obama is clinton disguised as reagan

 

Almost exactly three years ago Barack Obama drew a very pointed contrast between Ronald Reagan and two other presidents. Reagan, argued Obama, "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and Bill Clinton did not."

What seemed to be an ad lib was in fact calcuated to stir up and enrage the Clinton camp, which it duly did. Bad enough that Bill should be mentioned in the same breath as Nixon. Worse, his legacy was being slighted by a fellow Democrat, who seemed to suggest that Reagan was the greater president. A week or two later a fire-breathing Bill Clinton appeared to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson, and it was pretty much game over. This was a cocky, fearless move by Hillary Clinton's challenger. But it was true to form - ever since the 2004 speech that launched him as the Democrats' great black hope, Obama has had no qualms about presenting himself as a transformational figure, the next in a line of Great Men stretching from Jefferson to Lincoln to Kennedy.

Last week's State of the Union was the moment when it became clear, however, that Obama is much more like Bill Clinton than Ronald Reagan in his approach to politics. He's an incrementalist, a fox rather than a hedgehog, a cautious leader who, in office, actually has little time for the narrative-based idealism of Reagan, or indeed of Obama the candidate. The slightly stale 'Sputnik moment' soundbite was a half-hearted attempt to keep the Reaganesque Big Talk going, but the substance of the address was a series of smallbore initiatives reminiscent of Bill Clinton's State of the Union at the same stage in his first term. Peggy Noonan, who has become Obama's most eloquent and devastating critic, sums it up well:

America is in a Sputnik moment, the world seems to be jumping ahead of us, our challenge is to make up the distance and emerge victorious. So we'll change our tax code to make citizens feel less burdened and beset, we'll rethink what government can and should give, can and should take, we'll get our fiscal life in order, we'll save our country. Right? Nah. We'll focus on "greater Internet access," "renewable energy," "one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015," "wind and solar," "information technology." "Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail." None of this is terrible, but none of it is an answer.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being an incrementalist. Bill Clinton made a pretty good job of the presidency based on that approach. But then, he lived in incrementalist times. America was enjoying its post-1990 salad years: economic expansion and (in relative terms) peace abroad. There was no pressing need to 'change the trajectory'. The trajectory was going just fine.

That's not true today. America has massive debts, endemic unemployment, and draining foreign entanglements from which it can't easily extract itself. This is surely the time for a Reagan, or an FDR, depending on your political preference. To use David Brooks's terms, a Hamilton rather than a Burke. Perhaps the polarised stasis in Washington is so entrenched that no president could make a big difference. But the thing about President Obama is that - unlike Candidate Obama - he doesn't even seem that interested in making the effort.

Comments

[ejoch]

It might have enraged the Clinton camp, but the original comment is more unfair to President Nixon. Very hard to imagine President Clinton creating an opening to China (almost single-handed, bypassing the State dept).

Any thoughts on Egypt Ian? It's interesting to think how differently recent presidents would have handled this. White House currently seems rather uncertain.

[Ian Leslie]

Well, Egypt is a great example of where - arguably - Obama's incrementalism has left the US on the backfoot. There was a fascinating interview on R4 Today this morning with a former US diplomat who said that the last time the US really pushed for democratic reform in Egypt was 2003-2005, under Bush's 'Freedom Agenda'. They made some progress. But in Bush's last years and then even more so under Obama, that initiative withered and was replaced by 'don't frighten the horses' diplomacy. Mubarak went back to his old ways, until the people took to the streets. As a result, the US is now playing catch-up, struggling to position itself with respect to what's going on. I say 'arguably' because I'm sure Obama's people would argue that pushing harder for change would have been counter-productive. But whatever way you look at it, his approach has been ultra-cautious and piecemeal, which, as I say, contrasts to the way he portrayed himself during the campaign.

[ejoch]

Is it a reasonable argument that the White House are correct to follow 'don't frighten the horses', in that right now, there's no obvious (desirable) opposition party to take over in Egypt?

If the White House really feel that Mubarak is a strategic ally and musn't be toppled, but can't say so publicly, there's nothing wrong with that as a policy. But if that's the case, that's where the 'catch-up' comes from- they don't want change at all, but issue a statement after something happens, to stay on the right side of the press/public.

BBC news had an interview with a protester (well educated), who vehemently said Mubarak ought to go on trial. When pressed as to 'what for', she started mumbling, interestingly.

[Arapaho415]

Ian,

Is the "fox rather than a hedgehog" a British idiom? Are hedgehogs bold? They look very cute (and tiny) in the pics I've seen. Sadly, no hedgehogs in California.

Barring cataclysmic natural disaster(s), events unfolding in Egypt will surely launch the biggest stories of 2011.

[ejoch]

Hedgehogs pretty much just shuffle about timidly. And yes they are cute.

[Ian Leslie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox