A year has gone by since President Obama took the oath of office. After the extremes of the George Bush years and the unimpressive McCain-Sarah Palin campaign, Obama seemed like a breath of much-needed fresh air.  With a clever Internet savvy campaign, Obama positioned himself as the right transformational candidate to repair the  endless damage caused by Bush and his team. Despite being relatively unknown, he ran a truly inspirational campaign that captured the imagination of many, especially the young. One year into his presidency, much of that momentum appears to have been lost and many of his ardent supporters have reason to feel disappointed. True, he was dealt the most difficult challenges in recent times. But his approach and accomplishments to-date leave much to be desired and are quite inconsistent with the promise his campaign displayed.

While there are a host of issues on which to evaluate his performance, three of them are particularly insightful: the financial crisis, the Afghan War, and the Healthcare battle. There is no doubt that President Obama inherited a financial mess. A year later — with unemployment at over 10%  – Main Street is hurting, Wall Street is happier with a healthy Dow/Nasdaq and “fat-cat bankers” are once again receiving hefty bonuses. Several experts feel/felt that the stimulus wasn’t exactly sufficient and that the response to the crisis wasn’t exactly “bold enough.” The jury is still out on his response to the the financial mess, though in large part it is by and large a continuation of the policies that President Bush set in motion.

The biggest decision he has made so far is the one to expand the Afghan war effort. While he did say during the campaign that the Afghan war was the “right war,” most people (especially those on the left) believed (or hoped!) that President Obama was opposed to war in general. Unfortunately, after four months of analysis-paralysis (or dithering as Cheney called it), he arrived at the exact same conclusion as the Bush-Cheney team and chose to expand troops, the drone attacks, etc. To top it off, there is complete ambiguity regarding whether the troops would withdraw after 18 months from Afghanistan. Once again, a lost opportunity to make a bold break from the policies of the Bush era.

A President who was deeply opposed to war should have called in his generals on day one and told them without mincing words that he was personally opposed to the war and  convinced them of his rationale.  Asking a general if he wanted more troops is like asking a senior VP at IBM if he wanted more resources to continue to pursue his  next generation project which was already  well over budget, was still understaffed, and unlikely to deliver a successful product. Of course the generals don’t like to accept anything that even remotely smells of defeat. Certainly they are going to ask for a troop expansion!  In fact, General McCrystal went a step further and got away with a premature public pronouncement about the need for 40,000 additional troops. It was a pre-emptive strike against an inexperienced President.

It appears as though President Obama agonized over the decision for four months because he was deeply conscious of the negative implications of war and the weight of the responsibility that comes with such a decision given the potential deaths of young Americans. He had to weigh this against his assessment of the political implications of a withdrawal. With  the nation deeply divided , the Congressional elections looming on the horizon, and the fear that Democrats would once again be labeled as “weak on national defense” President Obama caved in to his generals’ requests, dumped his widely believed left leanings and embraced what he suspected would move him “safely” to the political center. On this issue, clearly President Obama’s political instincts got the better of his perceived ideology. Furthermore, he failed to make a convincing case for why the effort in Afghanistan should be persisted with. His “evil in the world” rhetoric sounded more like George Bush minus the conviction.

The Healthcare battle on the other hand is more stark. The President came into this clearly signifying that he was strongly in favor of universal healthcare. But the devil is in the details as always. When it came down to the contentious issue of the public option, the winds of ambiguity began to take over as is  fast becoming the norm with this administration. Is he for the public option? Will he sign if there is no public option? Does he care enough for the public option to push for it? With the recent senate defeat in MA, the healthcare bill appears to be in jeopardy with no end in sight.

A big part of being a good administrator is to prioritize and be selective about what to pursue, estimate how long something might take, and then execute effectively. On all  these three fronts he has clearly faltered in his first year in office. He first promised a healthcare bill in summer of 2009 and then before last Christmas, and now  it  is completely open ended – a sign that his administrative experience is still unproven and questionable. (closure of Guantanamo being another example).

