Achieving the Impossible: Expectations for an Obama Presidency

Managing expectations, as we saw again in 2008, is a key part of presidential campaigns. If a candidate is unable to meet expectations, a minor defeat, or even a narrow victory can be a serious setback. The most historic example of this was in 1968 when Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president after the New Hampshire primary where the peace candidate, Eugene McCarthy, didn't actually beat President Johnson but merely exceeded expectations by coming within six points of the incumbent president. New Hampshire was again the place for unmet expectations this year when a somewhat unremarkable victory by Hillary Clinton, in a state she had long been expected to win, breathed new life into her campaign because in the few days leading up to that primary, Obama had been expected to win that state.

Expectations are even more difficult to manage during the early days of a presidency. Some presidents succeed in keeping expectations relatively low. For example, when George H. W. Bush took office very few Americans expected much from him. Expectations for the first President Bush upon taking office might have been described as more of the same, only less. Bush, of course only served one term, but it was the recession of the early 1990s that led to his defeat, not unmet expectations. Four years later, Bill Clinton took office amid high hopes for health care, welfare reform and other domestic reform. Clinton's failure to make progress in any of these areas during his first two years, led to his party's defeat at the polls in 1994. Clinton learned his lesson from that experience and for the remainder of his time in the White House kept expectations low. Clinton's 1996 campaign was a great example of this as his campaign slogan of a "bridge to the 21st century" essentially promised that if Clinton was reelected, by the end of his term it would be the 21st century. Once reelected, Clinton was able to pursue a course of stewarding the economy as well as some foreign policy successes without having to worry about unreachable expectations.

When Barack Obama takes office in January, due to the all things to all people nature of his appeal, he will do so amidst a range of hopes and expectations, including ending the war in Iraq, getting the economy back on track, rebuilding tattered relations with numerous allies and even changing the way we eat and what we drive that is more imposing than those faced by any of his recent predecessors. Achieving all of these goals will be almost impossible. Achieving even one or two of them would be an extraordinary accomplishment.

To achieve this, Obama needs to have a well planned out legislative agenda, with probably no more than three or so major pieces of legislation for his first year, from which he does not get sidetracked no matter what external events occur. Health care reform or a progressive energy bill are the kinds of legislation which will require focus and priority setting from the administration, but which can easily fall out of focus in the face of larger and external events. However, these bills are very important and will be a central part of how President Obama will be evaluated.

Obama will, of course, also be evaluated on how he handles the two biggest issues of the campaign and likely of his presidency, at least its early years, as well. These two issues, the economy and the war in Iraq, raise different challenges regarding hope and expectations. A drawdown of troops in Iraq is now almost inevitable. This was a central promise of Obama's campaign; and now the conventional wisdom has largely caught up with where Obama was more than a year ago. Meeting this campaign promise, at least in part, will not be difficult, but Obama must make sure to take the credit for this. It is even possible that this drawdown will happen relatively quickly and without much controversy.

The problems of the economy are much graver and less likely to be solved easily, or early, by President Obama. All those hoping for a quick economic turnaround once Obama and his team come to power in the New Year will almost certainly be disappointed and may lose confidence in Obama. While Obama needs to focus most of his energy on the economy, if it becomes the only issue on which he focuses, and overwhelms the rest of Obama's legislative agenda, Obama will accomplish little in the White House and may well be ultimately viewed as a failure for his inability to solve the economic problems created by previous administrations. The economy is the issue where Obama is most needed, but also where he has the most to lose. For this reason, immediately reducing expectations around the economy and warning American that there will be no quick solutions will be essential for Obama's political fortunes.

