Jonathan Todd

“What a President decides to do first helps the public understand his priorities”, as Comment Central correctly notes in an interesting post, featuring the views of the columnists of The Times on what should be top of Obama’s to-do list. It might be presumed that Obama will do something akin to what Bronwen Maddox advises:

“Barack Obama should shut Guantanamo Bay – which he’s said he’ll do – and also think of handing the entire naval base over to Cuba, to reverse the isolation of that country by the US, one of the most ridiculous reflexes of American foreign policy. Then he needs to send his team to the Middle East and its borders. The whole region, from Egypt to Pakistan and India, will dominate his presidency”.

While I see much to commend and nothing to oppose in this suggestion, it is rather a European answer. In that, as Danny Finkelstein observes, ”Europeans may see an American President as a world leader”. This isn’t quite the reality of the situation, however, as Finkelstein goes on, “US voters see him as, well, the leader of America. He should move first, therefore, to put in place his full economic plans for the banks. The longer he waits, the more confidence will seep out”.

Finkelstein is clearly right. “The economy is Obama’s obvious and overwhelming priority”, as Andrew Sullivan wrote a few weeks ago in The Times. The success of Obama’s economic policies will determine whether he is, “a liberal Reagan, riding a recovery towards realignment, or a black Jimmy Carter, overwhelmed by forces he was unable to control”. Thus, the political and economic stakes could not be higher. The failure of his economic policies will both lead to the ruin of millions of Americans (and non-Americans) and destroy much (if not all) of his political capital.

Immediately putting in place the best possible economic package is, therefore, an utterly pragmatic thing to do and, as Gerard Baker points out, “almost everything Barack Obama has done since he was elected has emphasised his commitment to a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach to confronting America’s many challenges. When he takes office he should make good on that commitment, stand up to ideologues in his own party and invoke a true spirit of national unity”.

The radical centre (or center) beckons for the pragmatic Obama. The Economist recently explained how this may take shape:

“Next year the Democrats will have large majorities in both arms of Congress, but not quite enough seats in the Senate to shut down filibusters and make Republicans irrelevant. The Senate will thus be the second-toughest check on the new president, after the rapidly emptying Treasury. But Mr Obama’s lack of a crushing Senate majority could actually help him govern better. If the Democrats had 60 seats, Mr Obama’s supporters would expect him to sign a bunch of narrowly partisan bills. Since they don’t, such bills won’t reach his desk. If, for example, his fellow Democrats try to abolish the right to a secret ballot before a workplace is unionised, Senate Republicans will stop them.

“The biggest and best reforms of the past have usually been bipartisan—think of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 or welfare reform in 1996. Mr Obama, too, has a better chance of changing America for the better if he reaches across the aisle. Take health care. He cannot substantially and permanently expand coverage (a Democratic priority) unless he also tackles soaring health-care costs (a Republican one). Or take climate change. It would be politically suicidal to force higher energy prices on Americans without bipartisan cover. There are plenty of moderates in the new Senate, from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on the Republican side to Mark Warner and Claire McCaskill on the Democratic one. Charlie Cook, a political analyst, counts at least 23 centrists, who will in effect hold the balance of power. Mr Obama should work with them. He may find a useful ally in his old sparring partner, John McCain”.

So, Obama, roll out the economic big guns on day one, start engaging with the Middle East on day two (and maintain this engagement) and reach out to the radical centre (or center) throughout. Easy money, eh?

Charles Krauthammer describes British democracy as if the House of Lords Act 1999 had never happened. But he writes well on Caroline Kennedy’s Senate bid, picking up on a statement by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). “I don’t know what Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo”.

J-Lo’s claim to still be “Jenny from the Block” may stretch credulity somewhat after a decade of uber-stardom. Still her rise from humble beginnings in the Bronx was obviously marked by great dedication and hard-work. For example, dividing her time “between working in a legal office, dance classes, and dance performances in Manhatten night clubs”, as wikipedia describes, doesn’t sound like the easiest of lives.

With the lashings of patronage that come with her surname, no such struggles were required for Caroline Kennedy. The Mayor of New York endorses her candidacy on the basis that “her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time.” So what? J-Lo’s Mum was a kindergarten teacher. The contrasting backgrounds of Lopez and Kennedy bring to mind the “American dream”. This was a phrase first coined by James Truslow Adams in 1931 when he wrote:

“It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Beautiful words, which cannot fail to move, seduce and convince. Yet the appointment of Kennedy to the Senate would be a regression to the kind of Europe that the House of Lords Act 1999 tried to sweep away. It truly would be old Europe. While the rise of a kindergarten teacher’s daughter from the Bronx to global recognition of her talents, seems the very fulfillment of the American dream.

Of course, the appointments system is profoundly undemocratic and should be reformed, as Danny Finkelstein points out. And, of course, if Kennedy were to stand in a public election and so earn a place in the Senate, she would have won on her own merits and be fully deserving of this place. Until she does so, however, I’d prefer to see J-Lo in the Senate. She is the American dream in the form of a music video, which amounts to more than even the most distinguished of family lineages.

It remains the case, as Bill Clinton told the Democratic Convention, that “people the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” The appointment of Kennedy – indeed, the appointment of anyone – is a betrayal of the American example, however.

[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m8YWxzPKBSc]

Good overview of the polls since the PBR from Danny Finkelstein:

“Before the PBR, You Gov gave the Tories a 5 per cent lead, now it is 6 per cent; Populus gave the Tories a 6 per cent lead before and a 4 per cent lead now; Mori gave the Tories a 3 per cent lead before and a 6 per cent lead now; ICM gave the Tories an 11 per cent lead before the PBR and a 15 per cent lead in their last poll.

“Only ComRes – which had the Tories on a 13 per cent lead some time before the PBR and now have them on a 1 per cent lead – shows a real shift after the PBR”.

So unless you buy the ComRes story, it remains the case that while Labour may have regained the ears of the country, more work still needs to be done to convert this hearing into voting intention.

Danny Finkelstein makes a strong point about the problems involved with state funding of politics. Coincidentally, his blog also contains insights on the far more preferable alternative that Obama’s campaign has embodied: lots of small donations. I fear that democracies end up with the politics that they deserve and that our cynicism about party politics will ultimately leave us in an unsatisfactory world of largely or wholly state funded politics. Wouldn’t it be better to try to apply the lessons of Obama’s campaign here?