Too far to the left

By Grace Vuoto

Candidate Barack Obama was wiser than President Barack Obama. The president has abandoned his carefully-crafted consensus and has governed exclusively to satisfy the far-left fringe of the Democratic Party. He has fractured his winning coalition—possibly irredeemably.

When candidate Barack Obama conducted his brilliant political campaign in 2008, he declared that he wanted to be a “transformational” president, much like Republican President Ronald Reagan or Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In this pursuit, he cobbled together a coalition of African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, women, independents and many moderate Democrats and Republicans who believed he could bring about sensible change.

He was able to achieve victory into the Oval Office because he convinced enough Americans that he was in tap with mainstream sentiments on the war in Iraq, skyrocketing budget deficits, corruption on Wall Street and reform of health care. He promised accountable and transparent government and that he would revive the economy without resorting merely to tax-and-spend liberalism. He also convinced Americans that he had the judgment to craft an effective foreign policy based on multilateralism in combination with a vigorous campaign on the war on terror, especially in Afghanistan.

In sum, he won the presidency because he promised something new yet reasonable. The Ivy-League educated candidate appeared to be brainy and innovative—one who might bring a breath of fresh air in the stagnant corridors of Washington; one who just might be able to engender generational change by advancing original ideas and programs based on compromise. This would be a “bipartisan” administration with all the energy, vigor, and dynamism of a youthful man with an original vision.

Yet, ten months into his presidency, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has plummeted and the goodwill he generated is evaporating. A November 20 Gallup poll shows that 49 percent approve of the president’s performance while 44 percent disapprove. By contrast, Mr. Obama had a 68 percent approval rating in January. The decline in his fortunes is staggering.

The sharp drop is not merely the result of a faltering economy and a double-digit unemployment rate. It is mostly due to the growing public perception that Mr. Obama is not the populist, moderate and savvy politician he claimed he would be. Rather, he now appears to be elitist, radical and incapable—one who is inexperienced and in over his head. He is therefore quickly losing the confidence of the American people.

Instead of giving us a new political era, he has reverted to an old formula: the failed, bankrupt liberalism of President Jimmy Carter; the failed tax-and-spend liberalism of the Democratic Party that led to the 1994 Republican victory in the House and Senate. He has forgotten that both Presidents Reagan and FDR did not bring about dramatic change by appealing exclusively to the base of their party. Reagan carefully wooed the conservative Democrats throughout his presidency and FDR courted African Americans and urban ethnic groups as part of the realignment of his party. These transformational leaders balanced the nation’s conflicting interests while nonetheless pursuing a steady course. Both leaders towered on the world stage with hawkish foreign policies.

Mr. Obama is instead not following in their footsteps and has abandoned those who brought him to the dance. His grotesque $787 billion economic stimulus bill has done little to revive the economy and has only resulted in augmenting the debt and raising charges of wasteful government spending. Moreover, the specter of higher taxes is being raised. In foreign affairs, his multilateral efforts have failed, resulting now in a policy of mere appeasement of Iran and Russia. He has also not been able to convince NATO to step up its efforts on the war on terror. In Afghanistan, his comprehensive March review was upheld for only a few months as the nation awaits his newer new assessment.

Debt, appeasement and dithering are not what America voted for with such enthusiasm in 2008.

Perhaps the worst blunder the president has made is to sanction Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to bring September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to trial in civil court in New York City rather than by military commissions. This now exposes America to a security threat on the homeland that had largely been addressed by President George W. Bush’s tough security measures. Instead of leading the nation towards more tranquil times as he had promised, Mr. Obama’s latest decision is directing us towards more troubled times: He is exacerbating the fears of civilians who rightly worry about renewed terrorist attacks in America.

The key to transformational leadership is hawkish policies abroad and coalition-building at home. This was the Reagan and Roosevelt formula. In addition, Democratic President Bill Clinton, who was elected twice, quickly learned his lesson not to go too far to the left after the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994; he thereafter ruled mostly as a centrist Democrat, combining social liberalism with economic restraint.

Mr. Obama would be wise to learn the lessons of the past. The people did not vote for his charm, good looks and winning smile; his charisma will take him no further. Rather, they voted for a centrist Democrat who would give them security abroad and prosperity based on fiscal restraint at home. If he seeks to transform America, he needs to return to the very formula of success that gave him such a resounding victory in November 2008. This means he cannot be beholden to the far-left fringe in all his decisions and must stand up to them.

If he does not, Mr. Obama’s presidency will soon appear as little more than that of a young man whose reach exceeds his grasp.

-Grace Vuoto is the executive director of The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.