Barack Obama's not so good year

Despite historic successes—notably health reform—his popularity plummeted. Can the ‘great communicator’ fight his way back?

by Luiza Ch. Savage on Monday, December 6, 2010 9:20am - 8 Comments
Everyone's a critic

Jim Young/Reuters

It was the best of times, and the worst. Barack Obama did what Democratic presidents have been trying and failing to do since Harry Truman: deliver the policy Holy Grail of health reform that will extend insurance coverage to most of the millions of Americans who don’t have it. No longer will Americans lose their coverage if they get sick, or go without it on account of a pre-existing medical condition, to name just a few changes the new law introduces. When Obama signed the bill into law on March 23, he used 22 different pens so they could be handed out as historic souvenirs and archived for posterity. “Today we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations,” he declared. An open microphone caught Vice President Joe Biden summing the occasion up more succinctly, as he turned to the President and said, “This is a big f–king deal.”

Obama had other successes: getting Congress to pass financial reform legislation to protect credit card users and people seeking mortgages, and to oversee risk in the financial system and prevent another collapse. He successfully confirmed his solicitor general, Elena Kagan, to be a Supreme Court justice, giving the nation’s highest judicial body three sitting women judges for the first time in history. He pushed through an overhaul and expansion of federal student loans.

But his health-care reforms passed the Democratic-controlled Congress without a single Republican vote. Republicans tarred the legislation as yet another big government power grab by the Obama administration—and their version of events seems to have stuck. Coming soon after the bailouts of Wall Street, the government takeover of GM, and interventions in the mortgage markets, the health-care debate helped fan the flames that led the Tea Party movement to boil over, helping the Republicans regain power in the House of Representatives.

As early as January there were clues that the political landscape had shifted beneath Obama’s feet.  Republican Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts for the Senate seat long held by the late liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Elsewhere, Republican primary voters turfed establishment Republican candidates, including in some cases sitting lawmakers, in favour of more conservative candidates backed by Tea Party groups and Sarah Palin.

The battered U.S. economy began to turn around in the spring, but for the rest of the year growth was so anemic that to most Americans, suffering under nearly 10 per cent unemployment rates, it still felt like the Great Recession. The White House argued it saved or created three million jobs, but it barely registered with the public.

Obama also disappointed his own supporters on more than one front. He failed to carry out campaign promises like closing the detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; dropping the ban on gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military; reforming America’s immigration system; or passing climate change legislation. Comedian Jon Stewart, an ostensibly friendly party, told Obama that the “audacity” of his campaign promises had given way to the “timidity” of his government.

Obama’s approval ratings reached a new low of 41 per cent over the summer. The Nov. 2 elections were in Obama’s own words a “shellacking.” Republicans gained at least 63 seats in the House, enough to give them control. In the Senate, they took six seats, leaving the Democrats barely clinging to a majority.

Internationally, Obama’s superstardom waned as well. It’s almost hard to remember that only a year earlier Obama was bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize. This year, he ran into criticism for Washington’s large deficits and the Federal Reserve’s decision to print money to keep interest rates low. On his trip to Asia, Obama had aimed to rally international opposition to China’s currency policy. Instead, he met criticisms that America’s cheap money policy threatened to create financial bubbles abroad. In Lisbon for a NATO meeting in November, he was criticized for driving around in a diesel-fuelled monster limousine while other leaders travelled in electric cars. After the election, Obama took to arguing that his was a communication problem: he had not made the case well enough that the big-government moves were emergency responses to emergency situations—which arose under his predecessor. Indeed, even after financial institutions paid back more than half the money borrowed from taxpayers in the financial bailout, only 16 per cent of Americans were aware of this, according to a Pew poll. Historians will debate whether his problems were in communicating, or whether he had overreached by pushing policies that were simply too liberal for the country—or if he did as well as anyone could have, given the mess he inherited.

As Obama heads into the second half of his term, he faces an even greater quagmire in the Senate and an obstructionist House whose Democratic caucus will still be led by Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal not known for compromise. All signs point toward two years of political gridlock, Republican-led investigations into his administration, and lingering economic misery.

Amid post-election murmurings that Obama is destined to be a one-term president, Republican presidential-wannabes are suiting up for battle. As the year 2011 begins, Mr. President, welcome to 2012.

