The Obama That is

The Obama that is

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-obama-that-is/99/
Written by Pratap Bhanu Mehta | Posted: November 7, 2014 12:05 am | Updated:
November 7,
2014 12:13 am
The electoral repudiation of President Barack Obama in the mid-term elections raises
some
interesting comparative questions about the nature of electorates in a democracy and
the
factors that animate them. It reminds us of the sheer contingency of politics: the
president who won a watershed victory now being spurned by his own party and the
electorate. The sheer contingency of politics should also be a warning never to read
permanent meanings into any election: the people can easily take away what they give
in the
first place. There is also, no doubt, a story particular to this election. Many of
the
races in the south were in Republican strongholds. The Obama administrations own
missteps
were considerable. This time, the Republicans got together a better organisational
machinery and avoided gaffes that might have consolidated their opponents.
Still, it is worth reflecting on the seeming unravelling of Obama, his journey from
unchallenged charisma to being the object of widespread contempt. As often in
democracies,
the scale of repudiation is far in excess of his sins. In Obamas case, it could be
argued
provocatively that nothing fails like success. Here was a president who was dealt
one of
the worst economic hands in history. The American economy was teetering on the brink
of a
catastrophe when he took office. The recession has been prolonged, and to some eyes,
the
recovery not as strong as many would like.
Nevertheless, the US is not looking like Europe or even Japan; the rescue act was a
significant historical achievement. And it is hard to argue that Republicans have
won on a
platform that offers more economic hope. Healthcare reform had eluded every
administration
Page 1

The Obama That is

in the US. But low jokes apart, Obamacare has been successful enough that few want
to
repudiate it. Unlike former US President Bill Clintons, his administration has not
been
plagued by scandals. He was even lucky enough to make America energy independent.
Here was
a president who promised disengagement from war, and to a considerable extent,
delivered on
it. He promised a certain kind of bipartisanship. He was rebuffed by Congress. But
in
ideological terms at least, contrary to what many feared, he did not lurch to the
far left.
So what is the nature of his failure? Are there some interesting lessons for the
political
discourse?
In democratic politics, your credibility is often most grievously wounded by your
own
supporters. Small sections of the right had barely disguised contempt for Obama, and
the
racial undertone has, in some sections of American politics, not gone away. But the
biggest
damage to him came from the fact that many of his supporters felt a sense of
betrayal. The
most scorching writing on Obama has come from the left, as it were, rather than the
right.
Their sense of betrayal and anger has often meant that they would rather see him
punished
for not delivering on utopia than counter the Republicans in any serious way. In a
deeper
sense, they, more than the Republicans, created the climate of opinion where Obama
looked
weak. Scorned supporters are more dangerous than dogged opponents.
Part of this was a consequence of Obamas own charisma. It was not so much what he
said,
but his own persona that raised expectations of a radically new order. It was easier
to
judge him harshly because he was being judged against his own measure. The
sentiment, you
were not the Obama we thought you were going to be, dominated any consideration of
his
record much more than Republican alternatives or even other presidencies. When you
aim high
Page 2

The Obama That is

and promise much, the sense of betrayal also comes easier and more deeply.
In our democratic age, the smaller mistakes can define you and fix your image far in
excess
of their significance. In political terms, the technical glitches in the early days
of the
rollout of Obamacare seem to have provided a firmer political handle to its
opponents than
its aggregate benefits provided to the Democrats. It is hard to live down mistakes
in the
age of media. It is perhaps a feature of all democracies that the top leadership
will be
held responsible for outcomes, no matter what. They are elected to fix things, and
no
amount of structural explanations or alibis will compensate for any shortcoming. It
can be
argued that Obamas sometimes cold intellectualism has not been the most skilful at
managing Congress. But it is hard to argue that Republicans were anything but
obstructionist. Much like in India, the strategy that if you obstruct, whoever is in
charge
will get blamed, seems to have paid off. But Obama seems to have got the blame for
the
gridlock. No top leader can ever have the luxury of an excuse.
In international affairs, there is a sense that Obama cuts a sorry figure. But,
arguably,
this is in part a consequence of what he was seemingly elected for. There is no
doubt that
in political terms, the Libya intervention was a huge mistake. It got America the
worst of
both worlds. It took away from the idea that Obama really was trying to carve out a
presidency not founded on American global hubris. For interventionists, on the other
hand,
it raised the expectation of more to come, in places like Syria. And when those
interventions did not come, the charge that he had made America look weak followed
swiftly.
In a way, Obama was elected on the promise that America would not be the policeman
of the
world, and he was then punished for trying to show what that actually looks like.
One of
the curious features of large democracies is that they dont like the exercise of
power.
But they see the lack of exercise of power as a sign of failure. Obama failed to
navigate
Page 3

The Obama That is

this thin line with finesse.
But there is an underlying paradox. There has been much talk of the declining
fortunes of
the middle class and the concentration of wealth. Thomas Piketty is, after all, a
best
seller. Yet this is exactly the moment where America lurches a little to the right,
as it
were. Immigration was a big sub-theme in this election, and it seems even the threat
of
Ebola was exaggerated out of proportion as a sign of the administrations failures.
In a
moment of deep crisis, Obama looked like a steady hand of hope. But now that
concerns over
survival have dissipated, the first order of business is to look for someone to
blame.
Obama is far more visible than nameless plutocrats and oligarchs, who were never
under
threat, but are now even more secure.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, and a contributing
editor for
The Indian Express
express@expressindia.com

Page 4