American politics

How to save Obama’s second term

Despite the rancour over scandals, big reforms are still possible

See article

Readers' comments



The Economist might as well spare its breath to cool its porridge. Since Bill Clinton won the presidential election of 1992 with 43% of the popular vote, a significant number of GOP supporters continue to refuse to accept the democratic legitimacy of any duly elected Democratic Party candidate for the presidency. President Obama has a negiligible possibility of ensuring the implementation of any of the broadly sensible policies The Economist advances.

While he might fail, he would be far more usefully engaged if he were to build popular and legislative support to remove this requirement for a 60 vote majority in the Senate and to take the responsibility for deciding the boundaries of the districts for the House of Representatives out of the hands of state legislatures and give it to an appropriately empowered and resourced independent judicial body.

These reforms are the 'sine qua non' to permit the formulation, scrutiny, revision and enactment of the legislation underpinning sensible economic policies.

The Founding Fathers would be horrified by the extent to which 'tyranny of faction' is preventing the delivery of good governance to the citizens of the Republic. It is not the fault of the Founding Fathers that they failed to anticipate the extent to which morons on boths sides of the aisle would screw things up. They intended Comgress to be a legislature and not a parliament where warring tribes and factions might 'parley' and agree some minimum set of rules that might govern them.

If Congess wishes to be treated as a legislature, then the senators and represesentatives must re-learn what this means. But if Congress wishes to behave like a parliament - which it is now, then the rules must change.

Terence Hale

How to save Obama’s second term. A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. The question is Mr. Obama an institution, individual or creed. Benghazi is a Mrs. Clinton skew-up, the Internal Revenue Service should come clean and say who else they hound and show it’s their job, for snooping on journalists is like the coal calling the coke black take the phone hacking scandal as example. I hereby wipe your slate clean Mr. President.

Phillip Hartman

This writer is entirely too optimistic about the possibility of compromise on the Republican side. Has he not been a wake the past 5 years? They aren't opposed to one policy or another; they are opposed to Obama: full stop.

Unliberal in reply to Nirvana-bound

"Absolutely right. The Repugs don't give a damn for the country. All they insanely care for & obsess over is how to filibuster anything Obama proposes. Mindboggling"

That is not mindboggling, it is pretty obvious. Reps represent the people that have built this country and pays for it, so they dont want to see it degraded to a third world country which is what majority of Obama followers want. Naturally the will oppose anything this guy wants to do.

Nirvana-bound in reply to powermeerkat

When Obama took office, the economy was in utter shambles & the country was in the throes of a massive recession - thanks to the disastrous antics of the Bush junta. It would take more than one term - with the full support of both chambers of Congress - to address & effect any changes to the monumental problems that he was bequeathed by his bungling Rep predecessor. Granted, he has no magic wand.


Everyone is angry at the IRS, what's gotten lost in the noise though was that the IRS had perfectly good reasons to target Tea Party groups. See they were applying for status as tax exempt charities, except to be tax exempt you are supposed to be non-political, at least overtly. So it was reasonable for the IRS to do a bit of investigation before giving these people charity status.

Katie10 in reply to HkJF8JtA5P

That is not what they did. They bullied and scared these people by auditing them, even sending OSHA after them and Homeland Security. They asked personal question by the hundreds which had nothing to do with the review hoping they would give up. All of the Democratic requests were granted but few from Republicans. They also targeting big donors to Romney and frightened away many who thought if they contributed to Romney they would be audited. The criminal behavior was so big and so illegal it may have changed the results of the election. The lawsuits are coming.

ParksDept in reply to HkJF8JtA5P

So you would be on board with discrimination of African Americans when applying for food stamps? Perhaps making them fill out a litany of more paper work than other ethnicities, delaying approval of the EBT card, and asking intrusive questions about their religion, personal views, etc?

This is the exact same thing the IRS just engaged in, except political rather than racial.

makoy in reply to ParksDept

what you are describing is exactly what happened to black farmers with respect to USDA loans under prior (mainly Republican) administrations. An injustice by a government agency, of course. But no one was crazy enough to turn it into the political witch-hunt we are now experiencing.

makoy in reply to Katie10

"They bullied and scared these people by auditing them."
Wow, and I thought these gun-toting dudes were so tough and rugged! I think only tax cheats are afraid of a little audit...


OB1 is being dangled like bait in front of industrially abused poor white folk so that they can take their eyes off of things like the Savings and loan scandal and the Enron Scandal, etc. They swallow it hook line and sinker. You would think the poor white folk would wise up but they haven't the independence to think on their own.

The group think control is as powerful as it was during the German Nazi phenomenon. I feel sorry for them. I've known some really nice white people who seem reasonably religious until anything remotely concerning OB1 is mentioned; then their eyes glaze over, and like a Pavlovian experiment they foam. They seem to exist in a fish bowl reality.


