Obama’s Staff Is Not the Problem

There have been a great many stories over the last few weeks about the state of Barack Obama’s presidency. His poll numbers are terrible, his party’s candidates are running away from him, and those around the world that warmly embraced him when he entered office now decry his leadership and criticize his policies and impact on the world. Whether we examine his domestic, foreign, or economic policy, Obama has plenty of critics. Inevitably, the criticism has led to calls for a staff shake-up, particularly in his foreign policy team.

While it is fairly normal for two-term presidents in their sixth year to make changes, the calls now are unusually loud, and come amid criticism from several of Obama’s former highest officials and party loyalists: Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, to name the most influential. Insiders will tell you that the carping is present at all levels. The complaints have an air of We are floundering. What, for pity’s sake, are the goals and the strategy to achieve them?

While some say staff changes can get the president back on track, others say the president himself must change by demanding more of his staff. That is, he has to make his staff and his processes deliver advice that he then must sift through, refine, and, above all, implement.

But this misses the point: the president is on track for what he wants to accomplish. And he is doing what he wants in the world for the most part, which is not much. In case anyone has missed it, this is his brand, this is his goal, because he’s had bigger fish to fry at home, like healthcare reform. Many take issue with his approach, but it is certainly his prerogative to try to govern according to the ideas he laid out as a candidate and during his first term. His ideology and foreign policy thinking call for a retiring United States that lets the international community lead, one assumes, through the U.N. or at least through a coalition. He is fully aware that the world is a dangerous place, and he is painfully aware that it did not respond to his election and his diplomacy as he thought it would. But the choice of whether to change his mind about how the world works and the role the United States should play is his.  

The cynic might say that Obama’s approach and actions are all just politics. The president knows that only his left flank will cheer him after he leaves office, now that his administration is so troubled and the world is in chaos. The terrorists have not been defeated , and Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq ushered in what his predecessor said it would. Further, the cynic might say that even the president’s half measures to defeat the Islamic State were spawned only by the beheadings of Americans and the Islamic State’s taunting — and he’d say similar things about his motivations regarding Syria and Libya. I judge that to be only partially true. Sure: he acted when the political or diplomatic pressure became unbearable, but not act conclusively or with utmost resolve. Witness the current response to the Islamic State, and before that to Russia and Syria.

I imagine that the president, like most politicians, wants to be liked and wants to have a following. He knows that as a rather young ex-president he’ll have plenty of years left to do good in the world, so he needs a fan base to support his future pursuits. 

But I think what motivates him is that he really believes in what he says about the world and about the United States’ role in it. He didn’t embrace these views to get elected; they date back to his time as an undergraduate at Columbia, and were only enhanced and deepened as he matured and became more civically involved. 

So it is hard to imagine what a staff change could accomplish. Denis McDonough, Susan Rice, and others around the president are smart people with years of experience in government, politics, or foreign policy; some combine experience in all three. They are also close to the president personally and seem to share his views. To imagine that somehow they have not known what the president wants or that they can’t come up with a process that succeeds in rendering thoughtful decisions is a nonstarter to me. Knowing their boss and having in place a process that includes the views of the military, the intelligence community, and the diplomatic corps, they bring him what he needs to make decisions. And it appears that is just what happens: he gets information in briefing books and then makes a decision based on that, filtered through his ideology.

Again, many take issue with that approach. I certainly do and I don’t think he has much to show for it in terms of advancing U.S. interests based on a well-crafted strategy. Nevertheless: It is his approach to the world, and he chose his staff intentionally, and so I see no reason to suggest that with different staff he’ll remedy the image of himself as a leader either globally or domestically.

It is the mind of the president, not the capabilities of his staff or the processes they have in place, that matter. Anyone expecting to see a real attempt to improve his image should counsel that the president do what other presidents before him have done: when the world is not working according to your notions, change your notions.