It is no cliché to note that while all presidents ardently desire second terms, they are more often a curse than a blessing. Most of those who have been elected twice in the last century have seen their presidencies run aground for various reasons. George W. Bush had Katrina and the Iraq quagmire. Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. Ronald Reagan had Iran Contra. Richard Nixon had Watergate. Lyndon Johnson had Vietnam. Amid the pomp and hope of new beginnings of a second inauguration day always lurk the threat of unseen or dimly understood disasters that sink presidents who leave the presidency as wounded lame ducks worn down by the cares of office. That’s the challenge facing Barack Obama after being sworn in today for another four years in office.
The president’s opponents can comfort themselves after their shocking defeat last November with the thought that he will inevitably be capsized by the usual second term nightmares that have brought down his predecessors. But that is an assumption, not an argument. Throughout his career Obama has often defied the laws of political gravity and it is by no means impossible that he should do so again. If the economy actually begins a recovery or he is able to pass some kind of immigration reform or a gun control package and begin the process of reforming entitlements while avoiding foreign disasters, Obama could be that rare species of president who does not spend his second term explaining failures or scandals. That’s a tall order, but amid clear signs of future disaster, the president does have some factors that would argue in favor of his success.
The first of these is the power of his personality as well as the historic significance of his presidency. Republicans spent the first four years of the Obama administration underestimating the president’s personal appeal. Part of it is a likeability factor that still puzzles conservatives (including this writer). But they also forget that most Americans, including many of those who disagree with Obama’s policies, take pride in the idea that we have finally elected an African-American president and are wary of any attempt to treat him with the usual disdain that is accorded our chief executives. That the mainstream media has been more in his pocket than any president since John F. Kennedy is inarguable. The fact that this president has always been graded on a curve may frustrate his opponents but it can’t be ignored when assessing his prospects. No matter what happens in these next 48 months, the willingness of most Americans to think well of him is going to weigh in his favor.
Also to his advantage is the ruthlessly partisan approach he has taken to governance. Barack Obama may have entered the White House talking about being a post-partisan president but he has governed in a completely different manner. He is an outlier among our presidents when it comes to working his the opposition in that his goal has always appeared to be the demonization and marginalization of his Republican opponents. Few presidents have been as uninterested in bipartisan cooperation to pass legislation as he has been.
That has made it difficult for him to get anything from Congress after losing control of the House in the 2010 midterms in the backlash against ObamaCare and the stimulus boondoggle. But the zero-sum game he has embraced is well suited to the objective of portraying his foes as extremists with the assistance of his media cheerleaders. Though his demands for higher taxes are every bit as ideological in nature as the Tea Party’s opposition, only one side has been portrayed as outside the mainstream–and it isn’t Obama’s. The conversion of his re-election campaign apparatus into a permanent political operation whose purpose will be to attack Republicans during the next four years is a sign of the seriousness of purpose that Obama is demonstrating about winning political battles in the coming months and years. Though some of his predecessors were exhausted about the constant struggle or lost their taste for political combat after several years in office, no one should expect that to happen in the Obama White House.
Another plus for Obama is the current weakness and division among the ranks of Republicans. The House GOP has decided to put off another confrontation over the budget for a month, but unless they work together they will wind up being bested again, just as they were in 2011 in the first debt ceiling crisis and this past month over the fiscal cliff.
Of course, there are also good reasons to believe that the president will not skate through another four years unscathed by the burdens of office.
Second terms are usually a ripe environment for scandal and that factor is something that could bite the president if and when prosecutors unravel the case about security leaks from White House or other cases that have yet to get much publicity. But anyone that expects this administration to play by the rules and surrender meekly to a special prosecutor the way most others have hasn’t been paying attention the last four years.
This president is dependant on factors that neither he nor his opponents can control. The economy is the chief variable and should it go down rather than up in the next two years, then that is something that no amount of charm, media bias or historical significance can control. President Obama was fortunate that a bad economy did not sink further during his re-election year but in the coming months, as ObamaCare is about to be implemented, the effect of his signature legislative achievement could undermine any hopes for a stronger recovery.