The early keys to a successful Obama administration will be both managing these expectations and setting up an administration that will be proactive and not get sidetracked by the inevitable events and crises, both foreseen and unforeseeable, which occur during all presidencies. We have no way of really knowing what other issues will dominate Obama's presidency, just as few would have predicted that George W. Bush's presidency would have been largely defined by a Global War on Terror, that Bill Clinton's presidency would have been primarily driven by foreign policy or that George H. W. Bush would owe his defeat to an economic downturn. To be a good president Obama will have to respond effectively to all of these unforeseen crises; to be a great president he will also have to succeed on his own terms with his own agenda.

Comments

[chayefsky]

If Obama can untangle just one of the webs of ineptitude and deceit spun by Bush and his cabal, he will have accomplished much. It will take more than a few years and perhaps more than one person to reclaim the glory of the U.S.

[geohanover]

No matter what Obama proposes, he'll have to get it past the Senate. In the two years since the Repubs lost control of Congress, they have filibustered and prevented the passage of at least 106 bills. When the Dems threatened to filibuster W's Supreme Court appointments, the Repubs responded with a threat to change the Senate's filibuster rules. The filibuster should be elimnated. It was a rarely used procedure that only lasted as long as its proponents could keep talking on the floor of the Senate. It now just takes an announcement. Let the bills pass and hold the proponents responsible for the results. If we want to judge an administration and Congress for its performance, we can't let the minority stifle legislation. We can watch our economy continue to shrink while the naysayers prevent anything from being done about it, or we can let the new administration try to do what it was elected to do.

[Bonobo]

Absolutely agree. Here in California we have a similar situation where a two-thirds vote is required on budget issues. This allows anti-tax fanatics, arguing that they are saving the state from fiscal doom, to drive the state into fiscal doom. As in many other things, California is a leading indicator by several years here, and the rest of the nation will soon see this sort of total government shutdown if the easy filibuster continues. Given that Obama's highest value is playing nice, and most Senate Dems are such spineless, gutless, brainless, wonders, the rest of you may expect to see massive deficit spending (since Republicans have no objection to borrow-and-spend), followed in a few years by total government paralysis. Welcome to the Third World.

[flossophy]

hilarious... i LOVE the term 'anti-tax'. as if taxes are a good thing... and anyone against them is bad. What leftward-spinning planet do you live on Bonobo?

just for sh*ts N giggles... go compare the tax rates in the late 70's with the tax rates in the early 80's... and tell me which economy you would like to live in, and which one resembles a Third World economy.

High taxes slow the economy... period. This was figured out decades ago.

The reason California is in this financial mess is because our government is too top heavy and our taxes are too high... otherwise known as 1979.

And we know how to fix that : cut taxes like an 'anti-tax' fanatic

[Matt7]

"To be a good president Obama will have to respond effectively to all of these unforeseen crises; to be a great president he will also have to succeed on his own terms with his own agenda."

Here's to greatness -- a hope and a prayer. (From my keyboard to God's ear . . . )

[band4libs]

Obama doesn't have to do anything but look good. The press will continue to defend him and spearhead the liberal agenda with or without the voters support (or Obama's for that matter). The last thing Obama needs to do in "these economic times" is to put a bunch of new programs in place that have been proven to drain taxpayers and improve nothing.

[texun]

So, how can we know that new programs won't work. As new programs, they don't have a track record.

[JMBrodie]

Heck, looking good would be an improvement over the last guy. Quick, pronounce this:

N-U-C-L-E-A-R

[billw8017]

The Obama stimulus program is in no way radical, but it is standard Keynesian stuff and even in the mainstream of economic thought. $780 billion is a high estimate; $20-30 would be big for a domestic program. Paulson's $700 billion bailout of the financial markets is truly radical and seems sadly misdirected. It was a bomb dropped on the Congress as the members were anxious to go home and face the electorate. That seems the extent of its cunning.

[flossophy]

Some of Obama's stimu-plan is Keynesian... some of it is make-work or vote-purchasing or party-retrenching.

