Obama's First 100 Days: Restoring the Good Name of the U.S.
The media's obsession with grading Barack Obama's first 100 days in office amuses me. Sure, in calmer times, maybe it was reasonable to look at a new administration after a little more than three months and try and figure out what kind of presidency the country was in for. But even George W. Bush waited until August 2001 to severely limit when federal money could be used to fund stem cell research, planting his flag in the ground as a leader who would try and impose his religious beliefs (and lack of respect for science) on the nation.
But given the situation Obama inherited when he took over the Oval Office in January, the 100 days figure is particularly silly. After all, in 100 days you can't make a human being from scratch, play a baseball season, or even choose an American Idol. But after 100 days, the media wants to know if Obama has been able to clean up the laundry list of ills left to him by Bush. It's not a short menu, either: an unnecessary and damaging war that was launched with no plan for a resolution, a second war that was headed in the wrong direction thanks to Bush's obsession with the unnecessary war, the potential of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of the Taliban, an economy hemorrhaging jobs and creating challenging conditions for a big chunk of Americans, a soaring home foreclosure rate, a plummeting stock market (at the time of Obama's inauguration), a severely damaged financial system that was in danger of bringing the world's economy down, a melting planet, an energy policy (or lack thereof) that threatened the country's economy and national security, and a health-care system that allows tens of millions of Americans to go through life with no medical care, just to hit some highlights.
Oh, and Obama is supposed to solve these problems despite the fact that the Republicans, who have enough votes in the Senate to filibuster legislation, are intellectually bankrupt, with no new ideas to offer beyond "less taxes and less regulation," and who have crafted an identity solely based on opposing whatever Obama says or tries to do. (At this point, with the Republicans acting like bratty children, I am waiting for Obama to make use of the playground anti-mimicking trick of employing reverse psychology and announcing that he is in favor of the Republicans disagreeing with his policies, so that the knee-jerk GOP members will support him, just to be contrary.) And, to be fair, it's not like the members of Congress in his own party have always been supportive, often putting their parochial interests in front of Obama's national agenda (the set of ideas that led the American people to vote him into office by a landslide).
So the task awaiting Obama was massive. And yet, there is a rush to decide how he's doing after 100 days. He doesn't even have all his cabinet members in place yet, after all (partially his fault, but partially thanks to the petty delaying tactics of the Republicans).
Personally, while I can't say I have agreed with each and every decision Obama has made since taking office, on the whole, I think what he has accomplished in the first 100 days is remarkable. He ushered a nearly $1 trillion stimulus plan into law in record time, reversed a flood of reactionary Bush executive orders (including on stem cell research), and, in his budget, made clear that he wants priorities such as health care, green energy and education to be addressed. But despite my support for his work, I refuse on principal to give him a grade. It's just not fair. Donnie Walsh gets two years to revive the Knicks, but the president only gets 100 days to fix the country? (Granted, after Isiah Thomas gets done with an organization, it is a miracle if it still exists at all.)
But there is one area in which Obama has made such a dent in an awful Bush legacy, I will make an exception to my rule and hand out a grade. And it wasn't even an item on my list of debacles Obama inherited from Bush. But, in a way, it encompasses all of these items.
For all of the failures, embarrassments and acts of destruction of the Bush administration, in some ways, none was worse than the damage he did to the American identity. Bush showed utter disregard for the constitution and completely belittled the idea that America stands for justice and due process. And his arrogant attitude toward the world was counterproductive, leaving the United States isolated at a time when it most needed help. Between the invasion of Iraq, the torturing of prisoners, the illegal wiretapping, the outing of a CIA agent, the politicization of the Justice Department, the appointing of incompetent cronies to government positions (like the immortal "Brownie"), the castration of agencies meant to serve the public in an all-encompassing protection of business interests (like the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission testifying to Congress that she opposed funding for more inspectors after it was discovered that toys made in China contained lead paint), and the handing out of government money to businesses in which administration officials had interests (sometimes via no-bid contracts), the Bush administration had tarnished everything that was great about the United States of America. He took a country we could be proud of, a country that strove to meet a higher standard, and tossed us into the gutter. Looking at the pictures from Abu Ghraib or reading the accounts from Guantanamo, it was hard to believe that we were looking at the actions of the U.S. government. That's not the America I was taught about in school.
(As an aside, I am not an end-justifies-the-mean guy, so even if Bush's repugnant policies made us safer, I would object. But we didn't even get that benefit. As we've learned again and again from the men responsible for interrogations, torture doesn't work, and Bush's policies, from the Iraq invasion -- with its human and financial costs -- to Guantanamo, created more terrorists and national security risks than they prevented.)
