Google Ads
Saturday, August 13, 2011
President Obama: Between a "Barack" and a hard place
President Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall as a result of the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. He also inherited a country that was at war on two fronts: Afghanistan and Iraq. The sad thing about these two wars is that they were not paid for by the previous administration. As if this were not enough, the wars were being fought at a time when a massive tax cut was given to the richest people in the country. No sacrifice was demanded of the citizens to foot the bill for these wars; all the government had to do was run an already high deficit, even though the revenue stream from the richest was significantly cauterised. To add to all of this, significant checks and balances that were required to prevent the financial meltdown on Wall Street were not in place when toxic mortgage securities were allowed to "poison" the financial system. To save banks that were too big to fail, billions of dollars had to be spent, again running up an already horrendous deficit. The new president had no choice but to institute a stimulus programme which itself added to the deficit burden of the country.
This brief historical perspective tells the lie to many of the president's detractors that what we are seeing in the aftermath of the debt ceiling debate and the Standard and Poor's downgrade are all the president's fault. What we saw in Washington recently is not only how dysfunctional government can become, but the extent to which politicians are prepared to play reckless games with the country's future in the pursuit of their own narrow-minded ideological positions. This is a dangerous trend which merited an evaluation (not necessarily a downgrade) by those who are professionally designated to offer an opinion on these matters. What was shocking was the willingness of people who swear to defend the health of the country to throw it over the cliff if their agendas were not met.
In order to preserve their agenda and the ideological purity which underlines it, and in order to ensure that the president is a one-term president, as is the avowed wish of many of his detractors, no effort is being spared to ensure that the president's agenda fails. For example, in the recent debt-ceiling fiasco, nothing was said about the need to create jobs or to reinvigorate the economy. These are things that will have to happen if the president is to have any chance at being re-elected. His opponents know this and they are not prepared to lend a helping hand in the president's second-term effort. As part of this effort Republican members of the Senate have used Senate rules to block the passage of important legislation or the appointment of high level government officials. For example, a number of senior positions at the Treasury Department are yet to be filled. The filibuster rule is used routinely to delay and frustrate the passage of key legislations. In 2009 alone, senate Republicans filibustered close to 80 per cent of major legislations.
In recent times, the House of Representatives has become more hardened, dogmatic and more dysfunctional than the deliberative Senate. It has become particularly so since the ascendancy of the Tea Party mavericks in 2010. Under the guise of a commitment to fiscal prudence, small government and no new taxes, they have imposed their ideological positions on the Republican Party to the extent that the mainstream of that party seems impotent to cast them off. Not only are they committed to the president's failure as Michelle Bachman, one of their leading spokespersons has stated repeatedly, but their rhetoric on the ground does not remotely resemble anything that can move the country forward in the short term.
Are these the kind of people with whom the president, and even the country, can do business? Can the principle of compromise to which the president seems solidly committed work with people whose ideology is cast in wrought iron even when it can do serious harm to the country? As a constitutional scholar, the president knows and accepts the importance of the principle of compromise in light of how the federal constitution and the republican form of government work. Unlike the parliamentary system of government where a prime minister is both chief executive and chief legislator, the president of the United States does not have the privilege to pass laws; he can only sign bills into law. He can urge and influence his party to pass legislation in line with his wishes, but this is as far as he can go. He is heavily dependent on the other arms of government to get anything done, hence the need to compromise.
This often places a president between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In an effort to compromise, how much of one's core principles must be given up to gain consensus on a policy? As President Obama grows weary of vitriolic and partisan debate, how much patience can he exhibit when deep down he knows that the country can be hurt by the intransigence from the other side of the political fence? To dig himself out from between that wedge of the rock and the hard place, he has to become more assertive and smart in playing the cards that are being dealt to him. Compromise is good, but there is a limit even to this hallowed principle especially when your core values and those of your constituents are being called into serious question. In the end, the people in a republican democracy are the final arbiters of the way forward. It behoves a president - this president - to trust them more, to be open and more transparent with them. They will reward you if they are convinced that you are at least trying.
stead6655@aol.com
www.drraulston.com
August 13, 2011
jamaicaobserver
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
What Wikileaks Teaches Us About Obama and Latin America
By Rebecca Ray - Common Dreams
President Obama has given little indication of the strategy for his upcoming trip through Chile, Brazil, and El Salvador. Will "the great listener" promote cooperation and understanding, or carry on the Bush administration’s approach of fighting against regional alliances?