And btw, it's not the mainstream of economic thought circa 2008... perhaps 1968. We've learned much since then - I hope O is open minded enough to not let ideology blind him from doing the right things.

billw8017... it's not a matter of being radical, it's more important to enact policies that are known to make the economy grow. Mimicking FDR is surely not the correct thing to do since his policies prolonged the depression for many years... only during WW2 did we grow ourselves out of it.

Agreed on Paulson.

[billw8017]

1960 was still a time when primaries did not necessarily establish the candidate. Lyndon Johnson made his campaign as the Senate Majority Leader, hoping by an active Congress to show he was a leader. The convention was very disillusioning, and afterward he had great respect for the Kennedys. His relatively poor showing in New Hampshire in 1968 meant, as Johnson knew, that Robert Kennedy would enter the race. Eugene McCarthy was, in effect, Kennedy's stalking horse, and while New Hampshire showed Johnson could take McCarthy, it also showed how vulnerable Johnson was.

This is the actual story behind Johnson's withdrawal from the race in 1968.

[neilsmeltzer]

Obama could sleep at his post and do a beter job than the last person. We have been in such a down fall and anybody that didn't see this credit problem, just was'nt paying attention. These last four years have been a waste of everybody's time. This next year I will achieve more than I ever have and you will see my name. I'm tired of the same old crap and it is time to mkove forward and take over the world with good thoughts. All this negitivity has just brought more negitive stuff. If we all join together we can change this problem. Just stop the WARS and all the RELIGIOUS bull and be one with the planet and each other. JUST STOP!!!! It is a waste of time and energy. We can fix it. I'm so tired of the old and ready for the new . We are all human and we all have to live here. So lets live here in peace.

[flossophy]

neilsmeltzer... nice words, wrong world. Go tell the aggressors to 'just stop' or 'be nice'... if that worked, we wouldn't need nukular missiles.

the sentiment behind: "can't we all just get along?" is naivete at its most irrelevant.
"Good thoughts" don't help people... weap-ons aimed at bad people do.

and btw... bush was paying attention to the mortgage crisis, but the 'altruistic' crowd blocked his attempt at oversight or reform.

can't we all just get along?

[Matt7]

Perhaps. Let' start by us all telling the truth; without the spin.

[DenisPombriant]

Hey,

I like a lot of what I am reading but feel a need to caution that every domino isn't lined up for our guy. There will be resistance from the Friedmanites, the free marketers and the global markets whiz kids and we're going to need to offer some spine stiffening--not to Obama but to the 535 other people who have to vote on the programs. Only way to do that is to be ready to take to the streets. Peacefully. A Day of prayer, fasting and meditation might be in order if the radical right puts up a fight. Judging by the effort they are making on the Detroit bail out it seems likely. Peace.

[flossophy]

Ahh... those crazy free marketeers, imposing those horrible free markets on people. It's gonna take a lot of fasting, meditation & prayer to stop those radical small-government folks. How dare they make our government less oppressive...

And don't forget the Friedmanites... with their wacky ideas of freedom. economic freedom - Pfft!

I think we should expect those radicals who want economic freedom to put up a big fight against Obama... I'm all for long-term fasting and high-tax meditation to stop them!

They will quake in their cheaply produced boots from China!
They will wish they never heard of the Laffer Curve!

[platbilled duckypuss]

Why has everything suddenly got so horrible for OUR new president?

Chill Mr President (for the world)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OYBHKNiqxXE&feature=related

[vfx]

Obama should hit January 21st with a Shock and Awe. campaign. Have 20, 30 or 40 major programs, presidential decisions and bills put on the books the first day. Quietly sneak in some counters to last month's Bush sneaks.

Make it more than the press can even handle in even a few news cycles. .The Right is weak now and will be overwhelmed by the overload of work to be done. Dems can scream that the GOP are obsctructionists if they fight the new guy they say they want to get along with. Shock and Awe. It's it's the Right's idea, Now the Left can play that hand too.

[JMBrodie]

You know, I kinda like that. Hit the ground running and the Republicans scramble to keep up. Nice.

