Obama’s inauguration today provides the opportunity for a tentative overview of his still uncompleted two-term presidency. To be sure, he will always be remembered as the first African-American president, but what else will we remember him for? In this regard let us consider his domestic and his foreign policy achievements separately.
In terms of domestic policy, the main course of Obama’s presidency was set when he fell into the trap, set not just by right wing Republicans but by such false friends as David Brooks and Tom Friedman, of making the budget deficit the overriding issue. Of course, the deficit was unavoidable, but every Democratic president since Roosevelt has understood that this issue had to be subordinated to the larger goals and values of American society. Obama’s failure to grasp the need to rise above the merely economic has meant that his eight years will have been largely dominated by a series of pointless “cliffs,” “grand bargains,” concessions to austerity and the rest. Not only that, but his legacy promises to remain a series of arguments over the deficit, and not a vision of who we are as a people, and where we want to go.
There are two exceptions to this, both potentially vast: the auto bailout and the Health Plan. Nonetheless, both suffer from a failure to situate them within a coherent, historically grounded vision of America. The auto bailout was not merely a success. What Obama actually did was to nationalize the auto industry for a while, reorganize it and help it get back on its feet. This reform demonstrated the continued relevance of the innovations of the New Deal, including its socialist aspects. But Obama of course shied away from any such implications, and limited his intervention to the swing states of Ohio and Michigan. As to the Affordable Care Act, it is widely understood today to be profoundly redistributive, and it is my hope that it will prove to be so. However, it may well be deployed toward another end, namely to deepen the gulf between those who can afford first-class health care and the rest of us. Which of these paths are followed is not yet clear, and the estimation of Obama by historians will largely depend on which prevails.
In regard to foreign policy, Obama has been more successful, but still suffers from the same problem: reforms without a narrative that gives them meaning. He has continued to back off of Bush’s disastrous first two years, as Bush backed off in his later presidency, but he has in every other way confirmed the bizarre view that terrorism should be the main focus of our foreign policy. the election of the first person of color to the American presidency promised to be an event with global significance, but in fact Obama has confirmed a traditional “realist” provincialism, having little relevance to the really great global stories– China, the Arab Awakening, and climate change. In regard to civil liberties, Obama has renounced outright torture, but has otherwise worsened Bush’s execrable record. I have in mind here not just the drones, but the arrogation of the right to execute American citizens without trial, as in the case of Anwar al-Aulaqi and his sixteen year old son. Obama’s confrontational policy toward China may also be misguided; it is too early to tell whether it is bluster or for real. It is not widely understood for example that the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands were taken from China in 1895 as a result of an aggressive Japanese-initiated war.
Overall, the central lesson of the Obama presidency is the crucial role of the Left in saving America from its worst errors. It was the anti-war Left in the Democratic Party that gave the nomination to Obama, rather than to Hillary Clinton, and this was a great achievement, not just because of the election of an African-American (we also need a woman President to be sure) but because Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have led this country into an outright war with Iran. It was also the Left, especially the short-lived but profoundly important Occupy movement, that brought the issue of social and economic inequality– in a word, class– back to American society, giving Obama the language that provided him with his re-election victory. Obama has proven to be a disappointing, but not disastrous president, but his presidency is likely to be remembered as the time when an American Left began to revive.
You cannot ignore the deficit. As for China.every country in SE Asia fears and loathes them. The only thing that restrains Obama is that China is a primary creditor for the US.
You’re right. You cannot ignore the deficit. It should be bigger. You run bigger deficits during economic downturns. You run surpluses when the economy is strong. Keynesian economics 101.
Well we are moving out of recession and we clearly have to draw back a bit. Interest rate may be low, but unsustainable borrowing might may change that. The private sector has to take up the slack from the Feds who ar refueling too much f the economic activity.
I hope no one voted for Obama because the perceive the was ultra Liberal because going back yo 2008 e never presented him as such, being Black does not make him ultra Liberal. I voted for hiij becasu he is pragmatic. That is my ideology.
I agree with Joan, I suggest you wait until his presidency is over.
Given you’re ideology, you voted for the right guy. Given mine, I voted for Jill Stein. Pragmatism is killing this country. Practicality is fine, but pragmatism is to practicality what scientism is to science.