Words of Wisdom from Past Leaders
Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that last year Chilean President Bacheleturged the Obama administration to avoid separating South American nations into ideological pigeonholes:
President Bachelet emphasized the need to understand the nuances of Latin America’s leaders and their countries rather than lumping them into populist and pro-western camps … emphasizing that Morales was very different from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
In prior years, Brazil has urged the US to establish direct dialogue with administrations that have clashed with the US. In a 2009 visit:
…both [Presidential Foreign Policy Advisor] Garcia and [Foreign Minister] Amorim used the opportunity to encourage the United States to establish 'a direct channel of communication with President Chavez.' Amorim suggested that a good USG-GOV dialogue would have an impact on the domestic situation in Venezuela, as well, because much of the opposition to Chavez has ties to the United States.
And in a 2008 visit Brazil went so far as to offer help in establishing dialogue:
Garcia suggested that, "Maybe it is time (for the United States) to have a frank discussion with Bolivia" … Without wishing to be a mediator, he said, Brazil is willing to help in whatever it can, recalling a similar commitment he made to A/S Shannon two years earlier.
A Legacy of Division
If Obama takes either of these leaders' advice to heart, it will be a dramatic shift from the past. The Wikileaks cables show us a detailed history of the Bush administration weakening cooperation between Latin American countries. Not surprisingly, much of these efforts have been focused on separating Venezuela from its regional allies, but they also involved Brazil and Bolivia.
In a 2007 cable entitled "A Southern Cone Perspective on Countering Chavez and Reasserting U.S. Leadership," Santiago embassy staff develop a 6-point strategy to weaken Venezuela’s regional alliances:
- "Know thy Enemy" (information sharing)
- "Directly Engage" (more high-level US visits to other Latin American countries)
- "Change the Political Landscape" (boosting Argentina’s and Brazil’s influence as counterweights)
- "Play to Our Mil-Mil Advantage" (South American military training and peacekeeping operations)
- "Stress Our Winning Formula" (aid and corporate social responsibility)
- "Getting the Message Out" (public diplomacy)
An earlier cable from 2006 shows the US pushing for Brazil to work against Venezuela’s relationships with other countries:
Ambassador reiterated that the USG hopes more engagement by Brazil will serve to counterbalance Chavez' pernicious influence.
But the cables also focused on separating Brazil from the rest of the region. In 2006, this entailed nipping in the bud a relationship between Lula and then-presidential candidate Evo Morales, as well as other leftist governments. Embassy staff advised Ambassador Shannon:
… you can focus on the GOB’s outlook for what a Morales presidency means for regional integration, political stability and law enforcement. In particular, you can stress with all interlocutors our concerns about a possible dramatic expansion in cocaine production and export. … it will be interesting to press Garcia for explanations of statements by Lula last year that appeared to welcome Morales’ looming “populist” victory, and of how the GOB sees itself now in relation to the "Axis of Evo" (Morales, Chavez, Castro).
This strategy of division was far from successful for Bush. In spite of the Bush administrations' efforts, Brazil and Venezuela kept their alliance intact.
In 2005:
[Ambassador Danilovich] asked that FM Amorim consider institutionalizing a more intensive political engagement between the USG and GOB on Chavez, and standing up a dedicated intelligence-sharing arrangement. FM Amorim was clear in his response: "We do not see Chavez as a threat."
And later, in 2008:
Ministry of External Relations (MRE) contacts refuse to admit to us even in private that they are worried about Venezuelan interference in other countries.
And Brazilian diplomats insisted that they would continue their policy of cooperation, as Lula is a man who "believes deeply in South American unity."
In 2008:
…the USG encourages the GOB to assume greater leadership responsibilities, but the GOB is reluctant to take the controversial stances that go with leadership. Diaz replied that Brazil cannot assume leadership alone in the region, it must have partners, which would naturally be Argentina and Colombia, just as Germany and France are essential to each other in Europe. As a result, Brazil must continue to act in harmony with them and other regional players.
Has Obama Brought Change?
So far, the Obama State Department seems to have continued on the same path.
In 2009, several years after the US denied the intellectual property transfer necessary for Brazil to sell military aircraft to Venezuela, Brazilian diplomats explained to their US counterparts that it would be inconvenient if something similar blocked their sale to Bolivia.
If Bolivia wants Super Tucanos, Lula needs to be able to sell them. Brazil can’t afford the type of embarrassment caused by not being able to sell Super Tucanos to Venezuela.
The status quo appears to be continuing with isolating Venezuela, as well. For example, during the Venezuela-Colombia tensions of 2010 it chose a side rather than choosing to help ensure peace. While Brazil worked on de-escalating the conflict, the Obama administration reacted by agreeing to share intelligence with Colombia on any troop movements within Venezuela.
They did this even though they recognized Colombia’s concern about Venezuela to be "almost neuralgic." Moreover, they knew that Colombia had intentionally provoked Venezuela into the 2008 border dispute, and that Uribe held that the best reaction to any escalation in tension with Venezuela was "action – including use of the military."
Rebecca Ray is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net).
February 14th 2011