Asia Time Online - Daily News
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese

    South Asia
     Aug 25, 2011

Page 1 of 3
George W Obama?
By David Bromwich

Is it too soon to speak of the Bush-Obama presidency?

The record shows impressive continuities between the administrations of George W Bush and Barack Obama, and nowhere more than in the policy of "force projection" in the Arab world.

With one war half-ended in Iraq, but another doubled in size and stretching across borders in Afghanistan; with an expanded program of drone killings and black-ops assassinations, the latter glorified in special ceremonies of thanksgiving (as they never were under Bush); with the number of prisoners at Guantanamo having decreased, but some now slated for permanent detention; with the repeated invocation of "state secrets" to protect the government

from charges of war crimes; with the Patriot Act renewed and its most dubious provisions left intact - the Bush-Obama presidency has sufficient self-coherence to be considered a historical entity with a life of its own.

The significance of this development has been veiled in recent mainstream coverage of the national security state and our larger and smaller wars. Back in 2005-2006, when the Iraqi insurgency refused to die down and what had been presented as "sectarian feuding" began to look like a war of national liberation against an occupying power, the American press exhibited an uncommon critical acuteness.

But Washington's embrace of "the surge" in Iraq in 2007 took that war off the front page, and it - along with the Afghan war - has returned only occasionally in the four years since.

This disappearance suited the purposes of the long double-presidency. Keep the wars going but normalize them; make them normal by not talking about them much; by not talking about them imply that, while "victory" is not in sight, there is something else, an achievement more realistic and perhaps more grown-up, still available to the United States in the Greater Middle East. This other thing is never defined but has lately been given a name. They call it "success".

Meanwhile, back at home ...

The usual turn from unsatisfying wars abroad to happier domestic conditions, however, no longer seems tenable. In these August days, Americans are rubbing their eyes, still wondering what has befallen us with the president's "debt deal" - a shifting of tectonic plates beneath the economy of a sort former vice president Dick Cheney might have dreamed of, but which Obama and the House Republicans together brought to fruition. A redistribution of wealth and power more than three decades in the making has now been carved into the system and given the stamp of permanence.

Only a Democratic president, and only one associated in the public mind (however wrongly) with the fortunes of the poor, could have accomplished such a reversal with such sickening completeness.

One of the last good times that Obama enjoyed before the frenzy of debt negotiations began was a chuckle he shared with Jeff Immelt, chief executive officer of General Electric and now head of the president's outside panel of economic advisers.

At a June 13 meeting of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a questioner said he assumed that Obama knew about the difficulties caused by the drawn-out process of securing permits for construction jobs. Obama leaned into the microphone and offered a breezy ad-lib: "Shovel ready wasn't as, uh, shovel-ready as we expected" - and Immelt got off a hearty laugh. An unguarded moment: the president of "hope and change" signifying his solidarity with the big managers whose worldly irony he had adopted.

A certain mystery surrounds Obama's perpetuation of Bush's economic policies, in the absence of the reactionary class loyalty that accompanied them, and his expansion of Bush's war policies in the absence of the crude idea of the enemy and the spirited love of war that drove Bush. But the puzzle has grown tiresome, and the effects of the continuity matter more than its sources.

Bush we knew the meaning of, and the need for resistance was clear. Obama makes resistance harder. During a deep crisis, such a nominal leader, by his contradictory words and conduct and the force of his example (or rather the lack of force in his example), becomes a subtle disaster for all those whose hopes once rested with him.

The philosopher William James took as a motto for practical morality: "By their fruits shall ye know them, not by their roots."

Suppose we test the last two-and-a-half years by the same sensible criterion. Translated into the language of presidential power - the power of a president whose method was to field a "team of rivals" and "lead from behind" - the motto must mean: by their appointments shall ye know them.

Let us examine Obama, then, by the standard of his cabinet members, advisers and favored influences, and group them by the answers to two questions: Whom has he wanted to stay on longest, in order to profit from their solidity and bask in their influence? Which of them has he discarded fastest or been most eager to shed his association with? Think of them as the saved and the sacked. Obama's taste in associates at these extremes may tell us something about the moral and political personality in the middle.

The saved
Advisers whom the president entrusted with power beyond expectation, and sought to keep in his administration for as long as he could prevail on them to stay:

1. Lawrence Summers: Obama's chief economic adviser, 2009-2010. As Bill Clinton's secretary of the Treasury, 1999-2001, Summers arranged the repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated the commercial banks - holders of the savings of ordinary people - from the speculative action of the brokerage houses and money firms.

