Despite the seemingly interminable length of the 2008 campaign and the massive outpouring of press coverage of Barack Obama from his election in November through his inauguration a little less than two weeks ago, I’ve been reluctant to speculate too much on what we might expect from an Obama Administration. The plain truth is that I thought it was too early to tell. However, now that we’ve seen the operations of his campaign, the transition, and his first weeks as president I thought I might propose a few thoughts about what that administration might be like for consideration.
First, I don’t think the Obama Administration will be as loyal as the Bush Administration was. George W. Bush was loyal up to and beyond a fault. He rewarded associates probably more than they deserved (Harriet Myers), praised subordinates when they didn’t deserve it (“heckuva job, Brownie”), and supported members of his administration long after they’d become political liabilities. This brought him plenty of political flak and criticism and probably lead to retaining some problematic people long after they should have been fired.
The way to state this positively is that the Obama Administration is likely to be more pragmatic or more objective than the Bush Administration was. This is not an unalloyed virtue. Excessive pragmatism like excessive loyalty has its own problems. For one thing loyalty breeds loyalty.
Love and loyalty aren’t the same thing. I’m reminded of Bill Clinton’s comment to the effect that Republicans want to fall in line while Democrats want to fall in love. Right now most Democrats love Barack Obama. That can change. Democrats loved LBJ back in 1964. Now his name is barely mentioned.
Second, it’s becoming pretty clear that the Obama Administration will be technocratic. That has been manifest in the manner in which the transition has been managed, the people who’ve been appointed, and the methodical, practical decisions that have been made since the inauguration.
I’ve deeply suspicious of technocrats for reasons I’ve repeated frequently around here. Search around if you want to know more. Technocracy has its problems. For one thing it doesn’t automatically engender political support which in a notional democracy is necessary to ensure legitimacy.
A technocratic approach also exposes one of the biggest fault lines in the Democratic Party. Many Democrats are technocrats. Many Democrats are populists. Those are the opposite sides of a circle and that circle is frequently squared by paternalism.
I suspect that one of the biggest domestic challenges that President Obama will face early on in his presidency will be with the public employees unions. How he manages that will reveal whether he’s a technocrat, a populist, a practical politician, or something else.
The third and most speculative thought I’ll offer is this: I think that the Obama Administration is likely to be the most pessimistic of my memory. I believe President Obama’s strategy will be minimax—minimizing loss rather than maximizing gain. This will place him in diametric opposition to George W. Bush.
I don’t think that the defining characteristic of George W. Bush and the Bush Administration was jingoism or authoritarianism or stupidity or being delusional or lack of respect for the law or human rights or any of the dozens of failings of which they’ve been accused. I think the defining characteristic was optimism.
It explains his overconfidence in his own judgment about individuals, e.g. Vladimir Putin (“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”), Hamid Karzai, Nouri al-Maliki, and others. It explains his emphasis on democracy as an objective in Iraq and Afghanistan (of course all human beings aspire to liberal democracy). It explains the invasion of Iraq in the way that we did it.
How will a minimax strategy function in Iraq, in Afghanistan? How will it function in dealing with the economy? I suspect we’re about to find out.
What is our price tag up to now on the two wars? Let’s pull out,
or charge the rest of the world for the cost of protecting the worlds energy supply..31 million Americans are now using Food Stamps..how many more hungry Americans who are not can we add to the going hungry list…another 5 million..any guess…
GW was unable to function because he stuck to his ideology no matter what…just like most of the Right…what a pity they are unable to think outside the barriers of a failed ideological doctrine.
First, I don’t think the Obama Administration will be as loyal as the Bush Administration was. George W. Bush was loyal up to and beyond a fault. He rewarded associates probably more than they deserved (Harriet Myers), praised subordinates when they didn’t deserve it (“heckuva job, Brownieâ€), and supported members of his administration long after they’d become political liabilities.
One what do you base this? The fact that he dumped Geithner and Daschle just as soon as it becaome clear they were crooks? Or the fact that Obama stuck to his pedge to not allow lobbyests and hence had to dump lots of his original appointments when lobbyest connections were discovered?
Observation. Instinct. During the campaign he was quick to dump or sideline advisors who’d become liabilities, cf. Samantha Powers, Austan Goolsbee, etc. He hasn’t particularly gone to bat for his nominees. Not that he’s needed to considering how accommodating Congress is.
Additionally, Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have the large circle of friends that both Bill Clinton and George Bush apparently had.
I’m sensing a mood. This isn’t hard data.
Well, Powers is back in the fold. (She was put on the State Dept. transition team, of all things. She’s apparently not in the admin itself, but she had certainly been “rehabilitated” in the old Soviet sense.) Daschle did get dumped today, which is a surprise. Apparently the NYTimes still has some pull.