Obama: One Year On

(c) Jurvetson

It’s hard to think of a more unwelcome anniversary present for President Obama than the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts. Scott Brown won the seat in a normally loyal Democrat state that had not elected a Republican to the US Senate since 1972. In the 2008 Presidential elections, Obama had carried the state with 62% of the vote, the Republicans trailing with a mere 36%. The state was considered so safe that neither Presidential candidate even visited it.

Barack Obama used to be renowned for his celebrity status, but the seat was won by the 1982 winner of Cosmopolitan magazines coveted title ‘America’s sexiest man’. Jokes aside, Scott Brown actually ran an extremely well-oiled campaign. He positioned himself against Democrat control of the Senate rather than against the healthcare proposals per se. By casting himself as the candidate who could restore proper democratic processes he was able to court votes from independents as well as core Republican supporters. This was contrasted by a poor campaign from his opponent Martha Coakley who, among other things, was criticised for failing to properly disclose her personal assets when running for the election.

A lot of comment and analysis has focussed on how the Republican victory cuts the Democrat’s ‘supermajority’ in the Senate which allows them to bypass filibuster attempts. This is a major problem for President Obama and the Democrat’s Senate leaders but there are other major problems also. The victory showed that, even in safe Democrat territory, supporting the healthcare proposals can be electorally suicidal.

This creates a disincentive for Senators to support the healthcare bill, which must be merged with one that has been passed by the House of Representatives. This is especially so when one third of Senate seats are up for election in less than a year; of the 36 seats being re-elected 19 are currently held by Democrats. Furthermore, some early opinion polls show that the Republicans are in a position to challenge quite a few Democrats at these elections. Even Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada is trailing in these early polls.

While the Democrats have lost their 60-seat filibuster-proof majority they still control the Senate by 59 seats to 41, a formidable grasp on the chamber that is rarely enjoyed by either party. However, the Democrat’s Senators are a broad church philosophically and two, although affiliated with the Democrats, are formally independents; Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. While some older Democrat Senators, Robert Byrd in particular, attend Senate sessions only irregularly. In contrast, the Republicans voted unanimously in both Senate and House against the respective healthcare bills.

The point here is that the loss of Massachusetts could seriously damage Barack Obama’s presidency, which is still in its early stages. The loss of the Massachusetts seat not only affects some normally obscure point of Senate procedure, it also makes it harder for Senators to justify supporting Obama’s plans. The fact is that from now on Obama will have to take a more bipartisan approach. He must seek to win over moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe in the same way that he negotiated for Joe Lieberman’s vote. The problem is that if he compromises too much, he will endanger the support and goodwill of liberal Democrats.

Throughout his presidency, healthcare has always been where Obama has appeared most confident. It is in stark contrast with the unconvincing and hesitant way that he approached Afghanistan in the latter half of 2009. Obama spent months deciding on a policy while the war cost US, coalition and Afghan lives. Even more troubling was that as the silence from Obama continued, the vocal disputes of his main advisors became more prominent.

President Obama took time making an agonisingly difficult decision, but the effect of that period of silence was to leave him looking indecisive. When the decision was announced it appeared to reinforce that perception by mixing a surge of thousands of troops with a timetable for withdrawal. Most concerning of all was the fact that the timetable appeared to be informed predominantly by the President’s own electoral considerations rather than the needs of either the Afghan people or the US armed forces.

While he came into office with a wave of approval from around the world, Obama’s domestic approval ratings have now slumped below 50%. Lower than President Bush’s were at the same point in his presidency, although the impact of 9/11 renders that comparison basically meaningless.

Obama’s fightback began the day after the Massachusetts result was announced, his plan is to get tough on the banks. The plans are more radical than those in Western Europe and include measures to limit the size of banks and prevent high risk trading. However, Obama’s healthcare proposals have run into trouble because they have galvanised conservative opposition to him. There is a danger that this piece of left-wing, banker bashing populism will similarly create a focal point for Republicans to organise themselves around.

If Obama’s weakest moment was some hesitation over Afghanistan, his strongest was probably the speech he gave in Cairo in June 2009. The speech, which included references to the Koran, singled a change in US attitudes towards the Islamic world and looked forwards to cooperation in the future. It was evidence that sometimes eloquence and presentation are the most powerful weapons in a statesman’s armoury. Weapons all too often ignored by his predecessor.

Yet while Obama’s foreign policy is characterised by a will to open dialogue and work with America’s opponents, his domestic policy remains divisive. With his latest announcement on the banks this looks likely to continue. Unless he is prepared to cooperate and negotiate with his domestic opponents, he may find that he has difficulty pushing these plans, as well as his healthcare proposals, through Congress. Especially if Congress becomes more hostile after November 2010.