This article forgets an important issue, the Fed is just about ready to give up the $85 Billion a month in the Quantitative Easement and interest rates are going to jump. Wait until the service of the debt sees 5% or more.... Really going to find out how good the economy is when that kicks in. And with the Obama strangulation of business with all the stupid regulations oh well you get the idea.... Final blow Obamacare.... hidden taxes and people being cut back to part time.....

timshel in reply to straighthorse

I don't think you understand how monetary operations work.. QE is buying bonds in excess of what it takes to drive rates to zero. In order to start raising rates, the Fed would not only need to stop purchasing treasuries, it would need to sell back all of what it purchased to drain all the excess reserves out of the banking system. At that point, rates could rise.. but that's a ways off. Alternatively, they could just raise the rate that reserves pay (currently 25 basis points).. but no such plans have been announced.


do not forget 2 essential achievements:---1.after the post Bush disaster the Economy is starting to roll on!!2.the war on terror is contained!........but about Climate Change, we are at TOTAL loss!!!


Obama is, and will remain, massively more popular that this little magazine. Too bad your journalists lack his humility.

hmy_ in reply to makoy

Yeah, even with all the "scandals" (which the large majority of Americans don't even consider scandals based on polling), his approval rating is 40 points higher than that of the GOP-controlled House. So while it sounds like the country is outraged, nobody really cares and he has the same support he did on election day.


makoy in reply to hmy_

Only whimpy magazines like this one are outraged.
- 4 Americans are killed every hour of every day;
- most Americans see the Tea Party as crazies who warrant some special scrutiny claiming their political activities are tax-deductible
- if the press is acting responsibly, what's wrong with knowing their sources aren't criminal or terrorist?

makoy in reply to powermeerkat

I think everyone who voted Obama and/or Congressional Democrats (>52% of voters) see them as crazy. Most people who don't bother to vote see them as crazy. A good portion of moderate Republicans see them as crazy. That probably gets you to 70%. And just a sample of the clinical craziness: if these people succeed in starting impeachment against Obama, can you begin to imagine the unending political damage that would do the USA? Do you imagine that Democrats are not going to fight back? Most Americans have basic commonsense and understand that simple truth.

makoy in reply to powermeerkat

No, what I said was he's massively more popular than this little magazine. When political enemies and the media (such as this rag) try to pick on every little problem and label it an outrage, you can be sure than no one with a role in running the country will be popular. Ironically, TE gave Obama high marks for saving the world economy in 2009 in the face of Rebublican opposition, so its current attitude is like blaming Churchill for creating too much cigar smoke in 1946.

Robert Del Rosso

On Benghazi, I believe there are 2 separate issues:

(A) The nature of the attack, whether it stemmed from a protest over a “You Tube video” or was a well-planned terrorist attack, that took place on Sept 11th, 2012, since it was the 11th anniversary of the 2001 attacks. (I think that protestors usually do not walk around with the rocket-propelled grenades used in the attack.)

(B) The Obama Administration’s response to the attack:
We know the President met with then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at 5PM on Sept 11, 2012, (in a previously planned meeting) even as they were getting reports of our Benghazi Consulate being under attack.
Reportedly, at around 6PM, the President told Panetta and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “to handle the crisis themselves”.
Gregory Hicks, the number 2 American in Libya (after the Ambassador) (in our Embassy in Tripoli) said that potential rescue forces were given the order to “stand down” and NOT to go to Benghazi to rescue Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans.

Who gave the order for our forces in Tripoli to “stand down”?
What was the President doing between 6PM and say, midnight, as the attack on Benghazi continued?

Mr. Hicks said he received a 2AM phone call from Hillary Clinton asking for an update.

As Hillary Clinton famously asked in her Jan 2013 Congressional Testimony “What difference does it make?” (Whether the attack on Benghazi was the result of a video protest or a terrorist attack that would have happened with or without the video.)

The answer is: it really makes no difference.
Regardless of the source of the attack, the emails sent to and other communications showed the Americans in Benghazi were in danger, and yet no effort was made to assist them. We just sent a B2 bomber from Nebraska to South Korea (about 10,000 miles) in a few hours. So why was it so difficult to send help to Benghazi from Tripoli and Italy (600 miles and 430 miles away, respectively)?

At the speed our planes travel, it would have taken about 1 hour or less for help to arrive from Tripoli and/or Italy. And yet, we hear someone say it would have taken 20 (twenty) hours. REALLY? This has nothing to do with the budget cuts, we had resources in the area regardless of the budget.

To recite that our Embassies and Consulates were attacked in years gone by, seems to ignore that, unlike in most or all of the previous cases, in the case of Benghazi, Washington was observing the attack happening in “real time” and had an opportunity to respond in a timely fashion.