Also looming over any presidency is the chance that foreign affairs will torpedo a second term. Objective historians will probably see his time in office as one during which U.S. influence in the world fell to new lows as he dozed while the Arab Spring turned longtime allies into Islamist strongholds. The looming conflict with Iran is just one possibility for disaster, but it is also one that Obama has courted during his first term as he wasted years on a foolish attempt to engage the ayatollahs and then feckless diplomacy that allowed Tehran to get closer to its goal of a nuclear weapon. The odds are that sometime during his second term he will be faced with the choice of allowing Iran to go nuclear or using force to stop it. The longer he waits, the higher the risks are that any intervention will be too late or too costly.
Yet above all, Obama will be, as any president is, a hostage to fortune. Napoleon used to ask if his officers were lucky before they received promotion. Though some may deny the existence of luck, Barack Obama is a man who has been fortune’s favorite throughout his career. Had an opponent’s messy divorce not become public, it is unlikely he would have ever been elected to the Senate. He was fortunate in facing two Republican opponents for the presidency who were both poor candidates, even if they were both good men. A hurricane hit the country at exactly the right moment to give his re-election a boost, and at a time when both the press and at least one self-interested Republican was more interested in letting him play commander-in-chief during a crisis than analyzing the failures of the government to help many Americans.
It may seem superficial to put all this down to luck, and there are other explanations for Barack Obama’s rise and re-election. There are many reasons why his ideological rigidity will undermine his second term or why his shortsighted approach to foreign affairs should lead to predictable disasters. It is more than likely that four years from now this country will be closer to insolvency with a weak economy and a worsened security situation abroad. But this is a president who has always gotten a pass from much of the media and much of the public for his mistakes and misjudgments. Anyone who bets that this will change in the next four years shouldn’t mortgage the house on the result.
I sincerely think that President Obama could roast and eat live puppies on the White House lawn and somehow the MSM would find a way to ignore it. n nA caller to the Rush Limbaugh show put it very well the other day. She said that to many people Ben Ghazi is the guy in Libya who killed our Ambassador. n nAnd to most Americans "Fast & Furious" is still a series of silly movies about cars. n nThis is the media that has brought us "funemployment" "the new normal" and a thousand other excuses and deflections for Barack Obama's failings. n nIf the MSM had their way, Obama would miraculously ascend to the side of Mount Rushmore at the end of the next four years. The only thing the rest of us can hope for is that he decamps to Hawaii and doesn't have a spend a long retirement hectoring us bitter clingers.
The reason most of the Obama "scandals" haven't caught traction is that they're not scandals. A scandal involves corruption. It is not just any mistake. The only one of the cases that conceivably involved corruption was Solyndra, and even that was borderline. n nConservatives need to find themselves a better scandal, or better yet, give up the fishing expeditions. This guy is pretty clean. n nI always enjoy pointing out that the Benghazi scandal-mongers have achieved one very interesting thing. A decade after 9/11, they have finally brought significant numbers of right-wingers into the ranks of the "9/11 Truthers"! n nTobin, you misspelled "dependent." n nOne last thing. The suggestion that Obama's success results from some sort of national-level affirmative action is a canard. It is about as legitimate as claiming that a particular person has lots of influence because he or she is Jewish. If you accept the one statement as legitimate discourse, you must accept them both — along with, probably, a lot of other stuff. I suggest you don't go there, Tobin.
"…The suggestion that Obama's success results from some sort of national-level affirmative action…is about as legitimate as claiming that a particular person has lots of influence because he or she is Jewish…." n nDoes anybody but the self-described "patriot" who authored it find logic or reason in the above statement? In fact, Obama is an affirmative action baby with a great deal of luck and superficial charm who has been skating all his life. n n"BillPatriot is not only a dishonest, anti-Semitic troll, he is all that with a low IQ. n n
"A scandal involves corruption" – and it's only corrupt if BillPatriot says so, apparently. Fast and Furious – no corruption? The GM bailout – no corruption? And Solyndra was only one example of "green" corruption. You sound like George Plunkitt splitting hairs between "honest" and "dishonest" graft. nAs for "the suggestion that Obama's success results from some sort of national-level affirmative action is a canard", equivalent to anti-Semitic rantings, you're quite simply wrong. It all depends on circumstances, doesn't it? Unless you deny that affirmative action EVER influences outcomes, but do really want to go there? Doesn't it strike you as odd how frequently Obama's supporters have resorted to the "opponent as racist" canard over the past 5 or so years, going back to their 2008 primary attacks on the First Black President himself? It would appear, Mr. Patriot, that Obama and his minions appreciate the role his skin color has played in his political success. They are quick to remind voters of it, after all. nAnd if I have misspelled any words, my apologies.
