The Dangers of a Second Term

Well, it has been nearly two and a half months and, with the inauguration coming up, I’ve worked through the stages of grief and come to terms with a second term for Mr. Obama.  I try to be philosophical about it and having to keep a neutral face and tone with my government students certainly helps.  In keeping with a purely non-partisan tone and in an attempt to exercise my deep desire to educate people on history, the idea of a two-term president is worth considering and evaluating.  If the past is anything to go on, the president will not have it as easy as his most glossy-eyed acolytes sincerely hope. 

There is a certain ebb and flow when it comes to the two-term presidents.  Of the first seven presidents, only two failed to earn a second term.  John Adams was guilty of running afoul of his own party to uphold his country’s best interests.  John Quincy Adams, the former’s son, was the victim of perception and the fact that many felt he obtained the highest office in a less than dignified way.  Between 1837 and 1912, there were only two who managed to win a second term (save Abraham Lincoln who never really saw his second term).  Ulysses S. Grant goes down in history as overseeing one of the most corrupt administrations and Grover Cleveland likely spent most of his second term wishing he had stayed in Buffalo.  In the 20^th century, war required a steady hand and the voters doubled down (quadrupled down in the case of the latter) with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.  In recent years, five of the last eight presidents (four of the last five) have earned a second term. 

With regards to the second term itself, history is not pretty.   Six presidents (Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, Nixon and Bush) faced severe economic challenges, many of which would extend beyond their second term.  Four presidents (Madison, Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman) faced conflict abroad.  President Roosevelt had the easiest out with regards to the Spanish Civil War.  Yet, historians argue effectively that his lack of involvement made the upcoming World War more dangerous and difficult to overcome.  Three presidents (Nixon, Reagan and Clinton) faced scandals – two of which were the product of personal weaknesses and the other, perhaps, symptoms of an early onset of Alzheimer’s disease.  Three presidents (Monroe, Eisenhower and Nixon) faced serious domestic turmoil that threatened the unity of the country or the prestige of the government. 

What will President Obama face?  It will be interesting how the French action in Mali will play itself out.  The French and President Hollande have weighed into a situation, the likes of which I thought they learned their lessons from Algeria and Viet Nam.  Yet, the Mali people need help and absent American leadership, who used to direct these sorts of things, the French and the African Union are, for the moment, going at it alone.  It remains to be seen just how far the president is willing to push his Pacific strategy and emphasis but dealing with China and keeping them in check will remain a problematic objective.  Worst of all, the president will continue to deal with insolent Iran and an impending conflagration when Israel loses faith in the U.S. to prevent nuclear proliferation.   

On the domestic front, the president will face the ramifications of his Affordable Care Act.  Nancy Pelosi said we will not know how it will play out until it is in place but once that happens, the unforeseen consequences will be a struggle with which the president will have to contend.  The economy poses an ongoing threat to his domestic policies and the president will be plagued with concern about how the Americans respond.  The gun issue, to the anti-gun crowd, seems self-evident and they often speak as if they are incredulous that anyone would disagree with them.  However, the National Rifle Association is growing in membership and money in light of the president’s anti-gun policy and especially in light of the Newtown massacre.  While opinion inside the beltway seems incontrovertible, beyond lies a different story. 

Will President Obama avoid the pitfalls of presidents past?  History would suggest not.  However, the president’s second term is, to an extent, in his hands.  How well will he work with Republicans?  How well will he be able to control his own party, particularly those in Congress, and get them on board with his policies?  How well will Mr. Obama’s new cabinet meld into their new jobs?  How proactive will he be on those issues unfolding overseas?  As an American, I hope for the best.  As an historian, I know the deck is stacked.

