In today's Der Spiegel, one of the leading German news resources,
Christian Schwägerl writes - in bold type, no less:
US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.
http://www.spiegel.de/...
I have news for Herr Schwägerl.
President Obama is not the tooth fairy.
Now, some of you might be a little surprised. Some know that I have not been Obama's biggest supporter. In addition, I fall into the "moderate skeptic" category on climate change - granted, the term is an oxymoron to some. But, I find this article especially salacious in its attack on Obama and in need of response.
First, the author of the article seems completely unaware of the American political system. Somehow, he believe that once Obama was elected that his policies would be rapidly implemented. The United States is not a parliamentary democracy. The president is not a prime minister setting policy and, generally, expecting the legislature to follow suit. Not only do American political parties not wield the same level of control over their members in government, but the balance of power between federal and state governments is also contested.
Even the most powerful of American presidents with congressional majorities have faced daunting uphill battles passing key policy objectives. That is intrinsic to the American system - regardless of lobbying. Roosevelt was able to pass his initial New Deal legislation in 1933 only because of the dire nature of the economic emergency. By 1937, even with massive Democratic majorities, FDR's Second New Deal was largely scuttled. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson had to offer significant political compromises to gain Republican support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 even though the Democrats had large majorities - because Southern Democrats had historically blocked civil rights initiatives up until then. In signing the Voting Rights Act, Johnson said that he had "signed away the South for 50 years". So, clearly, Johnson took a massive political risk to ensure voting rights - one that affected the Democratic Party for two generations or more. That is how the American political system works.
Second, the article is brimming with hostile anti-Americanisms. For example -
For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance. Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect.
If an American were to say the same about Europeans or Asians, the outcry of "racism" would be fast and furious. Such ignorant stereotypes are helpful neither to overall discussion nor to environmental action in particular. It's also news to me that Americans do not care what happens to people in the world. For much of the 20th century, Americans have been extremely generous whenever disaster - natural or political - has struck places far from the American shore. Following the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, direct U.S. government aid was almost $1 billion - less than some believed necessary, but American NGO aid was almost $2 billion. Herbert Hoover is often pilloried here at DKos, but few know that he led the American Relief Administration which fed much of Europe in the famine following World War I. Including Germany.
I am as disturbed as many others by the lack of foreign language education in the United States and by its overall provincialism. But I just had dinner last night with a young soldier on leave from Iraq. And even though he has not attended college, he is trying to understand the culture and to learn a few phrases of Arabic. And, be assured, I was and still remain one of the strongest opponents of American military intervention in Iraq.
Third, Obama is not president of the world - he is President of the United States. On this one, Obama may have left himself a bit open to incomings. Obama's decision to speak in Berlin during the presidential campaign was viewed by many - both inside and outside the U.S. as a statement of the internationality of the American presidency. There is no doubt that decisions made by the American president have worldwide repercussions, but the de jure political structures that produced his election and impact his presidency are exclusively American. Please note, there are other major world factors that may or may not influence decisions - chief among them the mountain of American debt held by Asian central banks - but these banks hold no structural powers over the president.
And fourth, climate change. It follows from the above discussion that President Obama must operate within the political confines of the American political system when it comes to climate change legislation. No American president willingly exposes himself to political defeat in Congress. The votes for policies envisioned by Copenhagen advocates are definitely not there. Even votes for the watered down Climate Bill are problematic. Yes, the Obama administration will, most likely, implement some climate change policy through EPA regulations, but these will be, by all reasonable political calculus, limited in scope. Comprehensive change in climate policy will require congressional action. And to get that congressional action takes time, unfortunately. In the American political system, to achieve change involves electing sufficient numbers of enlightened officials that they not only see the need for that change, but actually do something about it. Attempts to short-cut this process or to do an end run will only backfire horribly.
The author closes -
It may seem arrogant to take the Americans to task to such a degree.
On that, I must agree.
Here is a little advice to climate change activists worldwide. Yes, the United States consumes massive quantities of the world's resources. Yes, the United States is politically far more conservative than most European Union countries. Yes, American participation in a global community is essential to environmental sustainability. And yes, Barack Obama is aware of this.
But vilifying President Obama isn't going to get you there.