Conservatives don't need a scandal. With the sycophantic MSM to ignore or whitewash any would-be scandal, there is no point trying. What conservatives need to do is to let Obama and the Democrats be what they are and do what they want. The results are going to be disastrous anyway: may as well use the next two years to "educate" the public as to the folly of their November choices. You thought that a marginal tax increase on 'the rich' was all they wanted? Hah! Wait until you see a Democrat budget. n nReality and arithmetic will make the conservative case, and unfortunately, there are few conservative politicians who are capable. Sorry, but we're in for a rough ride and there is not much to be done for it. With any luck, the Fed's actions will come home to roost while Obama is still in office. With his luck, however, he'll be on the $1M lecture / golf circuit when the next implosion comes. n nAnd as to Obama and affirmative action: maybe we can withhold judgment until we see his college transcripts and test scores?
Sad, but true, the LSM doesn't care about the truth.
maybe I was not hearing accurately (because I almost fell out of my chair), when Meet the Press's panel today seemed to blame Obama for abandoning Mubarak as the main reason why Syria, Libya, Mali, etc are in near chaos. nand no one blamed Likud. nIt's a start. Plus, Ted Cruz sure had Chuck Schumer on the defensive. n nNow, if only the GOP can comprehend that Obama is the reaction to eight years of Bush43. nSTOP focussing on "entitlements". Medicare has been broken since 2007 – I basically have now lost all my doctors since then, and all hope. n nJOBS & FRACKING are the only two issues that count.
Chucky Smucky Schumer is a disgrace and a Ted Cruz is a heavy Weight.
In understanding the appeal of President Obama, I find it helpful to consider the OJ Simpson case that riveted so much attention in 1994 and 1995. Black Americans were solidly united in their belief that O.J. was either innocent or that the need to prove his guilt weighed much lighter than the need to have him as a symbol of resistance to an oppressive white power structure. n nIt is much the same with President Obama, except with Obama, the appeal extends farther into many segments of the non-minority population. For scores of millions of Americans–perhaps the majority of all Americans–he is a symbolic figure, and the concrete results of his policies matter relatively little, as long as he maintains the aura that he has spent most of his political life cultivating. n nIt is possible–and I think likely–that the next four years could see a catastrophic economic shock in terms of rapid inflation and staggering unemployment. Imagine we found the economic equivalent of two dead mutilated bodies and blood all over the White House steps, with clear and abundant evidence that President Obama had perpetrated the act. Note well, there would be no such clear evidence, but what if there was? n nI believe the majority of Americans would vote to acquit. We are dealing not with straightforward facts but with issues of image, memory, and identity, which are far more powerful, at least in the short run. Conservatives had better acknowledge this and think hard and deep about how to proceed, given the reality that currently exists.
Obama is black and race guilt pervades our country. He may have well won the recent election because too may voters were not going to vote against a black man. This provides him with a huge advantage. Conservatives can no longer consider politics as a minor part of their life. They must place it near the top of their priorities.
Spot on with those first 3 statements. The innumerable and ongoing examples provided by the "unbiased" MSM provide undeniable evidence to anyone who maintains the slightest shred of objectivity.
We live in a post-results nation now. Whatever Obama achieves or does not, his flying monkey minions have already compiled the Bible of His Genius. Outcomes no longer matter. All that remains is whether he passes an executive order to do away with term limits or there is a 'spontaneous populist upwelling' to allow him to rule without any more elections at all.
There is another possibility — that a majority of Americans want a European Social Democrat-type government, and that Obama is delivering it.
Sad to say, a majority of Americans don't know what they really want. Obama leads successfully from behind because their behinds is what most Americans think with.
