Obama is not providing the leadership the US needs
The President is staying firmly on the sidelines, in the face of another potential financial crisis.
By Felicity Spector Published 28 July 2011 16:33
There will be no President Bartlett moment -- no West Wing style last minute drama as the commander-in-chief lays down the line to a bickering Congress. This President is staying firmly on the sidelines.
The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, has talked of plenty of backroom conversations and top level meetings. However, the face of the debt ceiling crisis negotiations is not Obama's, but Republican House Speaker John Boehner's. After the President's attempt to broker a deal with him failed late last week, the administration's efforts are now being led by Joe Biden, while Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is busy planning for the worst case scenario: not reaching an agreement to raise the debt ceiling in time. There isn't even a White House "war room" to deal with the crisis.
It's got pundits on all sides claiming that President Obama is in danger of looking like a spectator at the funeral of his own economy. In the meantime, it's Boehner's deficit reduction plan in the spotlight -- his Bill in front of the House, his responsibility to bring reluctant Tea Party hardliners into line. If the measure does pass today -- and at the moment it's deemed "too close to call" -- Democrats have pledged to defeat it in the Senate. President Obama says he'll veto it. But then who would look like they were the ones tipping the nation into that "catastrophic" default? Obamagaddon, indeed.
In this intricate game of political chess, with the fate of the most powerful economy on earth at stake, has the White House lost the initiative? Remember healthcare? That long summer of 2009 when Obama sat back and somehow let the narrative get overtaken by the conservative right? Even the rival plan, piloted by Boehner's opposite number Harry Reid, has dropped the commitment to tax hikes as part of the debt ceiling solution, although it does at least ring-fence entitlements like Medicare.
But liberal disappointment is rife. Here's Democratic Rep Peter Welch: "The House Republicans have been successful in getting two plans, Boehner and Reid, that are all cuts, no revenues, and a debate about doing this all at once or in two stages. The Democratic approach was a balanced approach. We lost."
It is true that the plan that Boehner is promoting has exposed the deep fault-lines within his own party, with a sizeable number of Tea Party activists refusing to sign up to any compromise at all. But President Obama has his own unity issues, with liberals frustrated that he appears to have conceded quite so much ground in what looks like an effort to appease the conservative right. One "senior party operative", quoted on Politico, bemoans the situation: "Every policy outcome for liberals is a loss at this point...We may win on trhe politics, but the policy battle is lost. It's just depressing."
Look at the latest polls, and they do show that most Americans blame the Republicans for the gridlock. After all, Obama did inherit a $1.2 trillion budget deficit -- and it was his predecessor George Bush who was behind the tax cuts and wars which made that deficit so much steeper.
"Call your Congressmen," Obama told the American people on Monday, and worried families have been bombarding Capitol Hill with phone calls. But Obama's own popularity ratings have slipped back over the last month, while the numbers who think he's doing a good job on the economy have slumped. Of course, some 75 per cent of Democrats are still rallying behind their leader, but goodwill can't automatically be taken for granted. And heading into 2012, active support from the grassroots -- not to mention party donors -- will be crucial in those battleground states.
And what the White House wants to avoid at all costs is putting Obama's neck on the line if there's no last minute compromise on the debt ceiling. He's already been strongly advised not to invoke the 14th amendment to force through an increase. "Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting," he said earlier this week. "But that's not how our democracy functions".
But in the face of another potential financial crisis -- and real pain for millions of Americans -- what the country is looking for is leadership. And now, more than ever, it's their President's chance to provide it.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















5 comments
Obama on the sidelines? Boehner the man in the spotlight? Nonsense. Boehner, whether his bill passes or not, today, and that remains in considerable doubt, has already been seriously damaged as Speaker of the House. Obama won't have to veto Boehner's bill, if it passes the House, because it won't pass the Senate. As for the House and Senate bills being all cuts and no tax rises, yes, Obama may lose this fight, IF either one makes it to the White House. Neither one may. But, as for cuts, you must have forgotten that Obama proposed a mix of cuts and tax increases (three to one ratio) totaling more than 4 trillion. Getting a trillion or so in cuts, under both bills, over ten years (one hundred billion a year, for the math illiterate among us) barely shows up in an annual budget reaching 4 trillion. Further, the Senate bill counts the reduced cost in the out years of winding down the two wars in the middle east as deficit reduction (and properly so, but not taken out of the domestic spending side). Obama and the Democrats are doing pretty well in this wholly unnecessary and contrived argument over raising the debt limit, although the pundits can't see it. We know what their record for accuracy is, don't we?
Is Obama a dictator? Read these and decide for yourself:
He has no opposition in his re-election bid.
He wants to have one billion in campaign funds.
His campaign strategists will now be pushing the "he saved us from defaulting" soundbite for the next year.
The Stateside MSM refuses to publically criticize him.
Three illegal and immoral wars that violate intl. law are censored. If you dare to speak out you're censored and called "unpatriotic".
If you're a U.S. citizen abroad and you publically call for a group (labeled by the govt. as a "terrorist group") to work for peace and not use terrorism, the govt. can legally kill you.
Obama has repeatedly said that if we find "terrorists" anywhere in the world and their "host" country does nothing to stop them, we will go in and kill them. If he designates a U.K. based Muslim group as "terrorist" and sends Navy Seals into London to kill their top leadership, what would Cameron do? Say "we support our special relationship" and do nothing?
How is all of this not a dictatorship?
wel come Online stores
http://www.ebibiz.com
So Obama can't walk on water after all, how disappointing. America is not a dictatorship but a republic, Obama can do very little in the face of so such political intransigence. America is on the brink, with the world looking on with increasing concern.
I agree with both the comments above.
As for the article, I despair at the utter nonsense written by Green.; save the point on the economy inherited by Obama.
Please Newstateman, we deserve better articles.