Monday, October 15, 2012

Up for debate: Obama's leadership


One of the most firmly established conventions in American politics states that the presidential race is won on the basis of economic considerations directly related to the financial well being and standard of living of the citizen, as well as how trustworthy the candidate is in relation to his economic policy.

Former presidents Jimmy Carter, who lost the race in 1980, and George H. W. Bush, who was beaten in 1992, were kicked out of office amid severe economic crises accompanied by the public's feeling of profound insecurity regarding Washington's ability to navigate the economy to more solid ground. 

And here we are now, despite this basic convention, the second televised presidential debate of this race between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney is to focus on foreign affairs and security policies. 


The reason this debate is arousing such public interest is not only because Romney's impressive showing in the first round (as opposed to the president's apathetic and disconnected conduct) dramatically altered the entire nature of the race and placed him in a promising position, but also because Romney changed the discourse on these issues into a sort of public referendum about Obama's ability to lead.

The president has been pushed into a defensive posture, precisely in the arena where the White House enjoys the most significant and long-standing advantage in the polls. This is especially so since the terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi forced Obama to explain and justify his moves on the strategic and diplomatic fronts, moves which allegedly indicate the accelerated decline of the era of American hegemony under his leadership.
The increased momentum that the former Massachusetts governor now enjoys as a result of his surprising success in Denver has spilled over, therefore, into the foreign affairs and defense arenas. Thus, following long weeks of failures and stumbles, Romney has learned to use the Democrats' own weapon against them. He is doing so by presenting entirely moderate and conventional social and economic positions (which are light years away from the uncompromising ideologies held by the conservative Right), while integrating specific questions of diplomacy and defense and tying them to the wider issues, which inherently touch on the 44th president's ability to lead the American people and the entire international community.
The administration's foreign affairs conduct has shifted, in the public's eyes, from a source of wide internal support to another Achilles heel for the White House. The intensifying criticism over intelligence failures and the inadequate deployment on the eve of the Benghazi attack quickly became just another layer in the mass of disturbing questions about the nature and soundness of American strategy on Afghanistan, Iraq and of course Iran
In this regard the vice presidential debate served to amplify the dilemma over the president's leadership. Despite Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's specialties lying completely in general economics, and in the budgetary realm specifically, during the debate he was able to display impressive knowledge on a wide and varied range of topics about foreign affairs and defense. All of Vice President Joe Biden's efforts to divert the matter of America's apparent decline from the agenda were for naught.
In light of his troubles in the polls, Tuesday night's second presidential debate has become Obama's last window of opportunity to rehabilitate his status as a leader. The president will strive to erase the impression from the last debate, but any attempt on his part to excessively display decisiveness and toughness could backfire into actually being perceived as inauthentic, opportunistic and weak.

No comments: