The Foreign Policy of a Failed Presidency

[Jack Hays]

Stratfor is famously non-partisan, but they've seen enough to know what failure looks like.

The Foreign Policy of a Failed Presidency - George Friedman, Stratfor

We do not normally comment on domestic political affairs unless they affect international affairs. However, it is necessary to consider American political affairs because they are likely to have a particular effect on international relations. We have now entered the final phase of Barack Obama's presidency, and like those of several other presidents since World War II, it is ending in what we call a state of failure. This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political configuration within it and surrounding it. . . .

 

[StillBallin75]

This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political configuration within it and surrounding it. . . .

Did you read your own quote or the article/blog post? He is offering political analysis of the structure and context within which the Presidency exists.

This isn't the Obama-bashing you're looking for.

 

[MMC]

Stratfor is famously non-partisan, but they've seen enough to know what failure looks like.

The Foreign Policy of a Failed Presidency - George Friedman, Stratfor

We do not normally comment on domestic political affairs unless they affect international affairs. However, it is necessary to consider American political affairs because they are likely to have a particular effect on international relations. We have now entered the final phase of Barack Obama's presidency, and like those of several other presidents since World War II, it is ending in what we call a state of failure. This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political configuration within it and surrounding it. . . .

Not like all that re-pivoting, re-shifting, scaling back, allies not trusting us, and terrorists going after our assets and people were any clues, huh? :lol:

 

[pbrauer]

Did you read your own quote or the article/blog post? He is offering political analysis of the structure and context within which the Presidency exists.

This isn't the Obama-bashing you're looking for.

What do you want? All he read was the headline.:mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

Did you read your own quote or the article/blog post? He is offering political analysis of the structure and context within which the Presidency exists.

This isn't the Obama-bashing you're looking for.

I wasn't Obama-bashing.

 

[Jack Hays]

What do you want? All he read was the headline.:mrgreen:

Sadly, you've again lived up to my expectations.

 

[Jack Hays]

For those requiring to be spoon-fed.

. . . Of the five failed presidencies I've cited, one failed over scandal, one over the economy and three over wars -- Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama's case is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well. However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson's war (World War I) was short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt's war (World War II) was longer, and although it began in failure it became clear that a successful end was conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because after eight years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.


Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is that given the president's lack of popularity -- and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years -- the president's allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them, so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their party's leaders in Congress wanted them gone.

 

[pbrauer]

Sadly, you've again lived up to my expectations.

Thank you for the honor, Jack. :thumbs:

 

[Perotista]

For those requiring to be spoon-fed.

. . . Of the five failed presidencies I've cited, one failed over scandal, one over the economy and three over wars -- Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama's case is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well. However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson's war (World War I) was short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt's war (World War II) was longer, and although it began in failure it became clear that a successful end was conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because after eight years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.


Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is that given the president's lack of popularity -- and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years -- the president's allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them, so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their party's leaders in Congress wanted them gone.

Howdy Jack, The author seems to think President Obama can't rebound from what he described a failed presidency. A failed presidency for his last two years, two years that has to be played out. President Obama still has his base, the Democrats still approve of him and his policies 78-18 margin. He is not fighting to retain them at this time, he still has them. Independents what the author referred to as the middle, the president may be close to losing them. The president's approval rating among Independents is 31-65. It is not good to have 65% of this group in disapproval. The President still has a 41% approval rating overall. Very close to what G.W. Bush had at this juncture, his was 37%.

I do think the president is close to losing the independents totally. But for him there is hope that the Republican Congress will blow it. That is about what it would take to get him back on the right track headed back towards 50%. That and an economy that starts improving at double or triple the rate it is now. I wouldn't like the author write him off at this point. I would say where the president stands now, the 3rd Quarter has ended and President Obama is down by two touchdowns. The odds are against him, but the game ain't over.

 

[Jack Hays]

Howdy Jack, The author seems to think President Obama can't rebound from what he described a failed presidency. A failed presidency for his last two years, two years that has to be played out. President Obama still has his base, the Democrats still approve of him and his policies 78-18 margin. He is not fighting to retain them at this time, he still has them. Independents what the author referred to as the middle, the president may be close to losing them. The president's approval rating among Independents is 31-65. It is not good to have 65% of this group in disapproval. The President still has a 41% approval rating overall. Very close to what G.W. Bush had at this juncture, his was 37%.

