TJP

Obama won the presidency with votes from the young, minorities, women, independents, and hardcore democrats. However, once in office he forgot his constituency and became an advocate of bipartisanship. Additionally, he adopted many policies from the Bush administration. Thus, moving more to the center of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the center did not elect him.

Instead of disassociating his administration from the colossal economic failure of the Bush administration, he decided to own the failed economy and follow the strategy of former Treasury Secretary Paulson. Thus, he proceeded with the unpopular bail out of Wall Street fat cats at the expense of Main Street.

In assembling his administration, he built it with former Clintonites as opposed to new competent personnel with fresh ideas. Apparently, his advisers appear not to have good understood money or the economy; if they did, they would have recognized that the economic slowdown was due to slow monetary growth (inflation targeting). However, some of his advisers were key architects of the Federal Reserve inflation targeting policy. Thus, they are contributors to the economic meltdown.

Mr. Obama’s path dependency tendency is evident in recruiting former presidents Bush and Clinton to be the face of the United States in the Haitian relief effort. However, neither ex presidents was helpful to the African Diaspora during their presidency. Rwanda’s genocide occurred under the Clinton administration and Bush meddled in Haitian politics and supported the ouster of President Aristides. Thus, the appointment of these two ex presidents is extremely puzzling, given their failure in handling disasters and lack of sensitivity to the African Diaspora.

Given that this is Mr. Obama’s first year in office, it is fitting to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of policy making and argue that his advisers have not served him well. Moreover, that they are in the process of damaging his presidency. However, it could well be that Mr. Obama has not served himself well.

Nonetheless, whether the problem lies with his advisers or self, it is time for Mr. Obama to retool his council of advisers. For instance, had his advisers counseled him to protect the wealth of America’s middle class, by providing immediate mortgage relief, the wealth in their homes would have not dissipated. It is this loss of wealth and the bankers’ bail out gain that creates rightful anger among voters.

The irony is that had the administration saved American homes, it would have also saved the banks, since the mortgage payments go to financial institutions. Furthermore, Americans could use the income in their homes to increase demand (consumption) and mitigate the economic slump without massive fiscal outlays.

Failure of the administration to understand that demand is a function of income and prices and that 60 to 70 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) is consumption led to the application of sub optimal strategies. More importantly, lack of income is a direct result of the Federal Reserve restricting the growth of M1 (currency and demand deposits). In every period that the Federal Reserve restricts monetary growth, there is a slowdown in economic activity.

After the administration saved the banks, the banks raised fees; interest rates on credit cards and refused to loosen credit. Moreover, they are paying themselves large bonuses for making a profit with billions of free money from taxpayers.

It is clear to the average voter that Mr. Obama’s policies has not made them better off. The administration priority should have been job creation, instead of health care. Without jobs, voters cannot afford mandated health care. Furthermore, the process of achieving health care legislation has been clumsy, compromising, and does not create a competitive market for health care services.

In world affairs, Mr. Obama failed to capitalize on the good will signaled by foreign leaders. He had an opportunity to talk to the president of Iran at the United Nation, but did not do so. Peacemakers seek to understand adversaries and look for common ground.

Apparently, for Mr. Obama it is easier to talk about common ground than to boldly act on implementing a policy of engagement. In conflicts often each side views the other as evil and self as good. However, that is a distorted view. Conflicting parties must try to understand the point of view of the other side and this can only occur through communication based on procedural justice.

Finally, it appears that some of Mr. Obama’s advisers (or subordinates), such as Gen. McChrystal have deliberately violated organizational procedures by publicly arguing for troop increases in Afghanistan. Thus, forcing the President to comply with the general’s request. McChrystal is the general implicated in the Pat Tillman's report.

Mr. Obama needs to upgrade his administration capacity by retool the cadre of White House advisers with individuals competent in the economics and who have technical and managerial capacity to guide development. Moreover, the advisers should be capable of assessing potential failures and developing ex ante responses.

SAVE DARFUR