Making Sense Out of Nonsense

The mid-term elections are a week away. It appears as if the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives; loss of the Senate to the Republicans is not as clear. But will it make any difference?

While Pres. Obama may tout his legislative accomplishments, the truth is that even with huge majorities in Congress, he struggled with his two main domestic goals: healthcare reform and punishing the American people for climate change. It took months of rancorous debate for him to pass healthcare and then by only a wafer-thin margin. His plan to tax American business for their productivity and success, euphemistically called cap-and-trade, couldn't get out of the Senate. If, holding large majorities in Congress, he couldn't rally the nation, it's hard to see him doing worse without them.

So in the next Congress it appears now that he will lose his majority in the House, and, while retaining the Senate, he will lose his ability to shut off debate in the upper chamber on proposed legislation. Expect Democratic party discipline to go out the window after the president and speaker Pelosi lead the troops over a cliff next Tuesday. The weak in politics are killed and eaten. Pres. Obama will be a weakened president.

That leaves him with two options. The first is to continue pressing his left-leaning agenda, despite the fact that poll upon poll shows the American people thinking that this is taking the country in the wrong direction. He's already said he'd rather be a one-term president (one can only hope) than compromise his principles. So the threat of his continuing to march into hell for a heavenly cause, becoming the Harold Stassen of left-wing domestic policy,  is real.

On the other hand he could steal a play from Bill Clinton's playbook, work with the Republican and position himself, as he did during his presidential run, as a centrist. The question is whether anyone will buy that the second time around.

However, George Friedman writes today in Stratfor that there is a third choice: shift his focus from the domestic agenda and make his case for a second term in foreign policy. As Mr. Friedman points out, "The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities."

Foreign policy is another matter, with our system giving the president, in his role as commander-in-chief and head of state, pretty decent leeway without congressional interference. Ronald Reagan took advantage of this following his midterm election reversals in 1982 by basing Pershing missiles in Europe to blunt any Soviet thoughts of expansion. He also played party pooper with Libya's Colonel Ghaddafi, dropping a cruise missile in his tent in 1986. These acts energized his base and made him a stronger president.

But on this third rail Pres. Obama will also struggle, notes Friedman.  Despite plenty of opportunities to show his chops in Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and with Iran, the president's M.O. up to this point has been conciliation, not confrontation. So it's as hard to see him blowing up Ahmadinejad's nuke plants as it is to see him extending the Bush tax cuts.

Second, the American public has settled into a war weariness--nine years in Afghanistan, seven in Iraq, and almost constant deployments throughout the equitorial hot spots of the world. The American public's focus isn't abroad--it's on our ailing economy. And unless that improves nothing else matters. Like everything else in this world, it comes down to money.

Just thought you might like to know.