From The Center for Vision & Values, Grove City College
By Paul G. Kengor
Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Fox News.
“Today I had a chance to speak with John Boehner and congratulated
Mitch McConnell on becoming the next Senate majority leader,” said
Barack Obama in the opening of his White House press conference
following the Democrats’ Tuesday massacre. “And I told them both that I
look forward to finishing up this Congress’s business and then working
together for the next two years to advance America’s business.” The
president is looking forward to “working together to deliver for the
American people.”
Obama struck an optimistic, cooperative tone. Of course, he better.
If he wants to have any relevance going forward, what choice does he
have but to play nice with Republicans, or at least talk nice?
This begs the trillion-dollar question: Is Obama still relevant?
Given the truly historic proportion of this Republican victory, is
Barack Obama about to become the lamest of lame-ducks?
Before Republicans get too excited, I would caution that a president
is never irrelevant, simply due to the sheer power of the office. We
don’t call it the Bully Pulpit for nothing. There are plenty of muscles
for the commander-in-chief to flex, even if the opposing party runs the
fitness center.
I would point conservatives to a notable example from their
presidential icon, Ronald Reagan. Six years into his presidency, in
1986, Ronald Reagan’s party likewise lost the Senate, and again lost the
House. And yet, Reagan’s final two years were rich with success. He and
Mikhail Gorbachev held four summits, in Reykjavik, Washington, Moscow,
and New York. They signed history’s greatest nuclear-missile treaty: the
INF Treaty. Domestically, Reagan reaped the benefits of the 1986 Tax
Reform Act, a further boon to economic prosperity.
Alas, there was one key negative in Reagan’s final two years: the
Iran-Contra hearings. With the help of the Dan Rather-media, Democrats
in Congress tried to turn Iran-Contra into the second coming of
Watergate. The sharks were in the water. They wanted Reagan’s demise.
Could Republicans seek the same against Obama? I doubt it. Any
attempt to do so, no matter the validity, would be met with the loudest
wails of “racism” and everything and anything else from the progressive
corner. Republicans will not want to jeopardize their chances for the
White House in 2016. Impeaching Obama would be politically
counterproductive.
But while Barack Obama might not be the subject of Capitol Hill
hearings, the Democrats’ presumptive nominee in 2016, Hillary Clinton,
likely will be. This seems inevitable, given that Benghazi demands
continued investigation.
But back to the Reagan analogy: Ronald Reagan generally enjoyed an
excellent final two years from a policy standpoint, especially in
foreign policy. Could Obama do the same? No, I don’t think so. Consider:
In foreign policy, Obama is plainly not a leader. I don’t think he
wants to be. His view of America in the world is a diminished America.
He has willingly and happily diminished his own leadership role. There
will be no Obama-Putin moments similar to Reagan-Gorbachev ones—quite
the contrary.
Domestically, his signature policy achievement, Obamacare, will be
slowed if not stopped. It has now lost all momentum and assistance from
the legislature. Obama is no longer on offense. That’s especially true
given his pronounced inability to reach across the aisle over the past
six years, an opposition he once called “hostage-takers.”
“I continue to believe we are simply more than just a collection of
red and blue states,” Obama told the press on Tuesday, seeking a more
conciliatory tone. “We are the United States.”
The rhetoric is nice, but given Obama’s ideology and perhaps
psychology, I don’t foresee him suddenly becoming the great unifier,
initiating a cascade of bipartisan triumphs. I can’t even imagine what
those would be.
So, for Obama to implement much of anything from his agenda, what
will it take? His main source of impact will not come in bipartisan
achievements but in unilateral overtures. We may see him attempt to
further rely on executive orders, which would be unfortunate and even
more divisive. He will also hammer out a long-term liberal legacy with
the courts, where he can help shape law and culture. Given the
opportunity, he will seize the chance to replace Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg with another leftist in the mold (and youth) of
Elena Kagan. The long-term impact on issues like religious freedom could
be dismal. If Obama has made any particularly discernible “change,” it
is in the courts.
So, is President Barack Obama still relevant? Yes, but much less so.
His own radicalism in attempting to fundamentally transform America has
prompted Americans to fundamentally transform his plans.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. His other books include The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
No comments:
Post a Comment