President Barack Obama’s acknowledgement that “we have somehow lost the sense of direct contact with the Americans on their core values” may be too little too late in the world’s eyes. Obama has extended a hand of dialogue to many countries, including enemies, but they will grasp it only if they feel that his other hand has a firm grip on power within the US.
Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts is not just a political defeat. It is a symbol of Obama’s waning charisma and vote-getting power inside America. Foreign leaders were already skeptical of his overtures to them during past months but listened carefully and thought seriously about accommodating his views in negotiations. The great challenge now for the White House and Obama’s handlers is to convince those negotiators that he is worth talking too because he is still a game changer.
In the eyes of foreign leaders, Obama is worth dealing with only if he can push deals through Congress that they agree to at great risk to their own domestic political power. For instance, if Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev takes the risk of moving halfway towards American positions on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), he will have to challenge Vladimir Putin and a powerful group of generals.
That has major consequences for Russia’s domestic politics. Medvedev will not do so if it turns out that Obama has lost his magic touch with voters and the mid-term elections in November 2010 bring in more Republicans opposed to making compromises with Russia.
Whether Obama is more rhetoric than action is not a central question for almost everyone involved in negotiations with America. They do not react to hopes and promises. They reach agreement only if they see concrete results on the near horizon.
Results from agreements are very rarely immediate. They depend on how the agreements are implemented. Since the US is a fractious democracy, outsiders first evaluate the President’s political power and influence over voters to decide whether an agreement is likely to be implemented and, therefore, worth making.
For Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighting US led coalitions, the Scott Brown victory in a Democratic stronghold demonstrates Obama’s fading appeal to voters. That is a great satisfaction for them. Their political goals are served if American voters slide into anger and frustration, which Obama’s magic is not able to conciliate. They do not care whether that anger results from domestic or international issues.
They want only to see partisan and populist politics in America because that will make compromises harder on all fronts among the White House, Congress, pressure groups, Democrats and Republicans. Better still if issues like unemployment or health care cause the anger because they are visceral and resonate in every family. That raises the irrationality and emotion of polemics within America.
The more Obama is drowned by populist polemics, the more he will have to fight for his political life. The more he will be distracted from the sharp focus needed to conduct the complex war against Al Qaeda and Taliban. They love that because their fight to win political power over their domestic opponents will be less hindered by foreign interference.
They will know that simply staying in the game long enough will deliver victory by default because a hamstrung Congress and struggling White House will force Obama to turn inwards. That would shove US strategic goals, including human rights and freedom, to the backburner in their regions.
The Afghan Taliban would thus get more time to put in place their winning hearts and minds strategy begun a few months ago in response to the US coalition’s new counterinsurgency plans based partly on economic assistance to turn villagers against insurgents.