Four Years of Obama: An Evaluation

Incumbent president Barack Obama. I am rooting for the
guy even though this article doesn't avoid criticism.

Republican criticism of U.S. president Barack Obama has been harsh. At the Republican convention in Tampa, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan characterized life under the Obama administration as planned out by the government. 'A country where everything is free but we are not', he stated. Clearly the Republicans are not amused by what the past legislation brought forth. Sure, the differences between the two parties seem wider than ever; polarization seems to grasp the sphere rather well. Yet a lot of progressive Democrats too are dissatisfied with their president. Voters on the left who supported Obama in 2008 have grown disillusioned. It is to this part of the electorate that the Democrat directed himself when he argued that 'when you give up now, nothing will change'.

Does Obama follow a centrist line? Is he the Republicans' little bitch? Or a socialist crook, as Tea Party types claim? In spite of all 'election speech' I do believe in the good intentions of Obama. And when reflecting upon his realizations (or the lack thereof) we must always keep in mind that a president can only do so much. In making policy, Obama has been winged by a Republican-dominated Congress. As a result, the output of four years Obama is always the output of a four year game between all relevant actors.

THE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE

Whether the past legislature can be dubbed 'left' or 'right' depends on which policy branch is under consideration. One field in which Obama made a difference is the emancipation of the gay community. He repealed the DADT policy which barred homosexuals from the army. As a major influence on the public opinion he also openly approved of gay couples. I consider this a big step forward in what I consider to be a backward country regarding such issues. (If this judgement seems harsh, please consider that I live in Belgium. Same-sex marriage is totally legal here and even our PM is homosexual!). Sure, Republicans aren't all united on this issue. But I do believe that a Republican president would have made a difference, if only in his silence.

On a side note: Obama is black. Perhaps it is lame to see this as a positive quality, but I can't help thinking it makes a difference. It is something like a first female head of state: not necessarily an indication of real emancipation but a strong token of progress nonetheless.

Obama might well be the 'greenest' president the States
ever have seen. A tendency his party can capitalize on, as
a lot of moderate voters have environmental concerns too.

The branch in which Obama made the biggest difference is, I belief, the environmental policy. His administration protected the Grand Canyon from uranium mining, supported green industry, enacted stronger protections against poisonous substances, etc. Again Democrats and Republicans come in various flavors when the environment is concerned. Yet the duo Romney-Ryan campaigns with dismantling such protections as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Their approach completely denies climate change, as does a frightening large portion of their party's officials. Climate change is a debate in its own, but massive amounts of toxins and greenhouse gases can't be very wholesome. To claim that such pollution has no effect - you tell me who believes in fairy tales?

The following might be striking, but with that I have covered Obama's biggest achievements. What about the social policy, you may ask? What about saving the economy? There is no denying that the president did a decent job governing in difficult circumstances. I am however not convinced that a Republican candidate would have made a significant difference. Of course this is counterfactual, and thus not solid. But allow me to make a case.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CENTRIST

The economy got stimulated with a 800 billion plan in 2009. One third of this amount was however implemented as tax cuts. Cuts are less stimulating than outright public investment since people will have the incentive to save up for the hardship to come. Especially the left was not too happy with this design, but then again it were the Republicans in Congress that needed to be courted. Perhaps McCain (or another generic Republican candidate) would have added a bigger portion of tax cuts. Perhaps the benefits would go to a higher income group than the middle class Obama favoured. But these measures would only be less effective in stimulating the real economy as a whole. And after all, there are only so many ways to revive an economy in a limited scope of time.

With the tax cuts mentioned, I would like to take the time to tackle one of the biggest myths created by the American right. The tax burden didn’t massively increase under the Obama administration. True, the president set out to revoke Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. But this never came about. Too bad I say. And his more leftist supporters would surely agree, a failure. On the other hand taxes were reduced for the middle classes, mainly with the stimulus program. Neutral economic institutes set the current U.S. tax rate at the lowest in decades!

The health care reform, often dubbed 'Obamacare', is
subject to much debate. A look at recent history puts
much of the consternation in perspective, though.

On to that other eyesore for conservatives: Obamacare. Republicans are angered, yet it concerns a reform they thought about for years themselves. Its very blueprint - as is by now well known - was implemented by no less than Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts! The so-called Heritage model, created by one of the biggest conservative think-thanks, obligates Americans to buy an insurance with a private company. Those who can’t afford one are entitled to subsidies. As a counterweight, insurance companies can’t turn anyone down. But why would they if the state just bought them 30 million of new customers?! Republicans can't be too mad as their ultimate nightmare was avoided: a public insurance option after European fashion. Such an option was present in a failed plan once presented by Nixon. And why did Nixon fail? The Democrats wanted more. Now they themselves presented less, and short-sighted Republicans call it socialism.

If Obama is a communist he knows damn well how to hide it. Sure, he nationalized the car industry. But only for a while. And while Romney suggested to drop GM and Chrysler, I heavily doubt any president would have the guts. It sure wouldn’t do him any good in the polls. As for Wall Street, saving behemoth financial institutions with tax payer money can hardly be called called socialist either. For one there weren't any real options here. And second, the government asked nothing in return. No accountability, no caps on bonuses or management wages. The families who lost their homes due to malpractices outside their control could count on far less support...

A MIXED RECORD

Other hot topics Obama-supporters bring up are migration and foreign policy. The DREAM act was a nice gesture. Most Republicans wouldn't dream of coming up with such a proposal. And indeed they complain it will only encourage illegal immigration. This may be, but the Obama administration is also responsible for doubling border patrols. Obama seeks to reduce the influx while dealing with the illegal community already present. Not too shabby, I must concur. The war in Iraq ended. For Afghanistan the end is in sight. No real victory is achieved in my eyes, yet there is nothing any president could do to help. Obama is however not the softy hawkish Republicans think him to be: under his administration more drone strikes were ordered. Also, Guantanamo remains in use and the Patriot Act still stands.

I conclude by pointing out that there is a growing number of disillusioned voters since Clinton. People who care deeply for strong environmental and social policies. They supported Obama before, and he needs them again now. I am not sure if he deserves them though, since on crucial matters - economic and social - there has been no significant difference.