It seems to be the case that President Obama’s recent State of the Union message to the Congress took his prime audience, the Joint Session of the Senate and the House of Representatives, by surprise. The President’s assertion of new initiatives, particularly in the sphere of economic policy, clearly left Republican members of both chambers somewhat taken aback, more especially by his insistence that there was much scope left, in his two remaining years, to push through decisive measures which, he will have known, would hardly be pleasing to them. His insistence that the effects of the economic recession of the last years of his first administration needed to be repealed, his putting of some of the measures in class terms – insisting that the benefits of renewed economic growth were bypassing the middle class, and that it was time that the wealthy contributed more to the public purse – seem to have been unexpected from one widely seen by the Republicans as a lame duck.
From all accounts, the Republicans seemed, on the basis of the results of the last congressional elections, and what they perceived to be a certain lack of presidential energy, in economic as well as foreign policy, to have been taking the view that the President was, most likely, unable to recuperate from the political doldrums. The incipient energy of the Republicans, since the recent elections, seemed to indicate to them that the Democrats could do little to recuperate, and the President, as a lame-duck leader, could do even less.
The overconfidence of the Republicans seemed to suggest to them that the low opinion poll numbers attaching to the President had left him somewhat dispirited, providing them with a good political platform from which to approach the next presidential elections two years from now. They seemed to have been making an assumption that the economic recession would not decisively end soon enough for the electorate to attribute any renewal of growth to the President and the Democrats. And they seem to have felt also that, given the relatively short period to those elections, the President and therefore his party, would not be able to persuade the electorate that better days had come.
An increase in positive public opinion responses pertaining to the President in recent months, following signs of a resumption of economic growth, seemed not to have suggested to the Republicans that this could be sufficiently bountiful for Obama and his party to bounce back. The virtually hostile behaviour of Congressmen during his address seemed to have been almost pre-arranged. But this stance of deafening silence seemed not to have taken into account not only the recent signs of favourable opinion towards the President, but also what, in American terms, was the agenda of radicalism that he brought to the State of the Union message.
That American domestic policy, particularly in the sphere of development of shale oil, has brought a somewhat fortuitous political benefit to the President, when coupled with positive signs suggesting a continued recovery of the economy, seemed to have escaped his opponents, even as the polls showed a bounce in his favour. That the President, in terms of policy-implementation time available to his administration would have brought to the Congress a policy of doing what is necessary to ensure middle class employment and income, also seems to have surprised his opponents. And no doubt, Obama will have felt that, whatever the opinion of the Republicans at this point, a combination of further taxation of the wealthy, relief of pressure on middle class incomes, and a further dose of subsidized higher education, would certainly impress itself on the large American middle class, traditionally, in large measure, favourable to the Democrats.
That the President will probably not be able to get through a major part of what he proposes given the Republican majority’s stance, he will no doubt have taken into account. But he seems to have made the assumption, that his policy legacy, intended or finally approved, will place the Democrats in a good position, thus preserving his legacy as a positive President, when the next elections are due two years from now. This, no doubt, would be helpful to his party.
The President, seen for most of the time of his presidency as cautious in foreign policy, and particularly that relating to external military intervention, seems to have also surprised his opponents, at the virtual eve of the end of his second term, by the reversal of this cautiousness, which had prevailed particularly in regard to his policies towards the Middle East and Afghanistan. He had appeared to be determined to leave, in military terms, the Middle East – particularly Iraq. To the Republicans it would have appeared initially, particularly as the civil war in Syria became more intense and expanded beyond that country’s borders, that Obama faced a certain embarrassment if he sought to engage with Islamic State (IS), whose activities, in addition to those in Syria seemed to be going beyond that country’s borders. But the entry of IS into Iraq forced his hand, having as a byproduct an increasing de facto cooperation with Iran and, some surmise, providing an additional platform of cooperation that might lend strength to the search for a solution on the Iran nuclear weapons issue.
So an Obama who originally appeared to be tentative towards any form of military intervention in Iraq and the Middle East, seemed to have been forced to summon the courage to take the initiatives presently in train vis-à-vis that area. And this seems to have, in turn, lifted a perception of him, no doubt acceptable to the Republicans, as a President over-cautious in the use of military force. But to some observers, from Obama’s more recent perceptions, this has been a case of necessity being the mother of invention as IS spread its havoc.
In the realm of foreign policy too, and much nearer home, the President has sought to engage the Cuban regime, a matter long feared by his predecessors, and one now seemingly acceptable to the majority of Americans. And in so doing, he would appear to be clearing the way for more acceptable policy initiatives in Latin America, pointing the way to a recovery from the alienation induced by the revelations of widespread American intelligence snooping.
Finally, and to some a stroke of luck, though not really so, the rapid decline in the price of oil, partly induced by American production of shale oil, but perhaps more seriously, being sustained by Saudi Arabian policy, has enhanced the picture, often favoured by its citizens, of an America not susceptible to the vagaries of other countries’ initiatives in the sphere of world politics and economics. Obama finds himself, as he faces the last two years of his presidency, perhaps facing the oil-producing countries of whatever political stripe, from a more privileged position of inducing negotiation on issues relating to the effect of price gyrations on the rest of the non-oil producing world.
A national perception of more activism in policy-making in this last phase of his presidency is perhaps what has been responsible for the enhancement of his position in the opinion polls, and somewhat surprised his domestic opponents. No doubt he will also face opponents and counterparts, both at home and abroad, with what would be a resumed American activism.