Who is Barack Obama? – And How To Deal With Him

Who is Barack Obama? – And How To Deal With Him Prof. Michael Brenner The question is simpler to answer than it seems. There is nothing of the exotic about him, contrary to the popular discourse, except for a childhood background that he assiduously has relegated to an outgrown past. A Kenyan father and the Jakarta sojourn in childhood have left few visible marks on his character or attitudes. More fruitful for understanding who he is and what he is about is the portrait of a highly ambitious politician with the self-assurance that stems from a stellar Ivy League record, a wife to match and early electoral successes. His 'blackness' is not part of his core identity. Obama's autobiography is easily misread. He did not visit his father's family in Kenya in search of his roots. There are no signs that he sought to integrate Africa into his persona. Similarly, he has maintained few ties to Indonesia and takes little interest in the country, except for a close relationship with his half-sister long resident in the United States. His aim seems to have been to unburden himself of those experiences. A nominal process of self-discovery can lead to awareness and composition or to consecration of a self devoid of much inner content. In truth, he is not a cosmopolitan person. His travels overseas have been limited, before or since entering the Senate. Since his Jakarta days, he has not lived abroad. His knowledge of foreign affairs is correspondingly limited despite having chaired the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe. Superior intelligence along with legal training makes him a 'quick study' who can readily absorb the main points of a situation without much knowledge or understanding in depth. Facile speaking skills and social ease are complementary traits that help create an impression of urbane worldliness. What of his chosen vocation as a black man immersed in the public life of Chicago? Clearly, that was a calculated choice he made in his early twenties after graduating from Columbia. At that time, he was ending a long affair with a young white woman from a very wealthy family – something that may or may not be of any consequence. He reiterated that choice after Harvard Law School. 'Choice' seems the right word since there is reason to think that it did not emerge from some strong inner impulse. Obviously, we do not know what went on in the inner recesses of his being. We do know that this is a man who is highly self-conscious, self-disciplined and who acts deliberately. The Reverend Wright revelations do offer a few clues. Loyalty to the man who 'brought him to Christ' probably is the least significant. Wright's church was a natural fit for someone immersed in community affairs who wanted to be at once 'black,' broadly progressive and non-sectarian. Tolerance for Wright's egregious polemics is explicable if we suppose that Obama did not take them seriously. That attitude conforms to his generally moderate to conservative views. It also bespeaks someone who feels 'above' or 'beyond' histrionics and passionate activism. Obama is conservative, in the traditional sense of the term. One can visualize him having set down roots in a comfortable suburb and launching his career from there. It is not inconceivable that he would present himself as a moderate Republican, an Illinois John Chaffee. (Were he now in the Senate, there even could be some Republicans talking of him as the 2012 successor to a failed John McCain. A bright new 'white hope' for the party). We should bear in mind that the strongest influences on him during his formative years were a mother and maternal grandparents who were sliced white bread Kansans. Obama's ambition is not inspired by any cause or purpose. The themes he enunciates are ones of national unity – as a desirable end in itself as well as a precondition to meeting collective challenges. None in this category stand out in his writings or speeches. He declaims that partisanship is destructive; it serves no good purpose. This is the face of seven very successful years of ruthless partisanship unreciprocated by his own party. He is by conviction a conciliator. It is not clear whether he is so by temperament, too. He prefers to avoid a fight; he surely does not pick fights. While he hews to the central lines of the Democratic mainstream, Obama is not a philosophical progressive or a populist. Witness his cautious, join the consensus attitude toward the financial meltdown. He first pronounced that the entire disaster stems from a few mischievous souls "gaming the system." He missed the obvious: the game was the system. He now takes his strategic economic advice from Robert Rubin, the godfather of casino finance along with Alan Greenspan, whose CITI Corp lost $26 billion before he bailed out. Obama's tactical advice comes from Jason Furman, Rubin's protege at Brookings, who is best known for his ingenious proposal to privatize unemployment insurance – with the likes of Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns as custodians. Not surprisingly, Obama strongly opposed adding any relief for mortgage holders to the bailout bill. The plan's abandonment after 6 days of stock market collapse did not elicit further thoughts on