On Sunday, Ariana Huffington and I shared a platform about transformative presidencies at a Truman Library forum in Kansas City. She drew an interesting contrast between the audacity of Obama's campaign and the caution of his domestic policy. Certainly, Obama's conciliatory approach has been notable. He has not followed FDR in throwing down the gauntlet before his domestic opponents by "welcoming their enmity." Whatever the effects on domestic policy -- and as usually, Arianna has a point -- I replied that his conciliatory approach has been a good approach on foreign policy.
Look what he inherited -- a global economic crisis, two difficult wars, erosion of the non-proliferation regime by North Korea and Iran, deterioration of the Middle East peace process, and the rising strength of China just for starters. Obama's dilemma was how to manage this sad inheritance while creating his own vision of how Americans should deal with the world.
He did that with his theme of "a new era of engagement with the world." Through a series of symbolic gestures and speeches (Prague, Cairo, Accra, the United Nations and others), Obama worked wonders in restoring American soft or attractive power in his first year of office. As a recent Pew poll reported, "in many countries opinions of the United States are now as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office."
Skeptics regard soft power as over-rated, but it is a mistake to discount the role that transformative leaders can play in changing the context of difficult issues. Power involves setting agendas and creating others' preferences as well as pushing and shoving. Soft power alone rarely solves hard problems. That is why the administration speaks of "smart power" that successfully combines hard and soft power resources in different contexts. But soft power can create an enabling rather than a disabling environment for policy. Diplomats report that Obama's success in brokering agreements at NATO and G-20 summits was assisted by his popularity.
When Obama came into office, his economic advisers told him there was one chance in three that we were on the brink of another depression. We have successfully avoided that, and Obama was able to help organize a surprising degree of international cooperation on economic issues. Unlike FDR, who torpedoed an international economic conference in 1933, and failed to halt the spread of "beggar they neighbor" policies that made the depression worse, Obama's soft power helped to promote international cooperation when it was vital. And there was a certain audacity of hope in that pursuit.
So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.
Aaron Belkin: Obama Is Timid Because Progressives Are Timid
What can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson?
I am so sick of these spin articles for Obama. He knew what he was getting into and spelled out a plan to make course corrections. Now he deviates and you defend by these "Look what he inherited" and "Lets blame Bush" articles. This is getting old and worn out and has lost all traction. Its time to live up to the promises. So live up to the hype of hope and change. Get out of Iraq and Afganistan today. TODAY! Thats why he was voted in. To prolong these wars is insane. Yankee come home please.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/obamas-timidity-is-a-fore_b_344064.html
And, let's face it, America does need help from the rest of the world. If you insist on going it alone, then you have all the costs. And you folks can't afford that any more. Actually.... you never could.
Oh yeah dont forget they just erected a statue to President Clinton in europe for saving their sorry asses from hitlers mini me in the 90's.
Also unlike his parliamentary counterparts, who deal with a loyal opposition, he would like to have even a sane one (others have said this or something similar). He is trying to do his part to keep the country together despite their divisive behaviors. It ain't easy.
As a man of color he probably senses that too much of the country will not react well to his being an angry, aggressive leader, even though a Caucasian leader might be able to get away with more. That's not that he's doing anything wrong, it's just that this country still isn't done growing up on the subject of race. That's sad, but true, and he can't waive his hand and change it.
As a former Senator he has seen what happens when Congress is of the same party as the President and cedes its Constitutional role. He and the Congress have to work it out. If you want to help him, elect more good Democratic legislators, replacing both some Blue Dogs and some crazy Republicans.
This is long term deal. 10 month measurements are premature.
But today, there is hope. And I lost that during the Bush years.