Last week People And Things commenced an analysis of President Barack Obama’s move to enhance his relations with Cuba, and this week that analysis is concluded.
The political challenge that Obama’s move presents is perhaps as well known as the inherent hypocrisy of the original policy. The Cuban-American lobby in the United States is large, wealthy, well organised and has repeatedly articulated its preference for the maintenance of the historic policy of antagonism towards the Raul Castro-led regime. Members of this group fled Cuba and have flourished in the United States.
Cubans still receive differential treatment, as reflected in the “dry-feet” policy that fast-tracks any Cuban touching America’s shores towards residency. Cuban-Americans have already demonstrated their disagreement with Obama’s stance, and this raises the questions related to the likelihood that Congress will not follow Obama’s lead and take legislative action to end the embargo, along with the extent to which this action can stain Obama’s presidency.
The possible answers are politically intriguing and could easily be located in a president who is determined to write his name on the page of America’s history for reasons other than the fact that he is black.
It is interesting that he has chosen to take some of these risks in his “lame duck” term, but then again this is perhaps the best time to take such risks since he has little to lose, especially as the next Democratic nominee is safely out of the State Department and can selectively dodge the rain of political bullets that are likely to fall shortly.
Obama’s approach to making his mark has been by way of a curious mix of domestic and foreign policy, which ironically appears not to have impacted his approval ratings or that of the Democratic Party.
On the domestic front, the rate of joblessness in the United States has fallen by four percentage points under his watch and the United States economy, which was in recession in 2009 when he became president, has been consistently growing by two or three percentage points on average each quarter (of late).
Economics aside, he has used his executive power to make homosexuals and immigrants more comfortable and was brave enough to tackle the big issues of health care and education. In the latter regard he has perhaps been less successful, but has tinkered with student loan facilities, making them more accessible and affordable.
In health care his much criticised “Obamacare” initiative has been sufficiently successful that it is now generally agreed that a future Republican president would be challenged to undo this scheme.
On the international front, Obama had more challenges and his major failure would be the fact that as his presidency draws to a close Guantanamo Bay remains open and the popularity of ISIS/ISIL continues to trouble those among us who love freedom.
To balance this, he appears willing to tackle some longstanding taboos such as Myanmar and Cuba. Interestingly, the Cuba effort appears to have started with an “accidental” handshake at Nelson Mandela’s funeral a year ago, which is a fitting tribute to Mandela’s legacy as his opposition to the embargo was well known.
Obama’s administration has also been talking to Iran, and while a nuclear deal appears elusive thus far, this approach is very different from that of his predecessor and is certainly more likely to produce an agreement.
Against this background it is likely that when his presidency is weighed in the balance he will be remembered as a president who has faced major challenges, but also tackled historic issues on both the domestic and international front and made (at least) moderate success. His strategy, however, fascinates this author as one who is acutely aware of the limitations of the American-styled executive presidency, which is deprived of access to legislative power, especially when facing a Republican Congress.
The point here is that through leadership, progress can be made on challenging issues if that leader demonstrates “goodwill” by using what power he has to make progress on an issue and leaves the rest to the other players in the hope that they will follow.
It was a strategy exploited by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar recently when she sought to introduce term limits and a recall provision, fully understanding that some constitutional approval would be appropriate but politically elusive.
If one looks closely, Obama exploited this strategy when he addressed the issue of gay rights which, like human rights, is not within his purview as the leader of the Federal arm of government in the United States. Nevertheless, his “evolution” defined the environment in which Congress, and indeed even the United States Supreme Court, operated and this has made life difficult for anti-gay rights groups to advance on regressive policy.
Similarly, with regard to immigration, he recently used his executive power to move forward as it was clear that Congress had no intention of so doing, and the pattern was replicated with the Obamacare model, which a Republican Congress can reverse but is unlikely to. In all these instances, the strategy is to set the tone and thereafter challenge one’s adversaries to promote themselves as “unprogressive”.
One cannot help but be impressed by this strategy because it emphasises the role and tremendous benefit of good leadership and arguably as we reflect on scenarios alluded to last week, we can see the opposite manifesting itself.
Happy New Year!
Peter W. Wickham ([email protected]) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
