« The Great Credit Card Battle To Come | Robert Reich's Blog | Will Ken Lewis Get Canned, and Will Americans Have a Say in the Corporations We Now Own? »

How Obama Can Succeed in the Next Hundred Days and Beyond


Before Inauguration Day, President-elect Barack Obama said he wanted to hit the ground running. Instead, he hit the ground sprinting and hasn't stopped.

Consider: A $787 billion stimulus package. A 10-year budget including universal health insurance and a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. Subsidies to help distressed homeowners stay in their homes. Public-private partnerships to clean up the big banks. A bailout of the auto companies. New regulations to clean up Wall Street. A G-20 meeting to harmonize global economic policies. A proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. A thaw in relations with Cuba and Venezuela. Overtures to Iran. A start to immigration reform. Even a dramatic rescue from pirates.

And this is just the first 100 days.

He also has done this without breaking a sweat. Obama is the serene center of the cyclone - exuding calm when most Americans are petrified about paying the monthly bills, offering assurance when everyone in the world is worried about loose nukes falling into the wrong hands.

All this activity has made the right angry and the left uneasy. But a whopping 65 percent of Americans think highly of him. And no president since John F. Kennedy has received such an enthusiastic welcome around the globe. By almost any measure, his presidency so far has been a triumph. (I give him only a C-plus on his economic policies so far, but that's mainly because of a provisional F on the bank bailout. See below.)

Yet Obama's success has rested on several delicate balancing acts. Whether he continues to succeed will depend on how well he shifts his balance in the months ahead.

Short-term or long-term economics?

The stimulus and bank bailouts have required the government to pump almost $1.5 trillion into the economy and the Federal Reserve Board to dramatically expand the money supply. This makes sense in the short term. With almost 1 out of 6 Americans either unemployed or underemployed - and consumers and businesses still tightening their belts - government has to be the spender of last resort. But as the economy recovers, Obama will have to rein in government deficits. If he does this too early, he risks prolonging the deep recession. Yet if he waits too long, he risks wild inflation.

Progressive vision or conservative governing?

Obama's 10-year budget presents the most ambitious and progressive vision of any president since FDR. But when it come to governing, Obama has been cautious and incremental. His stimulus was smaller than even conservative economist Martin Feldstein recommended. He has been unwilling to take over the banks. He won't push Congress on the Employee Free Choice Act. His mortgage relief program is modest. He doesn't want to prosecute CIA torturers. Yet if he wants to be a transformative president, he's got to move boldly. Universal health insurance will be his first big test.

Dominance of domestic or foreign policy?

So far Obama has focused on the home front, as he should, given the economy's plunge. But he's confronting a major foreign-policy challenge in Pakistan. And other challenges are emerging in Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and stateless regions of the world. So the big question here is whether foreign policy will come to define his presidency, notwithstanding his domestic ambitions. Presidents don't have much control over this. FDR's first two terms were defined by the Great Depression; his last was dominated by World War II. Lyndon Johnson wanted to create the Great Society but got bogged down in Vietnam. George W. Bush didn't know that his administration would be defined by Iraq.

Policy emerging from contending arguments or strong "czars"?

At first it looked as if Obama was hiring a "team of rivals" who would battle out hard policy problems. This management style allows a president to hear and consider contrary points of view, but it can also be chaotic. Yet Obama seems to be opting for strong White House "czars" instead, such as Lawrence Summers on the economy, Carol Browner on the environment and Rahm Emanuel on politics. This approach saves presidential time and focuses responsibility, but it can suppress contrary views. And it's often those contrary views that presidents need to hear to avoid major errors.

Working with Republicans or taking them on?

By temperament and inclination, Obama prefers to reach across the aisle and court Republican support. Yet so far this tactic has been notably unsuccessful. Republicans have moved almost in lockstep against him. They're already gearing up for the 2010 midterms, staging anti-tax rallies and laying the foundation for a major assault on his presidency. They fantasize about repeating the coup Newt Gingrich pulled off in November 1994. At some point before then, Obama will have to take off the gloves.

Making nice to Wall Street or kicking its butt?

Almost $600 billion has been poured into big Wall Street banks with nothing to show for it. They're still not lending to Main Street, still paying their top executives princely sums, and still issuing dividends and looking for acquisition targets. Yet apart from a few rhetorical blasts at a few Wall Street executives, Obama has so far shown remarkable solicitude to the banks because he thinks he needs their cooperation to get credit moving again. At some point, though, he'll have to get tough.


