"THE QUESTION WE ASK TODAY IS NOT WHETHER OUR GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG OR TOO SMALL, BUT WHETHER IT WORKS...."

I expect that this statement will be remembered as the most consequential of any in President Obama's first inaugural address. It indicates that the inauguration of Barack Obama, symbolism aside, may also mark the beginning of a sea change in the relationship between individuals and government in America.

Beginning with the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and the subsequent creation of the administrative state, the federal government became an integral part of everyday American life. The National Recovery Act put countless Americans back to work on the federal dime. The Social Security Act created a new federal safety net to ensure a minimum level of support to retired citizens. The Securities and Exchange Act ushered in a new wave of government control of Wall Street that persists to this day. The list goes on - the "alphabet soup" of agencies created by FDR brought government into Americans' lives like never before.

This expansion of government continued for nearly half a century. After World War II, the GI Bill helped bring millions of people into the middle class. In the mid-60s, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid as part of LBJ's "Great Society" reforms represented the high water mark of "big government" - never before was the federal government more fundamentally committed to the use of its power and pursestrings to bring about social progress. Government, for many, was the solution.

Then the retreat began. The disillusionment with government that came with bloated social programs, Watergate, the withdrawal from Vietnam and the various crises of the late 70's turned many people against their government. Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and told Americans that government was no longer the solution to its problems - it was the problem. And for years, deregulation and privatization were in vogue.

After twelve years of Republican rule many thought this would change with the inauguration of Bill Clinton, but in many ways it did not. Universal health care, for years the holy grail for many liberals, was not achieved; welfare-to-work drastically changed the underlying assumptions of how the so-called social safety net worked; new social programs such as SCHIP were, at most, incremental steps toward greater government involvement in supporting individuals; and deficit reduction was the main goal (and most important accomplishment) of the Democratic administration. This was, in many ways, a continuation of the "government is the problem" era in American politics.

Ironically, the now-complete presidency of George W. Bush brought a far greater expansion of government than Clinton's. The Department of Homeland Security was created, and is in many ways a model of administrative inefficiency. The Medicare reforms threw massive amounts of federal money at pharmaceutical companies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as enormous tax breaks for the rich (most notably the repeal of the estate tax) drained the federal budget into the red and expanded the national debt to a new high. And in one notable area where government's reach did not expand under Bush (banking regulation), greed and excess launched a severe economic crisis that continues to deepen with each passing day. The expansion of government under Bush did little to fundamentally change the way government relates to individuals, other than to antagonize many Americans once again.

And now comes Barack Obama. As he made very clear in his inaugural address above, President Obama is a hard-nosed pragmatist when it comes to policy. This is not to say he is not also ideological to some extent. While he is interested in cabining government when it has become too big for its own good, the president is unquestionably committed to the idea that government has certain social responsibilities. Unlike President Clinton, he seems unapologetic about his liberal leanings - he is proposing a massive economic stimulus that will temporarily increase the deficit in exchange for providing a boost to the sagging jobs market.

But the way he has gone about promoting this idea reflects a new type of political discourse. For years, our political attitudes have been defined by which orientation toward government we adopt: whether we see it as the solution, or as the problem. Barack Obama, while clearly favoring one side of this dispute, seems interested in avoiding it altogether. Despite his strong mandate for change, President Obama is not proposing a vast, ideologically motivated expansion the welfare state, which would antagonize people who resent the idea of government as an ATM for the lazy. He is not leading as a typical liberal politician would. He is acting pragmatically, without appealing to the dogmas of either political party. Not saying that government is the solution, or that it is the problem; not that it is too intrusive, or that it is too hands-off. His interest is in whether, regardless of these liberal or conservative orientations, it is advancing our well-being.

At a minimum, this is a fascinating change in the way the American president speaks about American problems. More optimistically, it could represent a revolution in how Americans view government. Should the Obama Administration's new pragmatic approach to governing be successful, we may look at government quite differently once the forty-fifth president is sworn in. Though the question will always be with us as to whether government is too big or too small, too paternalistic or too out-of-touch, we might not be so hung up on it in the future. It might not define our politics. Perhaps we will simply trust government - trust it to be honest, competent, accountable and committed to improving efficiency. And with these old divisions behind us, perhaps we will be able to focus more clearly on the real, concrete policy problems facing us, with a clear head and a practical worldview.

