The trajectory is familiarand predictable. A new president takes office, riding a wave of popularity and generating huge excitement. He promises to abandon what he characterizes as the failed policies of his predecessor, staking out a bold new course. Soon, though, the new leader is trapped by new and old problems that shake the faith of even some of his supporters. His approval ratings drop, and suddenly he looks less like a savior and more like just another politician.
Barack Obama is now experiencing all of this, but far more dramatically and quickly than is usually the case. His initial soaring popularity and the unrealistic set of expectations this produced, at home and abroad, meant that he had further to fall. And the normal disillusionment factor has been accelerated in this era of all-news-all-the-time on TV and the web. His approval rating in the United States dipped just below 50 per cent this monthlower than all of his recent predecessors at this stage of the game, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush.
So what does this say about his performance in 2009and what the world can expect from Obama in 2010? What does this say about the future of American leadership?
First, its important to note that, whatever the weaknesses of whoever occupies the White House, the world still looks to Washington for leadership on major issues. The European Union finally elected a president in 2009, but its choice of Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy left no doubt that most national leaders dont want a forceful politician in that position; they deliberately chose a low-profile, low-key, low-wattage politician who would threaten no one. China and India are certainly on the rise, but they are still a long way from playing the kind of role on the world stage that the U.S. still does.
Which is why Obamas performance and standing matters so much for everyone. An examination of his record in 2009 explains why his popularity slid so far in such a short time. Specifically, these issues have hurt him the most:
The economy looks a lot healthier than it did when Obama took office in the midst of the crisis, and the stock market has rebounded in a big way. But unemployment remains at about 10 per centa level many European countries have lived with for a long time, but this is twice the level most Americans are used to. Fairly or not, Obama is accused of helping Wall Street far more than Main Street, which is shorthand for ordinary Americans.
It now looks like the Democratic Congress will pass an ambitious health care reform plan, extending coverage to most of the uninsured. But the political cost has been high. Despite Obamas claims that this major overhaul of the system will lead to long-term savings, Republicans charge it will lead to astronomic new costs, adding to the present staggering $12 trillion national debt. Beyond the partisan debates, theres a growing sense that the U.S. has abandoned fiscal responsibilityand the fear that this will produce major shocks in the future.
On foreign policy, Obama risks pleasing no one. Critics charge that he has gone overboard in his attempts to prove that the Bush era of assertive leadership is over. Some examples: his deep bow to the Japanese Emperor Akihito, his refusal to meet the Dalai Lama before going to China, his reluctance to speak out in support of the popular protests in Iran. While key Republicans applauded his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, many Americansincluding a large number of Democratsare increasingly weary of that war.
The bad news for Obama is that he now owns all these problems: the economy, health care, the Afghanistan war and other key foreign policy flashpoints. He can no longer credibly blame what happens on his predecessor.
The good news is that his swift and brutal fall from grace has happened early enough that he has time to try to turn things around. Not too much time, however. In November 2010, he will face congressional elections. Its traditional for the party in power to lose seats in the mid-term elections, but a major loss would severely limit Obamas ability to keep pursuing his national and international agenda. And that scenario would make it more likely that Obama will face a serious challenge when he runs for re-election in 2012.
Now the young president needs to show results, not just send messages about how different he is as compared to Bush. One area he might be able to do that: U.S.-Russia relations. The famed reset in relations between Washington and Moscow has led to the revival of the arms control process. While negotiators failed to conclude a new nuclear arms control treaty before the end of the year, they will resume negotiations in January. Obama is hoping that an arms agreement would encourage greater support from Russia for tough sanctions on Iran. Tensions over that countrys defiant nuclear program are likely to escalate in the months ahead.
In the longer term, Obama needs to demonstrate that such gestures as his abandonment of the Bush Administrations plans for a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic can lead to a more cooperative relationship with Russia that would benefit everyone. A key test will be discussions about Cooperative Missile Defense, which are likely to include Poland, the Czech Republic and others in the regionalong with Russia. But that will require Russia to see NATO as a partner rather than a threat. At the moment, residual suspicions remain strong on both sides.
Another area of possible cooperation, not just with Russia but also with China and India, is cybersecurity. As the Pentagon revealed this month, Iraqi insurgents have managed to intercept videos from some American military drones. If military systems can be compromised, so can civilian computer systems that run everything from banks to transportation. Obama has pledged to make cybersecurity a top priority, and it is the kind of new cross-boundary issue that could bring key international players together rather than divide them.
Obamas ability to pursue that kind of long-term agenda is likely to depend on his handling of more immediate threats now. While announcing his Afghanistan surge, he also declared that he would begin withdrawing U.S. troops in eighteen months. That was meant to signal the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai that he has a limited time to crack down on corruption and win popular support for Afghanization of the war. But skeptics charge that it may encourage the Taliban in the belief that they only need to survive the current U.S.-led offensive and then can return in force once the withdrawals begin.
Obamas other key vulnerability in 2010 may be right at home. His administrations decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attack, and four other alleged terrorists in a civilian court in Manhattan, right next to where the World Trade Center once stood, is immensely unpopular.
Attorney General Eric Holder could offer no coherent explanation why these particular Guantanamo prisoners shouldnt be tried by military tribunals as many of the others are likely to be. Instead, New York will have to grapple with huge new security risks and Mohammed is certain to try to turn the trial into a propaganda exercise for the terrorist cause. Its no exaggeration to say that the way these trials play out could make or break Obamas chances for re-election.
Finally, never overlook the unexpected. Some crisisat home or abroadis likely to catch Washington by surprise. That could prove to be a godsend or a disaster for the Obama team, depending on how well they handle it. But whatever happens, 2010 will be different in one fundamental way from 2009. No matter how many missteps Obama made this year, he was still largely measured by his rhetoric rather than by his performance. Thats true for any new president. But from here on in, he will be measured much more by his deeds and their consequences than by his words.
