Obama and America at the Crossroads

This may be the common subject of recent pieces--in very different venues--by my colleague Artemy Kalinovsky and me. In an original, and somewhat ominous, discussion for the Foreign Affairs website, Artemy compares Obama, not to one of his U.S. predecessors, but to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It's an interesting piece and you should read it yourself. The ominous part is where Obama's political style looks similar to that of Gorbachev, that is, usually trying to find a middle way, looking to reconcile opposing positions. Sticking with what historians now also call this indecisiveness cost Gorbachev support, and ultimately it played a big part in his undoing. Artemy believes that Obama can still avoid this fate, arguing the president should probably make some choices soon. In a short piece for the Leeuwarder Courant last Saturday (it's not on the website) I asked if the political debate was likely to become more civil and perhaps lead to a more productive policy process in Washington as a result of the Arizona shooting. I wrote it prior to the president's speech (go here for a lively exchange I had with a friend who, unlike me, does not believe it was beneficial), but I don't think that speech changed (could have changed) the main reasons why the debate is likely to remain deeply ideological and therefore an obstacle to pragmatic politics. Relative U.S. decline is one of these reasons. It is manifested for example in unemployment, national debt, and budget figures, it is real, and it's unprecedented in U.S. history. It's also profoundly un-American in the sense that throughout their existence Americans have become used to--indeed, have seen their national identity defined by--growing opportunity. There were usually enough concrete examples to keep alive the national myths of individual and national opportunity and growth, in spite of eras like the Great Depression, in spite of many stories of personal failure. But in the last couple of years, something seems to have changed. Anxieties about the rise of China is only one, although an important, example of how many Americans seem to understand this. Herein lies a source for the anger, because the change is profoundly unsettling to many Americans. Worries about finding, or holding on to, work are connected to the unsettling realization that things may never be what they used to be. This is more about (national) psychology than about what are still very real day-to-day economic realities. I don't think this relative decline of U.S. financial, economic, and political power in the world is irreversible, but it's real nonetheless and it will go on for a while. At the very least, the country will have to continue a long adjustment after long years of excess, of living beyond its means collectively and often individually. Think of what it's going to take in real pain for real people to get state budgets in order, of the kinds of adjustments envisioned to regain control of the federal government's finances. Depending on where they stand politically, Americans are going to argue passionately over that (they're already doing that), but what will add to the fire is the underlying fear that the old myths no longer hold, that something fundamentally has changed and that someone--the other side--is to blame for this. Much of America's relative decline is indeed the result of its own actions. Most are complicit, either because they actively and consciously acted in ways they knew were not sustainable (ways, at least, not in the general interest), or through willful ignorance. But few are willing yet to acknowledge they may have played a part. The good news is that because the problems are mostly of America's (and Americans') own making, they can also be addressed by things Americans do individually and through their common institutions. The bad news, and the reason why Americans will likely continue to vilify each other, is that until enough people take responsibility, the problems will continue to grow. More people seem to be taking a more pragmatic, and humble, view, but I don't think we've reached a threshold yet. Meanwhile, the presidential primary season is just around the corner. Leadership can make a difference in all this. For all his alleged faults, I think that the kind of vision for the nation's politics that the president has put forward is an excellent place to start. We shall see if in the upcoming State of the Union he will be equally compelling on policy. But leadership can only get you so far. Ultimately Americans themselves (Goldman Sachs very much included) will have take responsibility to stop the bleeding and to infuse the old American myths with new meaning.