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?