We are barely out of recession; this recovery is anemic. The current unemployment rate is still way to high – still as high as its peak in the 90-91 recession, more than a full percentage point above its peak of the 2001 recession. At the current rate at which the economy is adding jobs, we won’t be back to full employment until the middle of the next decade. The private sector can’t “take up the slack” because they’re not going to ramp up investment when working people aren’t doing well enough to buy their products. The truth is that inequality has been so bad the past thirty years that the only way the economy was able to get enough demand for extended periods of even modest growth was through massive asset bubbles.
The good news is that the neoliberal Humpty Dumpty appears to be broken for good. While we may be technically out of recession, there were temporary upturns during the ’30s and the ’70s too. But like those crises, this is a STRUCTURAL economic crisis (i.e., a depression – not as bad as the ’30s but worse than the ’70s). We will not get out of it until we have a new economic structure, either a new capitalist structure or a structure other than capitalism.
The nature of the next structure will depend on the outcome of the social struggles of this decade. The best form of capitalism we could acheive, if the strength of social movements greatly increase as the crisis wears on, is probably a social democratic one. But one big caution there: Even the best form of capitalism is likely to depend on a level of commodity production so high that climate change will continue to get worse, and it’s already going to be really bad as it is.
Of course if progressive and working class social movements don’t get much stronger, we’re likely to replace what we have now with a new form of corporatism, which will be really lousy for working people. So we better get organized.
The US is a divided nation in need of compromise. That is what winning 51% of the vote means
Not to be antagonistic, but what will compromise between bad and worse mean?
And yes, one of the big reasons for more organizing is that 51% is not good enough. That’s part of what the Occupy movement was saying.
Thank you for your assessment.
I’m very disappointed in Obama’s justice, environmental, health, education, employment, mass transportation, housing and war policies…
How about waiting until his presidency is over before assessing it?
From my point of view a valid assessment must be on a past and present record, not a future record.
Thank you
There were great, great moments in yesterday’s speech and the event as a whole (Battle Hymn of the Republic!). But Barack Obama has always made good speeches.
As Dean Baker points out today, “the fact that the economy is still more than 9 million jobs below its trend growth path implies enormous suffering.” And, “the weak state of the economy is not even on the agenda in Washinton. The national debate is focused like a laser beam on how to reduce the deficit caused by the collapse of the economy. It would be funny if there were not so many people seeing their lives ruined.”
The speech was very inspiring (excluding part about cutting the deficit), and as Tikkunistas know, “it’s the economy stupid” doesn’t work if people are not inspired spiritually. But budget cutting will only make the economy worse. If the president continues to focus on budget cutting, he will prove progressive skeptics to be correct.
Why are the left commentators so negative, critical, serving as never-ending guardians of pessimism? They sound like the ultra right, and they should know better. A President can only do so much. Period. We all know that, we’ve all known that. For sure our President began his first four years making the mistake of trying to cooperate with the ultra right. I think he has figured that out, we won’t see a repeat of that. But again, a President is not all powerful. Failing to get support from the so-called “left” did not help, and will not help if, from what I read here, the left is going at him again. I find it hard to believe that this intellectual elite is “suffering” personally from unemployment, poverty. Whatever the weaknesses in a President, the President’s power is limited. Our President is speaking for women, for gays, for immigrants, for the unemployed, and it may mean nothing for the lefty pundits, but then they probably don’t happen to identify with these groups. I support our President, despite his errors, his mistakes, because he speaks for me more than any President before him, I supported him in his last term when many on the left went after him, leaving me with the uneasy feeling –is it possible that the left-wing pundits may simply be racist? Or perhaps they are simply unable to understand what it means when a President tries to put into law equal pay for women, or universal medical care, when he speaks out in support of LG population, immigrants, the unemployed, on and on. I support the President and will do what I can to participate in the spin off group now underway, to provide grass roots organizing to promote a really outstanding agenda. Its up to us to support Obama, as he is saying in terms of gun laws, we can’t do anything “perfectly” but we have to do something.
Obama’s speech had some good moments but please note– all the commentators who spent the last four years telling us how great he is, are now busy telling us how much he has changed for the better.
I agree with most of what Eli Zaretsky(who I knew years ago, when I was Susan Schwartz) has said. The main thing is not whether Obama is a “true liberal” or not, a pragmatist or not, but how can the genuine left push him to be better. As someone who was once ultra-left and totally out of touch with the reality of America (not a progressive country)I now believe that the country will never elect a president that “we”(the left) want, but we can create mass movements to move that president forward. Casting protest votes for people like Jill Stein is just flushing your vote down the toilet. Casting votes for Ralph Nader in an election when George Bush “won” by 500 votes in Florida, on the grounds that “there was no difference between Gore and Bush” was a crime that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers (Gore was opposed to the war in Iraq and of course, a fierce opponent of climate change). I am mindful of one historical lesson: Hitler came to power in part because the left refused to work with the moderate democrats in Germany.
