Obama’s First Hundred Days

Up until the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the notion of measuring a president’s success within the first 100 days of office did not exist. In his attempts to capitalize on the zenith of political power coinciding with his election, FDR sprinted to enact as many reforms as possible with the urgency of the Great Depression motivating him. This custom of evaluating a president’s performance after 100 days has becoming a tradition in American politics but remains no less arbitrary.

After all, have any of the presidents following FDR accomplished their most influential actions in this 100 day time period? Was FDR greatest accomplishments within his first hundred days? After winning four consecutive elections, one would hope the pentacle of his presidency would lay outside those first 100 days. What is the Presidency of Bush junior before September 11? Richard Nixon’s presidency before his trip to China? Carter’s presidency before the Camp David Accords? Events that define ones presidency do not occur within this 100 day sample.

However, that fact does not negate the usefulness of such evaluations. Regardless of the unpredictable events which will occur during a president’s rule, the general tone and nature of the presidency rule becomes apparent within 100 days. The conclusion of the Iranian hostage crisis coinciding on the inauguration of Reagan certainly incorporated the same level of dramatics and staunchly pro-American sentiment found throughout Reagan’s presidential rule. A president’s style is defined immediately following an election.

Obama has demonstrated his cool demeanor while using his charisma and the excitement of his election to restore the US as a principle and respectable nation of the world. After the reign of Bush junior, rebuilding America’ image and restoring proper diplomatic relations must be the top priority of his administration. Focusing in on the implications of his foreign policy, Obama has spent these first hundred days fighting a public relations campaign across the globe.

In evaluating Obama’s performance in foreign affairs, the limitations of his circumstances must be addressed. As spectators, we can demand the immediate withdrawal from Iraq without thought to its consequences. Any new president not only inherits the problems of the previous administration but the entire spectrum of US history to deal with. As Obama stated in addressing the media, “I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that’s not the hand that’s been dealt us.”

Many would argue that Democrats suffered due to their perceived weakness on military policy and combating terrorism. Addressing this concern in his inauguration speech, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

Interestingly, Obama has taken this idea in two different directions. On one side, the release of Bush era memos and the prospect of prosecuting those who ordered such horrendous acts of torture bring hope for a hope for justice. From the other, Obama quickly increased our military present within Afghanistan, a battlefield supposedly won in 2001. What is particularly interesting about the Obama administration is how previously contradictory ideas have come into play under one unifying logic.

Although continuing the military-dominated strategy of the United States via Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama began his presidency with an interview with the Al-Arabiyya network. Using his charisma, Obama reached out the Muslim world appearing to be far less superficial than his predecessors and began a period of “new dialogue” with the Muslim world. This “new dialogue” allowed the US to continue to support the same ideas without the same inherent ramifications of those ideas. For example, the US can continue to support Israel without unconditional support for all Israeli policies.

The election of Obama was the first election in countries critical to negotiations among what I call  the “axis of aggravators”. Obama’s public relations offensive was enabled by the elections scheduled Iran and Israel. As the first to the negotiation table, Obama set a tone of reconciliation. Although he was justifiably criticized for offering no substantial change in policy, this point is ultimately moot. Obama does not have to offer any policy change until Iran is willing negotiate any more than an employee needs to commit to additional responsibly until his employer sits down to renegotiating his compensation.

It should come as no surprise the largest obstacle to peace is Israel. Realizing the potency of Obama’s calls for a Palestinian state, Israel immediately sought to defer that question by focusing on Iran. Without engaging in the semantics or debating justifications for Israel’s existence, one would be hard pressed to identify a more polarizing issue across the Middle East — including Iran. Simply put, the Palestinian question is at the root of the problem. While such a statement risks oversimplifying a complex question, ignoring the centrality of this issue is a clear-cut and more dangerous way of trying to simplify the situation.

In the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency, his rule has clearly been defined by a kind of calm swagger. Although he has not ended America’s unconditional support of Israel, nor made huge strides in reversing detrimental policy abroad, Obama has carefully chosen his battlefields for progress. The immediate closure of Guantanamo and commitment to transparent government illustrated in the release of CIA torture memos are steps in the right direction for a government recently removed from warranties wiretapping and other unconstitutional mean supposedly justified by the end.

Obama parlayed his international popularity into a major victory for America’s stature abroad. While his economic policies are only variations on the Bush Administration theme of borrow and spend, his signal of his willingness to engage a broader part of the world community than the Bush administration has had an immediate impact. Still, one must recall that 100 days can only provide a sample of what Obama will accomplish, or fail to accomplish, during his presidency. A president’s true agenda does not fully emerge until his second term, when concerns about reelection no longer exist.

Imran Malik
Minaret of Freedom Institute
www.minaret.org

Imran

Minaret of Freedom Institute Program Assistant


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

RSS
Follow by Email