[DKLA]

BRAVO!!

[Robster]

First think Obama must do is remind our allies what it means to be one.

[Janiece59]

This is a simple comment about the "who would have guessed Bush's administration would be defined by a global war on terror." I saw this coming a mile away and started telling anyone who would listen that if they voted him in we would be going to war in the middle east, back in 1999. I'm just saying, it was plain as day to me. Did anyone else see this? I'd like to hear. I had guessed it would take 6 months, who would have guess how he would bring it to fruition.

[flossophy]

Yay, isn't it great, Janiece59?

Now the people of Iraq can vote! There is rule of law!... and the mass-kil-lings by Saddam are over! and the Saddam-sponsored sui-cide b0mbings in Palestine are over! And the Oil For Food Scandal has ended!

Glad you saw it coming!

[texun]

And everybody lived happily ever after.

[lynettema]

LOL. Love that RW spin.

[lynettema]

Me, too. I suggested this to a couple of people I thought were friends and they didn't really speak to me again until Bush's ratings were in the toilet. You would have to have been a fool to think we weren't going to war with Iraq if GW took office. And there were lots of them - fools, that is.

[DKLA]

I SAW IT, bfore i became a political-junkie!

[kcleader]

The Huffington Post has a good reputation for knowing what is going on in Washington DC. I would like to see the Huffington Post give its reader a day to day record of what each congressman and senator is saying about a bill and how they voted for each bill. And, put the final votes on a spreadsheet for everyone to see. Let's get them on record on the internet and let the voters, the people who care, see how all the representatives and senators actually voted. Also, lets start listing the Pork-Barrel Projects slipped into each bill, who slipped it in and how much this is going to cost the tax payers of the nation. I have a feeling this going to be a big year for pork.

[Matt7]

"People who care" will make it their business to do their own research.

I have a feeling that this is also going to be a big year for lipsticked pigs.

[gojo]

HuffPost's Pick

Look here!

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

[cayuse]

We will judge the tree by the fruit it bares. Be it BHO or GWB

[JMBrodie]

True. That is what counts in the end. Still, it feels good to have a dog in the fight.

[barnybilt]

We all have hopes for Obama but all relies on Congress the people who have caused all of our problems by their actions or inactions. The people voted back in many of the problem people and others could not be voted out. So we are hoping basically on a dead horse. Thinking that dead horse will rise and ride us into town to get help is like trying to pee up a rainpipe. Until the people rise up and make it known that they won't put up with the ways of the past there is little hope things will get better. The Republicans are openly telegraphing they are working to put down what Obama wants in any ways they can. So where will the change and the hopes come from? It won't come from being nice and hoping those people will work for the good of the people and the Country

[dianhow]

Repubs working against Dems and the good of the country ? Yep..Thats the name of the game in DC. We ALL have to keep on these politicians..e-mail-write-call..whatever it takes. Hound them till they listen !! Don't give up. Spend 15 -20 minutes a day..checking on what they're up to...remember its for the future of our kids and grandkids ! Politicinas count on us having a very short memory..lets fool them this time. We HAVE to STAY involved. They all want to get re- elected..and keep those fantastic perks we pay them, as well as the raises they give themselves, and their golden pensions. Make them earn it for a change ! If we do this consistantly-it will get thru to them.

[BarryChamplain]

So, is this where we start "lowering expectations" for the Obama Administration? Not buying it. After being pwned in 2006 by a Democratic Congress that promised change, but in the end was just glad to be there, NEVER AGAIN.

This morning, I received a telemarketing call from a nice young lady, representing the ACLU. Know what? I joined. For two reasons:

1. As part of her pitch, the ACLU promised "to LOBBY the Obama Administration, for..."

Well, yeah, that's how you do it. You don't just sit there, as part of his constituency, waiting like sitting ducks for him and his cohorts to smack you in the chops, just to prove to the Beltway that his Administration "won't be beholden to the Left".

