One year on, Obama magic is receding

The irony was breathtaking: exactly one year after US President Barack Obama’s all-conquering inaugural in January 2009, the late Edward Kennedy’s US Senate seat in Massachusetts went to the Republicans. Suddenly, Obama’s domestic agenda, and its kingpin, health care, are in trouble. It is hard to believe, after the euphoria of 2008, that Obama’s place in history may depend on a single vote in the US Senate. But it does: the 60-40 supermajority is gone, and Obamacare may not survive.

Obama has not done all that badly, but expectations were so inflated that there was bound to be a let-down, especially among those afflicted by a “Messiah Syndrome”. His predecessor George W Bush was so despised that Obama would have looked good anyway. Apparently there are limits to the carte blanche. His approval ratings fell below 50 per cent in January, according to Gallup.

In all fairness, Obama inherited large problems: two wars, and the global financial meltdown. It is true that the Great Depression was fended off (although the credit should go to the Federal Reserve), there has been movement towards containing health-care costs, and Iraq (but not Afghanistan) seems to be stabilising. Obama has presented a kinder, gentler America to the rest of the world which may have resented the cowboy tactics of Bush. America’s brand image has improved.

On the other hand, unemployment remains stubbornly high, and people have been forced to tighten their belts. 

Obama’s deliberate, Olympian style suggests — perhaps unfairly — paralysis by analysis. The dithering over Afghan policy for eight months, and the plan to “surge, bribe, declare victory and run like hell”, have hurt India’s interests. An Obama, desperate to pull out of Afghanistan, is likely leaning on India to cave in on Kashmir, in order to appease Pakistan.

And it appears that Obama has allowed his agenda to be hijacked by several factors: an exaggerated internationalism, a certain hubris, a permanent campaign mode, and an unwillingness to rein in ideologues. 

Internationalism is good in theory, but not at the expense of domestic agendas. The Economist reports (‘Around the world in 42 days’, January 19) that “[Obama] has spent much more time overseas than his predecessors.”

Unfortunately, Obama also seems to specialise in alienating America’s friends and appeasing its foes. India was shown that it did not matter, but Obama was at his charming best with China, militant West Asians and Iran. Predictably, he got little in return. He reached out to the Islamic faith in his Cairo and Ankara speeches, but this was construed as weakness, and al Qaeda/Taliban are rampant. The Chinese humiliated him in Copenhagen.

Second, Obama seems to have begun to believe his own propaganda. Remember the Nobel peace prize, which, surely, Obama knows he doesn’t deserve, at least not yet? For him to accept it anyway came across as grasping and vain.

Obama also seems to have some trouble switching from campaigning — where he can make promises — to governing — where he has to deliver. Some of his actions seem predicated on PR: the time-table for the pullout of troops from Afghanistan is meant to give him a boost in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Finally, Obama is not reining in his more rabid supporters. Some of them believe that there had been a permanent shift to the left in 2008. Not so; especially as a result of tough economic times, there has been a shift to the right, and Republicans are feeling their oats. 

If Obama is able to curb his vanity, his internationalism, and the more extreme of his supporters, and, big if — the economy does improve in the next few months — he may well rebound.

Overall, Obama’s first year in office rates only a B for effort, and a C- for results.