 

Many Faces and Many Challenges

For moderate and modern Muslims, it must be a tiring thing to watch, once more, as clerics stoke highly impressionable and easily angered radicals to rise up and destroy and kill over something as insignificant as a low-budget movie that, were it not for the violence, no one would have heard of or thought much about.  Yet, we see the hostility from various countries around the world.  Worse, we see governments, namely Egypt, who provides the most ineffectual of rebukes on the riots and attacks on foreign embassies.  It is with Egypt that the U.S. is most concern but the crisis is twofold – religious and political. 

From a religious point of view, where do the renewed attacks, protests and riots leave Islam?  I don’t suspect that Muslims do or should care of how they are perceived outside their mosques and homes but it must have occurred to some regarding the level of insecurity in faith the actions of a few represent.  In Islam’s early days, the religion was a vibrant and progressive faith whose focus on education and exploration, of the world and of ideas.  Indeed, the Muslims were responsible for the preservation of Greek and Roman knowledge and philosophies.  However, as the faith grew and the empires it counseled grew larger and more suspicious, Muslim clerics forbade outside or new ideas that could not be validated by the Qur’an.  In doing so, the Muslims turned their backs on their own greatness and turned inwards, fearful of those from without who sought to pollute their faith.  Today, if Islam is characterized by anything, it is those whose anti-modernity pervert the faith and its tenets.  Meanwhile, Muslims who do not share such sentiments are overshadowed, outshouted and ignored. 

Politically, this can only worsen relations between the Arab nations and the West.  The United States has supported, albeit weakly, the movements that have sought a greater voice throughout the Middle East.  However, as has been mentioned before, the Arab Spring has become more a hopeful description rather than an accurate one.  Indeed, some of the same corrupt powers are being wielded by new faces that previously represented the voices of the oppressed.  Though the U.S. did not do as much as many would have preferred, the actions of rioters are mystifying given that which the Americans have done.  To Americans, the blame we “share” for the making of this film is telling in two ways.  To citizens where the government approves or disapproves of any form of expression, there is a lack of understanding of how things work in a free society, where most have little knowledge of such a film.  Second, the clerics and leaders whipping people into a frenzy couldn’t care less about Mohammad or his teachings; the film is simply an excuse to strike against those they hate.

Protestors destroyed our embassies and killed our representatives.  Meanwhile, what does the U.S. do?  The general consensus is that Libya has shown more stability and more outrage to the actions of a few than seen elsewhere.  In Egypt, we give nearly $2b in foreign aid and President Obama has extended his greatest amount of support to President Morsi and recognition of the elected government.  The lack of support and weakness of the response to the rioters suggest that the current Egyptian government will prove trouble for the Americans.  Perhaps, our displeasure with the Egyptian response should culminate in a withdrawal of some or all foreign aid and a pulling back of our support of the government.  Egypt’s actions deserve no less.  Meanwhile, the unrest throughout the region needs to be countered by those Muslims with a greater world view.  If not, Islam will be relegated to the extremists and the worst of stereotypes.  We are already moving towards that.

The Gathering of Storm Clouds

There are a series of events that are transpiring that could quickly destabilize various regions around the world.  In the past, the United States played a large and influential role in settling situations and calming fears – allowing for “cooler heads to prevail.”  In the past, the United States displayed a leadership that could convince otherwise truculent world leaders to compromise or stand down.  Critics of American foreign policy denounced the overbearing and bullying democracy.  President Obama feels that the U.S. has inappropriately and insensitively projected itself on world affairs in the past and promised not to follow that same path.  Activists around the world applauded the declaration.  Yet, in the Middle East and the Far East, things are quickly deteriorating and it begs the question if a stronger president could not have stemmed the tide. 

A while back, I worried that Syria was turning into a Rwanda.  Today, the international community has allowed a government to butcher its own people on a massive scale.  In the absence of international action or leadership, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved in to help the rebels.  However, the bloodshed continues and the government remains unrepentant even as its structure crumbles around them.  A new envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, now has the unenviable task of convincing a government who has ignored international pressure for over a year to put aside its aggression on its own people with little tangible outside help from the Americans and Europeans. 

