A Breath of Fresh Air or Disastrous  Reaper of the Whirlwind?
Obama’s First 100 days in Office –
How Does He Characterize the ‘New’ Face of American Government?
Is the President a Pragmatist or Ideologue, a Realist or Idealist or…?

Preamble to an Open Forum

	In a previous recent forum, at the end of Bush Junior’s presidency, in the midst of the current Global Financial Crisis (GFC), we discussed how the mantle of political control had appeared to slip from the politicians to the economists, albeit in key positions in the Treasury, etc. That, in effect, key personnel of an economics and financial background were making key decisions on the behalf of the government in a sphere of operations that directly entailed no elected politicians and only appointed officials. A trend that also appeared in a number of other first-world countries, e.g., Britain. A trend, on the whole that stressed the adoption of a Keynesian style of economic modelling with its emphasis on increased government spending during a recessionary phase. However, as sudden as this recent trend manifested itself, innovative ‘power’ seems to have returned to the political arena, especially in the form of Barack Obama (and to a lesser extent, Gordon Brown). Do we have any parallels here in our own Labor government? A number of parallels do spring to mind – popular leaders; apparent  political programs of change on a number of fronts; similar economic reactions to the GFC; and a relatively obstructionist opposition in disarray but with an inherited base able to oppose processes of change in a non-bipartisan spirit (that may or may not be based on a secret hope of harvesting the whirlwind if current political and economic change should prove to be politically disastrous for those non-conservative governments attempting such radical reforms on numerous fronts). (1)

	Both at the start of a newly elected government and in the midst of a crisis, politicians are presented with the perfect times for sudden shifts in political direction. Their current coincidence in the USA (and Australia), therefore, is a period in time when changes in political direction might more easily be planned and orchestrated! Indeed, Barack Obama has been continually busy doing just this if we were to go on the number of press releases, policy directives, etc., that have been disseminated. Even before taking office on 20th January the president elect was preparing for a more hands on approach after that date. E.g., soon dealing with the GFC with a $787 billion economic stimulus program and its passage through both houses: According to Wikipedia we are told:

    Obama's White House has had several accomplishments at the end of the first 100 days including: passage of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, signing into law the expanded State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), that it says provides benefits to 4 million additional working families, signing the Ledbetter law requiring equal pay for women, winning approval of a congressional budget resolution that puts Congress on record as dedicated to dealing with major health care reform legislation this year, implementing new ethics guidelines designed to significantly curtail the influence of lobbyists on the executive branch, breaking from the Bush administration on a number of international policy fronts, including climate change, while spelling out his plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq.[7] He has also ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, in Cuba, as well as lifted travel and money restrictions to the island. (8.5.09) (3)

	Without a doubt, numerous other changes in policy have also been engineered, or, at least, signalled. Today, we need to note the intentional direction a number of these changes in direction seem to be heading. Is the president a pragmatist or ideologue, a realist or idealist or… is there any epithet or are there a number of epithets that might better describe this president’s apparent sense of style? Heroic, pragmatic, disastrous, left-wing, wasteful, ideological, realist, managerial, etc? Before we debate the nature of this change in style, and numerus other issues, let me note the primary areas of re-direction signalled as important for this president along with the nature of this challenge to date and the type of obstacles in his path. (4)

	A government, large or small, needs revenue to function. In the midst of this GFC and its recessionary climate economic considerations have taken center stage (in a political circus with a number of other important arenas). Such issues as the sub-prime loan debacle, the need for vast finacial reform, questionable mortgage lending, housing repossessions, bank failures, over-leveraged insurance companies and the like, lack of finacial liquidity, global repercusions, increasing unemployment, failure of the car industry, volatile oil and commodity prices, trade imbalances, massive degree of debt both public and private, bankruptcies, hedgefund failures, massive decreases in tax revenues, increased govermental costs, etc., etc. The list goes on, complicated by overseas exchange rate fluctuations, the large amount of first world debt, increasing indications of political instability, etc. Resistance to such reforms proposed by this administration will occur from a non-bipartisan Republican Party, some elements within the Democrats over being too progressive or not progressive enough,  traditional forms of political inertia in league with various forms of vested interest. Another key arena of activity has been in foreign affairs what with winding down the war in Iraq, winding the war up in Afghanistan, fears of a Taliban take over of Pakistan, issues with China, Cuba, dealing with diverse forces in Europe, a recently re-animated Russia (although a loss of considerable petro-and-gas revenues might somewhat put a brake on advancing this degree and manner of influence). Hilary Clinton, to date, appears to have been a very competent Secretary of State, overseeing a large number of committees, around thirty, dealing with with various geographical spheres of concern. Another important area of apparent policy shift and change has been in the vexed area of health care where Americans pay nearly twice as much as any other country per capita despite one quarter of the population not having adequate access to medical care. Then there is the area of environmental concern where, amoung other things, the need to redress green house gas emissions has been officially recognized unlike the insistance upon the status quo of the previous presidency. In the midst of all this activity in policy formation and reformation as just noted we have numerous other policy re-directives dealing with Cuba, immigration in general and the recent outbreak of swine flu in Mexico along with various conference like G20, overseas trips and the visits of various political dignitaries (like the recent joint meeting of the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan). (5)

	To conclude, let me cite some sobering reflections by Gary Young as noted in a recent article in The Guardian Weekly. (6)

    Comparisons between now and the 1930’s, like those between Obama and FDR, can be overdone. The year Roosevelt won his election, unemployment reached almost 24%, the gross national product fell by 13.4%, all his bills sailed through Congress. Things today are neither that bad nor that straightforward… 

    And yet, given the scope of the agenda Obama has laid out so far, the comparison remains pertinent. His pledge to take on both the immediate (the financial crisis and economic recession) and the apparently intractable (healthcare, Cuba, immigration, the environment) even as he ramps down one war, escalates another and raises taxes on the rich, is epoch-defining in its ambition.

    …almost every element in his agenda carries the very real possiblity of failure. The war in Afghanistan is failing, the stimulus package is inadequate, the bailout is rightly unpopular, unemployment is still rising, house prices are still falling.

    These are just, as Donald Ramsfeld would say, the known knowns. The known unknowns include Pakistan, Iraq, a dollar collapse, a terror attack or a bank failure. And as for the unknown unknowns – well, who knows?

    Meanwhile the vultures are gathering. One of the paradoxes of Obama’s administration is that, for all his talk of bipartisanship and national unity he is the most polarizing president since such records began… the first 100 days have shown he is prepared to fight on all fronts. The next 100 days will force him to pick his battles. (7)

	What can we conclude? Is it too early? Do these re-directions in policy make for a kinder and more caring America? Will such attitudes be regarded as a weakness to be exploited or as an opportunity to do business? As the President himself has said: “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference."[6] 

							           Noël Tointon, Sydney, 9.5.09.