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