Let's stay hopeful - the work has already begun.

TOO MUCH TO HANDLE?

It's no secret that Barack will have a lot on his plate. A president cannot simply deal with one problem at a time, he has to get his hands dirty and address everything simultaneously.

The economy, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Russia, China, education, healthcare, and so much more... No matter what, he's bound to disappoint. But let's hope he has more successes than failures.

This cartoon appeared in the January 17th edition of the Economist 

THE UGLY NEW FACE OF THE NATION

It was the same cold and conniving Hillary Clinton who testified for five hours at a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday. She may very well be one of the most unlikable people in the history of US politics. As I've said before, the prominent role she will play as Secretary of State in Barack Obama's administration is unfortunate to say the least.

For some inexplicable reason, there are some hopeful observers. During the hearing, I spoke to a fellow journalist who works on Capitol Hill. She was impressed by Clinton's remarks on Gaza, interpreting them as a sign of encouragement. Apparently, other news organizations also got it wrong... But despite all the unwarranted praise, there was nothing new in what Mrs Clinton had to say:

"The president-elect and I understand - and are deeply sympathetic to - Israel's desire to defend itself under current conditions and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets. However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians."

When Western politicians equate the struggle of the people in Gaza to that of Israeli citizens, they are showing just how unsympathetic they truly are. Afterall, there is no comparison between sporadic rocket fire and a hailstorm of bombs and other brutal weapons - there is no comparing three dead Israeli civilians to the 1000+ who have lost their lives in Gaza. As long as Washington continues to view the Middle East from a Zionist perspective, there is no hope for any meaningful change in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As long as US foreign policy is rooted in an air of arrogant infallibility, change is equally unlikely in other sensitive arenas. On Iran, Clinton paid lipservice to Obama's stated desire to engage, but in addition to reiterating that "no options are off the table" she promised much more of the same:

"We will do everything we can pursue through diplomacy, through the use of sanctions, through creating better coalitions with countries that we believe also have a big stake in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power."

This obsession with Iran's nuclear capabilities is hauntingly reminiscent of what happened five years ago with the country on its western border. Iraq has been laid to waste under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. Even before the US invasion, Iraqis were dying in the hundreds of thousands from the types of sanctions Clinton hopes to use with Iran. Nuclear weapons cannot and should not be a pretext to enact policies that will kill innocent people; whether that happens through military campaigns or starvation is only a question of form.

I saw absolutely no signs of hope in Clinton's confirmation hearing, except for the expectation that she will have to submit her will to that of Barack Obama. Whether she actually does that remains to be seen, but since she is still likely to have her sights on the presidency, she will probably do as she is told. I don't expect her marching orders to bode well for the international community, particularly in the Middle East. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

THE STROKE OF A PEN (AND A RESPONSE)

It's been reported before, but it's worth mentioning once more here: there are indications that swift repudiations of several key Bush policies are likely to be handed down by the Obama administration within the first weeks, or even days, following the Inauguration. The vehicle: Executive Orders, which will be signed by President Obama and immediately effective under law. In addition to the reversal of Bush rulings on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and abortion, several new prime areas for change have appeared. From Politico:

Guantanamo (though closure of the prison will, of course, require more effort and time than is needed for an executive order);

Torture policy;

The release of key Office of Legal Counsel opinions which took an expansive view of executive power.

Along with Obama's senior-level appointments for CIA, OLC, DOJ and a host of other key positions, these reports are another encouraging signal. Bush's return to Texas in eight days will not just be a symbolic transition: Obama has given clear signs that his inauguration will mark the true beginning of the end of the Bush era.

