Living in Reality Has Never Been a Better Strategy

For all the hub-bub in the news about Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, emphasis has decidedly focused on what he will accomplish during this artificial timeframe. As things ramp up, my interest has been on his policy stances more than on silly "accomplishments" after only a few months in office.

One of the best attributes of the newly-elected president during the campaign was his talent for mixing an idealistic message that appeals to hundreds of millions (70%) with pragmatic, down-to-earth policy stances (30%). What I hoped for when he became president, and indeed partially gambled on, was not only a change from Bush-era exclusionary, Bible-thumping, often hypocritical conservative dogma, but a change in Obama himself: once elected, Obama would be a president that represents everyone, not just the often self-righteous, Apple-product brandishing, over-educated members of the perpetually dissatisfied left. In effect, this meant switching his approach: 70% reality-based messages to 30% idealistic. This first inkling of this switch in tactic was display when he was elected back in November, during his acceptance speech. Indeed, my decision to support Obama was a carefully calculated guess: Obama would, after becoming president, adopt a much less radical change from George Bush as he might have alluded to during his campaign, to the excellent chagrin of many of his supporters. So far, my calculation appears to have been correct. 

A good rule of thumb in politics is that if most people love you, you are probably not crafting very good policy. Mr. Obama, for one, is quickly departing the hysteria and love of so many and getting down to business, in which good policy always ruffles feathers of all stripes. Indeed he left many, many loopholes in speeches throughout his campaign that gave him wiggle-room to steer legitimate policies more towards reality should he become president. Indeed, each day Obama has wiggled more to the center on issues, due to the realities of public policymaking, I have to grin, because that means each modified policy stance upsets many of his most adamant left wing supporters. This is a good thing, because the left, for all its education, doesn’t and will never have a monopoly on what characterizes fair and good government. 

The first example of this shift was the most satisfying by far: before becoming president, Obama had said he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center as one of his first priorities in office. I remember watching, for example, ecstatic utterances from members of the ACLU proclaiming how wonderful it would be for it to be shut down immediately when Obama became president. “He has to!” proclaimed one on the Colbert Report. Once elected, however, Obama heavily modified what appeared to be his policy during the campaign, to shut down the detention center within a year. If you know anything about the clowns who work for the ACLU, they were none too pleased. This was great for me. It meant not only that Obama realized the danger posed by releasing the detainees willy-nilly, but it meant that it would upset so many on the left who just can’t get it: the detainees are dangerous, and there's really no good way of dealing with them without critically exposing the US and its allies to attacks. For me Obama passed Test #1, because you know Obama's done something right when he pissing off his own supporters. Just this week, he made another swing to the middle on detainees held at an American base in Afghanistan. Without much room for interpretation, the US Department of Justice stated in a document filed in federal court in Washington, “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated [Bush administration] position.” 

Another example confirming my election-year speculation involves a pet subject of mine: China. Let’s put it out there: I’m not the biggest fan of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but I’m prepared to give her a chance. Headlines yesterday discussed apparent shock by some about her remarks during her meeting with Chinese leaders in Beijing: 

“Amnesty International USA said Friday that they are ‘shocked and extremely disappointed’ by comments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that human rights would not be at the top of the agenda during her current visit to China,  reported US Today.” It might’ve been funnier if Amnesty was “shocked and awed” by her comments. 

Why is this a good move for Clinton and Obama? Two things: for one, another instance where the Obama administration is pissing off some of its less-than-mainstream supporters is a good sign of a healthy, balanced foreign policy that promotes US interests first. After, this is the point of every government’s foreign policy. Secondly, it shows maturity and an embrace of reality when it comes to dealing with China. Pissing off China right off the bat (as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner did) at a time when China is the main benefactor for our off-the-charts deficit spending, is a stupid idea. $787B doesn’t just fall out of the sky! Obama has also considered another dose of the real world: improving human rights in China, while certainly a goal we cannot ignore, isn’t a strategy for battling the growing recession, which is most people’s (and Obama’s) first priority. For leveraging human rights in China, what might have been a stick before, is now more like a twig. The carrot, equally, is more like a baby carrot you get in those bags at the grocery store. This situation is of course, dynamic, but like most strategies, timing is everything. 

So my mood for the time being is positive. While Obama is surely more left-of-center than I would like, he is showing maturity, pragmatism, and a respect for the best ideas available, not predefined notions harbored by many on the right or the left. The Republicans in Congress could learn a thing or two from him. Sadly, after their disappointing displays and refusals to compromise over the stimulus package, they seem a lot like a kid who refuses to play the game because he doesn’t like his teammates. In life and in politics, that’s a recipe for failure if I’ve ever seen one.