With Reuters reporting a growing concern among Americans at US President Barack Obama’s government spending, automobile industry bailout and other economic policies, set against the backdrop of former president George Bush taking a swipe at his successor, perhaps it is appropriate to call time on Obama’s honeymoon period.
Yesterday the president announced the overhaul of the financial industry rules only to be met with scepticism from banks and lawmakers who believe that his proposals may well retard recovery. While they were querying the role of the Federal Reserve, Bush was delivering a speech wherein he asserted that the recovery must be driven by the private sector and rejected suggestions of nationalising healthcare.
It appears to be clear that Americans do not trust Obama with the economy as yet with many believing that he does not have a strategy in place to deal with the budget deficit. The irony in all this is that it was precisely because voters believed that the Democratic nomination for president, ie Obama, was better prepared to deal with the economy that they elected him over his Republican counterpart.
Yet the economy is not the only area which is causing grave concerns at this stage. If regard is had to current US foreign policy then at best — at this point in time — there are vast areas of uncertainty in regions where you’d least like them to be. As a result of the non-prescriptive partnership approach and using two of today’s examples we are witnessing North Korea totally out of control and Iran uncertain of its position with the US. On the one hand they have the president refusing to endorse either side while on the other they have a state department that is clearly supporting Mousavi.
This gives you the worst of all worlds.
The Iranian government calling US conduct an “intolerable meddling” in their affairs, Mousavi not receiving any endorsement — which under previous US administrations he clearly would have — and the region watching to see whether they are dealing with pre-revolutionary Iran, as suggested by former UN ambassador John Bolton, or Ahmadinejad which would signal a return to building nukes.
“My country right or wrong” being replaced with “we’ll wait to see if we have a partner”.
The problem with the latter approach is that often, as we are witnessing right now, there is a lacuna where strict foreign policy used to be. While Bush was unpleasant in this area, at least everyone knew where they stood including Americans. Yesterday in the US itself the Iranian-American community marched in protest at what is going on in Tehran and received no official support. Under Bush there had been clear direction, under Obama it’s all about wait and see.
Pat Buchanan, who served in the administrations of three presidents and ran for the post as the GOP candidate several times, believes that this approach is paying dividends. He basis this upon the fact that Ahmadinejad and the theocracy have suffered irreparable damage as a result of this election and the US must wait to see how the cards fall.
Moreover Buchanan suggests that US intervention — in any form — will give Ahmadinejad a rallying point ie America, the Great Satan, the common enemy of the Iranian people, interfering in its affairs in order to destroy Iran. In this he is not entirely wrong as we witnessed last night with the Iranian government condemning US interference in its internal affairs.
Unfortunately, as former president Clinton found out, when you stand back too far and allow things to develop on their own you sometimes land up with a genocide in Rwanda and a nuclear Pyongyang with all and any efforts to remedy this being a case of far too little too late.
In the case of Obama, the steps being taken to right the economy, initiate recovery as well as US foreign policy are too important to the planet to allow the honeymoon period to go on indefinitely.
Obama’s policies need to be scrutinised and debated head-on right now.
Obama never had a “honeymoon” to begin with. From day one,Rush Limbaugh, Cheney, Gingrich had always given him a hard time. Rush wished that Obama should fail. The republicans in Congress never supported his stimulus package but Republican Governors all took the stimulus funds. GOP is the party of NO without alternatives.
It is the GOP that is conveniently raising the issue of the budget deficit now, whilst Obama inherited that deficit from Bush and the GOP congress supported Bush’s budgets. It was expected that the banks would resist more regulation. That is the nature of businesses. On healthcare, the use of the term nationalisation is disingenous because universal healthcare was one of each candidates promise (Obama’s mandate). Did Bush not nationalise banks by bailing them out with billions of taxpayers money first?
The scale of Obama’s Agenda has been the most extensive and agressive on all fronts (economy, foreign policy, health, banking crisis, housing crisis, auto sector bailouts, etc) since the new deal. No president has dealt with these whilst under a “honey moon mode”.
You seem to advocate that Obama should choose a side on the Iranian issue and pretend to be “decisive” at the expense of incorrect decisions just like Bush’s Iraq war. Obama should live the Iranians to decide who should be their prime minister. It is not for Obama to decide. In his speech to the Muslim world he indicated that he would not go on a project to transplant “democracy”.
How can anyone who follows American foreign policy expect Obama to support Mousavi and the protesters? Does Mousavi also not support the pursuit of Iran’s nuclear program, as he stated during the campaign? The protestors simply want reforms and not to fundamentally transform the Iranian govt structure or major policies. Would Mousavi not deny the holocaust and recognize Israel?
If Obama wants to encourage diplomacy with Iran, what is the wisdom of taking a stand when one is not sure of which leader is going to prevail?
Any statement said by Obama, would be a cannon fodder for the Iranian regime to discredit the protests not as Iranian home-grown on the street. Even Mousavi would not want to be branded an American puppet. Obama took the same approach with the Lebanon elections and the March 8 Alliance (Hezbollah- pro Syrian and Iran), was beaten by March 14 Alliance (pro –American) without Obama interjecting himself and the US prematurely by commenting on the Lebanese elections. Had Obama done so he would have mobilized votes for Hezbollah.