Also, to veer off topic momentarily, a quick response to Kalash's last post regarding Obama and Middle East policy. While the president-elect has, unfortunately, not yet been willing to exhibit any criticism for Israel, any judgments about his foreign policy must be reserved at least until he takes office. While Kalash and others have given short shrift to the "one president at a time" mantra, it is not just a political excuse - it is an important principle in American governance. Any substantive statement President-elect Obama might make about Gaza or the peace process, beyond general expressions of dismay over violence and calls for restraint, would be highly imprudent because the rest of the world could not help but take them as official American policy. As a result, the foreign policy of the sitting, legitimate president would be supplanted.

This might seem pointless to some of us, as we look at our calendars and count the minutes until noon on the 20th. After all, we've probably already made dinner plans beyond Inauguration Day; surely the president-elect can manage a few words about the foreign policy he'll implement starting then. But let's not forget the pace with which international incidents can occur. In South Ossetia this past August, Georgia launched an attack on August 7th. The next day, Russia blockaded and attacked Georgia. Within five days, a full-scale invasion and an agreement to a preliminary cease-fire had both occurred. International crises can happen at lightning speed - one could easily start and end before Obama puts his hand on the Bible next Tuesday. It is imperative that America's leaders not risk an ineffectual response, which could trigger even greater instability, by sharing the duties of the presidency.

As much as this might frustrate those of us who want to get on with the next four years, we are constrained by the constitution: we have one leader authorized to act on our behalf in foreign affairs until January 20th. In my view, those of us who are upset that Obama isn't speaking should petition Congress to pass a constitutional amendment shortening the lame-duck period; they shouldn't launch into a knee-jerk reaction accusing Obama of "more of the same." In any event, President-elect Obama's unwillingness to publicly inject himself into the crisis (remember, he is constantly in contact with President Bush and receives daily intelligence reports as well as briefings from the Secretary of State) is a smart, logical and statesmanlike decision.

A GLIMMER OF HOPE?

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is good news. 

Clearly if Barack Obama wants to have any kind of positive impact on the Middle East, he needs to recognize the facts on the ground and act accordingly. He cannot "stay the course" that has been laid out for him. That is the very least that needs to happen...

High hopes - low expectations.

A HUGE LOAD

I wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes right about now...

He's got a whole lot to deal with. Is he up for the challenge? Surely he will make strides in some areas but he will also disappoint in others. Unfortunately, W has left him with a big mess to deal with. When it's Obama's turn to pass the torch, will the world be in a better state? I sincerely hope so... My expectations remain low.

This cartoon appeared in the January 3rd edition of the Economist 

YES, HOPE FOR CHANGE

Those of us looking for a clean break from the Bush administration's policies can breathe a cautious but justified sigh of relief. President-elect Obama’s appointment of former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence is the strongest suggestion yet that such a clean break is in the making, at least in one crucial area of policy: torture.

For the last couple of days, the media has struggled to wrap its mind around this pick. Panetta was nowhere on anyone’s radar for DCI, and in all fairness to the oracles of the conventional wisdom, that was for good reason. The previous two candidates floated for the post represented anything but a fresh face. Initially, many thought that John Brennan, a man with a quarter-century of service in the American intelligence community, would be the pick – he resigned from the chairmanship of a prominent intelligence think tank after the election to work with the transition full-time. But when allegations arose that Brennan was involved in (or at least lukewarm about) decisions to use abusive interrogation tactics against detainees, the outrage among bloggers, psychologists and even law professors was too much to bear, and he withdrew from consideration.

After that, there was some speculation that Obama might retain current DCI Michael Hayden. But to some sources, it was clear that Obama himself was looking to use the appointment to make a bigger statement about his disagreement with Bush policies, and Hayden wouldn’t do it – his prior work as Commander and Director of the Air Intelligence and National Security Agencies, respectively, made him an entrenched member of the intelligence community. Not so with Leon Panetta, who will be a newcomer to the intelligence world. So how is Panetta qualified for this job?

There are several reasons. First, despite his lack of experience in intelligence, Panetta has a long history in Washington. He was a congressman for 16 years prior to serving as Clinton’s OMB director and eventual Chief of Staff. In those roles, he was a principal force behind the balanced budgets of the late 90s. He was also a member of the Iraq Study Group in 2006, along with current and future Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The past working relationship between Panetta and Gates might be a significant motivating factor behind the decision, along with the fact that Panetta seemed to grasp a central problem in Iraq: that no one was in charge. By extension, Obama may hope that Panetta’s organizational expertise might make him forceful advocate for the administration’s policy at CIA.

