Never before in American history have we witnessed such a meteoric rise of a relatively unknown state senator to the highest office in the land, followed by an equally spectacular fall from grace. President Barack Obama swept into power on the heels of a revolutionary campaign in 2008 with a highly-energized coalition of blacks, Hispanics, women, young voters and independents. Two years later, the hapless leader faces a surge of discontent, culminating in an historic mid-term election. The Republican Party, in disarray in 2008, is on a renewed mission. It is now buoyed by Tea Party activists who have demanded a return to core GOP principles. Ironically, the liberal president’s most striking achievement since he took office is that he revived the Republican corpse.
His presidency has been marked by an unprecedented backlash of discontent, manifest in Tea Party protests across the nation since February 2009. How did Mr. Obama go from a staggering 68 percent approval rating when he assumed office in January to a dismal recent low, according to Gallup, of 42 percent favorability? Let us count the ways.
Mr. Obama’s gravest error was that he forgot his own brilliant recipe for success. He defeated his arch-rival in the primaries, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, by appearing to be an innovative Democrat who would forge a new governing coalition based on bipartisan consensus. Yet, when he came to power he abandoned his centrist appeal in favor of a radical agenda. In addition, during the general election campaign, he was adept at building coalitions. By contrast, as president, he shattered his own Democratic power base by failing to marry specific policy initiatives to the needs and wants of specific constituents.
The president failed to see that greatness is forged in patient, practical loyalty via meticulous legislation that directly benefits those who have asked you to serve them. Mr. Obama thus governed in the abstract—without catering his legislation to his base of support. He cast grandiose visions for his administration and got lost in the clouds he made; he was swept away in the very dreams he spun.
Each of the president’s policy initiatives failed to please the individuals it was meant to serve. His stimulus bill added greatly to the national debt without reducing the unemployment rate. The president squandered political capital for a policy that jeopardized the Blue Dog Democrats in conservative districts. In a similar fashion, his healthcare overhaul—apart from the unseemly manner in which it was forged—also failed to win over a loyal cadre. The cost, cumbersomeness and confusion outweigh the benefits the bill ostensibly bestows.
The same is true of the financial reform bill that has not brought any tangible benefit to the average American. It succeeded, however, in convincing Wall Street that the president is anti-business, further dampening any hopes of a speedy economic recovery. His mortgage assistance plan also fell flat: only those homeowners who desperately need help can qualify; yet, those borrowers are in such dire straits that even a short-term reduction in their mortgage payments cannot save their homes. The average American was thus angered by the principle of rewarding failure, while nonetheless noting that his own property values were still at historic lows.
The president’s entire economic agenda has been counterproductive. In each of these instances, more Americans were outraged by the president’s policies than there were Americans who received benefits. This is good politics in reverse.
Moreover, his social agenda was perceived as lackluster by his base—too timid to satisfy liberals, but provocative enough to upset and galvanize mainstream America. For example, the gay and lesbian community repeatedly protested that the president has not yet fulfilled his campaign pledge to repeal the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bans gays from serving openly in the armed forces. The possible repeal is still under review. Another key constituency, Hispanics, is also dissatisfied with Mr. Obama for he has not yet provided amnesty for illegal immigrants. At the same time, the majority of Americans are angry that the Obama administration sued the state of Arizona for legislation that was tantamount to enforcing America’s federal immigration laws in that state.
The president’s approach to foreign affairs was equally rootless. Mr. Obama sought to recast relations with the Islamic world with a June 2009 Cairo speech in which he apologized for past American misdeeds. Yet, he subsequently increased by 30,000 the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, the radical Muslims at home and abroad continue to seethe. The moderate American Muslims who are socially conservative and who abandoned the GOP in outrage at President George W.Bush’s war policies are still not mollified by Mr. Obama’s deeds. So to whom does his foreign policy appeal?
The president alienated his anti-war supporters by providing additional troops for Afghanistan and he simultaneously outraged and energized conservatives by establishing a firm withdrawal date. Similarly, liberals are incensed that Guantanamo remains open—and conservatives and independents boil at the prospect of civilian trials for terrorist masterminds like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Apart from the grievous international ramifications of his decisions, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy does not have a domestic base of support.
In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama declared that his aspiration was to be “a transformational president.” Yet he has demonstrated that he cannot govern. Perhaps this is because he has his eyes cast on the history books: “Obama appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court, Justice Sonya Sotomayor”; “Obama changed America’s financial rules”; “Obama reshaped American-Muslim relations”—these are the inspirational headlines he envisions reading. This looks good on paper—grand and magnificent.
In reality, however, these projects do not build a lasting electoral coalition. By contrast to the narrative that he hopes to read, his presidency will be remembered as a tale of ambition gone awry. How did a silver-tongued young leader transform such spectacular victory into equally dramatic defeat? His legacy is akin to a figure in Greek tragedy: A potentially great man is rendered low because he cannot distinguish dreams from reality.
-Dr. Grace Vuoto is the Executive Director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.
