Barack Obama this week started his bid for re-election, in typically low-key fashion. Even though there are 19 months to go until the election, it’s not unusual for an announcement to be made this early — nor of course is there any surprise in learning that the president wants a second term.
What’s unusual is the slowness of potential opponents to emerge. Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty have taken the first steps towards candidacy, but other prominent Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are still hanging back. And since Obama will be renominated with only token opposition, almost all the interest for the next year or more will be on the Republican side.
From the size of the swing to the Republicans at last year’s mid-term congressional elections, you might think that the chance to run against Obama would be a real prize. But the mood in the GOP suggests otherwise, and a look at the other two big political stories this week might help in understanding why.
In one, the Republican chair of the house of representatives budget committee, released the Republicans’ alternative budget proposal, committing the party — at least on paper — to trillions of dollars in spending cuts.
It’s always good to see someone get serious about cutting the size of government, but Ryan is something of a maverick within his party and his budget blends fiscal responsibility with attacks on the GOP’s usual hate objects (welfare, science, public transport, etc.). And despite pundits’ fond memories of “It’s the economy, stupid!”, and despite the Tea Partiers desperately trying to market themselves as an anti-tax movement, deficit reduction is not what animates most of the opposition to Obama.
The soul of the Republican party is much more on display in the week’s other story, the Obama administration’s backdown on the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other accused conspirators in the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks.
On Monday, attorney-general Eric Holder announced that instead of a regular civilian trial in New York, as previously intended, the defendants would be tried by military commissions at Guantanamo Bay — thus conceding the critical point made by al-Qaeda, that it is fighting a war and its killers are soldiers, not criminals.
The decision has been widely, and rightly, condemned; Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick described it as “Putting the administration’s imprimatur on the idea that some defendants are more worthy of real justice than others”, and said Obama had “surrendered to … bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery”.
Human Rights First said it “flies in the face of core American values and would undermine US standing around the world”.
But it’s important to remember where the demagoguery came from in the first place: the Republicans had clamored loudly against any idea of a fair trial for accused terrorists, and legislation from the new congress had made a trial in New York almost impossible. In today’s Republican party, the running is made by people who care much more about these things — about totemic racial and religious issues — than about spending and deficits.
If the Tea Partiers were really the libertarians they pretend to be, their priorities would be just the opposite. They would support the rule of law, they would want the legal system to pursue torturers as well as terrorists, and when it came to budget cutting they would focus on the astronomical sums of money in the defence budget.
Obama’s decision, deplorable though it is, is in keeping with his usual political tactic: avoid getting too far in front of public opinion, concede ground to the other side and force them to either fall into line or discredit themselves by becoming even more extreme. That’s risky, because it can end up just mainstreaming the crazies, but so far it seems to be working.
The Republicans in essence won the mid-terms not by reconnecting with mainstream America, but by energising their own extremists. In a general election, with its larger and more representative turnout, that’s not a viable strategy, but it’s precisely that crazy, energised fringe that will have a large say in deciding who the Republican candidate will be.
As a result, Obama remains an odds-on favourite for re-election. But it looks as if the US will have to endure some bad policy in the meantime, and it won’t be surprising (or undeserved) if decisions such as this one later come back to bite him.
Good article. My understanding (coming from Holder himself, grant you) is that Congress had essentially tied the Administration’s hands on the issue. Obama certainly was pushing for a civilian trial at the outset, but with the massive pile of serious issues he has to contend with, maybe he decided to let this one go. Let’s not forget that the original stain rests with the Bush Administration, and shows how things, once done, are difficult to un-do.
Our system has its problems but it looks good compared to the US.
The budgetary process is amazing – all that is being considered is ‘discretionary spending’ – less military expenditure – which is about 20% of all spending.
The Republicans want to cut money for the peak arts body – “The National Endowment for the Arts” – currently around US$120m.
By comparison the Australia Council gets around AU$100m.
Indefinite detention, which seems to be the only option at present, hardly represents “rule of law” either.
“Rule of law out the window”? It gets better and better.
“Obama’s decision, deplorable as it is…” seems to me to be conceding to the checks and balances that apply to the US system of government.
Obama said he was going close GB and bring GB detainees to civil trial. Are we questioning the integrity of the man on this point? If so, just come right out and say it. Still, he has not done these things. Why? Because there are 3 arms of government and they all exist to limit the power and reach of the others. The separation of powers ensures that one man doesn’t run the show. Not even the President.
The House of Reps and the Senate are powerful – as they should be, they are supposed to represent the will of the people – and they make the laws, not the President, not the AG. So maybe do a show of hands of how many Americans think that KSM – a non-American who killed 3,000 Americans – should be entitled to full rights under American law. And I’m pretty sure you could count on one hand the number of New Yorkers who wanted KSM in their home city for years on end.
It seems to me that most Americans, actually probably everyone except the President and the AG, are fine with not extending rights under American law to this man. Is that ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? I don’t know. Maybe watch the 9/11 tapes again and have a think about it. Then maybe walk a mile in their shoes and think about it again.
And then maybe think about whether you are saying that the same military you called upon to save Libya is not capable of providing a fair trial or ‘real justice’. I mean, that’s a pretty big call. All those military stationed around the world on peacekeeping, natural disaster assistance and other duties might take offence to that. They might say – stick it, do it yourself if you think you’re so totally above reproach. And I wouldn’t blame them.
But if you do think that then you should really do more than just run with the anti-US Crikey-party line. Call for an international tribunal. Make it happen.
Or ask KSM where he might prefer to be held and placed on trial. I reckon he might not be too keen on a muslim country with a judicial system that would hand out punishment for the 9/11 crimes to the effect of either an eye-for-an-eye, or beheading. Or one, and then the other.
@Niall: fair point, there’s not much to be said for indefinite detention either. But I think Obama could have pushed much harder than he did to get around the congressional restrictions rather than throw in the towel so soon – his problem was that his own party wasn’t solid behind him.
@MLF: Yes, I’m a big fan of checks & balances, which moderates my criticism of Obama a bit – I think the Republicans need to take the larger share of blame – but I still think he could have done more than he did. And regardless of how you apportion responsibility, I think the decision is a shocking one: you can follow the links I gave to people who explain why much better than I could. Even if the military commissions do provide a fair trial (and surely it’s no disrespect to the military to say that that’s really not what it’s designed for), the problem is that it still concedes the point that I believe it shouldn’t, namely that 11 September was an act of war rather than a crime. I think that just plays into the terrorists’ hands.