In his first 100 days, Obama has taken decisive action to show the world that the great side of America, the America that stands for justice and due process, the America that respects the rights of individuals, and the America that has served as an example and destination for people around the world, is trying to come back. Obama's appointments chose competence and expertise over cronyism. He reversed Bush's torture policies and released the completely bogus memos written to justify them. He announced early on that he would close Guantanamo and that we would withdraw from Iraq. He changed the tone of how we speak to our friends and enemies, showing that keeping an open mind is not the same as being weak. He instituted policies that sought to add transparency to government. And, most of all, he showed that he was a smart and competent leader, something that has been absent for the previous eight years.
In the subject area of acting to restore pride in America, I am willing to give Obama a grade: A.
Granted, there have been missteps. He was too slow to embrace the idea of prosecuting those who justified and approved of torture, for example. But when you consider the depths to which Bush had plunged the country in this regard, and the short period of time (the much ballyhooed 100 days) Obama has had to reverse the course of the nation, his achievement in this area has been quick, decisive and productive. He has proven that hope is more than just a poster. Or, as a friend of mine put it, it's nice to know a grown-up is back in charge.
Hopefully when the true final examination comes around in November 2012, and Obama's presidency is evaluated after ample time has gone by for his policies and decisions to be analyzed, he will fare as well. For the sake of the country, I hope he does. But for now, he's off to a pretty good start, even if it is only 100 days.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Bard and several others in their discussion of torture seem to always forget a few items. You stand and cheer Obama for releasing these toture documents, which I personally think cripples our intelligence communities, yet when Obama effectively orders a predator drone strike on a "suspected" Taliban stronghold, where innocents die, all is OK. Believe me, I think doing this is necessary as well, but all the arguments of law, justice, etc. that are given for not torturing are forgotten when we (basically the president) puts a hit on suspected leaders of an organization. Why don't you rise up and protest that!!!! Where is the justice in killing a suspected leader of a group without due process. Isn't that effectively assasination, which we also do not believe in either?
You and I see almost eye to eye on this, pjcpa. Escape from blind partisanship, and it becomes obvious that the right answer is to protest either all of the above, or none of the above.
Now. Escape from blind patriotism, and it becomes obvious that the right answer is all of the above. Set the long-term value of of "law, justice, etc" against the long-term "value" of scratching with all your military might at the poison ivy of terrorism, and the cost/benefit analysis becomes downright silly.
Very good assessment, Mr. Bard!
I disagree with the comparison. I think it's completely wrong to claim someone gets 2 "years" to turn around the Knicks. Fact is, the season is only 82 days long. That's 82 to judge someone in a "year" of the NBA. I wish I had a job where I only had to work 82 days out of the 365.
What's more, 2 "years" is only 164 days. Sure, it's 64 days longer, but it's certainly nowhere near being 2 "years". It's not evne 1 year, or even 6 month. ;o)
Meanwhile, the President is on the job 24/7/365. Otherwise, the Russians would attack during their monthlong vacation when we'd be crippled and without leadership, LOLOL.
Fact is, every President since i've been allive has had to endure the first 100 days scrutiny. It's merely a benchmark to judge how the start of the administration is going. It is by no mean, a judgement of his entire 4 years. So what's the big deal?
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Palemoon, I think Mrs. Walsh (if there is/was one) would tell you that running an NBA team IS a 7-day-per-week, 365-day-per-year job!
It is going to take years to get our good name back in a substantive way, but President Obama is on the right track.
It's not just the media. I see my own side beginning to get restless before the inauguration. Everyone wants their pet issue to be address right now, despite the avalanche of crisis that Obama walked into.
Our ADD society expects everything fixed and all better and done neatly just like a television program and they want everything to be instant gratification.
I do blame the media for making it this way.
But, it seems some do not have the common sense to see that it took a long time to make these problems and they all came crashing down in a perfect storm of crisis. It is going to take a long time to fix the monumental mess left for him to fix.
Pet issues are going to have to cool their heels in the meantime and people are going to need to understand that most things take time to repair.
I agree that the President did a marvelous job going abroad, meeting with foreign leaders, putting a fresh new face on US foreign policy. And when he denounced torture and said "no one was above the law," I was sure he would follow-up his words and travel abroad with actions that showed the world that America was indeed ready to change, to hold itself accountable for actions in violation of international treaties, international laws, the Geneva Conentions, The UN Convention Against Torture, indeed US law; however, the US sent the world another message: The US rejects the idea of holding those who violated any law against torture accountable for any wrong doing; instead, the US will look forward and won't torture anymore. Does the US reserve its right to hold the rest of world accountable for crimes against humanity? Always. This is the double-standard that has already diminished much of what Obama achieved on the foreign policy front in his first 100 days. He had the moral compass in his grasp, then lost it.
The truth is is that most Americans have always liked President Bush on a personal level. And I think if they were being honest, they would admit that they are thankful he took a decisive stand against terrorism after 9/11 even if they disagreed with some of the methods, justified and unjustified. It's mostly people on the far left who demonize him and won't give him credit for a single thing. Reasonable people see this.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
JEP57, what Americans think of him "personally" is irrelevant. If it's just those on the far left that think he was so awful, why did he spend most of his second term with approval ratings in the high 20s and low 30s?