Despite all his shortcomings and the difficulties facing the country, President Obama still appears to be the right man for the job, especially when compared to the other aspirants for the presidency. He continues to seem like a “cool guy” whose heart is in the right place.  His speeches – the language, the delivery, the style – are easily one of the best (since Bill Clinton) in recent times in American politics. His genuine and consistent attempt to reach out to the Muslim world (referred to as the “apology tour” by the GOP) has helped the world see America a little more favorably today than it did in the Bush-Cheney years. He seems to care deeply about societal inequalities and clearly aspires to do something about it. His first year in office confirms that he is a shrewd politician who knows how to gain power (time will tell if he knows how to retain it), but isn’t very good at using it (unlike his predecessor),  in spite of a Democratic majority in Congress.

Unlike Bush, Obama does not evoke extreme emotions, partly because of his ambiguity on various issues. He is so guarded (he used a teleprompter when addressing 6 year olds!) that even the late night comics seldom find material to joke about him. Despite the accusations of his critics on the right, he does not appear to have a strong ideological bias, enough to  make dramatic shifts in policy.  In fact, given a chance,  I suspect President Obama would prefer not to have an opinion on any issue (as is consistent with his voting record in the Illinois senate).  For the rest of his term, he needs  to overcome the apparent lack of boldness, sharpen his administrative skills and  clear the pervading air of ambiguity that has been a consistent phenomenon of his first year in office. After having rallied the country around cries of “yes we can” he needs to show us how he actually can over the next three years.

Sphere: Related Content

]]> http://www.pakorakorner.com/index.php/2010/01/obama-year-one-reality-bites.html/feed 0 http://www.pakorakorner.com/index.php/2009/12/mohammed-azharuddin-tainted-star-to-muslim-mascot.html http://www.pakorakorner.com/index.php/2009/12/mohammed-azharuddin-tainted-star-to-muslim-mascot.html#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:29:46 +0000 pkurup http://www.pakorakorner.com/?p=1673

Life is about to come a full circle for former Indian cricket captain, Mohammed Azharuddin, as efforts are underway to revoke the lifetime ban imposed on him by the BCCI. After attempting for years to get his ban revoked, Azhar seems to have found the route to redemption in politics.

In the caste ridden politics of Uttar Pradesh, Azhar turned out to be at “the right place at the right time”. Joining the Congress was a master stroke far better than any of his delightful leg glances.

It was widely believed that Azhar’s minority status was his big liability when the scandal broke. Most other accused players escaped with relatively smaller punishments, while some bigwigs like Kapil Dev walked away completely scott free. Despite his repeated attempts to make peace, the BCCI turned down his requests and ended his career in every way imaginable.  Ten plus years hence, its a different story. Azhar’s minority status is his biggest asset as the Congress attempts to corner the Muslim vote, and checkmate Mayawati, SP and the rest of its opponents in the short and long term. It has been a long wait for one of India cricketing stars but it surely seems like this second innings is going to be a game changer for him.

It has been quite a journey for Azhar. In fact, it has all the ingredients of a Bollywood flick — humble beginning, rise to cricketing stardom, family discord, divorce and re-marriage into the world of glamor, Bollywood connections and links to the underworld, a major match-fixing scandal, turns underdog as everyone except him escapes a life time ban, tries all he can, fails,  finally chooses to enter politics, wins election by a thumping margin and finally on his way to revoking the ban. Throw in a few item numbers, and the odd villain and some sc0pe for revenge and you have a Bollywood sizzler!  Quite a heady mix, huh?

Now, check out Azhar on screen.

10. She had banned so many books the Wasilla library was running out of books.
09. A 400+ page book sounded like the right size to hit Levi on the head.
08. Writing a book is the only way she could get on Oprah
07. The book advance was her personal bailout package and a stimulus rolled into one, and it was not from the Federal Govt.
06. She thought she could be the first to tap into the Russian market given that she could see the bookstores from her porch.
05. She wanted readers to get a feel for what its like to be before a death panel.
04. Doggone it, she wanted to be the first Joe Six Pack to write a book for all Joe Six packs.
03. Writing a book was so fast and easy she wouldn’t have to quit mid-way.
02. She was “Pallin’ around with publishers”
01. She didn’t cut it as a pitbull with lipstick, so she settled for a book that was all “bull” instead.