These naive people do not realize that a successful Obama administration will result in a more authoritarian government—maybe even a totalitarian one. Our freedoms are subtly disappearing.
I know a number of people who escaped to the US from what was then the USSR. Every one of thm thinks that Obama and his plans are a huge danger for the US.
Millions come to America to get away from socialism, dictatorships and chaos to participate in the unique opportunities in America. n nIs it not ironic that these immigrant minorities are the same people who vote for Obama whose agenda is to destroy this American exceptionalism and turn this country also into an economic and social disaster. n nSome may want a European Social Democrat type government, but who know what 'they' will get. The American people do not have the history of class seperation and ethnic similarity that Europeans do. The American character is much more individual.
What? Everyone I know from the FSU was strongly against Obama, precisely because they see what his supposedly humanitarian programs lead to — economic misery and political authoritarianism.
Obama's luck is to a very large degree a result of two things; one is a pervasive "narrative" in the MSM that America is still a racist society that needs to atone with measures both extraordinary and well in excess of whatever alleged ills are still afflicting minorities, particularly blacks; and two MSM exacerbated class warfare and the sense of grievance the unsuccessful are supposed to have against those who are successful in American social arrangement. nObama has very skilfully positioned himself, not just as a champion of the bottom-feeders, but as an implacable enemy, a hater, of those who are successful, no matter in what small measure, from the "one percenters", to suburbanites, to the small business owners who "didn't build that", to ultra liberal haters of American way of life.
Obama had the incredible luck to run for a second term pretty much unopposed. as the Republican Party was bereft of any sane candidate other than Romney, who was without appeal to the Evangelical Christians, Know-Nothings, rednecks and most of the rest of the Republican base.
" …he wasted years on a foolish attempt to engage the ayatollahs and then feckless diplomacy that allowed Tehran to get closer to its goal of a nuclear weapon…." n nThe coming months will determine whether the diplomacy was feckless or not. I'm sure that we all hope diplomacy succeeds and military action is avoided.
We already know that iran is now much more dangerous. The historical record regarding appeasement policies clearly shows they usually embolden the wicked.
no, David, we do NOT know Iran to be more dangerous…. in fact, it's far less dangerous.. it's military remains unable to project power and the US has used diplomacy to isolate an Iran that was greatly strengthened diplomatically by the disastrous US invasion of Iraq. US diplomacy has led to the rapidly-approaching collapse of the Iranian economy. n nyour comment is not at all a good one.
no, idubinsky, in fact Iran is more dangerous today, because it's almost got the bomb. and as soon as Iran is capable of firing a nuclear weapon, the entire calculus of the world changes. sanctions and other silliness won't mean a thing. and it's all going to happen under Obama. n
iran is not a single bit stronger "because it's almost got the bomb. " Nuclear weapons aren't hand grenades or horseshoes…. and almost doesn't count. n nin the last few years, the US and EU and the UN and IAEA have exposed Iran's weapon development program and the regimes's lies about it. n nIran is still a year or two away from a bomb that it can deliver in any way other than UPS, and if Iran tries to actually assemble any bombs Iran will become VERY significantly weaker… and the world won't much give a fig when the places in Iran housing the effort start to get bombed.
"…as soon as Iran is capable of firing a nuclear weapon…." n nIran does not have a nuclear weapon to fire, and Obama has stated that the US will not allow Iran to get one. All the rest is fortune-telling. Anyone can play, but I won't.
"…and Obama has stated that the US will not allow Iran to get one." Thanks, HillelA – now I can rest comfortably. Somehow I'd missed that statement. Hey – are there any other promises that Obama has made, say, perhaps, regarding getting to the bottom of the whole Benghazi speed bump? nSo Obama has promised to keep us safe from the nasty mullahs – wait until I tell my friends, HillelA. They'll be so relieved! nGood grief.
how do you know, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon? n n
HillelA – make your way over to Foreign Affairs and read Jervis's piece on why Obama's bloviating is so hard to take seriously. Might open even your eyes to the difficulty of the task.
I want answer to fast and furious and Benghazi.
Obama lied, people died; in both places. Hope that answers it.