You are trying to revise an unpleasant history. Fact is, the guy was a total disaster. No amount of changing history can fix that.
With all due respect: American foreign policy is what drove American standing into the toilet. It is a material change in foreign policy that will get you out of it.
While I concede the language and posture of your political figurehead has improved dramatically, it would be the height of optimistism to construe such window-dressing as foreshadowing substantive improvements in actual policy.
As long as your nation continues to butcher (there is no other word) for profit (there can be no other reason) in Iraq, and torture (there is no other word) for revenge (there can be no other reason) in Guantanamo - both in grotesque violation of international law - I for one will continue to treat your economy like the enabler it is. I will continue to boycott American goods and services in general, and American-made automobiles in particular, and I will continue to encourage family and friends to do the same.
I will do so until retributive justice is brought to all perpetrators, and restorative justice to all victims. To do otherwise would be to upgrade the same term paper from a fail to a pass on the strength of better penmanship.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Wow. Don't you think you're being unnecessarily harsh? What did you expect in 100 days? You can't remove all those American troops from Iraq in a day, nor can you just close the doors to Guantanamo with no plan or preparation. Acting hastily without forethought is what got the U.S. into trouble under Bush. But Obama has committed to doing both in a responsible way. What you seem to expect from him is patently unreasonable.
When Obama was in Europe, when he made the statement that America has sometimes acted arrogantly, the other half of that statement was that Europe has often had an anti-American attitude that was uncalled for. I don't know if you're in Europe or not, but either way, your comment is every bit as guilty of being unhelpful as what Bush did the last years, only on the other side of the spectrum.
Thanks for responding.
Doctors don't remove bullets from gunshot victims ASAP; rash removal causes internal bleeding. Neither can they risk infection by leaving foreign bodies in for too long.
In Iraq, the US military is the bullet. By all means, withdraw carefully. (Aside: withdraw FULLY; if China took America over for a decade, then "withdrew" - leaving behind enough military infrastructure to maintain absolute control - would you consider them withdrawn?)
But however long bullet removal takes, it'd take a newly inaugurated president roughly 100 minutes to arrest those who pulled the trigger. By now, we should be well into a set of war crime tribunals.
That the shooters still walk free makes the current administration accomplices after the fact. Should we in the global community distinguish between the terrorists who torture and wage illegal wars, and those who harbour them?
I'm not from Europe; I don't understand why this reflects one way or another on the merits of my argument. If dealing properly with criminals is anti-American, I'm proud to be so labeled.
You called my views "unhelpful". I must ask: unhelpful in pursuit of what goal? In pursuit of justice, my views - and their manifestation in peaceful boycotts - are rooted in mainstream liberal democratic norms and Christian ideals. They're nowhere near the edge of the anti-American spectrum, as you'll agree if you've travelled recently. Perhaps your implicit goal is American domination of the planet - in which case I see why I'd be in the way.
He ain't done jack, good or bad. This is pure hype by his cheerleaders as well as his antagonists. Enough already of this 100 day horse hockey. Talk to me two years from now. Then we will have a track record to discuss.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
UltraClassic, the stimulus package isn't "jack"? I think the out-of-work Americans barely holding on who are getting extended unemployment benefits, or the would-be out-of-work Americans getting stimulus-related jobs, would disagree with you.
Same for the research institutions getting federal funding for stem cell research, the international aid organizations who are no longer constrained by religiously right-wing rules on contraception and abortion, etc.
When the economy starts to recover and we have high inflation, then you can talk to me about what the stimulus package did.
Mr. Bard, thank you, finally someone mentions that PO 100 days is different fron any other president in our history. I have watched so many news programs and read so many blogs and news report looking for someone to address the fact that this 100 days grading is beyond ludicrous. They've graded other presidents on this 100 days number, so doing the same for PO would make sense if his situation was similar to any other president. You listed well all the major problems PO has had to deal with from day one, most president may had to deal with one of these during their tenure none had all in 100 days of their presidency. PO now has the swine flu on his plate and who knows what tomorrow will hold. I give him an "A" for not falling apart and taking the easy road by addressing only one issue as so many said he should do. Great article, I do hope, you will break your rule and vote on CNNs grade the president tomorrow.
But he can't do anything about swine flu, remember? He's already got a "full plate" remember? That's the excuse he and his supporters are using to not investigate Bush and his cronies. Well hey, why does he need to do anything about swine flu? He can give that a free pass just like he did Bush, right?
This is a great commentary,Mr. Bard: I agree with you completely. It is such a relief not to physically cringe and feel sick when seeing the activities of the President,as I had grown accustomed to over the 8 interminable years of Shrub. From speech-making to foreign visits, I never knew when another cringe-worthy opportunity would arise.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
