On December 22nd, the New America Foundation convened a number of American essayists and policy experts for a panel discussion on President Obama’s first year as president. President of the New American Foundation, Steve Coll, acted as moderator while Adam Garfinkle, Editor of American Interest, gave the opening remarks.
Walter Russell Mead began the discussion by noting that American presidents have two conflicting roles: one, to maintain stability in the global community, and two, to lead the world in innovation. Mead declared that Obama’s ability to juggle these roles would define his presidency. Mead added that “the early signs are encouraging” but cautioned that it was simply too early to predict Obama’s success or failure.
G. John Ikenberry characterized Obama as a moderate internationalist whose actions reflected both liberal and realist influences. He identified Obama’s grand strategy as “building frameworks of sustained partnerships and collective action on many fronts.” Obama heads a growing movement towards security interdependence. What Obama must do now, Ikenberry emphasized, is adapt America’s hegemonic position to current world politics.
Richard Perle expressed his supreme impatience with Obama’s administration. Obama, espousing generosity and goodwill towards allies and enemies alike, has failed to produce hard results for the American people. In an effort to reverse the “psychology” of the Bush administration, Obama has treated adversaries and allies with unreasonable deference and humiliated America at every turn. A continuation of Obama’s overly diplomatic overtures, Perle warned, will only weaken the nation.
Stephen Krasner stated that Obama in his first year created changes in atmosphere but not in substance. This is perhaps forgivable: Krasner typified many of the president’s problems as being unsolvable, easily able to destroy his presidency but unlikely to bolster it. However, Krasner predicted that Obama’s handling of Iran would either make or break the presidency.
Steve Clemons observed that for the last few years, the United States has shown significant limitations in its ability to wield economic, military, or moral power over the world. Obama’s primary challenge will be to persuade the world –and the nation– that America has the capacity to achieve its stated objectives. So far Obama has been unsuccessful in breaking the restrictions imposed upon America by both allies and adversaries. Clemons conceded, however, that Obama has changed the “optics” through which America is viewed.
Will Marshall focused on Obama’s performance in the domestic arena, asserting that domestic politics would determine Obama’s presidency. Marshall gave Obama credit for moving decisively on the economic crisis and in healthcare reformation. However, he found it disconcerting how much power the president ceded to Congress in formulating the government’s response to both crises. It is critical, Marshall emphasized, that the president take active part in creating a more fiscally responsible nation. Marshall ended on a speculative note, voicing the possibility of Obama, with his mixture of liberalism and conservatism, creating new political realignments in the American system.
Ronald Steel voiced an opinion that few could dispute: President Obama is an inspirational political leader more than capable at producing emotive responses. Steel then elaborated on this point, observing that thus far, Obama’s ability as a president has rested on the notion of promise, rather than on a clear policy plan. Obama, he asserted, must learn to be as tough and proactive as he is inspiring. Steel concluded his talk with a warning to Obama: “like beauty, charisma fades.”
-Kalie Pierce, Research Intern of the American Strategy Program