crisis management. This is simply the record, for better or worse. Little if anything in the roiled public life of America seems to anger him or even irk him. At a time of multiple crises – constitutional, economic, and in the nation's foreign dealings – he keeps his emotional distance. It is hard to imagine him getting worked up about any of the developments in American society or attacks on the body politic that so deeply dismay some others In all respects, Obama is very much a man of his times. Weak or absent convictions, dispassion even about grievous wrongs, incapacity for moral outrage, quiet acceptance of the precept to put self first – if not quite the measure of all things, a natural egoism – all the hallmarks of contemporary American society. A man who amasses $10 million at a relatively young age after a late start and married to a woman with no inherited wealth whatsoever is a man who looks after himself. He has none of the idealism that exemplified his mother's life, and for which she paid a steep price in comfort and security. Obama's disparagement of the 1960s social movements that shaped his mother is revealing. It confirms the absence of serious interest in his own lineage. It hints at an introspection, such as it is, that has the instrumental needs of the present as its magnetic pole. It exemplifies a strongly ahistorical approach to the current world he occupies. Obama's public remarks that the whole 1960s experience was a 'psycho-drama' is astonishing. He is what he is, where he is, as a direct result of the 1960s. The same holds for his wife and children. Indeed, he simply would not be were it not for the ideals and attitudes that became full-blown in the 1960s. Implications What would Obama as President of the United States look like? Certain traits seem highly likely to be on display: Obama is, and will continue to be a deliberate decision-maker and policymaker. That has been a trademark of his campaign. There is nothing impetuous about the man. Improvisation is not in his nature. He prefers to follow a script, however relaxed he is in inter-personal dealings. When presented with an unexpected event, he tends to react with mild irritation. The apropos comment does not spring to mind. That was evident in his reaction to the financial crisis – a bland call for a bipartisan declaration with John McCain. At a more prosaic level, when questioned about his reaction to the news of Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy, he showed annoyance that the matter had even arisen and then made gentlemanly reference to his mother being a teenager at his birth, ignoring the fact of her marriage at the time. Temperamentally, Obama is better suited to formulating policy and orchestrating its execution than he is to crisis management. In the latter instance, his instinct will be to slow down the clock to whatever extent he can. He will be deliberate in making up his mind, but stubborn in holding to a position once he does. Obama's numerous reversals of policy statements in the weeks after the primaries is not indicative of indecisiveness. He simply was playing campaign politics by offering views with little conviction behind them – even though the matters were consequential Commitments as President will be of a different order. In contrast to a narcissistic Bill Clinton, he does not expect the world to give him endless 'do-overs.' His acute, superior intelligence coupled to a desire to be in intellectual control will make him a hands-on President – once he overcomes an initial period of disorientation. Obama is stubborn in defending those policies in which he has invested something of himself; witness his rejection of all criticism aimed at his oddly constructed health insurance proposal that features insurance companies. Obama will enter the White House with wide popular support and goodwill. His trademark elevated, above the fray rhetoric is one reason. He will have no specific mandate, though, apart from doing something about health care. His popularity will be based mainly on his personality and his being non-Bush. On foreign policy, the dispositions of public opinion are clear: do something to end the Iraq imbroglio but don't do anything that embarrasses the U.S.; pursue a more multilateral tack but don't forget American exceptionalism and safeguard our right to take action as we see fit; steer clear of open-ended nation-building projects, except where they create bulwarks against terrorists – e.g. Afghanistan; spent less money abroad, we need it at home; make us popular in the world again. Not much guidance there on how to untangle our multiple, intersecting dilemmas in the Greater Middle East. Failure to raise the fundamental issues of interest and capability embedded in America's Middle East engagements in the public discourse means digging a deeper hole. The next President, who will be anything but a heroic figure, will be handicapped further by: (1) the absence of an Iraq debate that gets beyond calendars; (2) the utter lack of strategic perspective; (3) the consonant inability of the American public to understand the truly significant choices and trade-offs to be made; and (4) a diplomacy hamstrung by the precipitous loss of American credibility and moral authority. An Obama administration