Excellent
article:
Some
research to do:
What
was the ‘legacy’ that Obama inherited from previous
administrations? What were the expectations when he was elected at
home and abroad? What were his policy objectives? Consider:
1)
Obama
as the first African American elected President
2)
the
divisions in US society
3)
the
US economy, short term and long-term, and global cooperation in this
area
4)
reforming
the financial and banking sector
5)
the
war on terror and the US approach to the Arab world / Israel and the
Palestinians
6)
civil
liberties, Guantánamo Bay and human rights
7)
health care reform
8) US
oreign policy and the Pacific
9)
US
foreign policy and Russia
10) US
foreign policy and China
11)
US
foreign policy the EU and NATO
12)
climate
change
More
than seven years later what are the realities regarding these
questions? Were these objectives achieved? If not, why not? What are
the main criticisms coming from those on the right? And on the left?
What
have been the limiting factors and constraints, legal and practical,
on Obama?
What
are the major achievements and failures of the administration and the
man, given all of the above? The Iran nuclear deal / Cuba / climate
change etc…
Some
ideas
A
legacy is something that somebody leaves you in their will
(testamento). A special legacy is often something someone leaves you
that you did not expect to inherit. So metaphorically for a US
President it means, in the short term, the general situation one
President leaves to the next, and in the historic sense, a
President’s outstanding achievements or failures. So for FDR it
usually means the New Deal, victory in World War II and the planning
of the UN.
A
President’s legacy will also depend on one’s political point of
view, on the left or right (particularly now when the spirit and
tradition of of bipartisan politics seems dead in the US and opinions
are so clearly divided on so many issues) and on whether one is
judging as a US citizen or from abroad (and then from which part of
the world e.g. Italy or Libya).
So
what did newly-elected President Obama inherit from the Bush
administration? There was the financial crisis and the effects of
the crisis as it spread to the real economy and went global, leading
to an economic slowdown and the threat of a world recession. Abroad
there was the continuing war against terror and attempts to reduce
and eventually end the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
in the hope of leaving law and order to the local government and its
security forces. There was also the rise of China, the resurgence of
Russia (Georgia 2008) and the beginning of the Arab Spring.
How
is Obama’s legacy seen in the US? The President had an approval
rating of about 51% in March 2016 and 53% in September 2016. The main
factor in opinion polls remains the economy. Unemployment was down
to 5% in March 2016 (4.9% in August) but many jobs are poorly paid
and short-term, and manufacturing is now only 12% to 13% of GDP
compared with 19% in1995. Many of those in manufacturing who lost or
risk losing their jobs and who may have previously voted for Obama,
may now feel abandoned and be planning to support Donald Trump. Many
Americans blame Obama for doing too little to contain immigration
from Mexico and the rest of Latin America (but recently also from
China and India, so that immigration from Asia now equals that from
Latin America) and see this as a force driving wages lower, or at
least keeping them from rising, and increasing competition for jobs.
Some also consider it a cultural threat. New immigrants were 1.7
million in 2015 and immigrants represented 13.3% of the US
population. These are both records in recent history.
Economists
are divided about whether the recession is really over and about how
strong and competitive the US economy is. Obama responded to the
economic crisis with a neo-Keynesian intervention, a stimulus
package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and a new
framework to regulate the financial sector, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Critics on the left say
these were not enough, and on the right that the latter is too
restrictive. The US Public Debt rose from 87% of GDP in 2009 to about
100% in 2012 but now seems fairly stable. It was 104.17% in March
2016 (105.05%September 2016). In 2015 the annual deficit was 2.5% and
is forecast to be 3.3% in 2016. GDP growth was 2% in the third
quarter of 2015 and 1.4% in the last quarter and same in the second
quarter of 2016. The trade deficit remains high, at 2.7% in March
2016 (3% in August), but this is much less than the 4.7% level
recorded in 2008. Current interest rates in the US are in the 0.25%
to 0.5% range and it is not clear if the Fed will be able to raise
them much this year or next year, though it would like to. A recovery
in interest rates, stuck at 0.25% from 2008 to December 2015, would
be taken as a measure of recovery and normality for the economy in
general, hence the concerns about the strength and durability of the
current upturn. Assistance programs for subprime mortgage homeowners
who lost their jobs and couldn’t pay their mortgages were judged
largely ineffective.
