preemptively) about being called racists -- that's a far more hospitable 'briar patch' than the accusation of treachery and subversion.
The problem, of course, is deciding when -- and over what issue -- to hit back. McCarthy festers for more than four years before his attack on the army brings him down. At what point does "have you no sense of decency" become a killing response?
Attacking the integrity of the presidency?
What integrity! How can any official elected through the US system of campaign finance be presumed to have integrity? He or she may have; there is the possibility he may not have been bought by the lobbies, but that cannot be presumed without a profound knowledge of the individual; and even then one could not be certain.
I agree the right wingnut attacks on the President are extreme, but there is much wrong with his first eight months in office: favor for big financial institutions, military-imperial continuations of GWB, violations of the Constitution (and even the Magna Carta!), torture and more.
Here I find the left to be too flaccid, too tentative, too patient, and - yes - too damned respectful of our President!
Agree -- he should lead us....even if it means...shudder...going contrary to the Bush team.
How about cutting off all funding for Israel until it renounces its Apartheid policies?
Hmmm...do you think one-track Walt has
Hmmm...do you think one-track Walt has anyone in mind - lol.
The problem with starting a public fight is that you have to be certain you will win, otherwise it just weakens you further. The fight that Walt is salivating for was already started by Obama, he made the decidedly unnuanced and public demand for a total settlement freeze. Obama lost. It was a dumb move politically and it was a dumb move because the Arab/Muslim world will view it as Obama caving. It should have been framed in such a way as to make Obama look good when he got whatever negotiated settlement will come out of it. As it is, his ham-handed handling of the manner will cause that same outcome to make him look bad and the Palestinians to dig in their heels.
Of course, his plea for some kind of committment to reciprocity from our Arab allies was rebuffed also. That's a fight I'm sure Walt does not want Obama to start.
Really Obama lost?
I don't see his 4 years as being up.
I think there is sufficient time to stiff Bibi yet.
If "stiffing" Bibi is the desired stiffening of Obama's spine, then it could still happen, because Obama may be able to take on a dependent adversary. Where Obama has his problem is in taking on powerful corporate power, as Ralph Nader observed more than a year ago.
Does our President have the ability to get angry? He became very angry about the alleged mis-treatment of his friend, Mr Gates, who is black, by a white cop. Obama really lost his cool. He does have a racial hot button. The question is does he have others, and does he have the ability to make his anger work for him. So far, there is reason for much skepticism.
I think he is a Sunday-school preacher.
you've forgotten who's running things...
the neocons create reality, and the rest of us react.
what do you think all this hoopla about north korea and iran's about? ...they're gonna go for a twofer 9/11: north korean nukes sold to iran and detonated in america...
apparently dimona has duplicated the signature of north korean nuke explosions... either that, or the neocons figure they can get away with another "investigation" like the 9/11 investigation.
so obama, just like every president since eisenhower, is impotent when it comes to defending america from israel.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.''
I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off.
''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.
We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
RON SUSKIND new york times magazine
While delighted with Obama as our President, I have a feeling that his election reflects a Senate revolt given the personalities in key positions in the Administration. Within this Directory of Senators, I'm am sure there are conflicting and inconsistent aims, egos, etc. which Obama has been unable to guide/bend so far.
OK, but with whom? Domestically, he controls all aspects of federal power except SCOTUS, and he's never going to go after a union, as those are some of his biggest supporters. Going after the Limbaugh and Beck types is just going to rebound and make them stronger, and is frankly unseemly for the head of state in a constitutional republic.
Also, it needs to be a compelling enough move or reason to garner wide support, such as an emergency, whether it be a small war or standing up to a union that could cripple the economy. What are his options?
The goal, I assume you're implying is to both prove his toughness and regain his popularity/support, which has fallen off a cliff.
So, give us some meat on the bones, so to speak.
Ours, a constitutional republic?
Ours, a constitutional republic? How about an unabashed plutocracy with the forms of a constitutional republic!
I am sorry! I just cannot accept any longer the old ideals as realities: you know, "...indivisible with liberty and justice for all." False!
Get out of the middle of the road!
The middle of the road is the best place to get run over. Even if Obama can cope with the beatings, I am not sure his electorate is as resilient. Many are suffering and need the reassurance that only his success can deliver. The rope-a-dope must end and he must begin to make his values stick.
Nobody listened to what Van Jones said...
Good thing you mentioned Van Jones. As I always say in this blog, the 11-S oficcial versiones has become a taboo nobody can challenge. But the version we all repeat of it is a lie. Nothing match, there are several facts that are really interesting. Please research about and you would find out.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(13)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE