Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 6:54 PM

President Obama is now coming to the end of the candyman phase of his presidency. That's the part where he can play to core constituencies and those whose support he would entertain with big gifts -- stimulus money, tax cuts, and promises of policy changes. It's the part where the booty of an election win is spread around -- jobs are given to loyal supporters, and foreign policy victories are scored simply by telling a once-disgruntled ally what they've long been waiting to hear.
But now starts the hard part. Now, the president must grapple with the tough part of leading -- where friends don't get what they want, where allies are pushed and prodded and threatened and punished if they don't fall into line. When force is required, and all eyes are on the United States and the policy initiatives that are under fire can no longer be blamed on the last president.
To help prepare for this period, here are 10 tough decisions that Obama will face in the very foreseeable future.
1. Cap-and-trade
Will he soon be forced to sacrifice putting a price on carbon for political expediency? Will he actually be willing to trade cap and trade for health care as current conventional wisdom would have it...and then enter into a midterm election year when doing a cap and trade deal may be even harder? Will he be willing to use the classification of carbon as a pollutant as a regulatory bludgeon on this issue hard... and necessary... as that may be on many industries?
2. Failing economy
When the U.S. economy underperforms estimates in the next few years, will he be willing to increase taxes on middle class taxpayers... or exacerbate class tensions by continuing to place all the burden on the most affluent Americans? Where is he willing to make meaningful cuts? Defense? Entitlements?
3. Necessary roughness
He won't use force in Iran to stop proliferation; that already seems clear. But will he use it to stabilize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal should it come under siege? Or to stop massive slaughter in Central Africa? Where will he be willing to use force in a place that the U.S. is not already engaged in a conflict?
4. Walking the walk
Europeans love hearing a U.S. leader talk multilateralism, but they don't yet seem to realize that when he talks the talk, they have to walk the walk. Will he be willing to confront and pressure them to step up in a way they did not at the last NATO meeting?
5. Open trade vs. U.S. jobs
How and when will he reconcile his promises to the world to maintain open trading systems and his promises to unions to protect American jobs? Since he can't, who is he willing to anger when he backs off his competing pledges?
6. When the bailouts only go so far...
What will happen when it is clear that GM can't be saved in its present form and the resulting dislocation will knock tens of thousands of people out of work?
7. An uncooperative Israel
What happens when ultimately his desire to mediate in the Middle East and to reduce tension runs up against an ally, Israel say, who is not cooperative? Is he willing to pay the political consequences of confronting the Israeli government? What if they are in the right and Hamas or Iran is clearly the problem? Is he willing to pay the political consequences of getting tough on them?
8. China & Russia
Is the United States willing to accept growing Chinese or Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere due to their engagement and our disengagement? What happens when resource pressures force the United States to say no to big international aid programs at precisely the moment when he and his team want to give more? Is he willing to be unpopular overseas to maintain support at home?
9. Wall Street
If it is clear that Wall Street firms can't recover without paying Wall Street salaries... or that the administration can't function without actually hiring lobbyists... is he willing to back off his completely understandable but perhaps impractical populist stances on these issues, admit he was wrong and defend a course of action that is unpopular but necessary?
10. No more Mr. Popular
On what issues is he willing to actually be unpopular? Thoughts? (This is only a partial list of course, and your suggestions are welcome.) Personally, I'm willing to bet that he rises to the test and sooner than you would think.
One good sign from my perspective: the apparent decision to hire Harold and Kumar, Van Wilder and "House" star, Kal Penn, to join his public liaison team. After all, who better to get down into the weeds of an issue or to help the president achieve the high highs promised in the campaign than Kumar? Next up: Neil Patrick Harris for surgeon general (why put all that valuable Doogie Howser experience to waste?)
MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:BUSH'S LEGACY, CHINA, ENVIRONMENT, IRAN, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN, RUSSIA, TRADE
Will he soon be forced to sacrifice putting a price on carbon for political expediency? Will he actually be willing to trade cap and trade for health care as current conventional wisdom would have it...and then enter into a midterm election year when doing a cap and trade deal may be even harder? Will he be willing to use the classification of carbon as a pollutant as a regulatory bludgeon on this issue hard...and necessary...as that may be on many industries?
He'll try, but success on cap-and-trade is really up in the air right now, not least of which is because even liberals who support CO2 regulation (such as myself) don't like the cap-and-trade system (I'd much rather just have a broad carbon tax; the incentives work out better).
In the meantime, expect the EPA to play a much bigger role on CO2 reduction.
When the U.S. economy under performs estimates in the next few years, will he be willing to increase taxes on middle class taxpayers...or exacerbate class tensions by continuing to place all the burden on the most affluent Americans? Where is he willing to make meaningful cuts? Defense? Entitlements?
Most likely, he'll just run the deficits as long as possible, and let the House Democrats get hit with the unpopularity from raising taxes in a budget proposal. Mind you, this is conditioned on him not introducing some new type of tax; a decent carbon tax would probably go a long way towards providing a new revenue source for the US government.
He won't use force in Iran to stop proliferation; that already seems clear. But will he use it to stabilize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal should it come under siege? Or to stop massive slaughter in Central Africa? Where will he be willing to use force in a place that the U.S. is not already engaged in a conflict?
The answers to your questions are
1. Probably - if it comes to that. I'm guessing that without major changes in Pakistani government policy, the Taliban is going to get virtually on the doorstep of Islamabad (in addition to the Islamists in Islamabad) at some point in his presidency. Seizing Pakistan's nukes, though, would probably only happen if Islamabad itself fell to the Taliban and/or Islamists.
That'd only be one of our problems in that scenario - one of the other major ones being that India would be shitting a brick.
2. Highly doubtful. For one thing, it's a bitch to supply troops in the region, without any good roads or railroads. The other reason is that nobody really gives a shit about wars in Central Africa aside from the few folks in US Africa Command, the humanitarians worldwide, and of course the Africans themselves. They more or less let Africa fight a major regional war (from 1997-2003, nearly 5 million Africans died - the greatest casualties in a conflict since World War 2 - and something like 9 African countries got pulled in) without doing jack shit; what makes you think they'll get involved now?
3. Not if he can help it. He doesn't have the troops, even with Gates' proposed expansion.
I completely agree with you that the 'hard part' is ahead.
I do wonder about your fourth point, though.
Europeans love hearing a U.S. leader talk multilateralism, but they don't yet seem to realize that when he talks the talk, they have to walk the walk. "
Do we have the same definition for multilateralism? Did I miss some irony? Is FP written for a domestic audience?
"Will he be willing to confront and pressure them to step up in a way they did not at the last NATO meeting?"
IMHO, that would most likely be counter-productive. They have public opinions too, you know. You can probably get some money, some help. But I don't see how you can make Merkel/Brown/Sarkozy feel confident about sending more troops. And Berlusconi has a ever-broader coalition to care for. Even the Poles and Eastern Europeans are feeling left out right now. Do you share that particular point of view? You were perhaps talking about aid, not troops/Guantanamo prisoners?
It's all hard parts.
If European countries do not support with troops in Afghanistan, the best response is to withdraw enough troops from Europe to cover needs. This should be done gradually, but with clear message. Every time I see articles about the Europeans and the issue of their recalcitrance, no commentator ever writes about this. Why not? It is time!
Europeans wouldn't react to a withdrawal of US troops by sending more troops to Afghanistan, except perhaps for the newest EU members. But a withdrawal does sound fair.
Since European countries have their own objectives you can probably make a deal with the UK, Germany or France. More troops for a reform of NATO should be feasible. The question is, do you want that?
David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE