Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Monday, March 26, 2012 - 4:33 PM
Share
ABC News reports on a "hot mic" moment between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:
At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Now, compared to past "hot mic" moments, this certainly seems less, well, profane. Nevertheless, it has gotten the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin all hot and bothered about the hidden Obama that will emerge in 2013:
It’s helpful to have a vivid illustration of this, but is there anyone who thinks Obama, should he get a second term, wouldn’t run wild with policies and positions that the majority of the electorate oppose? Otherwise, he’d roll them out now, of course....
Elections are taken as mandates by elected officials and the media (even if the message is less clear than the winner would have us believe).
In sum, the election is not simply a referendum on President Obama’s actions to date; it’s essentially a blank check for the president’s second term. Romney should be asking wary independent and moderates: Is there a scintilla of a chance that Obama would be less liberal in a second term?
Rubin's logic seems pretty clear: Obama is really a liberal, and free of political constraint -- particularly on the foreign policy remit -- he'll revert to type. There's just one problem: based on recent evidence, there's an excellent chance Obama will be less liberal in the second term.
Consider the last three two-term presidents: Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. I'll grant this is a very small sample, but bear with me. Did their second-term policies look different from their first-term?
You bectha. Reagan tacked in a decidedly liberal direction with respect to the Soviet Union, switching from rhetoric about the "evil empre" to cutting substantive arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. Clinton, on the other hand, tacked in a more conservative direction. After being enamored of multilateralism and leery of using fore in his first term, he became more comfortable with using force and using it outside of UN strictures in his second term. Finally, Bush 43's second terms was decidedly more liberal. In his first term, he declared an "Axis of Evil" and invaded Iraq without UN support. In his second term, however, the Bush administration was decidedly more dovish, working through the UN on both Iran and North Korea, demonstrating a willingness to directly negotiate with the Iranians, and refusing to use force in Syria. This, by the way, is why claiming a continuity between Bush 43 and Obamas is not quite as much of a political jab as people like to claim. The dfifferences between Bush in 2003 and Bush in 2008 were massive.
Now, these narratives are not really as clean as the last paragraph suggests. Reagan also embraced Iran/Contra in his second term. In Clinton's second term he pushed hard to address US arrears to the UN. And Bush had some elements of compasionate conservatism liberalism in his first term, what with PEPFAR and a refusal to declare a clash of civilizations following the 9/11 attacks.
What's striking, however, is that recent second-termers have not reverted to their ideological bliss point -- if anything it's been the reverse, they've tacked away from their starting point. Part of this is circumstances. Reagan had, in Gorbachev, a real negotiating partner in his second term. Bush had to be more circumspect on Iran and North Korea after the cost and constraint of military operatons in Iraq and Afghanistan. All three presidents had less favorable legislatures in their second term than their first.
Still, it's not all about circumstances. What gives? I'd argue that precisely because presidents have fewer foreign policy constraints than dometic ones, they feel free to pursue their preferred set of policies from day one. Reality, however, quickly determines which ideas are working and which do not have any staying power. Over time, therefore, presidents change tack until they hit on a more successful formula. This usually means overcoming one's personal ideology and embracing new ideas.
I've argued that this is exactly what Obama has done in his first term -- and I'm hardly the only one. And, so, yes, contra Rubin, I think the notion that a second-term of President Obama will be the second coming of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty requires a willful misreading of Obama's first term of foreign policy -- as well as ignorance of the last thirty years of American foreign policy.
Am I missing anything?
EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, 2012 ELECTION POSTER 5, BARACK OBAMA, ELECTION 2012, BILL CLINTON, CONGRESS, GEORGE W. BUSH, OBAMA, REAGAN, RUSSIA, UNITED STATES 
Okay, I'll be the first to address the elephant in the room.
It is well know that, while Jennifer Rubin gets her paycheck from the Washington Post, she works for Israel's Likud party.
And the big fear (or hope, depending which side of the question you're on), is that in a second, unencumbered term, President Obama will deal with the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a way we know he is capable of, maybe even becoming the first President to actually bring a peaceful end to it (just as he was the first President to bring in impossibly difficult healthcare reform).
So we'll have a surprising number of articles written about this, with only a small percentage of them mentioning Israel (we just saw two of them). Israel's lens to the world is what constantly causes the US to "cut off its nose to spite its face".
For the good of US society, re-elect Obama. Let Israeli society deal with its own electoral mistakes (i.e. Netanhahu).
For the good of the US society?
A jobless recovery? Is that your idea of "good"? Record numbers of Americans on food stamps? Good for US society? Seizing control of the healthcare industry under the cover of darkness- with 75% of the American public resoundingly against it? Dumping 100s of millions of dollars into green energy companies owned and operated by campaign contributors previously determined by diligent investors as losers? That's your idea of what's good for American society? Or how about refusing to stop the infiltration of invaders from the south, and allowing them to bring their death and destruction with them. Good for America? And then there is the decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline- which brought the Chinese into receivership of that oil, and kept us reliant on the whims of the world market and our Middle East enemies. $4.00+ for a gallon of gas is good for our society?
KMANCANADA, you're either an American-hating devout leftist, or a blithering idiot in addition to being an anti-semite. Absolutely nothing about Obama is good for America, and especially four more years of him.
The s in "domestic."
But also what a politician does in office depends not just on their political affiliation. For instance, people accepted Eisenhower's comments on the military-industrial complex, because there was no doubting his military credentials. Similarly, Sharon was able to sell the pull-out from Gaza.