The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (often referred to
as Obamacare) massively reduced the number of Americans without
health care insurance. In March 2015, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
reported
that the average number of uninsured during the period from January
to September 2014 was 11.4 million fewer than the average in 2010. In
April 2016, Gallup
reported
that the percentage of adults who were uninsured dropped from 18% in
the third quarter of 2013 to 11% in the first quarter of 2016.
However, critics complain that this is not the European-style
universal public health care system many on the left hoped for.
Nevertheless, for the President it is one of his proudest
achievements, so it represents a significant part of what he regards
as his legacy.
Barack
Obama was elected with great hopes and expectations as the first US
African-American President and the African-American community
continues to say that he has opened doors for them. The
administration made efforts to improve educational for minorities and
the percentage of both African American and Hispanic teenagers
completing high school successfully has risen by 4% during his
Presidency. Recognition of the need for greater racial equality has
gained more support among the public according to a Pew Report of
Jan. 2016, but discrimination against African Americans within
society and allegedly by some sections of the police remains a
challenge. Above all, the difference in average incomes between white
Americans and African Americans is higher now than it has been since
1989. So on improving the situation of African Americans President
Obama’s record is at best patchy.
The
administration was initially a supporter of gay rights but not on all
issues, but during his two terms the President gradually moved to
stronger and more open support for Supreme Court rulings that made
same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples
legal nationwide in June 2015. Since September 2011, gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals have been able to serve openly in the US military. The
President announced his own change of position on same-sex marriage
in an interview in May 2012.
The
2009
Nobel Peace Prize
was awarded to President Barack
Obama
for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between people”. This was obviously more
of a hope for the future than a real response to the short period he
had been in office, but generally Obama’s foreign policy can,
indeed, be credited with trying to open and build a dialogue with
traditional US enemies and to strengthen global cooperation to deal
with global challenges. This was a shift from the post-9/11
confrontational style of the Bush administration and the ‘rogue
states’ view of the world. Obama sought and generally achieved an
international response to the global economic crisis based on a
loosely coordinated strategy. He maintained the dialogue with China
but the relationship with the Russian Federation proved more
problematic with confrontation and sanctions over Ukraine and
disagreement over Syria. One of the main initiatives taken by the
Obama administration has been the ‘pivot’ (or rebalancing )
towards the Asia- Pacific area, a shift of focus and resources away
from Europe, considered secure, and any further commitments in the
Middle East (from which the US wanted to withdraw) to the Far East in
support of China’s neighbors now beginning to feel threatened by
China’s expansionism in the South China Sea and North Korea’s
increasingly erratic and aggressive rhetoric and behavior. The US
pushed for its European NATO allies to take more responsibility in
relations with Russia and their neighbors in the Arab world. In the
Libyan operation the Europeans led with US logistical support
(leading from behind). This led to the fall of the Gaddafi regime but
no effective strategy for a follow-up operation to stabilize the
country. Obama himself recently recognized this as one of his
administrations major errors. The desire for change and some
alternative to military intervention in the Muslim world was clearly
stated early on, in Obama’s Cairo University speech in 2009,
calling for a new relationship with the Arab world. However, the lack
of any real progress on negotiations between Israel and Palestinians
was indicative of the administrations inability to put its intentions
into action. The killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 should have
symbolized the end of the old confrontation with the Muslim world,
and before this the cautious US support for the growing
demonstrations and protests of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt
and across the Arab world may have simply represented an optimistic
desire to believe that after the democratic changes in Latin America
and Eastern Europe it was finally the turn of the Arab world. As the
Arab Spring turned to Winter the US was forced to take a more
realistic approach, accepting the overthrow of the democratically
elected but Islamist government in Cairo by the Egyptian army in
2013 and drawing a red line on the use of chemical weapons by the
Assad regime in the Syrian civil war (but then backing down from
action when the line was crossed). In responding to this civil war
the US seemed both hesitant and unclear about what strategy it wanted
to follow. The US first backed the rebels against the Syrian
government with aid and money but refused to supply heavy arms
fearing this might lead to a direct commitment of its forces. This
strategy proved ineffective. Later, with the rise of Islamic State in
both Syria and Iraq, it began bombing missions against IS. The
involvement of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey and Russia in
support of different groups showed just how far the world has moved
away from a unipolar to a multipolar order. Critics of Obama, at home
and abroad, have stressed the uncertainty, reluctance and passiveness
of the administration in responding to events in the Arab world.
