Not unexpectedly, President Obama found himself increasingly pushed into a corner as the elections results to the 144th Congress were announced last week. At the end, his and the Democrats’ situation was marked by a decisive indication of dissatisfaction by the electorate, forcing the President to come to terms with a back-against-the-wall situation for the remainder of his second term. And the situation was the same for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
So instead of attaining the at least 218 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives that his party needed to have control, they found the Republicans registering as many as 245, and thus a significant ability to control business. And similarly in the Senate with its 100 seats, the Republicans moved ahead with 52 to 44 for the Democrats.
The Republican leadership has wasted no time in challenging the President to limit his ambitions for the remaining years of his rule, as they have started insisting that two of his key objectives should be withdrawn. And in that regard they have singled out his efforts at implementing a national health care system through the Affordable Care Act and rationalizing the immigration system through his Immigration Reform Bill.
Criticism of the President from the Republicans has now increased, as they accuse him of trying to force the Congress to approve legislation for measures which the electorate has, in their view, shown a reluctance to support. The criticism has extended to a charge of lack of effective consultation and an unwillingness to pursue the bargaining process. For this, unlike the automatic majority system that we know, tends to be characterized by an expectation of constant give-and-take, as even members of a President’s party feel that they must have the flexibility to match legislation to the specific views of their constituencies.
From the point of view of the effect of this new situation on his ability to manoeuvre legislation or strategies in the sphere of the country’s external relations, there has now been much commentary as to whether the President will be able to credibly pursue his agenda. For given the nature of the US system, in which the presidency is required to engage in extensive prior consultations within the representative bodies to gain the approval of his initiatives, it seems to be felt that Mr Obama is unwilling to undertake the required horse-trading (as it is called) in order to satisfy the elected representatives who consider themselves not automatically bound, on a party basis, to the President.
As luck – in effect bad luck – would have it, the President has found himself facing the international community right after the elections, as he has had to immediately proceed to China to a meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders; and this at a time when it is being felt that the Chinese, as well, have lost a certain confidence in him. They are well aware that Obama is pursuing his initiative for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to weld the participating countries, exclusive of China, in that area to a programme of free trade to which he has been long committed. In this case, however, he seems to have more support on his side for this external initiative than for his domestic plans for immigration reform and health care.
Congressional leaders, no doubt, would seem to have more sensitivity to the increasingly competitive situation involving in particular China, Japan and recent initiatives by President Putin of Russia to elaborate and strengthen a trade investment relationship with China, as the Western or Nato powers have subjected his country to an economic squeeze related to the Ukraine issue.
So the Republicans, through House Representative Mitch McConnell, have wasted no time in indicating support for legislative measures required for American approval and implementation of a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; and at the level of the Senate, Senator Orrin Hatch, the forthcoming Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has indicated his further pursuit of a Trade Promotion Authority intended to give the President authority to negotiate the TPP Pact.
The election results seem also to have bolstered the Republicans in their criticism of the President in respect of what they seem to perceive as his tentativeness and uncertainty in the conduct of foreign affairs, particularly in the present Middle East turmoil. Obama is now blamed for not taking decisive initiatives in regard to the situations in Syria and Iraq, particularly in respect of being decisive in what they believe to be the necessary use of force in certain situations. And recent criticisms by his former Secretary of Defence, Leon Panetta, himself a respected former Congressman, will not be helpful.
In some measure, the Republicans seem to be trying to get their own back, given the severe criticisms which Obama had wielded against the policy of his predecessor George Bush in respect to Iraq. They criticize the President for timidity and delay in taking decisive measures as the IS forces have seemed to gain the advantage in Syria, and more importantly in Iraq, a country in which much American treasure has been spent.
In similar measure, the President can expect to have to respond to entreaties to begin to normalize relations with Cuba which are coming not so much from the Congress, but rather from interest and policy groups.
While he may feel a desire to positively respond, however, including on the issue of the closure of the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, he is probably anticipating that a Senate in particular, in which the Democrats are no longer dominant, may not be easily persuaded. In any case, as his term comes to an end, he may want to ponder the gains from an effort of extensive lobbying, on his part, of the Congress. And in that regard he may be conscious of the fact that immigration reform will already be perceived as intended to be beneficial to Cuban migrants.
So as the President draws near to the end of his last term, with a Congress hardly necessarily friendly, his supporters may well begin to be looking closely at the extent to which he decides to err on the side of caution, rather than finalise initiatives of interest to them which they would like to see pursued before the next presidential elections.