Though I find that I agree with the general tone and opinions in this article, I find it unsettling how we as a nation find it so easy to refer to our President simply by his last name. Regardless of how we feel about his politics, the job he’s done or where we think he’s going, we still owe him the respect of his position that we elected him to by referring to him as President Obama. I may be wrong and I have not done any research, but I do not remember hearing our last president referred to simply as commonly by his last name; Bush, as the current president is referred simply as Obama. I’m sure it happened with President Bush, but not as universally as, in my observation, it has been for this president. It’s happened and is happening in both the written and spoken word. President Obama is widely referred to simply as Obama. And lest you come back and say he needs to earn that respect or title, he has! He was elected, twice, and stands in the Oval Office because we put him there.
Of course the President must have cooperative Congressional and Judiciary support to correct the crimes and injustices of the past administrations.
We also must recognize that there could be differences between pessimism and reality – rhetoric and actions.
The link at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202585064766&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130123nlj&src=EMC-Email&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&kw=The%20Regulation%20Agenda&slreturn=20130023090456 may be an encouraging program for the Obama 2nd term, but it is difficult to see much hope for it, if Congress and the Judiciary branches of our government do not support it.
Now, if only the Executive and Congressional branches would honor the Constitution they swore to uphold by blocking funds for undeclared wars…
its my impression that all the presidents get referred to by their last names, eg reagan, clinton, bush 1 and 2, also deGaulle, Mao, Stalin, etc.
Right on in terms of how President Obama is referred to. While I agree with Eli that many presidents and other state leaders, in writing and in conversation, are referred to by their last name. However I have been appalled when even people from MSNBC (to say nothing of Fox news), refer to Obama as “Mr. Obama.” I have never before heard a President called “Mr.” and it’s been disturbing all through his first term. I’ve assumed –again– its because he is “black.” I wonder what they would do with a female president, call her “Ms” or “Mrs.?” I think presidents are usually referred to (in writing and conversation” by their last name often, but in more formal recognition, its always “President.” I support Obama (President Obama), and I believe the group that is now forming around his campaign organization is going to be a way that we can help him move forward with his agenda. If it fails, due to a reactionary tea-party crowd in congress, it is not his fault. I think he may do something even more radical when he leaves office. But I support him (as I have unwaveringly) despite his ‘imperfections” and sometimes, his naive hopes of compromise. From my perspective, the left would be wise to stop with the critical “analyses” and get on board. Obama (President Obama) needs and deserves our support. He certainly has mine.
Do you think the U.S. Government (including the Commander in Chief President Obama) deserves support for the National Defense Authorization Act that trashes the U.S. Constitution by allowing the disappearance, torture and assassination of U.S. citizens, or any human being, without due process of the law that the Constitution, U.N. Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides?
Do you fully support President Obama’s Justice Department in prosecuting alleged non-violent criminals like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange – and not alleged violent war criminals like George W Bush and Dick Cheney , etc…? Why does his Justice Department prosecute people like Spiegelman and Aaron Swartz and not banksters? Why doesn’t his Justice Department search for truth and reconciliation of the 911 explosive evidence and who the terrorists really are? Just what is President Obama’s Justice Department agenda for the “new” term of office?
Do you fully support President Obama’s war policies, drone wars, environmental, health, employment and economic agenda?
I wish President Obama success in turning this Titanic ship away from total disaster.
Bradley Manning is serving in the military and it was not within his right to release a load of confidential documents. He criminally violate military code and he had no idea if he was endangering his own fellow soldiers.
Assange is hole dup in the Ecuador embassy because he does nt wish to face charges for rape in Sweden. SO Sweden is “oppressing” him
“drone wars”
I have n problem with dead Taliban
Manning and Assange didn’t kill anyone.
Drones human & automated have killed many innocent unarmed civilians.
I rest my case.
So di the artillery during the D Day landing. Coastal French villages were levels with lots of civilians deaths. The Taliban, though, simply uses human shields. The blood is on their hands the love duping the likes of you
Drones operate lie any manned fighter jet, with human hands controlling it
Robert Kuttner: Obama’s Heaviest Lift
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/obama-inaugural-address_b_2564383.html?view=print&comm_ref=false