Meanwhile
there has been much criticism from human rights NGOs about the
administration’s increasingly extensive use of drone warfare to
target IS and Taliban fighters and terrorists. These attacks involve
no trial and due process and often lead to the death of innocent
civilians. The radical left has denounced this as state-sponsored
terrorism. Similarly the extensive spying system used by the US and
its allies in fighting terrorism has been seen as a breach of privacy
and basic civil rights by civil rights groups in the US and other
countries. The administration has been forced to abandon some forms
of surveillance as a result of losing cases in the courts to civil
rights groups. Nevertheless, the NSA continues to exercise powers
arguably not under real democratic control and to insist that this is
necessary to ensure security and counter and prevent terrorism. The
Manning case (2010) and Snowden case (2013) were presented by the
administration as threats to security requiring harsh punishment, and
by critics as a necessary exposure of human rights abuse and the
extent of the government’s use of both legal and illegal
surveillance programs both at home and abroad. All of this has
seriously damaged Obama’s liberal credentials. Obama was also
elected with the pledge to close down the US detention centre for
suspect terrorists in Guantánamo Bay. However, for legal and
practical reasons this has so far proved impossible and Obama has
preferred to slowly reduce the number of detainees.
Any
assessment of the Obama administration’s record needs to take into
account the legal restraints that the Constitution imposes on the
office of the Presidency and the practical constraints imposed by a
hostile Republican Congress and limited resources. The extensive use
made by Obama of Executive Orders in his second term (for example,
the recent 2016 Executive Order to reduce gun violence) shows both
the practical limits on his choices given the Republican hold on
Congress and his determination to get things done.
Two
key achievements of his legacy may be the nuclear deal with Iran and
the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba. These are both
products of Obama’s willingness to engage with old enemies,
maintain a dialogue and commit to negotiating a deal. Whether these
deals lead to lasting settlements will depend on the other party's
reliability and on who wins the White House and Congressional
elections in November. So they will certainly be part of his
immediate legacy.
Another
of Obama’s achievements has been moving the US forward on climate
change and getting to the first-ever universal, legally binding
global agreement at the COP21 in Paris in Dec. 2015, a commitment
that also includes China to keep the rise in global average
temperatures to well below 2% compared with pre-industrial levels.
The deal does not include sanctions and would need to be ratified by
the US Senate at some point to become law. So US participation will
again probably ultimately depend on who wins the White House and
Congressional elections.
In
terms of personality Obama has been praised for his ability to
dialogue and engage with the public and the calm diplomatic skills
he demonstrates when speaking in public. However, he has also been
criticized for his failure to charm, persuade (flatter, threaten,
blackmail!) in order to influence members of Congress (and build
consensus) that were a feature of the Presidential skills of Lyndon
Johnson and Ronald Reagan. Thus, some see him as engaging but
slightly diffident, though not as distant and academic as Woodrow
Wilson.
Many
commentator, in summing up, have stressed the gaps in Obama’s
performance between good intentions and reality. This may simply be
the nature of politics given the constraints that he has to live with
and operate under, a hostile Congress and a multipolar world order in
which the US remains the key player but no longer the only major
player. Moreover, if a week in politics is a long time and given that
Barack Obama has another three months as President, it may be a
little early to be summing things up and talking about his legacy. We
may need to wait until we are a couple of years into his successor's
Presidency to understand what impact he has made.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.