I do think the president is close to losing the independents totally. But for him there is hope that the Republican Congress will blow it. That is about what it would take to get him back on the right track headed back towards 50%. That and an economy that starts improving at double or triple the rate it is now. I wouldn't like the author write him off at this point. I would say where the president stands now, the 3rd Quarter has ended and President Obama is down by two touchdowns. The odds are against him, but the game ain't over.

Perfectly fair, but I don't think a hard left turn is his path to a comeback, and he seems determined to make a hard left turn.

 

[Perotista]

Perfectly fair, but I don't think a hard left turn is his path to a comeback, and he seems determined to make a hard left turn.

If one looks back to G.W. Bush beginning late 2005 early 2006 what I call Bush fatigue began to set in and it stayed with him for the remainder of his term. If one looks back a year ago, all the signs of Obama fatigue setting in were there. Now he can overcome that, past presidents have. But it will take doing what the majority of the people want and an improving economy. Not ignoring them, which is the surest way to drop his approval ratings into the 30's.

If that happens, then I will agree with the author. But not before. In the mean time I will keep track on how Independents view his job performance. They are key.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Did you read your own quote or the article/blog post? He is offering political analysis of the structure and context within which the Presidency exists.

This isn't the Obama-bashing you're looking for.

Right.

Of the five failed presidencies I've cited, one failed over scandal, one over the economy and three over wars -- Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama's case is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well. However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson's war (World War I) was short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt's war (World War II) was longer, and although it began in failure it became clear that a successful end was conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because after eight years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.

Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is that given the president's lack of popularity -- and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years -- the president's allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them, so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their party's leaders in Congress wanted them gone.

I see nothing about "structure of the presidency there and i would suggest "failure" is incredibly shy of an endorsement. The man is documenting the failure of a presidency..Obama's presidency. You would be wise to pay attention to the content, he's telling you you will soon be alone in your defense of the indefensible

 

[matchlight]

There is always a chance of some dramatic surprise that could send Mr. Obama's popularity down to the zone of no return the author talks about. For starters, the Supreme Court might very well hold the Obamacare law unconstitutional. The very fact the Court agreed to take the case makes clear that at least four justices think the first case was wrongly decided. If there turns out to be a fifth, it's very bad news for Obama.

Or, the jihadists in Syria and Iraq could make a spectacular attack in this country. They have at least as good a safe haven as Al Qaeda had in Sudan and later Afghanistan, they have at least as many resources, and they are just as anxious to slaughter unbelievers. I think it's almost certain there is still a lot of tabun, sarin, vx, etc. hidden in Syria, and if these people ever get their hands on this stuff, they will surely try to kill as many Americans as possible with it. We should not imagine that as long as they're way over there, and aren't about to take Baghdad or Damascus, they're not a serious threat to the U.S.

 

[MMC]

Howdy Jack, The author seems to think President Obama can't rebound from what he described a failed presidency. A failed presidency for his last two years, two years that has to be played out. President Obama still has his base, the Democrats still approve of him and his policies 78-18 margin. He is not fighting to retain them at this time, he still has them. Independents what the author referred to as the middle, the president may be close to losing them. The president's approval rating among Independents is 31-65. It is not good to have 65% of this group in disapproval. The President still has a 41% approval rating overall. Very close to what G.W. Bush had at this juncture, his was 37%.

I do think the president is close to losing the independents totally. But for him there is hope that the Republican Congress will blow it. That is about what it would take to get him back on the right track headed back towards 50%. That and an economy that starts improving at double or triple the rate it is now. I wouldn't like the author write him off at this point. I would say where the president stands now, the 3rd Quarter has ended and President Obama is down by two touchdowns. The odds are against him, but the game ain't over.

Mornin Pero. :2wave: Well, 2 years wherein BO's agenda is Climate Change and defending his Special care package, and leaving a War with Isis to whomever follows. Plus a War with AQ wherein they have expanded. A worsening of relations with close Allies and leaving a perception that the US cannot be trusted. Makes it real difficult for him to come back.

 

[Perotista]

Mornin Pero. :2wave: Well, 2 years wherein BO's agenda is Climate Change and defending his Special care package, and leaving a War with Isis to whomever follows. Plus a War with AQ wherein they have expanded. A worsening of relations with close Allies and leaving a perception that the US cannot be trusted. Makes it real difficult for him to come back.

I do think Obama fatigue has set in. I also think since the election was all about the economy taking up immigration as his most important issue right after the election is a mistake. It reinforces the idea in the voters mind they voted the right way.