Time to get tough?
Although I voted for him with enthusiasm and was delighted when he won, I’ve tried to maintain a critical stance towards the Obama administration’s efforts so far. As readers of this blog will know, I’ve been critical of their approach to AfPak, ambivalent about their Middle East policy, troubled by the backsliding on torture and ...
Although I voted for him with enthusiasm and was delighted when he won, I've tried to maintain a critical stance towards the Obama administration's efforts so far. As readers of this blog will know, I've been critical of their approach to AfPak, ambivalent about their Middle East policy, troubled by the backsliding on torture and indefinite detentions, and concerned that they were trying to do way too much too soon. But I've also tried to cut them some slack, knowing that they inherited an economy in free fall and a set of intractable foreign policy problems. Even a great president and a competent team would find it difficult to work instantaneous miracles, especially in a political system that has many veto points and was designed to make far-reaching change difficult to impossible.
That said, I am starting to wonder. In particular, I think Obama is going to have to pick an issue and demonstrate that there is a price to pay for thwarting him. Not every opponent is amenable to sweet reason and calm deliberation, and adversaries abroad --and at home -- need to understand that the President can be tough too. Like the early Bill Clinton, so far he's been better at punishing supporters (e.g., Van Jones, Charles Freeman) than opponents.
Although I voted for him with enthusiasm and was delighted when he won, I’ve tried to maintain a critical stance towards the Obama administration’s efforts so far. As readers of this blog will know, I’ve been critical of their approach to AfPak, ambivalent about their Middle East policy, troubled by the backsliding on torture and indefinite detentions, and concerned that they were trying to do way too much too soon. But I’ve also tried to cut them some slack, knowing that they inherited an economy in free fall and a set of intractable foreign policy problems. Even a great president and a competent team would find it difficult to work instantaneous miracles, especially in a political system that has many veto points and was designed to make far-reaching change difficult to impossible.
That said, I am starting to wonder. In particular, I think Obama is going to have to pick an issue and demonstrate that there is a price to pay for thwarting him. Not every opponent is amenable to sweet reason and calm deliberation, and adversaries abroad –and at home — need to understand that the President can be tough too. Like the early Bill Clinton, so far he’s been better at punishing supporters (e.g., Van Jones, Charles Freeman) than opponents.
So I keep thinking about Ronald Reagan’s decision to go after the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) back in 1981. When the union went out on strike over demands for better pay and working conditions, thereby violating a federal law barring walkouts by federal employees, Reagan ordered them back to work and fired any members who didn’t comply. In fact, he barred the strikers from further federal employment (a ban he later rescinded), while the administration improvised a replacement system that kept the airplanes flying. Whatever the merits of Reagan’s action, it showed he could play hardball and it made him appear to be a decisive leader who wasn’t afraid to go to the mat.
Bottom line: Obama and his team need to pick a fight with someone and win, so that both rivals and fence-sitters recognize that foot-dragging, malicious distortion, etc., are not without costs and risks. But one word of advice: a war with Iran is not the sort of fight I have in mind.
John Moore/Getty Images
Stephen M. Walt is a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. Twitter: @stephenwalt
More from Foreign Policy
Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.
So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.
Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.
Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