An equally important point, especially for those who equate experience in Washington with capture by the "Establishment" and resistance to change, is Panetta’s stated revulsion to torture as an interrogation technique. Less than a year ago in an article in Washington Monthly, he had this to say:

Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

If confirmed by the Senate, Panetta’s appointment would undoubtedly send a loud and clear message throughout the intelligence community (and, for that matter, the global community) that torture is no longer the American way of dealing with its enemies. The appointment of Hayden or Brennan or any other longtime member of the CIA phalanx would not do this, even if such an appointee was personally opposed to torture. And given reports from some intelligence professionals that the primary attraction of foreign fighters to Iraq has been the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, it is extremely important that the successors to our current intelligence directors be clearly opposed to such techniques.

Finally, Panetta’s status as a civilian unconnected to the intelligence community could make things much easier for him in instituting these policy changes. Unlike Hayden, his ability to progress in his career has not been dependent on developing a favorable constituency within the intelligence establishment – he simply has less to lose by implementing Obama’s policies. Further, as Scott Norton noted in Harper’s, some intelligence professionals think experience in the community is not the most important ingredient for success as a DCI:

“Intel experience is overrated. Good judgment, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance.”

Panetta will have plenty of experienced intelligence experts serving below him, who will keep him up to speed and help him implement his policies. Indeed, his own experience as a Chief of Staff likely gives him an instinctive sense of what is necessary organizationally. Most of all, though, the appointment of Panetta ensures that the next DCI will be someone of the same mind as Obama: someone who absolutely believes torture should not be official US policy. With this guiding light, there is good reason to hope that the failed congressional oversight of the intelligence community these past few years will be replaced by a competent, righteous and self-policing intelligence leadership.

STILL COMMITTED

For weeks now, the meme on the blogosphere has been that President-elect Obama has been slowly alienating the coalition that elected him. From his appointment of centrists to his cabinet to the recent flap over his invitation of evangelical Christian minister Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, there’s been plenty of red meat for those commentators who are chomping at the bit to declare that the Change We Need is dead before arrival.

For that reason, I found it extremely telling to read the President-elect’s interview with TIME in the forthcoming Person-of-the-Year issue. Throughout his (admittedly brief) time in national politics, Barack Obama’s most defining habit has been candor - in spite of ideology and, to some extent, even in spite of politics. He hasn’t been afraid to speak frankly when simply falling in line and not making much noise would be more politically expedient. It’s what brought him to the brink of voting for John Roberts’ confirmation to the Supreme Court, before offering a thoughtful and well-reasoned explanation of his ultimate opposition. It is also explains why during the Rev. Wright scandal, his first instinct was to give an honest, unprecedented and statesmanlike speech on race at the height of the most damaging controversy of his presidential campaign, when the easier route would have been to simply give a categorical denunciation, as he did once Wright forced his hand.

More to the point, it is what drove him to set concrete expectations for what his administration must achieve in its first years during the TIME interview. This candor is the mark of a supremely confident person, who knows what he wants to accomplish and how to do it, and does not fear the consequences of showing his cards, albeit briefly. But while Obama’s willingness to set expectations was unsurprising, what was still remarkable to me was the height of the bar he has set:

On [domestic] policy, have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn't occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems so we can compete in the 21st century? That's on the domestic front.

On foreign policy, have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can't solve on our own?

And outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim.

Reading this laundry list, one must be reminded that the president-elect is not describing what he thinks he'll achieve by January 2017, when he hopes to retire to Hyde Park. He is setting benchmarks for what his administration must deliver within two years, in order to deserve a reprieve from the obligatory flogging most presidents take in midterm elections.