So far Obama has found a workable balance in all these domains. But all require increasingly fancy footwork, and some rebalancing will be needed. The central question for the next 100 days is how deftly he finds new footing.


24 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic
George W. Bush didn't know that his administration would be defined by Iraq.

Maybe W didn't know, but Dick Cheney did. He had the whole thing planned out by the time they took the oaths. 9/11 had nothing to do with it, although they tried to take advantage of it to make it part of the rationale. (Looks like they even tortured people to try to get false confessions to help them "sell" the war.)

There's nothing magical about 100 days. Might as well be 96 or 103. I give Obama a B- so far. I'm much more concerned about the next 1360 days. We're still sitting on the brink, in about six different ways. I wish I were sanguine, but I'm not feeling confident at all.

-- ARG

user-pic

His budget is the most progressive since FDR? I don't know how it's more progressive than LBJ's. LBJ did not have to escalate in Vietnam and Bush didn't have to invade Iraq. Obama's challenge is to have the courage to choose. He's increasing the defense budget so that doesn't give me much encouragement.

user-pic

I'm not sure that LBJ had to escalate in Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure that he thought he had to. Not because of the Vietnam conflict itself, of course, but I'm pretty sure that LBJ thought that if he didn't escalate in Vietnam after Westmoreland publicly demanded that he do so, then the conservatives would shut down any effort to get either Medicare or Civil Rights legislation.

I'm also pretty sure that Westie set a trap for LBJ that way to force him to escalate. And it worked.

It was a very high price to pay to get Medicare and Civil Rights legislation, but on balance I'd say it was worth it. The American conservatives have always made America pay an extremely high price to advance towards civilization.

user-pic

I think it's pretty callous to say that Medicare and civil rights in America were "worth" the escalation in Vietnam. It might have been a good bargain from the perspective of the United States, but how many of the 6-7 million military and civilian deaths in the Vietnam war could have been prevented if we hadn't escalated in 1965?

user-pic

How Obama Can Succeed in the Next Hundred Days and Beyond

Ummm...by not hiring any white male construction workers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

Really, after that Youtube anti-white racist diatribe, you have nothing to say that I would care to hear. Thank you very much!

user-pic

Cyd

You post an interesting piece of reich-wing propaganda there. You and the narrator want to make sure that only conservative white males get the federally funded jobs, and any discussion of making sure that the money is fairly distributed is branded as racial preference. That's easy to do in a utube in which you strip all context out of the discussion.

user-pic

Richard,

Reich's own words damn him and and not anything I have said or propagandized. He also does not distinguish between Conservative or Liberal white males which shoots down your "argument". White males are the target, which should be unconstitutional or am I missing something when discrimination is based on race?

user-pic

That's just the beginning, before you know it you won't be able to get a taxi.


user-pic

Well, that's the Meyer Rothschilds' fault too.

user-pic

Context matters. The Utube eliminates that. And you ignore it.

It looks like both you and the narrator never learned to share in Kindergarten. You are both saying that it's all just Me - Me - me and damn anyone else. You leave out anything that would suggest anything matters besides your own parochial self-centered interests.

That's essentially the emotional level that most 15 year-olds have outgrown. You're in public now. Quit whining that you want it all for yourself and don't want to share. Try to at least act like a grown-up.

user-pic

By all means, Richard, please do us the favor of filling in any context that will ease our concerns when Rangle and Reich say white male construction workers need not be considered for jobs.

This issue, to me, is not your strawman of "me, me, me". That is more in tune with liberal ideology and thought processes. The issue is open consideration for racial discrimination by a member of Congress and Obama's economic advisor. Yes, Richard, whites are people too, with families, and bills and....

Have you even looked at the video, Richard? Or are you going by rote in pushing Obama apologia?

user-pic

I think the point that Reich was making was this: the long-term unemployed are, too often, members of racial and ethnic minority groups. So, the stimulus money used in construction should, to some extent, be able to provide employment to the long-term unemployed. If we're just passing money from the government to those who have good paying jobs, we're not going to improve the employment situation in this country. And, if that doesn't improve, the economy flounders for the forseeable future.

The point wasn't to say that all of us white guys shouldn't benefit from the stimulus package. That's the Glen Beck argument -- and it's pretty weak.

At the same time, Reich didn't do himself any favors in clearly indicating that racial preferences for stimulus money are needed. They're not needed in the sense that we should be able to distribute projects aimed at improving the employment situation for everyone.

user-pic

You may be correct in what he "meant", though I do not know why we need to guess what he truly "meant". His words are damning and if he was interested in setting the record straight, so to speak, he should have done so a while back. In my opinion, the reason he has not clarified his meaning is that his meaning is less than altruistic.