President Obama stormed the major networks over the weekend appearing on as many as five of them. Critics promptly termed it as over exposure.  There has been way too much “over the board rhetoric”, fear mongering and false propaganda (”Obama lies, grandma dies” among other outrageously false campaigns) on the right. President Obama and his team have done their best to go in for a campaign style run around the country to try and minimize the negative effects of their opponents’ campaign. But it appears that they figured it was best to have the President directly take his message to the people though the major networks. Given the President’s inherent ability to handle such interviews well it was a timely and well thought out strategy.

In this day and age, it is so easy to slip up in the media. President Obama did a phenomenal job of staying on message right through all the interviews. His ability to be clear and precise without ever once coming across as being evasive is truly commendable. On the downside these interviews quickly got boring and repetitive. As for the interviewers, none of them really came through with deeply insightful or particularly memorable questions (I think Letterman will do a better job).  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Racism, Afghanistan, and Healthcare are the hot current topics of interest.  Surely these media pundits could have devised something more creative to ask the President instead of the predictable questions. George Stephanopoulos I thought got a little too cute with a definition of the word “tax”.

President Obama certainly helped his cause by re-affirming his commitment to healthcare reform but its very unlikely that these interviews did little to convince any of his opponents. He could perhaps have been more forceful in calling out the negative propaganda like he did in his joint session of Congress. The Republican leadership has done little to squash the outrageous accusations from the right.  President Obama could have seized the moment to take a few shot at them. But he chose not to, but instead remain above the fray.

Despite President Obama’s sincere efforts, at this juncture it does appears as though he has to kiss goodbye to bi-partisanship and get his party fully on board to pass the healthcare bill, if he ever hopes to have one passed.

The healthcare debate across America seems to be reaching a crescendo. Angry town hall meetings and brilliant, pithy sound bites from the opposition (”Death panels”, “Kill Grandma” etc.) appears to have cornered President Obama. He could very well have refrained from stirring a public debate and stream rolled his plans relatively drama-free through the largely Democratic Congress (with some serious challenges in the Senate). But an inherent community organizer that he is, he chose to seek  bi-partisanship. His team did their homework and tred their best to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration. Rather than drive the plan (like Bill Clinton tried), they issued some broad guidelines and let Congress iron out the details. An interesting and different approach. Yet, today, the health care reform plans are in a state of crisis. If it fails to go through, the chances are that healthcare reform will never see the light of day for years to come.

His support for the “public option” will be the part of his speech that will be of most interest to anyone who has been closely following the debate. It is next to impossible for him to mollify all the sections of his party and still achieve bi-partisanship.  If he settles for Sen. Snowe’s plan of a “trigger-based” public option, the left wing of the Democratic party is going to be deeply disappointed. On the other hand, this approach ensures that he and his team have their best shot of getting health care reform (for whatever its worth) passed with token Republican support, and ultimately claiming victory.

One speech can’t fix the healthcare woes of America. But it will be a good test of President Obama’s ability to forge consensus to whatever extent possible, and will provide some deeper insights into his political acumen. Clearly, the stakes are high for his party, for himself and the country as a whole. When in trouble (or when you are desperate as his critics would like to infer) you draw on your best skills. This explains why President Obama has chosen to do what he does best — give a good speech!

A stable opposition is critical to the functioning of any democracy.  Like it or not, the BJP is the face of India’s opposition today. The left is in complete disarray and what remains of it appears to be self-destructing (as in the case of Kerala). The regional parties for the most part have all been cut down to size in the recent election. In short, as of today, India has no credible opposition to speak off. So the sooner the BJP gets its act together the better for India’s democracy as a whole.

The BJP appears to have a leadership vaccum at present and little in terms of bench strength for credible future leadership to counter the steady rise of Mr. Rahul Gandhi. For all the criticism that has been leveled against Mr. Advani, the fact remains that he made the best attempt by far to move the BJP to the center of the political spectrum by making a conscious attempt to soften the party’s hard line image starting with his own.  While it might have been an opportunistic move, there is little doubt that it was the best strategic move the party has made in recent times. Unfortunately, for him he failed to carry the base of the party with him on this journey. Moreover, he lost a golden opportunity to further soften the party’s image by not taking a firm stand on the Varun Gandhi issue (Maneka Gandhi is now in the Jaswant Singh camp!), among other strategic blunders (personally attacking the PM, for instance).