will be unprepared for any crisis that might arise from the United States' multiple engagements in the region - unprepared intellectually, politically and diplomatically. Obama will move slowly on Iraq where he will follow the current Bush policy line. That includes: a slow steady drawdown of troops, pressuring the Iraqis to permit a continued large American military presence; and ignoring the real prospect of renewed civil war as the al-Maliki government moves to suppress the Sunni Awakening Councils and to curb Kurdish independence. Neither he nor his advisors have any compelling fresh ideas; they have not rethought the premises of the American engagement in Mesopotamia or linked it a strategic plan for the region. Were civil strife in Iraq to grow, he would be at a loss to know what to do. The superficiality of Obama's thinking about Iraq was evident the first week in September by his reply to a FOX NEWS interviewer about 'the surge.' B.O.: "It's been successful beyond our wildest dreams" – no Awakening Councils, no Iran-induced Mahdi Army stand-down, no unresolved simmering sectarian political conflicts, no $1 trillion investment in a war without cause, no terrorist invigorated, no 'what are we still doing there?' and what strategic ends are served by our staying the course? On Afghanistan, here too he will follow the Bush line of increasing markedly American troop levels while attacking Taliban/al-Qaeda elements across the border in Pakistan. He already has pronounced his intention to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama genuinely believes that a crucial American interest is at stake in the piedmont of the Hindu Kush. Were the situation to deteriorate within the country and/or in relations with Pakistan, he would be at sea. Obama he will be feeling his way on foreign policy generally. Most important, getting out of Iraq with pride and interests more or less intact depends on regional agreements/understandings which will take time to mature – especially in terms of a modus vivendi with Iran. Engaging Iran will be his number 1 priority and his most demanding challenge. It is not self-evident, though, that he will move quickly unless forced to do so by dint of circumstance. Nothing will change vis a vis Israel/Palestine – except, perhaps, for some cosmetics. On Russia, Obama will do some huffing-and-puffing in order to buffer himself from Republican charges of being weak on America's enemies. Obama will avoid serious confrontation, though, and seek ways to work with Moscow – eventually. What Can Other Governments Do? The short answer is: 'not much.' The United States is too big and too insular to be moved by the well-intentioned thoughts and actions of others. Still, there is room for influence at the margins. This is especially so with a foreign affairs neophyte who is inclined to favor change from the Bush stasis, and who is truly interested in working with other countries. What could count is helping to create circumstances conducive to Obama's taking the steps in the direction he already is inclined to go re Iran. That is to say, to move faster and further than cautionary instincts and constraints will incline him to do. General Suggestions 1. Speak candidly and openly about how 'you' interpret each of the Middle East problems, what the past mistakes were – by the US and regional states, what your threat assessments and priorities are, AND what 'you' are able and willing to do. 2. Remember that while Obama will be 'reachable' through his trusted senior advisers, he will make all the decisions based on his own understanding. Now, that understanding is nebulous. In order to have any influence on shaping it, it is essential to engage him before those dispositions crystallize into doctrines and strategies. 3. Policy-making positions will be staffed by the usual combination of experienced professionals and upwardly mobile newcomers Diplomatic experience in particular will vary greatly. Some officials will be very competent, some fumblers. Some will be comfortable dealing with foreigners based upon extensive relations while others will mask their uneasiness by assertiveness and a self-important manner. All this is predictable from recent history. Recent history also says that a key is gaining access to those policy-makers who understand 'you' and the issues - without neglecting, obviously, those with official dossiers. 4. Michele Obama will be a powerful influence. Unlike Hillary, she does not want to run things. She wants her husband to succeed. The essence of her advice always will be: be true to your self and convictions. In truth, though, there is not much 'self' and convictions there when it comes to foreign policy. Still, she will urge honesty, directness and ideals. 5. Bear in mind that the United States government is a two-headed creature; it is essential to 'work' Congress – even when both branches are controlled by Democrats. There will be no repeat of the 'Supreme Soviet' phenomenon seen under the Republicans. 6. Never lose sight of the fact that 'your' ultimate audience is American opinion. It is also Obama's ultimate point of reference. Michael Brenner Professor of International Affairs Posvar Hall University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh , PA 15208