Whenever something bad happens, as with the Boston Marathon bombing, the question is: “What was the motive?” and so capturing the terrorist(s) alive was important.

Did the President or a high-ranking official give the order to “stand down” because it was thought that if there was a major battle in Benghazi it would hurt the President’s reelection chances? Were 4 Americans allowed to die for political reasons? These are serious questions that need serious answers.

Full disclosure: as you can see from my previous posts, I am not exactly to the Right of center. I voted for Obama twice. And yet, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, it would seem you would want to know:

“Who gave the order to ‘stand down’ and why”?

I am afraid that you make this all about the above Point “A”, while ignoring Point “B”.

MnPhys in reply to Robert Del Rosso

A bomber or any fast jet isn't going to help in an infantry firefight where you don't know exactly where the good guys are. Only the delivery of troops would have done anything. And what if that was exactly the reaction the terrorists were expecting? What would be the response if this, as could well have been the case, was just bait for ambushing a bunch of special forces?

The decisions are not nearly as clear in real-time as they are months later.


"Not enough to get Mr Obama’s face carved on Mount Rushmore, but not bad."
Given the crap he inherited and had to fix, while being obstructed by the same yahoos in Congress who created the mess in the first place, he should be on Mt. Rushmore now.

McGenius in reply to Dialectic18

He inherited quite a lot- the world's largest economy, strongest military, a proud, free, and charitable people with a glorious history, etc., etc..

He inherited the most awesome personal airline service and the most sophisticated and expensive personal security teams of the world for life.

The superlatives are practically unlimited describing what he inherited. He is a man that has been given so much, and appreciates so little. Truly a remarkable American story.

Dialectic18 in reply to McGenius

Obama inherited an economy in free fall, and which was discarding nearly one million jobs a month -
Plus two disastrous wars which the US was losing, and which was draining the US Treasury.
Those days are past us now. Be thankful. :)

Unliberal in reply to Dialectic18

Oh My...
How low the standards requirement for Mt Rushmore have gotten...

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theo Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln...erm...barack obama...- Even Mt Rushmore is becoming pc-ed and affirmative actioned!ROFL

wadair in reply to Dialectic18

The end of the Iraq war was already negotiated and set in motion before Bush left office. Obama escalated the Afghan war and must accept full responsibility for it. No matter the economic condition he inherited, only once before has economic recovery after a recission been so long in coming and that was in the 1930s under another progressive president.


You what would be cool? If the MSM, like Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, BBC, Guardian, Daily Beast, Time, etc, did an extensive search in some 15,000 emails to/from Obama and his staff...

Wait...they only dispense that kind of treatment on the Sarah Palins of this world. Never mind.


wow, the economist, with an attitude, lectures us on what is a scandal, and what is not, what is important and what trivial, and the simple path for Obama to follow for the admiration of the American people. All this in one little article. Pecksniff journalism is alive and well!


Memo to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President,

My youngest son has an extra copy of the Constitution of the United States. I was wondering if you'd be interested in reading it.


Karen Ronk

Nice to see that TE is channeling President Obama's disconnect with many of the American people about what is really important to us.

How can you possibly have faith in a president who has to turn on the news to find out what is going on in his own administration? Sadly, for many people, the fact that there is a D after Mr. Obama's name makes everything a partisan witch hunt. Things are just so messed up in our politics right now.

Whether they are lying, incompetent, corrupt or some combination of all three, it should be unacceptable to people of all political persuasions. And with mature leadership, all these things should have been avoided.


I respect this publication enough to expect that it does not get sucked into the media whirlwind. Conservative groups were not the only ones targeted. This is a fall-out from the Citizens United decision. The IRS does not have the capacity to handle all the applications for special tax status allowed under the decision. Left-leaning groups faced the same scrutiny.

VERY important to note that no conservative group was denied.

ParksDept in reply to dlackie

There is NO question that conservative groups were improperly targeted. The IG report was clear on that, as well as, litany of IRS officials who have made clear that conservative groups were specifically targeted. Also there was no significant increase in total applications during this time period...
That no groups were ‘denied’ is a distinction without a difference to reality. The IRS has sat on these applications for years, causing many to withdraw, which is a de facto denial for all the groups waiting in the purposefully protracted application process.

wrong. The targeting occurred before the Citizen United decision. You need to actually study what is going on before you make incorrect statements...

according to the WSJ...


This is 2008 buddy...way before the Citizen United decision. This a full fledged scandal and I don't like it and I am a democrat. The Obama admin is incompetent and paranoid. A combination of Carter and Nixon all rolled into one...


When you treat a person like a b1tch, you don't expect he will work for you.