To make matters worse, the loss in the recent election appears to have triggered public feuds between the visible faces of the party. There have been calls for the “RSS to take charge” and bring some order to the party. There is nothing worse that can happen to the BJP than to be faced with an open “RSS coup”. As India continues to crank out impressive growth rates, hard line right wing rhetoric is likely to resonate less and less with the masses. Even a blatant attack by terrorists on Mumbai failed to galvanize the BJP to a victory. In quieter, relatively prosperous times, the BJP has little hope of staging a comeback with an endemic hard line image. On the other hand,  some extreme events could  drive public sentiments to the far right and give the BJP some hope of a revival.  But counting out that would be like hoping for a miracle.

Where does the party go from here?  The BJP in its current avatar needs the RSS in order to survive.  At the same time, as things stand today there is little chance of ever returning to power without shedding its hard line “Hindutva” image and broadening its appeal to moderates and minorities.  The hard liners in the party are unlikely to ever shed their extreme positions on hot button issues. There is open infighting within the party.  Lastly, at 80+ Advani isn’t getting any younger .

Ironically, one avenue for the party might be to adopt a Congress-like split leadership with a younger, credible, centrist-leaning person with a mass base and acceptable to the party (especially the trouble-makers) as the face of the party with Advani playing a Sonia-like role! However, this is hard to imagine given Mr. Advani’s dominant role in the party over the years.  Besides, unfortunately, for the BJP, at present it does not look like such an individual exists among their ranks.

The other alternative of course, is to opt for the status quo i.e.  do nothing, hope that the noise dies down, and take things as they come. It will be interesting to see which of these paths the party chooses. With no presence to speak off in keys states, and two successive defeats in the Lok Sabha elections, and a deeply divided party, the BJP is clearly at a crossroads. At present, it appears that if the party does not seize this opportunity to re-invent itself it runs the serious risk of further marginalizing itself over the years.

The recent attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team was final confirmation that Pakistan is in a complete mess. The civilian government that has no clue about how and where to take the country.  (It does appear that Pakistan under Musharraf was more stable or at least seemed so from the outside?) Pakistan’s border area with Afghanistan has been virtually run over by terrorists. The opposition is desperate to destroy the Zaradari government given the recent court ruling against the Sharief brothers. The Pakistani government’s investigation against the mindless attack in Mumbai has neither appeased the Indians nor helped assuage the growing universal belief that Pakistan is the world’s leading breeding ground for terrorism.

After Australia, West Indies and more recently India withdrew plans to tour Pakistan, Sri Lanka gave Pakistan a chance to redeem itself and prove to the cricketing world that the country was safe at least for sports. To say that Pakistan blew this opportunity is an understatement. With this recent security lapse, cricket in Pakistan with visiting foreign teams is virtually dead for the foreseeable future. It is laughable to imagine Pakistan co-hosting the 2011 Cricket World Cup. Under these circumstances the Pakistan Board’s earlier decision to deny its players a chance to participate in the IPL league seems that much more silly and short sighted. The Government of India seems to have made the perfectly right choice by calling off the Pakistan tour. Its downright scary to imagine the the public reaction in India had its cricket team been attacked on Pakistan soil. What I find surprising though is the little that is being asked of the Sri Lankan government by its media. What was the Sri Lankan goverment thinking when it agreed to tour Pakistan?

India has been crying itself hoarse about Pakistan’s involvement in cross border terrorism and about terrorist camps across Pakistan. Lahore was considered one of the better and safer cities in Pakistan. A blatant attack on a touring team happening in one of the better cities of Pakistan is a sure sign of a worsening law and order situation across the country. Where does Pakistan go from here?  Well, a good start would be to stop being in denial and accept that the situation in Pakistan is dire, getting worse by the day and worthy of immediate attention of the world.  Next, Pakistan must kiss goodbye to the Kashmir issue at least until it can get its house in order. It must go the extra step of making peace with India by handing over the terrorists responsible for the Mumbai attacks to India and preventing further acts of cross-border terrorism. Most importantly, it must not hesitate to seek international assistance in dismantling terrorist camps across the country no matter how unpopular the step might be. The Obama administration has indicated its plan to pull out of Iraq. Meanwhile, it is critical for the US to simultaneously develop a sensible Pakistan strategy (perhaps in cooperation with India) before it is too late.

