Happy birthday, Mr PM: Why Obama is running the wrong country

Poor Barack Obama. Even in his birthday speech to the party faithful, he sounded like a man besieged: “I hope we can avoid another self-inflicted wound like the one we just saw over the last couple of weeks because we don’t have time to play these partisan games. We’ve got too much work to do.” Obama’s entire presidential career – starting from the time he announced his candidacy – has been one long rollercoaster ride, careening from hero to zero and back again from one moment to another. Back in June, he was Iron Man for taking Osama bin Laden out. Now he’s being dubbed a weak-kneed wimp for the debt ceiling fracas. Obama’s oscillating fortunes are all the more remarkable given the fact that Obama has essentially remained the same. He has not radically altered his politics, positions, or his persona. He ran as a left-of-centre Democrat who prizes compromise and negotiation; a pragmatist who emphasises what is possible not what is ideological. [caption id=“attachment_54338” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The truth is that Obama would be a brilliant and effective leader of any parliamentary democracy, be it Britain or India. Jewel Samad/AFP”] [/caption] “I give the other side credit. They are single-minded in their focus in wanting to cut programs and shrink government,” Obama said in his speech. And it is this single-mindedness – the willingness to wreak havoc in the name of ideological purity – that is rewarded by a political system held hostage to gridlock, fragmentation, and extremism. It is not Obama who is a failure but the greatly vaunted American political system, which is beginning to devour itself – and at a critical moment when the nation most needs direction and stability. Bipolar politics “[T]here is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America,” declaimed Obama at the 2004 Democratic convention in a speech that propelled him into the national spotlight. It’s a theme he is reiterated over and again over the years, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As it turns out, there is a portion of White America that will never accept a black man – named Barack Hussein Obama, to boot – as their president. Hence the Birther movement whose irrational, vicious and racist attacks on the president – given wide play by the media – would be unthinkable in most other democracies. The Tea Party movement is fueled by many factors, but a big one among them is the Birther sentiment. It’s easy to dismiss a bunch of loonies, except the American people elected the Tea Party candidates to the House and the Senate in the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Party’s success points to an increasingly debilitating weakness in US politics: a bipolar voting pattern that is creating government gridlock. It is now routine for a newly elected president’s party to lose Congressional seats in the midterm elections. In 2006, soon after George Bush’s reelection, for example, the Democrats swept into power in both the House and the Senate. (In 2002, the 9/11 attacks skewed the usual pattern) In 2010, the Dems lost the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. There are various theories as to why this happens – different voter priorities at the local level, voter desire to “check and balance” the power of the executive – but the effects are indisputable. Once Congress changes hands, it becomes harder to pass any kind of legislation, and the presidential agenda becomes mired in partisan politics. Americans may elect a president for four years, but, in effect, give him only two years to enact his vision – a vision they presumably endorse. Compare this with a parliamentary democracy that gives a prime minister, armed with a majority in Parliament, five clear years to pass legislation unimpeded. The American version is to first elect the guy, and then promptly tie his hands so he can be dismissed as a lame duck president who can’t get anything done. Ergo, all the chatter about Obama right now. The Tea Party victories have pushed the Republican party even further to the right , and made them more intransigent in Congress. It is near impossible to negotiate with an opposition party that is being driven by people who just plain hate you – and are willing to risk a global economic crisis to get what they want. Hence, the threat of a government shutdown in April over the budget and now the debt ceiling debacle. [fpgallery id=134] Unbalanced and checkmated There’s a second way in which this ‘checks and balances’ system goes awry – especially for the Democrats. Unlike the parliamentary system, members of Congress are not elected into office as members of a national party, voted into power in a national election. They run for election as individuals in local races, answerable only to their constituents. This is a recipe for endless grief for a Democratic president burdened with a big-tent party that encompasses a wide swathe of the ideological spectrum, from Berkeley lefties to conservatives from the South. In healthcare debate – when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress — Obama was pinned between the true-blue liberals holding firm on principle and Blue Dog Democrats willing to align themselves with Republicans. Most modern Democratic presidents spend as much time fighting their own party over legislation as they do the opposition. The GOP, on the other hand, has been moving steadily to the right, with most moderate Republicans either leaving the party or being hounded out of office in recent decades. A Republican president like Bush can more easily rely on the ideological loyalty of party members, and count on persuading conservative Democrats to switch sides during a vote. Obama instead has to first build consensus within his fractious party, and then deal with a unified opposition unwilling to compromise. Concessions to the latter erode the consensus within, leading often to outright mutiny. And so he goes, round and round in circles, firefighting at multiple fronts at any given time – with or without a majority in Congress. One of the unintended effects of the current US political system is that it punishes diverse parties which produce moderate leaders, and empowers unified, homogenous parties, backed by an extremist, uncompromising base. The Tea Party’s victory in the “Chicken” game over the debt ceiling points to Obama’s real problem: He is black, Democrat, and President of the United States. The truth is that Obama would be a brilliant and effective leader of any parliamentary democracy, be it Britain or India. He would get his five years at the wheel and a clear, unfettered shot at enacting his agenda before he returned to the polls. And his centrism , emphasis on debate and accommodation, would be ideal for the kind of big-tent politics that parliamentary parties require. The very qualities that his critics deride would be assets in a parliamentary system. His willingness to negotiate with the opposition and find common ground would be seen as sign of strength, as would his desire to communicate with average citizens. If Obama were prime minister, he’d be jumping in the Lokpal fray by holding nationwide citizen townhall meetings, encouraging public input, and personally engaging Anna Hazare. As for question hour in the British Parliament? What could be more delightful for a guy who loves to explain his every decision. Too bad then that he’s stuck leading the United States of America.

Happy birthday, Mr PM: Why Obama is running the wrong country

It is not Obama who is a failure but the US political system which is beginning to devour itself. Obama’s real problem: He’s black, Democrat, and President of the United States.

Top Stories

Israel targets top Hamas leaders in Doha; Qatar, Iran condemn strike as violation of sovereignty

Nepal: Oli to continue until new PM is sworn in, nation on edge as all branches of govt torched

Who is CP Radhakrishnan, India's next vice-president?

Israel informed US ahead of strikes on Hamas leaders in Doha, says White House

QUICK LINKS