When you treat government like a b1tch, you don't expect it can work for you.

If you think a politician will work for you simply because you voted him into office, earth is not the place for you.

ztoa in reply to ztoa

BTW, western democracy + western freedom = a paradox.
Let me illustrate that with an example :
Say a class of 25 students, 20 of them like teacher Alan, the remaining 5 like teacher Susan because they have trouble to follow Alan's teaching.
How do you determine which one should be the teacher for 25 students?
Based on the principle of democracy, Alan will be the teacher. But if so, do you respect the right of 5 students ?
So if you respect the individual right while following the principle of democracy, you will never be able to select a teacher.
This fundamental flaw in Western system inevitably paralyze governments, see the widespread debt issues in "free" world?

ParksDept in reply to ztoa

It’s not paradoxical. The roots of rule (‘western democracy’) stem from the freedom of the individual (‘western freedom’). In your hypothetical, it explores the coercive power of the state over the freedom of the individual. The individuals wanting to be taught by Susan should be free to do so, only a coercive power would keep them from doing so. I assume you were attempting to equate it elections, but again you fall short. The rights of the individual cannot be superseded for the rights of another individual, better summed up as ‘the right to swing your fist, ends at my face.’ Therefore, equal weight to all votes, gives an equality in individual freedoms, even if the end result was not the will of certain individuals.

You do however make a great case against affording too much power to a coercive entity, which was the basis of the founding of the United States

ztoa in reply to ParksDept



Typical mouth-bigger-than-butt talk.

Can the school afford hiring two teachers?

That is exact why western system looks good in rich countries but like craps in any countries with lot of poor people.

ParksDept in reply to ztoa

Haha, you conflate two completely separate subjects. It would be equivalent of a hypothetical saying 80% of people vote for a new bridge, but since there is no funding, they are denied their democratic rights. You are now saying that the inability to do something is equivalent to denying the right to do it. Leftist logic 101…

Beyond that, your distain for ‘poor’ people is coming across a little too strong. Individuals of any background should be free to prioritize their lives and livelihoods in the manner they best see fit.

ztoa in reply to ParksDept

You really have a big mouth.
The school can only afford one teacher for 25 students. 20 of them like Alan, 5 of them like Susan.
Solve it.
See the difference between "SHOULD" and "HOW"? Who in "free" world always talk "SHOULD" but never talk about "HOW"?

ParksDept in reply to ztoa

Those students who don’t like Alan should go to a different school, or not go all together if that is their wish, otherwise they are making the individual choice to study under Alan. Their individual preferences do not trump the individual preferences of the others. Individual freedom does not constitute tyranny of the individual. You have ZERO understanding of what you are talking about.

ztoa in reply to ParksDept

Those students who don’t like Alan should go to a different school,....
Are you out of your freaking mind?
I am asking you to solve a problem for only 25 people, and this is your answer?
Are you saying that the parents of 5 students should look for new jobs?

ParksDept in reply to ztoa

There is no problem to solve… They should go to a different school if it is what they want. Nothing is forcing them to learn from Alan, therefore their individual freedoms are not being trampled on, only their sensibilities. These are not the same thing. However, you do make an unwittingly good point about the evils of public education determined by zip code. We should allow freedom of school choice and abolish the union monopoly on our education system. But to be clear, the current education regime is neither respectful of democracy or individual rights.

But I’m done debating someone who cannot comprehend the esoteric philosophy of individual freedom.

ztoa in reply to ParksDept



Ya, you can tell by looking at a crystal ball, and can tell if your children will like the teachers or not.

What are you, Harry Potter?

Clem Collier

I`m an Aussie,but no matter what country you`re in,the people are all in the same boat & if one side are rowing one way & the others,the other way;where do you think the boat`s going? frustrating circles!...all politicians are SUPPOSED to be there for the betterment of their constituents....IMAGINE,if when a Party won election,the other side (sides?)were required to assist them carry out their plans & if after a set time,nothing was achieved,then OK,it`s your turn now,see what YOU can do.....too naive you say? in OZ when one side gets in,the other side is"The Opposition"....WHY?...they`re all supposed to be there for the same reasons....Think of a bit of machinery,designed to manufacture something,but someone keeps throwing a spanner in the works...sabotage....& that`s what happens in watch them in Parliament on TV & very often,they`re a wonder people don`t have much good to say about them.....What if every time a farmer prepared his fields,planted his crop,then the cattle & crows come in to decimate it...Waste of time,energy,money & extremely frustrating & demoralising....all would starve......"POLITICS",in general....need a massive overhaul.....thank God for the Independents who can do what their good sense tells them,& NOT be ruled by a major party....I believe if politicians keep carrying on like they do,it might be a good idea to elect a benevolent dictator!.....easier to replace!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