If you are wondering why Bush will be missed, check out David Letterman’s compilation of the best of his “Great Moments…” series.

Gotta feel for President Zardari. He lost his wife to a terrorist attack. He inherited a messy, bankrupt country packed with terrorists, and an unstable Afghanistan and a thriving arch-enemy India as its neighbors. And now following the despicable act of violence by Pakistani nationals who travelled to Mumbai Zardari now has to face the wrath of India. Under pressure from the US government Zardari seems to have relented and cracked down on the LeT. Now India wants the terrorists handed over. Many in Pakistan are bound to be upset with recent raids on the LeT. The terrorists are probably planning their revenge for these attacks, while the border states with Afghanistan are under severe threat of being run over by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. 

Check out President Zardari’s piece in the NY Times. He says that the Pakistani Government has nothing to do with these “non-state actors” when its widely believed that these groups have thrived with support from the ISI.  

Pakistan is committed to the pursuit, arrest, trial and punishment of anyone involved in these heinous attacks. But we caution against hasty judgments and inflammatory statements. As was demonstrated in Sunday’s raids, which resulted in the arrest of militants, Pakistan will take action against the non-state actors found within our territory, treating them as criminals, terrorists and murderers. Not only are the terrorists not linked to the government of Pakistan in any way, we are their targets and we continue to be their victims.

Then, he takes a “we are in this together” stance though he won’t possibly hand over any of the wanted terrorists to India. Begs the question, if Pakistan can share intelligence then can’t they turn over criminals too? 

Terrorism is a regional as well as a global threat, and it needs to be battled collectively. We understand the domestic political considerations in India in the aftermath of Mumbai. Nevertheless, accusations of complicity on Pakistan’s part only complicate the already complex situation.

Nevertheless, a well-written article. A sign that Pakistan’s PR engine is alive and well. Besides Zardari deserves credit for attempting to reign in the LeT. If he can sustain this while continuing to remain in-charge (not to mention remain alive!), by keeping the Pak army at bay, and the ISI in-check, it will go a long way in improving relations with India. On the other hand, the general public in Pakistan would do well to openly condemn the attack on Mumbai like some Muslims in India. 

Will Mr. Chidambaram respond with the Indian view?

p.s: Meanwhile, here is another very interesting piece on Pakistan’s struggles.

9/11, Iraq War, Katrina, the Financial meltdown….the list goes on. In the final days of his Presidency, Mr. Bush and his team are desperately attempting to shape public opinion with regards to his obviously awful legacy. The latest spin seems to be “At least Bush kept us safe”. Conservative columnist, Peggy Noonan of the WSJ went one step ahead and took a pre-emptive strike at the Obama presidency by saying “Democrats will not want tacked onto the end of that sentence, “unlike Obama.” thereby setting the stage for the next line of Republican attack, god-forbid there be another terrorist attack on the US.

President Bush spent the last eight years making Americans believe that they are terribly unsafe while simultaneously antagonizing the rest of the world and giving them plenty of reasons to retaliate against Americans. Thankfully, the Wall Street meltdown forced Americans (at least 54%) to stop deluding themselves about the importance of safety and focusing instead on their pocket books.  President-elect Obama would be doing Americans (and the world!) a great service if he were to dispel this myth that “we live in a dangerous world” in four years and give other nations less reasons to hate Americans.

For the moment, the love for Obama seems to be virtually endless. When the likes of Karl Rove are “reassured” you gotta really feel the luv! Here is another positive article on Obama’s cabinet picks in the WSJ of all places. President-elect Obama has made a strong start with a virtual “dream team” for his cabinet and little opposition in the media (barring a nervous left). It remains to be seen how he can translate this all round love to some definitive results. Meanwhile, the man on the way out has an outside chance to add, “I saved GM” to his otherwise guaranteed woeful legacy.