My point, as stated three times now, is why the need to pick out one racial group? You mention the "long term unemployed", which I've never heard that term used before. Now, are the members of this group there because of some form of racism? In reality and in this day and age, probably not, would be my guess. Therefore, if not, then we are not looking to "correct any past wrongs", are we? Then, what we really are doing is creating NEW wrongs.

user-pic

On 'getting tough' with the banks, the balance has NOT been "workable". The points made here show that it has failed beyond the initial stabilization. There needs to be a UNIFIED progressive position, with the progressive relevant experts getting together on this, pushing the Obama Administration VERY hard in a progressive direction.

So far, I don't see any sign of this kind of coalescence, although there are signs that some progressives see the need for it.

user-pic

Obama showed some good signs of abandoning the appeasement towards Repubs, when he told them pointedly that he will be passing a health care plan using the budget reconciliation process. He made sure that they heard him about the total lack of any form of cooperativeness by Repubs thus far into his administration. I see that as indicating that he will soon treat the Repub party like what it is, and that is not an equal partner in governing.

user-pic

Policy emerging from contending arguments or strong "czars

I'm bothered by this for a different reason. The growth in power of the Executive Office of the President is troubling in that it diminishes Congressional checks on executive power. Without need for Senate confirmation the executive becomes less beholden to Congress.

This seems like ground that needs to be staked out to prevent further erosion of Congressional authority before the next proponent of Unitary Executive theory comes along.

user-pic

As long as the Senate hobbles itself with the filibuster (a tool traditionally used by the minority to stop the federal government from regulating slavery or later, segregation and apartheid) and maintains a minority that does not want to govern, then the power will move towards those who are prepared to take necessary actions.

That's the function of an executive. Take necessary action in a timely manner to meet a problem. The Senate will have to prove that it can actually be more than just a nullity or an organization designed to stop needed actions if it is going to not lose power to the President.

Look at California as it is hobbled by the requirement to get a two-thirds vote to pass a budget bill and gets hung up because more than a third of the elected representatives simply do not accept the need for government at all. As their crises gets worse, the pressure to change that will increase. But some metrics of how much pressure there is will be the death rate that results from no government and the exodus of Californians to other states. I imagine they already see that exodus in their best students going to study and live in other states. Arnie hasn't started compromising his conservative principles because he wanted to. He has been doing it because the situations he faces demand it, and his state-wide constituency has a significant and long term majority that demands it. The two-thirds majority for a budget is an anachronistic structure that is going to have to be abandoned.

If you don't like the power shift to the President (and I don't either) then the Senate is going to have to stop being the roadblock set there by unaccountable entrenched interests who don't want to lose their sunk investments when new problems arise. Among others, right now that includes the Wall Street bankers who are in large part responsible for the current economic downturn. But there are also Conservatism and the Old South which have always been that road block in America, and the filibuster is their symbol.

user-pic

Very good point Richard. I actually consider the filibuster an extra-Constitutional abuse of the advise and consent clause. At the least it should be done away with when it comes to appointments.

We have some similar ridiculousness here in Washington State to that of California. A new initiative, passed by simple majority I might add, requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature or referendum to raise any tax. I'll never understand the logic, or lack thereof.

user-pic

Will Obama succeed? Can he?

And, Is there a way out of the Wall Street-Geithner-Obama nexus? I'm afraid we're cooked. Finances replaced Manufacturing as the largest part of GDP (21% vs. 12%), our best and brightest minds make more money flipping papers on Wall Street than they do making planes in Seattle or cars in Detroit and the downward spiral continues--you cannot maintain a world class empire on computer clicks and paper flipping.

Once you have finances dominating the economy, the country becomes slack with the easy ways of easy money. In this we're following the path of other empires that went down the tubes with finances--Spain, the Dutch and the Brits. They all survived the fall as second-tier powers. That's probably in the cards for us.

Geithner may know people in powerful places but he can never bring back what made this country supreme: manufacturing. And Robert Reich should know.

user-pic

Strongly seconded.

user-pic

Great comment. Absolutely spot on.

user-pic

Truly. Anyone who thinks a revival of "big finance" is anything but a path to destruction has their proverbial heads up their asses. Pretty sure Reich knows this. We need to begin the painful process of gearing down to a smaller, more sustainable economy, and I fear that most people will not wrap their tiny brains around this until it's way too late.

user-pic
user-pic

Post this somewhere else, dude.

-- ARG

Leave a comment

Robert Reich

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 203

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address