To the southwest, Israeli leaders have given up hope of the international community rendering aid and are in the process of considering, if reports are to be believed, a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Israel has, unfortunately, needed to take this path before when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nascent nuclear reactor in 1981.  Recent reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities suggest it is further along than anyone thought.  Not only does such developments threaten Israel but it is reasonable to suggest that predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are also at risk – not to mention western Europe and other U.S. allies.  While many international activists chastise Israel and despair of its “militaristic” tendencies, Israel might be forced to do what years of diplomacy have failed to accomplish. 

On a group of Japanese controlled islands, a bit of opera is playing out between the Japanese government and activists from China. The Senkaku islands are the center of a debate as to who controls the area. When the Japanese Coast Guard detained and questioned the activists, Beijing issued a strong condemnation as anti-Japanese protests erupted through the country. At stake for these islands south of Okinawa and just north of Taiwan are a litany of gas fields and a heavily traveled commercial shipping lane. China declares ancient rights to the islands but Japan has controlled them since the late 1800s.  To what extent China would be willing to fight over the islands is uncertain but two obdurate, tradition-rich and stubborn countries at odds is a point of concern.  Unfortunately, no one outside the region seems to notice.
 
Any one of these incidents can, by themselves, create the kind of foreign policy headache that risks the lives of tens of thousands. A strong and influential hand has traditionally been sought out from the United States but at present, it appears to be absent. As time goes by, the European Union grows increasingly pre-occupied with holding its economic structure in place. The Arab League has proven, to date, to be as ineffective and toothless as the organization it was patterned after – the United Nations. The world community releases one paper condemnation and outrage after another but things continue to deteriorate.

The president is pre-occupied by the coming election as any president would but Mr. Obama also needs to understand that he cannot focus solely on November. The boldness he displayed in ending the Osama bin Laden threat is required once more but he seems reluctant to enter the fray. If this is what we can expect from the president with an additional four years, perhaps we should take a longer look at Mr. Romney. Sadly though, if talk is to be believed, some of the situations could collapse long before the November election.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Libya?

In a perfect world, as a historian extraordinaire, the president of the United States would call me up and ask, “So… this whole Libya thing. What should I do next?” Not that he needs my help per se. He has plenty of smart people around him and he is no slouch in the brains department either. However, President Obama would be served well to consider the lessons of the past, if not the sage-like advice of a blogger with about 4 people on a regular reading list – one of them being my mother.

And so, we turn a hopeful eye towards North Africa. Libya has been a center of civilization in the region since antiquity. It could prove to be so again in the 21st-century but a great deal of things would need to fall into place – a confluence of events that only seems to happen in the history of countries. When considering how best to help the country and its nascent governmental structure, there are three main things it desperately needs from those claiming friendship and one thing it could certainly do without. The president has made comments to suggest the role of the U.S. will be limited because of our standing in the region. That would be a huge mistake – the kind that one term presidents with a penchant for making nationally televised speeches about malaise make.

Step one, send in a slew of politicos including campaign managers, strategists, voting experts and observers to bring the country more quickly to free elections. The United States did this with the countries of Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union lost influence and ultimately, collapsed. The Libyan people and the transitional government will need all the help they can receive from the world’s democracies to create one of their very own. Such experts can organize the process of the selection of candidates for office and the standardization of voting places and procedures. We have a great opportunity to influence the course of events in Libya, a course of events that would serve the Libyan people well.

Step two, there needs to be economists and business people to advise and invest in the country. One thing that makes the Libyan economy so shaky and fragile is its lack of diversity. Oil revenue makes up about 95% of its total export revenue and a whopping 25% of GDP. Economists and investors could change that. There are needs that, if paid for by the oil revenue, could do much to increase the standard of living. Perhaps, such assistance might also turn around the fact that it imports roughly 75% of its food. Additionally, economists could help shape domestic and international fiscal policy as well as set up new trade agreements and steps to increase foreign investment.