A military man could be a Democratic presidential candidate; a good example is Wesley Clark.
industrial-military speech made 3 days from end of his term
"For instance, people accepted Eisenhower's comments on the military-industrial complex, because there was no doubting his military credentials."
the manifest ignorance demonstrated on various internet media outlet's comment threads is convincing proof that this nation's system of education has been a complete failure for fifty years now.
Eisenhower made his comment about the military-industrial complex three days before he left office in his farewell speech to the nation and for the most part went unnoticed until years later.
His "military credentials" had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
The makeup of Congress might also be a factor, it's notable that there were differences in Bush's policies before and after 2006. Obama might have felt that he needed to push a more hardline foreign agenda to counter Republicans on domestic matters.
My view on this matter is that Obama has just been caught in a rare moment of honesty. Did anyone really believe that politicians don't give any thought to the extra freedom they have after an election? This is always going to be an awkward marriage of domestic and foreign policy objectives. A balance needs to be met. For if you ignore public opinion you find yourself voted out of power. But if you totally bow to public opinion you will often not do the right thing.
Mrs. rubin has only one agenda: execute the propaganda piece for AIpAC and prepare the nation for unending wars with 1.5 billion Muslims. The only way for the Zionist agenda to continue its occupation is if the US is busy fighting active wars in various Muslim countries until this becomes a war of civilizations.
Of course what she and other zealots miss is that we are financially and morally at the edge. Furthermore, in order to fix our economy, we need export to these 1.5 billion people or China will.
These Zionist extremists are a cancer on America and re slowly killing us
There's a very good reason why presidents tend to get pulled to the center during their second terms: they are lame ducks facing less pliant legislators.
Presidents do not have as much clout in their second term with Congress as they do in their first, especially in the last two years, because everyone knows their time is up. And presidents in their second term usually face a Congress with a higher number of opposing-party members because of the natural tendency of voters to slowly degrade the sitting president's party's proportion of Congress over time.
When i click on " I'm hardly the only one" i get an access denied message on your blog page.....so should i believe you are the only one?
Mr. Walt had an excellent article on the issue, now this is the perfect illustration. Obama has a meeting with the leader of one of the most important countries in the world, yet he can commit to anything because he prepares for the election, which in not coming for more than half a year. Why not just close the shop for 2012, hanging a sign of "gone campaigning", he would save a ton of money by not organizing expensive speeches, meet-ups and conventions in the meantime. What is the point of all this when all he's thinking about is the election?
What is more important: running the country, or preparing for the next occasion to run it? Why did the votes vote for him: to do his job or to campaign during 'office hours'?
You're misreading history.
Reagan's 2nd term was basically a victory lap over the Soviet Union in which he pretty much got everything he had talked about for decades (except perhaps for a destruction of all their nukes).
Bush's 2nd term was a somewhat return to the modest foreign policy rhetoric he espoused pre-9/11.
Clinton was always a liberal interventionist and did not change much.
And, all pretty much has strong Congressional opposition.
I don't fear an Obama 2nd term as much as for his foriegn policy, which has been pretty good, as for his economic policies, but your analysis here is sad sack.
Nice to draw attention to this lunatic. But who treats her as the authority on anything? If you're a member of the right-wing Jewish establishment in denial of facts, then you might read her in order to feel good about yourself. Other than that, she's like a Rush Limbaugh for the WaPost.
"Clinton, on the other hand, tacked in a more conservative direction. After being enamored of multilateralism and leery of using fore in his first term, he became more comfortable with using force and using it outside of UN strictures in his second term."
I'm not sure the facts support this claim. One of Clinton's first foreign policy acts was to expand the operation in Somalia from merely opening the channels for humanitarian aid to attacking the enemy. He also launched the invasion of Haiti in 1994. I remember joking during the time that Clinton spent the '60s avoiding military conflict and the '90s engaging in it. Of course, the times dictated his actions.
Sensible story, crazed headline
Read the story as often as you like. No dirty little secrets there.
The real Obama + Reply to the Hate-Israel crowd
The basic problem with any analysis of Obama is that he has been so determined to hide his real intentions from the voting public. The incident with Medvedev simply underscores the question of whether anyone, American citizens or foreign leaders, can trust him.
Who is the real Obama? We've seen so much of him for four years now, yet no-one really knows. Will we see the real Obama if he is reelected? Without knowing who he really is, it is impossible to predict what he might do when freed of further electoral limitations.
Predictably, the Hate-Israel crowd, has responded to this piece in force. They would have readers believe that Israel, and not Muslims and/or the Palestinians, is the obstacle peace, when it is now abundantly clear that the Muslims and Palestinians do not have any interest in reaching a peaceful settlement of the conflict. They have been proclaiming this publicly for more than sixty years, yet there are still fools who buy the "Israel is the obstacle" argument.
Obama's initial foray into the Israel-Palestinian "discussions" simply made the situation worse. Has anyone noticed that there have barely been any discussions since Obama got involved, even after the hated Netanyahu gave Obama a settlement freeze? Far more important than a settlement freeze would be a precondition that the two sides accept that the outcome would guarantee the existence of states for the Jews and for the Palestinians. Israel would agree to this; the Palestinians would not, so who's the real obstacle?
Presidents do not have as much clout in their second term with Congress as they do in their first, especially in the last two years, because everyone knows their time is up. And presidents in their second term usually legal info face a Congress with a higher number of opposing-party members because of the natural tendency of voters to slowly degrade the sitting president's party's proportion of Congress over time.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(17)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE