Can Obama Still Be ‘Leader of the Free World’?

Even Reagan might have a problem dominating the stage these days.

National Journal
Michael Hirsh
March 24, 2014, 6:15 p.m.

All of a sud­den, it seems the pres­id­ent who was eager to fo­cus on “na­tion-build­ing at home” is cast­ing him­self in a hoary role that many people thought went out with the Cold War: “lead­er of the free world.” The ques­tion is, can Barack Obama really play the part that Frank­lin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, or Ron­ald Re­agan once did on the world stage — even if he per­forms very deftly — or is that too much to ask of any U.S. pres­id­ent these days?

Obama’s own top aides have been rais­ing ex­pect­a­tions that he can stride con­fid­ently back in­to the geo­pol­it­ic­al lime­light and lead a uni­fied front against Vladi­mir Putin. “The stra­tegic im­port­ance of this ef­fort really can’t be over­stated,” said his na­tion­al se­cur­ity ad­viser, Susan Rice, com­ment­ing on the series of sum­mit meet­ings that began in Hol­land on Monday not only with lead­ers of the retro-christened G-7 (good-bye Rus­sia), but with Chinese Pres­id­ent Xi Jin­peng in their first face-to-face since the G-20 last Septem­ber.

Obama goes in­to these meet­ings as a pres­id­ent who is seen by crit­ics to be in re­treat from the world, and tem­por­iz­ing some­what over Rus­sia’s ag­gres­sion. Can he come out of them with a re­newed im­age as a tough, stal­wart lead­er of the world’s only su­per­power — as the man who suc­cess­fully stared down “Amer­ica’s No. 1 geo­pol­it­ic­al foe”? It’s no sur­prise that the au­thor of that phrase, Mitt Rom­ney, has been all over the TV talk shows cri­ti­ciz­ing the pres­id­ent for fail­ing to agree with the GOP nom­in­ee’s tough as­sess­ment of Rus­sia in 2012 — not to men­tion care­fully lump­ing Obama to­geth­er with his first-term sec­ret­ary of State, Hil­lary Clin­ton, the pro­claimed Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner for 2016.

But if the threat from Rus­sia to parts of East­ern Europe today has echoes of the Cold War, a lot of oth­er things are dif­fer­ent, and they have little to do with Obama’s lead­er­ship. In re­cent years, as the G-7 meet­ings have been ec­lipsed by the more in­clus­ive and dy­nam­ic G-20 sum­mits, Amer­ica’s voice has grown faint­er in the crowd. The G-20 sum­mits and sub­sequent meet­ings came of age in an era of U.S. weak­ness and culp­ab­il­ity — with Wall Street seen as the cause of the 2008 fin­an­cial crisis — rather than Cold War strength. 

Hence, when U.S. of­fi­cials have tried to guide events, their pro­pos­als have of­ten seemed to eli­cit com­plaint, even con­tempt. At re­cent G-8 and G-20 meet­ings, the Ger­mans have seethed over U.S. in­ter­fer­ence in E.U. budget is­sues, while oth­er less­er powers like South Korea have simply slapped down Amer­ic­an ideas. “In the ‘90s, I al­ways thought that the per­suas­ive­ness of what I said was amp­li­fied by about 30 per­cent be­cause I was a U.S. of­fi­cial,” one of­fi­cial who served in both the Clin­ton and Obama ad­min­is­tra­tions told me after the 2009 Seoul sum­mit. “This time around there was no amp­li­fic­a­tion factor at all. In fact, if you were in the [Obama] ad­min­is­tra­tion there might even have been a slight dis­count.”

A changed in­ter­na­tion­al en­vir­on­ment has also dra­mat­ic­ally re­duced U.S. lever­age abroad. Amer­ica’s share of the world eco­nomy has gradu­ally de­clined, and even its mighty and still dom­in­ant mil­it­ary has been some­what de­mys­ti­fied by the suc­cess of in­sur­gents in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan over the past dec­ade. Gone, too, is the mor­al and mil­it­ary au­thor­ity left over from World War II and the bulk of the Cold War, when be­ing a U.S. ally against So­viet power was not a choice but a ne­ces­sity for “free-world” na­tions. Nor did it help that the United States nev­er de­veloped a new strategy in the post-Cold War era to re­place con­tain­ment, in­stead pro­ject­ing an im­age of drift and in­tern­al dis­sent. Wash­ing­ton tried “demo­crat­ic en­large­ment” (Bill Clin­ton), “as­sert­ive mul­ti­lat­er­al­ism” (Madeleine Al­bright), “the Bush Doc­trine” (no one’s quite sure what it was), and more re­cently Obama’s “no-doc­trine” pres­id­ency, but none has won many ad­her­ents abroad. Al­lied fealty has not been helped by the Snowden rev­el­a­tions either; Ger­man Chan­cel­lor An­gela Merkel is said to be still up­set by last year’s news that the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency was listen­ing in on her cell-phone calls.

Many Rus­sia ex­perts also be­lieve that the Krem­lin’s move in­to Crimea was not planned as a stra­tegic re­sponse to Wash­ing­ton, but was largely a tac­tic­al re­sponse to the sur­prise events of re­cent weeks, when pro-Rus­si­an Ukrain­i­an Pres­id­ent Vikt­or Ya­nukovych fled his coun­try in the face of protests in Kiev. And as former U.S. Am­bas­sad­or to Rus­sia Mi­chael Mc­Faul said Monday, few Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents have been able to stop Rus­si­an in­cur­sions in East­ern Europe go­ing back to the So­viet in­va­sion of Hun­gary in 1956. “When it comes to de­ter­ring Rus­si­an ag­gres­sion in East­ern Europe, the Amer­ic­an track re­cord is pretty poor,” he said in a con­fer­ence call with re­port­ers.

Non­ethe­less, the stakes are high, in­deed. Putin’s oc­cu­pa­tion of his­tor­ic­ally Rus­si­an-linked Crimea was seen as a last-ditch Krem­lin re­sponse to the per­ceived West­ern in­filt­ra­tion in­to the former So­viet sphere be­gin­ning with the over­throw of com­mun­ist re­gimes in the late 1980s, and European Uni­on and NATO ef­forts to bring those coun­tries un­der their um­brella. Obama, in oth­er words, is be­ing asked to an­swer for the policies of four pre­vi­ous Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents — be­gin­ning with Re­agan.

Thus, Amer­ica’s role as the se­cur­ity su­per­power is sud­denly very rel­ev­ant again, es­pe­cially in Europe. If Obama man­ages to emerge from this weeklong series of meet­ings trailed by pos­it­ive re­views in the over­seas me­dia, and Putin does not dare go fur­ther than his an­nex­a­tion of Crimea in re­sponse to the threat of ever-broad­er sanc­tions, it could be a de­cis­ive mo­ment for the U.S. pres­id­ent’s leg­acy — and for Amer­ica’s stature in the world. 

Obama’s re­sponse may also de­term­ine wheth­er the title “lead­er of the free world” still ex­ists. 

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4838) }}

What We're Following See More »
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
1 hours ago

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
2 hours ago

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
3 hours ago

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
11 hours ago

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
11 hours ago

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.