Affiliated with the University of Nicosia |
|||||
|
|||||
LESSON FROM OBAMA By Monroe Newman
|
|||||
|
|||||
Professor Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University |
|||||
|
|||||
For more than 100 years,
American presidents have urged a variety of comprehensive alterations of
the nation’s health care insurance arrangements.
None succeeded. From
Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, including Franklin Roosevelt and Harry
Truman, their proposals met everything from resistance to catastrophe.
Barack Obama got the job done.
It is years too soon to
discern fully the social, political and financial effects of what has
just been enacted. As in all
matters such as this, perfection will not have been achieved even if
implementation is unexpectedly efficient and effective. However, there
is a lesson to be learned about Obama from the fact of enactment.
President Obama came to
office with the expressed intent of moving beyond bipartisanship to
post-partisanship. He sought
to achieve agreements among opponents, in a reflection of his earlier
experience as a community organizer.
Their role is to understand opposing views, earn trust from all
parties, and help them work out compromises that are mutually
beneficial.
This approach meant that
the achievement of compromise denoted his success.
Perversely, this also meant that failure to compromise was a
failure for him. Those who
sought to diminish him could do so merely by being obdurate.
The approach of the community organizer induced intransigence.
As this became painfully
obvious, Obama with the aid of others of skill
(particularly including the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Nancy Pelosi) proved to be a wily and willing and
finally winning participant in old fashioned partisanship to achieve
principles.
This is a lesson about
him that may well be applicable to American foreign policy.
Again, President Obama
began his term in office seeking conversation, trust, understanding in a
realm in which unilateralism had been the hallmark of the perception and
behavior of the U.S. He
sought engagement. He spoke
directly to the trusting, the suspicious and the distrustful.
He acknowledged the need for a change in American policy, he
exemplified the change and sought reciprocal changes.
So far, he must be
disappointed by the response.
In some cases, Japan and Israel are examples, national elections
produced leaders whose policies were less congenial than those of their
predecessors. In others, North Korea and Iran may be examples,
engagement as a policy abetted their previous strategy of delay.
In still others, numerous countries in the Western Hemisphere are
examples, the foundation of political power is opposition to the United
States so participating cheerfully in engagement is tantamount to
heresy.
However, we may be
witnessing the same flexibility in the conduct of foreign affairs that
characterized the changed approach to health care insurance reform.
Last December, Obama used his very presence, personal prestige
and persuasive powers to get something from the climate change
conference that was on the verge of producing less than nothing. Very
recently, agreement with Russia on nuclear arms has borne fruit.
A striking demonstration
of change from this has been the continuing private and public
displeasure with Israel over its building of housing.
Responding to the opportunity that Israel crudely provided, the
U.S. has left no doubt that it questions the sincerity of promises for
substantive deliberations ultimately leading to two neighboring states,
the goal of Obama’s policy.
As with health care
insurance, the outcome is uncertain.
But in both, Obama is showing that a steely resolve underpins
post-partisanship and engagement.
|
|||||
|
|||||
Cyprus Center for European and
International Affairs Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved
|
|||||
Makedonitissis 46, 2417 Egkomi CYPRUS | P.O.Box 24005, 1700 CYPRUS t: +35722841600 | f: +35722357964 | cceia@unic.ac.cy | www.cceia.unic.ac.cy |