Bookmark and Share
  • hsr0601

    ** How do you pay for tax cuts for the wealthy ?
     
    1. First attempt : threatening Social Security and Medicare Cut through the deficit panel.
     
    2. Second attempt : holding the desperate Hostage, say, the Ransom.
    How long will it take for Obama to learn that we think compromise is a synonym for unconditional surrender, or another Bush-era?
     
    ** The deal based on the outright lies and supportive Dead Media will lead to another Bush-era & irreversible RECESSION.
     

  • klem

    "It’s almost hard to remember that only a year earlier Obama was bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize. "

    It's still hard to believe. He was engaged in two wars and he won the Nobel Prize for Peace? Unbelievable. The year before, Al Gore won it for his propaganda film. What has happened to the Nobel Peace Prize? It used to be so well respected, now it's the target of jokes.

    • cbombast

      Guess it's just hard to find any world leader working towards the cause of peace. They might as well cancel the category.

  • maureen1955

    I see that Maclean's is still drinking the kool-aid – Obama never was a great communicator – he used social media well, but his message (such as it is) is unclear, hesitant, and serves only himself so that he never has to be held accountable.

    His partisan approach to governing is the complete opposite of his campaign; his health care reform is rapidly being shown up for what is it – more government control and favours to his supporters (mainly unions who have received a huge number of waivers).

    As a US President he seems to have a particular hate on for America – I guess Americans just don't understand how great he is!!!

    • cbombast

      Speaking of kool-aid, how is that Fox News flavour you've clearly been gulping down?

  • madeyoulook

    Despite historic successes—notably health reform—his popularity plummeted. Can the ‘great communicator’ fight his way back?

    That health care legislation, that no one (wanted to) actually read before voting on it, and that is designed to so cripple the public treasury AND existing health care plans (that even the unions that heaved and ho'd so much for it are now lining up for all sorts of exemptions), is an historic SUCCESS???!!!??? Egads, what were his failures?

  • hosertohoosier

    Obama's health reform is hardly "historic" – something neither the right nor the left seem willing to accept. Obama reallocated resources from old people to poor people (health care reform was paired with cuts elsewhere). The CBO estimates that the impact on employer-based market is essentially nil. There isn't a lot of innovation in the bill (buying pools are a nice idea, but we are talking about change at the margins there).

    The central issue facing American healthcare is high costs – something the bill will not have a large impact on either way. By costs I don't mean the costs that individuals pay, by the way. I mean that the cost of any given operation is sometimes many multiples higher in the US than anywhere else – a difference that cannot be explained by quality. Whether the government or individuals or employers pick up that tab, its a problem (this is why the public-private debate is tangential).

    The problems in the American system are many, but the real issue is employer-based coverage. Employer-based coverage is an outdated system wherein the government subsidizes employers to offer health coverage to employees. This has many perverse effects:

    1. People accept suboptimal jobs in order to have health insurance
    2. The healthcare market primarily serves the interests of insurers, not individuals (hence premiums are low and copays/deductibles are high). Actual consumers don't matter.
    3. Hiring new workers poses an additional burden on employers

    The only advantage of this system is economies of scale, and that can be accomplished with buying pools anyway.

    Either a public system, or a market system (eg. healthcare savings accounts) would represent an improvement over the status quo. Of course even if Obama's reforms were revolutionary, they don't kick in till 2016, at which point he will be ending his second term.

  • hosertohoosier

    When people suggest that Obama's approval numbers are weak, they need to consider the context:
    -unemployment is 9.8%
    -healthcare reform was massively unpopular
    -the US is fighting a losing war in Afghanistan

    By 2012, there should be an economic recovery underway, while healthcare reform will be less salient (and its main provisions don't kick in till 2016). Moreover, the loss of the house will give Obama some advantages. Firstly, it will push him to the centre if he wants to get anything done. His recent tax cut announcement suggests that he is willing to be flexible in that regard. Secondly, it will give Obama plausible deniability. While his "party of no" act was a pretty sad affair, from a party controlling congress and the presidency with a massive majority, such messages will be more credible moving forward.

    Finally, the intense ire that Obama inspires in Republicans will aid more extreme (and less electable) candidates come next election. So for better or for worse, Obama is here to stay.

From Macleans