Hope and Change, 2.0?

I've spent the vast majority of Barack Obama's first year as president criticizing him...and for good reason. His approval ratings have undergone a shockingly precipitous decline, not just among Republicans, but among Democrats and independents too.

He committed grave errors by ceding important parts of his agenda to the incompetent joke from Nevada, Harry Reid, and the hyper-partisan, grating Nancy Pelosi, two of the worst members of Congress the nation has ever had the misfortune of electing. The president's lack of leadership on the stimulus bill allowed it to become a $787 billion package directed largely to special interests...and the failures of the "stimulus" plan to "create or save" jobs has borne out the claims of Republicans, who said the package ought to have included more tax cuts and less wasteful government spending on pork projects. The fact that the government website tracking jobs saved or created by stimulus funds was riddled with ridiculous errors is a testament to the bill's failure (for instance, the website listed jobs saved or created in congressional districts that DON'T EXIST). So too is the unemployment rate, which is in double digits despite the administration's claims that it would peak at 8% if a stimulus bill passed Congress.

On health care, in many ways his signature issue, Obama has seemed absolutely powerless. His lack of leadership on the issue has caused members of his own party to lash out (Rep. John Conyers has been especially vocal in his criticisms). The House bill was a mess and passed by 5 votes despite the Democrats' 75-seat majority, and the Senate debate/bill is an absolute disaster. Obama has angered the lefties in his party, the ones who made him president, by equivocating about the public option, which now appears dead in the Senate. It almost seems that the administration is now willing to accept ANYTHING that can get 60 votes in the Senate and pass the House just so it can claim victory and move on.

The president's fumbling on the domestic front has been accompanied by a stubborn reliance on diplomatic negotiations that have gotten nowhere with Iran...and the Iranians continue their march toward becoming a nuclear power. The administration's foreign policy incompetence has shone through in other areas too: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has gotten worse of late, the "reset button" with Russia, the flip-flop on a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and a policy of engagement with the thugs in Sudan (despite former pledges to get tough on the Darfur issue), to name just a few.

Ok...it's a long list of blunders. So why is this post entitled "Hope and Change, 2.0"? Because I have HOPE that President Obama's last two foreign policy-oriented speeches are a sign that the brilliant (if light-on-substance) campaigner may finally be making the transition (CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?) to President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The president's speech on Afghanistan had its flaws, and they have been well-documented by conservative and liberal commentators, Republican and Democratic politicians alike. Obama's pledge not to pursue policies that are beyond the financial means of this nation struck me as especially bizarre and more than a little ironic, considering the unbelievably excessive spending going on in Washington right now (a $2.5 trillion health care reform proposal is within our means?). But flaws aside, the speech showed us a president who is willing, albeit reluctantly and with some ambivalence, to fight America's enemies on the battlefield. That is refreshing, especially coming from an administration that has stopped using the phrase "war on terror," won't use the term "Islamic extremism," and has decided to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies civilian trials in New York City (certainly one of his administration's biggest blunders of all, and one I should have mentioned above).

But on Afghanistan, President Obama got it right, and he deserves our support. We do need to WIN this war (it wouldn't have hurt if Obama used the word "win" or "victory" once in his speech, but I guess that's just too much to ask at this juncture.) Yes, I think he probably should have given McChrystal the full 40,000 troops that the General asked for, and yes, I think Obama should have made the decision quicker. But those on the Right who are now up in arms, shouting about the irresponsibility/naivete of setting a timeline for withdrawal are off-base. Everything that administration officials have said in front of Congress since the speech suggests that the withdrawal will be conditions-based. The date is, according to the administration, intended to show that we are not making an open-ended commitment to Karzai and the Afghans. That's fine. I know that the withdrawal date also serves a political purpose...assuaging the Left, which is skeptical of the build-up. So be it. Politics never truly has stopped at the water's edge, and it never will. Best to live with it.

If the Afghanistan speech offered some genuine hope for change (change in the form of moving toward/governing from the center), the Nobel acceptance speech provided some more. Again, the speech was flawed. Presidential speeches abroad should avoid taking direct or indirect shots at previous administrations...it's petty and unpresidential. But Obama did it (indirectly) anyway, by saying that we did not seek war in Afghanistan (implying that we DID in Iraq). Obama's Nobel speech was also laden with platitudes (but then, aren't all of his speeches?), and it was filled with lots of equivocation and fence-sitting (again, an Obama trademark). But Obama's speech blessedly contained some much-needed hints of American exceptionalism and unapologetic references to the force for good that America, more than any other nation, has been over the past century or so, all over the globe.

Are these two speeches a sign of things to come? Let's hope so. After all, the Obama administration isn't stupid. They may be arrogant, incompetent, out-of-touch, and wrong...but they aren't dumb. Surely the White House sees the falling poll numbers, and they must be alarmed. Perhaps Obama and company are FINALLY, belatedly, getting the message: the 2008 election was not a mandate for the progressive agenda. It was an election with results that were driven by a confluence of factors: a bad economy, an extremely unpopular Republican president, and a candidate with a compelling narrative and lots of personal charisma. America remains a center-right country- only 20% of Americans call themselves liberal, while 40% self-identify as conservative.

Has the Obama administration finally gotten the message? Maybe. I don't have much hope for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...Republicans will just have to buckle down and weather the storm. Pelosi stands to lose her speakership in 2010 if Republicans can win back the House, and Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) will likely lose his seat altogether. One thing is for sure: if these two recent presidential speeches represent the beginning of Barack Obama doing a Clinton-esque shift toward the center, America will be better off domestically and internationally.