Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (7 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   10 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Explaining Obama: It's the Re-election, Stupid

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 4   Must Read 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 7/19/11

Become a Fan
  (7 fans)

President Obama by Reuters



There has been considerable head scratching and hand wringing in the left-of-center commentariat of late over the seemingly inexplicable political behavior of the President. Even savvy observers like Jim Hightower appear at a loss to explain why Obama does the things he does, and avoids the things he doesn't do. The puzzlement is puzzling: what part of 'he does what he believes necessary to get re-elected' is hard to understand?

It may be that some pundits still suffer from "Obama as Savior" complex.   Those who still see him as the anti-George Bush or anti-John McCain--not merely the lesser of evils--are flabbergasted by the President's playbook. Why doesn't Obama take the lead in negotiations with Republicans? Why does he roll over so easily? Why won't he fight for progressive values or policies? Why does he ignore his base? Why doesn't he end rather than start wars? How come he let Wall Street off the hook? Why does he leave Main Street to suffer?  

These questions all have the same answer: to do otherwise might--he and his advisors think--place his political future in jeopardy.

We don't need psychological analyses to make sense of the President's political practice. Sure, his absent father, growing up biracial in Indonesia and Hawaii, the supportive grandparents, left their marks on the boy. Obama's undergraduate career at Occidental and Columbia undoubtedly had an impact on the young man. His Harvard Law years shaped the adult that he became. The Chicago experience inevitably colored his approach to electoral politics.  

Instead, we can rely on the decades-old political science finding that re-election is, with rare exceptions, the top priority for national politicians in the United States. Surprised? Of course not. Why then the confusion regarding the President's politics and policies? They are carefully calculated to appeal to middle-of-the-roaders, the vaunted swing voters.

This isn't about ideological consistency, let alone purity. Barak Obama isn't even a reluctant progressive, an FDR, JFK, or LBJ liberal, let alone the radical many want him to be. The substance of any given Obama policy proposal is much less important than the political signals it sends, the flanks it covers, and the powerful constituencies it serves. 

This does not mean that the President and his advisors have perfect political pitch. Far from it. Thus the distress felt by many on the left by the President's frequent retreats and compromises. They believe Obama could win with an in-your-face populist platform, backed by an enraged public. That this is not the President's view ought to be crystal clear by now.       

Let's take a look at some of the particulars, foreign and domestic. It should be a familiar survey. Rather than leftist sour grapes--some few of us never had any illusions about BHO--these are simply observations from a left perspective.

Foreign Policy

Obama's vaunted senatorial opposition to the "war of choice" in Iraq? A position consonant with public opinion, and with the activist base of the Democratic Party which he needed to get elected. His amazing willingness to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond the deadline negotiated with al-Maliki--a considerable threat to the latter's political future--evinces the weakness of the peace movement and his unwillingness to face campaign charges that he "lost Iraq" should things get even uglier on the Tigris.

Support for the ramped-up "war of necessity" in Afghanistan? A brilliant case of flank covering. Obama took away the Republicans' electoral advantage on national security issues by promising to wage the war more fiercely than George Bush, escalating drone strikes in Pakistan, and intensifying covert interventions in Yemen and Somalia.

Conservatives complain that Obama never uses the word "victory" when making a speech about Afghanistan. They don't get it either. The two troop surges, the replacement of McKiernan by McChrystal and of McChrystal by Petraeus, the confusion between counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism, the night raids, the support for Karzai and the warlords, the short-sighted development projects, the slow draw-down--none of this is about "victory."

Obama is too smart to believe "victory" in Afghanistan possible. It's about being seen as actively waging the War on Terror (even if it's no longer called that), and about "reducing the threat to the Homeland" so as to prevent untoward incidents on his watch. And even if something bad happens between now and next November, this is the president that killed Osama bin Laden.

US participation in the Libyan civil war? Obama deftly threaded the needle. The only people pissed off at him are neoconservatives who'd have him fly yet more bombing sorties, some libertarians, peace activists, and Tea Partiers for whom this is one war too many, and that handful of us still concerned about the rule of law. Not a single American death, a few billions down the drain, a Libyan opposition in his debt, a cooperative effort with some NATO allies, a Republican opposition unwilling to really challenge him on this, a novel interpretation of the word "hostilities" in the War Powers Act. What's not to like from the re-election perspective?   Keep your eyes on the prize.

Israel/Palestine? Netanyahu has been a thorn is Obama's side--it would've been politically useful to claim progress resolving the conflict--but worry not. The President need not even reign in the Palestinians most days; large bipartisan majorities in Congress do it for him. Beyond the issue of illegal settlements, Obama's loyalty to the Israeli Right appears boundless. His State Department virtually invited Netanyahu to commit piracy against Gaza Flotilla 2, opposes United Nations approval of Palestinian independence, and otherwise protects the Israeli government from the application of international law. What's all this really about? Zionist campaign contributions. And it appears the President is already on pace to break the records he set in 2008.

Push the corporate domination schemes also known as "free trade agreements?" Check. Unprecedented persecution of whistleblowers ("worse than Nixon" thinks John Dean)? Check. Appoint safe, establishment types as cabinet secretaries. Check. Another general to helm the CIA? Check. A new Defense chief who thinks the US is in Iraq because of 9/11? It wasn't easy, but Obama found one of those too. 

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Steve Breyman teaches peace, environmental and media studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Inside the Fanciful World of Stratfor: Robert D. Kaplan's Geopolitical Bunkum

Gay Marriage and History

Explaining Obama: It's the Re-election, Stupid

The Return of Debtors' Prisons

The Real Conservative in the Race: How a Republican Wins in 2012

Illegal Immigration and Other Criminality

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
10 people are discussing this page, with 10 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
I agree with you Mr. Breyman, on this subject matt... by John Shriver on Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:17:58 PM
I agree the highest priority for any politician is... by Robert S. Becker on Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:53:40 PM
As long as war criminals are elected to office, ju... by Mike Preston on Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:13:54 PM
You can ignore your base with impunity--where wil... by Vernon Huffman on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:58:21 PM
    Unfortunately, this makes perfe... by Dixie Dellinger on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:26:37 PM
Finally, someone who gets it.  Much of the Pr... by Maxwell on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:04:32 PM
The need to get reelected does not explain Obama's... by Perry Logan on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:37:30 PM
that is if he expects to get reelected doing what ... by Michael Shaw on Thursday, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:42:46 AM
may not be enough. It certainly wasn't enough to h... by John Sanchez Jr. on Thursday, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:05:22 AM
,Perhaps soon we won't need elections at all, sinc... by Marika on Thursday, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:38:22 AM