Obama has learnt from Mbeki that effective diplomacy is by definition quiet. Media condemnations and public grandstanding about leaders that one may need to negotiate with, only blunts the tool of diplomacy. Bush pursued “mega phone” diplomacy on North Korea. North Korea only listens to China.
Did Obama not finally meet with Morgan? Are there alternatives than the current fruits of quiet diplomacy that were planted and nurtured by Mbeki on the Zimbabwean question?
Michael, you seem to have a few misconceptions about American politics that shows your naivety:
1. Obama seemed better than McCain to deal with the economy was the main reason for the Democrat’s victory.
Did it ever occur to you that Obama had no significant track record managing a large complex budget to be chosen on that basis? He was elected for the his numerous traits that made him outshine McCain in every aspect.
2. Bush taking a swipe at Obama is a sign that the honeymoon is over!
Do you think anyone takes George Bush seriously after that carnage he left behind. You sholud stop gleaning your news about the US from your neo-conservative sources like John Bolton, Pat Buchanan etc.
3. Do you have any clue as to the UTTER MESS Obama inherited from Bush? Try to do some basic research before you speak about the US economy.
FYI: Did you know that Obama’s economic policies are guided by giants like Lawrence Summers, Warren Buffet et. al. Of course there will be healthy debate on the economic policies and direction from all sides, but thats what democracy is all about anyway isn’t it?
“Obama’s policies need to be scrutinised and debated head-on right now.”
By US Citizens only –
who are we, incidentally, to have a say about their President and his policies ?
SA resents ANY interference in our blundering from disaster to disaster policies. The Untouchables.
What is the definition of Zuma and the bloated ‘growing like a mushroom’ bureaucracy,
COSATU dictated economy and
left propelled policy of SACP ?
WHO IS IN CHARGE in my country ?
Anyone know ?
“Obama’s policies need to be scrutinised and debated head-on right now.”
By US Citizens only – who are we, incidentally, to have a say about their President.
SA resents ANY interference in our blundering from disaster to disaster.
What is the definition of Zuma and the bloated ‘growing like a mushroom’ bureaucracy, COSATU dictated economy and left propelled policy of SACP ?
WHO IS IN CHARGE in my country ?
Anyone know ?
President Obama is an astute politician and understands that the United States getting involved in Iran’s internal political affairs would be unwise. Former President Bush has undermine the crediability of America by ignoring the wishes of the U.N. and invading Iraq.
The economy, health care, and education are issues that affect every American and getting to involved in Iran could jeopardize the potential to improve the economy and improved health care and education in the country. I am a registered Republican but I admire how President Obama is handling foreign affairs. I only wish he would end the sanctions on Zimbabwe which I think is morally wrong. America should walk carefully in dealing with Iran and North Korea.
todd kidd, new orleans
I completely agree with Dave Harris.
The article above seems to have been written from a barely hidden NeoCon perspective. George W. Bush virtually destroyed the US economy, as well as the country’s image abroad, and Obama now has to pick up the pieces.
US foreign policy under Obama fortunately doesn’t seem to be based on a “do what we say, or we bomb you, and grab your oil” approach.
The trouble is that Obama is doing enormous damage to the United States, both by his aggression in Pakistan and by his massive transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich.
However, since he’s less destructive than Bush would have been, everybody except the left tends to give him a free pass.
Traps,
I just read this good rebuttal of those advocating rhetorical cow-boy bravado for Obama to pursue from the Washington Post by Paul J. Saunders:
“The United States encouraged Hungarians in an uprising against their communist leaders in 1956, only to watch as the brave individuals who chose to stand against their regime were killed mercilessly by their own government because they lacked sufficient internal or external support to succeed. If the American people are not prepared to offer real help to the protesters in Tehran’s streets — up to and including military force to ensure that they win — it is profoundly immoral to urge Iranians to action from the sidelines. Some of the American commentators and politicians now critical of the president gave the same rhetorical “support” to Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili last year, emboldening Saakashvili and contributing to a war that was disastrous for Georgians.”
Spare a thought for Bush. He was thrown into a war because of terrorism on 9/11. They had to stop bin Laden and they started in Afganistan and so it went on. What if Bush had simply turned his back on Islamic extremists and hoped that they would not strike again? He would have failed his country too. He did what was right at the time but of course we have all these bright sparks out there who know better with hind sight. What if the WMD had been found in Iraq? – Bush would be a hero! The weapons were there so where are they now? Sadam Hussian did everything in his power to let the world know that he had the weapons and was moving them around as he thought that he could unleash the ‘mother of all defeats’ on the USA.
Yes Bush did things wrong but at the time they seemed right and he did not sit on his hands, he did what he and his administration thought was best at the time. Oh if only we all had 20/20 vision. Obama is treading on eggs in Iran and at least, for the time being it is the right thing, UNTIL the first nuclear weapon from Iran is dropped on Tel Aviv?