Obama’s fall from grace

Since World War 2, only George W Bush was held in less esteem by American people at this point in his tenure

IN 2012, Barack Obama became the first Democrat since Franklin D Roosevelt to win a majority of the electorate in consecutive elections.

Yet, less than two years later, he appears to be a political leper, as several Democratic senate candidates sought to distance themselves from him. In extreme cases, some even refused to admit they voted for him.

Of all of the two-term presidents since World War 2, only George W Bush was held in less esteem in the eyes of the American people at this point in his tenure. How did this turnaround happen so quickly?

There is no simple answer. But the leading factors are the anaemic US economy combined with the poor management of a series of domestic and foreign policy crises, which has exposed the ineffectiveness of his leadership style.

The economy: Like any president, Obama has very little ability to affect economic performance, but it is the barometer with which voters judge the incumbent.

Under Obama, 10 million jobs have been added to the US economy; unemployment has dipped under 6% for the first time since the financial crisis; and the stock market is registering all-time highs. However, a large portion of those new jobs are low-wage or parttime and the number of Americans in work or searching for work is at a 37-year low.

Micromanagement: One would have to go back to Richard Nixon, if not further, to find an administration where power was so concentrated in the White House and the president insisted on taking all decisions, large and small. This has resulted in an extremely inward-looking and stunted policy process.

Members of Obama’s own cabinet and the executive agencies they lead are frequently excluded from decisionmaking. Even congressional Democrats complain about the lack of consultation.

Failing to deliver at home: The two-month fiasco surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act diminished public support for Obama’s main legislative achievement, and sent his job approval ratings and perceptions of his leadership ability to career lows.

A host of scandals involving the Veterans Health Administration and the domestic surveillance operations of the National Security Agency further eroded trust in Obama and confidence in his leadership.

No refuge abroad: Foreign policy is traditionally the venue where presidents have the most freedom to make their mark, and where they tend to focus when their domestic agenda stagnates. But this realm has been a source of even more headaches for Obama.

The tightly controlled decision-making process in the White House has meant that the administration is slow to react to a variety of quickly moving crises, be it Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military adventures in Ukraine, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, the flood of illegal immigrants from Central America triggered by promises of

Obama will have to take a hard look in the mirror

amnesty, the emergence of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or the outbreak of Ebola. And several of these events have their roots in the White House’s failed policies.

Administration supporters, such as Matthew Barzun, the US’s ambassador to the UK, have bravely suggested that Obama is pursuing a pragmatic evidencebased approach to international relations.

Criticism of Obama’s lack of strategy, ad hoc decision-making and general hands-off approach to foreign policy levelled by senior officials who served him, such as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, give lie to that notion.

Americans have come to expect their president to provide leadership in foreign affairs, but instead they seem to be getting begrudging crisis management.

Obama will have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, where he will see the problem staring back at him. — ©