Lastly, there needs to be people who provide infrastructure construction and advice. With the various improvements that need to occur within the economy, a major dose of infrastructure projects would secure new foreign business and investment. It is likely that much of the port and pipeline facilities could use updating or repair but so too is there a need for additional road construction. Much of the country is desolate but increase road construction throughout the northern part of the country, which has only 35,000 miles of paved roads, might increase a variety of other industries.

One thing that would not serve the country well would be the appearance of United Nations peacekeepers. First of all, it sends the wrong message to the people of Libya – “we don’t trust you guys to put together a government without killing one another so we are going to send a bunch of soldiers in little blue helmets.” Second, the United Nations do not have a great track record for this kind of action and ultimately, a mismanaged and ineffective outside force could do much to ruin what other measures might be able to create.

As Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard mentioned on one of the Sunday shows this past week, we cannot control what is going on but we have it within our power to influence. Perhaps, a democratic country seeking to help out a budding democracy in accordance with our principles might do much to change our image in the region – surely, it will do more than refusing to do nothing because we fear people not liking us.

Has the Arab Spring Sprung? Don’t Tell the Syrians

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been articles and analysis on the waning of the Arab Spring. The feeling among the writers is that those who succeeded are disenchanted with the results or the results have been hijacked by other elements. Of those who have not succeeded, the feeling, according to the writers, is that without outside help, their particular dictators will not acquiesce. I believe that history has shown that revolutions have ebbs and flows like any movement or campaign. However, there is one place where the Arab Spring is as turbulent and contentious as ever – in the country of Syria.

Over the last couple of months, the Syrian government, under the leadership (?) of President Bashar Assad, has been picking off its own citizens while declaring them at various times as either Israeli insurgents, Israeli-supported insurgents, gangsters or Muslim extremists. The Syrian government has tried all of these labels in hopes that something would resonate with those yet to protest to support the government. The Israeli story was concocted in hopes of diverting its population’s attention from the actions of their government. To date, not only has the uprising not abated but it has intensified, even into the formerly sacrosanct Damascus, the capital. In response, the Syrian government has initiated a near all-out assault on these “gangsters” or “extremists,” particularly in the city of Hama. An Economist article quoted one diplomat, upon seeing the chaos and the drummed up, government-mandated support for the regime, muttering about, “the last days of the Raj” (www.economist.com/node/21524855 - “Syria’s Turmoil: Reaching the Capital”). The Syrian people are not aware of a wane in the Arab Spring. They have ascended, has Henry V said, “once more into the breach.”

President Obama has not commented on the uprising or the uptick in violence perpetrated by the Syrian government on its own people. Granted, the president has been knee-deep in talks about the debt ceiling but he also needs to focus on the rest of his multifarious job. It is not easy being the president and President Obama has his hands full but it seems, he does not understand one component of his job. As the sole world power and the most powerful democracy in the world, it seems peculiar that the U.S. would be silent as people struggle and die for the right to have a say in their government.

Compounding the odd silence from the White House is likely the idea that many Syrians are not depending upon the U.S. While some may see that as a positive sign, in fact, it is quite troubling. Throughout our history, we have sided with the underdogs. We’ve not always come out on the right side of things or done the right thing. On balance, however, the U.S. has sought the greater good for others. It no longer appears to be true. In the last two years, we have seemed reluctant to enter the fray, even diplomatically. The administration was nearly silent as Iran gunned down its own citizens, remained on the sidelines for far too long in Egypt, “lead from behind” in Libya and outside the occasional remarks from Secretary Clinton, Washington has been quite taciturn on the situation in Syria.

The U.S. is fearful of a Syria allied with Iran and so, they take a hands off approach. Yet, we could have a helpful and guiding hand in the situation in Syria. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. and other European democracies flooded Eastern Europe with consultants and experts on democratic elections and governance. The more we are out of touch and out of tune with the ordinary Syrians, the less role we will play in its reconstruction. If we don’t help, more nefarious powers might.