Though this won’t happen, this interview should put to rest the firestorm in the blogosphere about Obama’s supposed abandonment of progressive policy goals. The main ingredients of Obama’s campaign promises are all there: close Guantanamo. Restore transparency and accountability in government. End substantial American involvement in Iraq. Move early on health care reform. Provide the catalyst for a green energy revolution. At the core of each of these changes is the elimination of an eight-year thorn in liberals’ sides: torture, executive overreaching, economic inequality, etc. Once the conventional wisdom about Obama’s supposed “triangulation” is swept aside, one simple fact remains: the president-elect is just as committed to his campaign agenda now as he was the day before he was elected. He isn't backpedaling on the big questions.

Nor is he unrealistic about the challenges ahead. Though he offers a robust agenda, he also seems to recognize that he will only be able to begin the work on many of the key tasks. The important point now, though, is not whether or not all of these goals are accomplished by November 2, 2010. It is that starting late next month, we will have a president who was not afraid to set a high bar for himself, even in the immediate aftermath of an election - who was willing, at the farthest possible point from electoral consequence, to recommit himself to an ambitious agenda.

This might be dismissed by some as post-election euphoria and blustering. But at a time when the country teeters on the edge of a new depression, I think it cannot be shrugged off so lightly. To me, it can only mean one thing: the new president is ideologically committed to the goals he laid out in his campaign. He is, at heart, a liberal – a pragmatic one, to be sure, who might disdain the label for fear of alienating potential partners, but a liberal nonetheless. Those liberals who fear a turncoat president should be pleased at their good fortune. The next president won’t just enact liberal policies: like FDR, it seems he will use pragmatism and transparency to give them a legitimate, durable new label: centrist.

(P.S.: sorry for the lack of posts lately. Obligations in the real world got a little crazy recently. Posting will be more frequent in the future.)

LOOKING AHEAD

It's started to settle in for most people - our next president will be Black. But two months is a long time... especially in the realm of politics. Before the Obamas actually move into the White House, Barack and his growing team of officials will be getting ready to do their jobs. This transition period has already been one of the most attentively covered in recent memory. Maybe it's normal for people in the press to know what time the president-elect starts his work out and for how long he stays in the gym, but the material making it through newsroom filters is sometimes just as inconsequential.

Of course, the transition itself is worthy of the media attention it's receiving - every personnel decision will continue to be rightfully scrutinized. But looking ahead, what is it that people will be watching for? What do they expect? What do they want to see? And what will they do to help or hinder progress?

First and foremost, those who voted for him want Obama to put the country on the right track. He and his team will need to 'fix' the economy, by enacting policies that allow for reduced unemployment, better job security, and increased consumerism. Poor legislation not withstanding, confidence needs to be restored to US markets. But people should temper expectations - several other issues also need to be fixed... and everything will cost money: adequately addressing healthcare and social security could drain government coffers (at least in the short term); the American educational system is in need of serious attention and a lot of money - the same is true for prisons; in most big cities, public services need to be improved and infrastructural repairs are required nationwide; any efforts towards affecting climate change will also prove expensive; alternative energy won't come cheap either (we will continue to 'rely' on foreign oil for quite some time). These are only some of the issues that need time and money. It shouldn't be difficult to understand why fixing the economy won't be so easy.

In addition to the many domestic issues on Obama's plate, there are a considerable number of people who want to see the next president improve the United States of America's standing in the international community. Indeed, his election alone goes to considerable ends in achieving that end, but his actions as president (or lack thereof) could reverse the tide. How will he cope with booming Asian economies like those of China and India? Will he do anything positive for the Middle East once he takes office? How will he deal with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Russia, Cuba, Congo, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, Israel... the list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, if Barack Obama is to fix this country's woes, he cannot do so on his own. It's not as simple as waving a a magic wand of "change" around. He needs help, and not just from his staff. In his victory speech he reminded Americans of their duty:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."

That means a lot of different things. But most importantly, it means that Americans need to hold him and other elected officials accountable when they fail to do the things they should. In other words, if all we get from Barack Obama is cosmetic change and more of the same, we should not re-elect him in 2012. The same is true for any other elected official. Unfortunately, in a two-party system, substantive change is hard to come by. Maybe Obama will surprise us. Who knows?

For now, we need to give him a chance. Afterall, he's not even the president yet. Still, what happens between now and January 20th is crucial to what happens over the next four years. No wonder it's getting so much play in the media.