The aim of Glass-Steagall was to protect citizens and the economy from a financial bubble and collapse. Demolition of that wall between savings and finance was a large cause of the 2008 meltdown. In the late 1990s, Summers had also pressed for the deregulation of complex derivatives - a dream fully realized under Bush. In the first years of the Obama era, with the ear of the president, he commandeered the bank bailouts and advised against major programs for job creation. He won, and we are living with the results.

In 2009-2010, the critical accessory to Summers' power was Timothy Geithner, Obama's Treasury secretary. Most likely, Geithner was picked for his position by the combined recommendations of Summers and Bush's Treasury secretary Hank Paulson. The latter once described Geithner as "a very unusually talented young man" and worked with him closely in 2008 when he was still president of the New York Fed.

At that time, he concurred with Paulson on the wisdom of bailing out the insurance giant AIG and not rescuing Lehman Brothers. Obama for his part initiated several phone consultations with Paulson during the 2008 campaign - often holding his plane on the tarmac to talk and listen. This chain is unbroken. Any tremors in the president's closed world caused by Summers' early departure from the administration have undoubtedly been offset by Geithner's recent reassurance that he will stay at the Treasury beyond 2011.

Postscript: In 2011, Summers has become more reformist than Obama. On The Charlie Rose Show on July 13, he criticized the president's dilatoriness in mounting a program to create jobs. Thus he urged the partial abandonment of his own policy, which Obama continues to defend.

2. Robert Gates: A member of the permanent establishment in Washington, Gates raised to the third power the distinction of massive continuity: First as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director under George H W Bush, second as secretary of defense under George W Bush, and third as Obama's secretary of defense.

He remained for 28 months and departed against the wishes of the president. Gates sided with General David Petraeus and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen in 2009 to promote a major (called "moderate") escalation of the Afghan War; yet he did so without rancor or posturing - a style Obama trusted and in the company of which he did not mind losing.

In the Bush years, Gates was certainly a moderate in relation to the extravagant war aims of Cheney, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, and their neo-conservative circle. He worked to strengthen US militarism through an ethic of bureaucratic normalization.

His approach has been endorsed and will be continued - though probably with less canniness - by his successor Leon Panetta. Without a career in security to fortify his confidence, Panetta is really a member of a different species: the adaptable choice for "running things" - without regard to the nature of the thing or the competence required. Best known as the chief of staff who reduced to a semblance of order the confusion of the Clinton White House, he is associated in the public mind with no set of views or policies.

3. Rahm Emanuel: As Obama's White House chief of staff, Emanuel performed much of the hands-on work of legislative bargaining that Obama preferred not to engage in. (Vice President Joe Biden also regularly took on this role.) He thereby incurred a cheerless gratitude, but he is a man willing to be disliked.

Obama seems to have held Emanuel's ability in awe; and such was his power that nothing but the chance of becoming mayor of Chicago would have plucked him from the White House. Emanuel is credited, rightly or not, with the Democratic congressional victory of 2006, and one fact about that success, which was never hidden, has been too quickly forgotten. Emanuel took pains to weed out anti-war candidates.

Obama would have known this, and admired the man who carried it off. Whether Emanuel pursued a similar strategy in the 2010 mid-term elections has never been seriously discussed. The fact that the category "anti-war Democrat" hardly exists in 2011 is, however, an achievement jointly creditable to Emanuel and the president.

4. Cass Sunstein: Widely thought to be the president's most powerful legal adviser. Sunstein defended and may have advised Obama on his breach of his 2008 promise (as senator) to filibuster any new law that awarded amnesty to the telecoms that illegally spied on Americans. This was Obama's first major reversal in the 2008 presidential campaign: he had previously defended the integrity of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act against the secret encroachment of the National Security Agency (NSA).

At that moment, Obama changed from an accuser to a conditional apologist for the surveillance of Americans: the secret policy advocated by Cheney, approved by Bush, executed by NSA director Michael Hayden, and supplied with a rationale by Cheney's legal counsel David Addington. In his awkward public defense of the switch, Obama suggested that scrutiny of telecom records and their uses by the inspectors general in the relevant agencies and departments should be enough to restore the rule of law. 

Continued 1 2 3


Welcome to Libya's 'democracy'

2. Sinai clashes send loud message

3. Islamabad fiddles while Karachi burns

4. Aliens to Keynes' rescue

5. The winner economy and the loser economy

6. Class muddles India's anti-graft push

7. More than just a load of hoopla

8. No 'mission accomplished' claimed in US yet

9. New generation leaders blow lid on state secret

10. Singapore braces for economic downswing

(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, Aug 23, 2011)


All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110