Obama’s job approval ratings

Since coming to office, President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen by about 2% per month, as the chart below from pollster.com makes clear.

There are two reasons to think Obama’s job approval ratings have hit a temporary bottom.  First, since August, Obama’s job approval/disapproval ratings closely match party identification. According to the latest Pew Survey data, 48% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, 39% identify as Republicans, and 13% did not know or refused to answer. These results strongly match his current job approval ratings: 51% approve and 44% disapprove.  Second, if consensus economic forecasts are correct, the unemployment rate has probably reached its height.  The correlation between Obama’s job approval rating and the unemployment rate is quite high, about -0.77 (although we only have ten data points).  Thus, if the forecasts about unemployment are correct and assuming democrats continue to support him, barring any unforeseen major changes, it is likely that Obama’s job approval rating is close to its floor.

Overdoing diplomacy

Yeah, what he said.

A Snub from One Nobel Prize Winner to Another?

The Nobel Committee said in its press release that it was awarding the Prize to Obama because he promotes a world in which “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” Apparently this does not extend to engaging in dialogue with dissidents of an economically powerful country with which the United States wishes to maintain “a very robust bilateral agenda” that includes trade and security.

Obama has received a lot of flack already over the decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama while the Tibetan leader is in DC this week to receive a human rights prize from Congress on Capitol Hill, which was awarded Tuesday. But the decision to award him the Nobel Peace Prize makes the situation almost comedic – the most recent prize winner is refusing to meet with the laureate from 20 years ago over issues regarding peace and human rights because he is afraid of disturbing an increasingly warm relationship with the oppressor.

When South Africa refused a visa to the Dalai Lama in March 2009, the United States did not quite condemn the move, but it did reaffirm that “the Dalai Lama… is a regular visitor to the United States and we do not miss an opportunity to try and have discussions with him.” Except, it would seem, when doing so might put a shadow on upcoming trade talks with China. This is certainly not the first time this administration has played down concerns over human rights violations in China; Secretary Clinton started off the relationship in February by saying she was not going to push the human rights button. So in many ways this represents continuity with the current administration’s stance. But while the Obama government might think that they’re giving up the issue because it will not go anywhere, it is obvious this is not the case. If human rights pressure really was not affecting Chinese policy, why should that country be so touchy about it? Without a watchful and concerned international community, the state of rights inside China could be much worse.

The Dalai Lama has said that he is not offended and does “not want to create inconvenience to anybody,” which is ultimately self-defeating. Leaders not meeting with him may soon become a trend: Australia’s Kevin Rudd decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama in December for similar reasons of not wanting to rock the boat with China. Freedom House has more examples of Chinese pressure winning out over human rights concerns. With declining outside pressure, the Chinese will be free to repress its dissidents, confident that it is too important to be attacked on such trivial matters as domestic human rights concerns. The same is true in other parts of the world, like Egypt, where the United States has failed to show support to advocates of democracy and justice.

While Obama’s policy might be understandable from the standpoint of US economic interests, it is certainly not befitting of the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope that this award gives him a reality check to see just that.

Ditherer in Chief?

As a strong Democrat and Obama supporter, it hurts me to write this post.  However, sometimes it’s better to hear the painful truth than pretend it’s not so.  Thomas Ricks’s recent post at Foreign Policy on Obama’s indecisiveness articulates a lot of how I feel about the president’s performance on a range of issues.

This is not a blog about US politics, so I tend to stay away from the subject.  However, since Obama’s indecisiveness directly affects US foreign policy on democracy and governance, I think it is a reasonable topic for the blog.  On foreign policy, the big dither is Afghanistan.  I have nothing to add to this debate, except that I agree with Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s observation that while “the middle ground is often safe political terrain, it can be the riskiest spot on the battlefield.” Some unsolicited advice: it’s time to be the Gambler (e.g., fold or go all in) not the Coward of the County (e.g., commission  another study).

Obligatory picture of Kenny Rogers

Afghanistan is not the only foreign policy dither. 10 months into the Obama Administration, the President still has not appointed an Administrator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  While I have a lot of friends in the Obama Administration, I keep my relationships on a professional level and therefore do not pump them for insider gossip.  From what I do understand the problem is that some in the administration want USAID to be an independent agency, possibly with cabinet-level status, while others want to place USAID under the State Department.  Fights like this are commonplace in the Federal Government (or any bureaucracy for that matter) and it’s up to the president to make the final call.  The same debate existed when I was at the Treasury Department under President Clinton and USAID under President Bush.  You don’t need 10 months to make the choice.  Be the decider, not the ditherer.

Deciding is hard

Obama’s zero-sum politics on Afghanistan

The Washington Post‘s Karen de Young hits the basic zero-sum political calculation that the Obama adminstration faces on Afghanistan squarely on the head:

One observer, characterizing the president’s dilemma at its most extreme, said: “He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic Party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war.”

According to Steven Thomma, Jonathan S. Landay and David Lightman at McClatchy,

With the military and Republicans publicly pressuring him to send more troops to Afghanistan soon and his own administration now deeply divided about how to proceed there, the eight-year war against al Qaida and the Taliban has become an increasingly urgent policy and political dilemma for President Barack Obama.

He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.

Obama seems to be up against the wall here.  Is the administration calling for additional strategy reviews because they don’t know the best policy, because they are looking for support for a decision they have already made, or because they don’t know the best political choice?  While these are not mutually exclusive reasons, I place 10% on the first, 30% on the second, and 60% on the third.  Then again, I am a cynic.

Ken Silverstein has more.