Revision Update: US Politics: The Start of Obama’s Second Term

The start of the Obama second term posed some interesting questions with regard to the policy direction of government and the style that President Obama may adopt in order to push through this agenda. There are several key developments which give us some insight into these issues.

1.) The election victory. The president will seek to claim a mandate from the people given the size of his victory over Mitt Romney. President Obama’s victory margin was 3.5m voters or 51% of the vote to Romney 49%. This provides President Obama with a certain amount of political capital that he can use to urge Congress to support his legislative and monetary programmes.

That said, President Obama was dealt a major blow with the Republicans retaining their control over the House. The preference of the American people for divided government, Republicans will suggest, is that the public have not provided a ringing endorsement of the president’s policy platform and that consequently they have every right to resist change of which they do not approve.

2.) The inauguration address. President Obama used this occasion to outline his policy priorities and to give an indication of his likely approach to dealing with the Congress. Given the fact that President Obama must step down having served two terms by 2016, there is a degree of urgency about his need to get his agenda through the congress before he starts to lose authority and power as he, like all second term presidents, will become a lame duck.

The address whilst less dramatic than his first which was watched by 1.8m in Washington D.C., gave a clear indication of his policy issues. These included:

(a) Resolution of the budget crisis

(b) The need for new gun controls and

(c) The need to address climate change

It was interesting to note that the focus seemed to be on domestic rather than international issues. Many presidents, such as Clinton in his second term, concentrate on foreign policy in the second term, as they feel that it is an area where they are less likely to encounter opposition. It may be the case that we are going to see a more aggressive President Obama in the second term. With no need to think about his electoral prospects in 2016, President Obama can be bolder and challenge the Congress head on.

Given the tone of the address, there seemed little prospect of the president adopting a more conciliatory approach to his dealings with the Congress. A criticism of the first term[1], was that President Obama did not seem keen to play the game of Washington politics. Despite the claim that greater bipartisanship was required, there were few if any attempts, to seek any form of compromise and consensus with the Republicans and this would seem to be set to continue.

McGregor remarked “Many senators, including Democrats, complain that his approach is counterproductive and they have urged him to spend more time with Congress to garner the votes he needs to get bills passed.”[2]

Indeed House Speaker Boehner stated that President Obama was “trying to annihilate” the Republican party and he is generally perceived by Republicans to be “the most partisan president of their lifetime.”[3]

The question remains though to what extent will President Obama be able to impose his will upon the Congress and in particularly the Republican controlled House. He may adopt a more aggressive, less conciliatory approach which might answer some of the critics who suggested he underachieved in the first term. The fact remains however if Congress refuses to yield we will end with gridlock. President Obama seemed to acknowledge as much when he said “We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial.” He too realises, after the battles of the first term that the President is after all only “bargainer-in-chief” when it comes to policy determination.

[2] Richard McGregor, “Optimistic oratory given a principled edge”, The Financial times, 22.1.13.

[3] Edward Luce, “Budget battles and careless cuts threaten US recovery”, The Financial Times, 28.1.13.