Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor of The Australian, has some thoughts on who Obama might be:
THE people of the world await Barack Obama and, on the basis of exhaustive polls, they do believe he is the one. In Obama’s own words, millions of people see his election as the moment the planet began to heal, the oceans stopped rising.
Can he meet all their expectations? Yes, he can, the masses believe. Well, can he?
Obama will stride on to the world stage as president on January 20 with three great advantages. One, vast international goodwill. Two, control of the Congress by his political allies. And, three, huge domestic authority.
This is the first time at least since John F. Kennedy that so much of the world has been so invested in a US president.
It makes it infinitely easier for Obama to speak simultaneously to a US and an international audience. Obama’s mellifluous style and the fact that most of the substance of his message so far has been simply a rejection of the immensely unpopular Bush presidency in any event make him much better at this than his predecessor.
George W. Bush had to rally and uplift Americans in the wake of a shocking attack on their soil. This inevitably meant he focused on enemies. Obama, for the moment at least, can embrace the world as a composite Mother Teresa, Princess Diana and secular pope. He is all things to all men and all women.
Having so few specific political commitments means anyone can project their kindest fantasies on to him. But the remorseless and terrible business of government is always about making hard choices, which please some and disappoint others.
On protectionism
…And this is a different kind of congressional Democratic majority from that which was so dominant in the 1970s. Back then, a large swag of Democrats were conservative southerners. They were a balance to the Left liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
This congressional majority is much more unified ideologically and is well to the Left of where Obama was during the campaign. It could well decide that a tariff on China, or tariffs generally, is a good thing.
On fudging a carbon tax
Obama’s general approach to foreign policy is quite unclear. We have a good sense of what his rhetorical style will be: all uplift. Yes, we can! Change we can believe in! We are the ones we’ve been waiting for! Our stories are singular but our destiny is shared!
But, eventually, hard decisions will need to be made.
Obama has few solid commitments in foreign affairs and defence. A little like Kevin Rudd, he will engage in some important early symbolism, presumably closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay and taking some symbolic action on global warming.
Global warming will be very tricky for Obama. He and his advisers realise that the common view that the US is the main obstacle to an international agreement on global warming is a big part of the reason the US is so unpopular. So Obama will want to differentiate himself from Bush on this.
But global warming was given little exposure in the US campaign. With the US economy on the rack, it is inconceivable that the US will impose big costs on itself, or big new limits on its people’s behaviour, for the good of the planet’s environment, especially when the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, China, is resolutely opposed to undertaking any commitment to a targeted reduction in greenhouse emissions.
Therefore the most likely Obama position will ultimately be a giant fudge: a commitment, perhaps, to an aspirational target far off in the future, a certain amount of money for new green energy technologies, but little real action. The confusion, bad faith, shoddy arguments, symbolic posturing and general dishonesty surrounding this issue are so pervasive, and the international goodwill towards him so great, that Obama may get away with that kind of fudge.
On Iraq
…On traditional geo-strategic issues, Obama became progressively more hawkish as the campaign wore on. In most things, his policies closely resemble those of the second Bush administration. On Iraq, he hopes to withdraw US troops over 16 months, but he will do so responsibly and in consultation with his commanders on the ground. That’s as much wriggle room as anyone could want.
One quick comment, re: “with the US economy on the rack, it is inconceivable that the US will impose big costs on itself, or big new limits on its people’s behaviour, for the good of the planet’s environment.”
Totally agree he should not “impose big costs”, etc… However, there are good arguments across the board that energy independence – consisting of vastly improved energy efficiency and transition to renewable sources – can be profitable for everyone, not onerous or lifestyle-limiting, and will pay for itself multiple times over, and can be good for the economy in the short term, given good integrative design and a fairly small amount of innovation. Obviously, we have to have the will to do it, and have to take creative steps to make sure the changes are market-driven. But I am confident it can be done. “Business as usual” will definitely not cut it.
BTW, read an interesting quote by Nicolas Nassim Taleb yesterday, re: global warming that’s apropos of whether we really should worry about carbon and moving to energy independence:
“Correspondents keep asking me if the climate worriers are basing their claims on shoddy science and whether, owing to nonlinearities, their forecasts are marred with such a possible error that we should ignore them. Now, even if I agreed that it was shoddy science; even if I agreed with the statement that the climate folks were most probably wrong, I would still opt for the most ecologically conservative stance. Leave Planet Earth the way we found it. Consider the consequences of the very remote possibility that they may be right—or, worse, the even more remote possibility that they may be extremely right.”
From http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge264.html#nassim
Nils,
Agree with Taleb, and with your comments. The modelers may be wrong in either direction. And actual emissions seem to be tracking about IPCC forecasts.
We do not have to defer implementing a ramping-up revenue-neutral carbon tax due to anti-recession policy concerns. The costs are largely future costs and as you outline may turn out to be negative costs (profits).