You ORGANIZE and become a pressure group which must be dealt with on an equal level. You DON'T sit-out eight years, and come away empty-handed, because CW says that "Achieving all of these goals will be almost impossible", and more pragmatic operatives have decided early on to "manage expectations".

You MAKE THEM DO WHAT YOU ELECTED THEM FOR. If that puts Obama in a politically vulnerable position... tough beans. We the people are not here to build HIS career and legacy... he's supposed to be here for US. Or so went the hype;


2. I have, since the first Bush campaign in 1988, always wanted to be "a card-carrying member of the ACLU". Hope it really pisses them all off good :-)

[strangerinthenight]

Thank you Barry Chaplain.

My Mom and Dad are late Baby Boomers, 51 and 56 respectively. They used to reminished about their ideals - marching onto to the streets to bring CHANGE. The leaders their generations voted for were as corrupt as they come. THAT CHANGE NEVER REALLY COME TO FRUITION. Instead, we have more of the same. PROMISES, PROMISES.

'just turned 27 - Generation Y. I hope we choose our leaders with servant's hearts, that pomises made are their bond, and believe that good stewardship of our government is still an honorable profession. I hope we will hold our leaders accountable. I hope we will join the national conversation to make a real change.

[dianhow]

You've got it. We have to hold our ' leaders ' accountable.

[msblkwidow]

Barry Chaplain,
I wish you were as hard on G. H. Bush- Clinton -G. W. Bush as you appear to have become on Obama. My goodness. It's good that you've finally joined a cause. Great! You've join ACLU. Now, do the hard work that causes change.

This mess that we're in didn't happen overnight. Obama is certainly not going to solve it overnight and most assuredly not by himself.

Maybe if Americans would have been working at the grassroot level, in the past, we'd be much better off today.

[dianhow]

Hey Barry The main reason that Dems in Congress (only a majority since 2006 ) did little is this :
When they did try to pass a bill...Bush promised to veto it. OR Repubs filibustered it. That was the main problem. Lets see what they do now...and which party tries to block good legislation. Then do not vote for them again ! Thats what it's going to take !

[strangerinthenight]

I understand all about Presidential veto, or Filibuster - both sides Democrats or Republicans abused their powers. It's rare, if ever, a ruling party will have a solid 53-55 votes, let alone 60. The only way to legislate good laws is for both parties to reach accross the aisle. None of them is prepared to that. BLIND PARTY LINES LOYALTIES.

MINORITY PARTY must be the loyal opposition. They are not there to make excuses. Even in the last 2 years where Democrats were the ruling power in Congress, hardly had the balls to even start the fight. Rather, they close their eyes or look the other way around, worst asleep. Attitudes like yours just give them a clear pass to do whatever they feel doing.

No one can convince me this mess are ALL Republican responsibility. If that premise is true, then the Democrats must be all incompetent, acquiesced to the theft and looting our economy, and at ASLEEP for the last 8 years. If that is the case, they did not deserved to be voted in.

I am just starting to realized how bad our leaders - Republicans and Democrats destroyed this country. I just turned 27 - Generation Y, and already, our futures are heavily leveraged. I woke up one morning, and 40 of my co-workers were laid off.

And now, you're telling me to just wait until the next election to vote them out of office if they do not pass good legislation.

RIDICULOUS.

[lisa12345]

I appreciate where you are coming from, but we really need a different group to do what the ACLU proposes. Yep, we definitely need to hold to expectations. He needs to do what he said he would do. That said, the ACLU is not necessarily an ally. Granted, maybe in light of recent scandals the ACLU is reinventing itself--or returning to what it once was. Accusations of flipping stances-- not on principle, but for the purpose of gaining donations--has made the ACLU appear insincere and more concerned about their "interests" (read: people who give money) than standing for civil liberties based on conviction.