• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama: A Domestic LBJ?

    A President presides over an unpopular war, while pursuing domestic goals that are the centerpiece of his actual interest. He is forced to choose between focusing his attention on developments overseas, and pushing through major domestic programs that will dramatically expand the purview of government. Which does he choose?

    Barack Obama in 2010? Or Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965?

    In the 1960s, LBJ became consumed with the Vietnam War, even going so far as to have a model of the firebase at Khe Sanh built to allow him to track events there and ensure that there would be “no damn Din Bin Phoo.” While he pushed for, and got “Great Society,” it was not as broad as he’d hoped (including the lack of state-run healthcare).

    Fifty years later, another Democratic President, confronted with a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, a growing Chinese economy, and global terrorism — while pursuing health care reform — has chosen to follow the exact opposite path. Rather than focus on American foreign policy, the President’s announcement that he was cancelling his trip to Indonesia and Australia makes clear that, for President Obama, his focus is on domestic issues.

    The problem is that, while there are 435 members of Congress who will happily engage in domestic broadsides and policy-wonking, there is only one person who truly encapsulates American power abroad, and that is the President of the United States. For the President to postpone his foreign obligations in favor of what is hardly a domestic crisis (recalling that he had demanded the health care bill be on his desk for signing over six months ago) suggests a failure to understand the American role in the world.

    Worse, the range of foreign policy issues that are confronting this President, from Iranian nuclear proliferation to continuing global economic weakness to growing threats to basic global governance (e.g., piracy, cyber-crime), are receiving short shrift, and this delay only shouts that from the roof-tops. How can the President continue to claim that Asia is a priority when a six-month late domestic reform measure trumps ties to a close ally and strategic partner in the making?

    The most worrisome part is that pursuing both an expansive spending/regulatory domestic program and a major war resulted in a permanent loss of economic growth. The Obama administration may not be spending as much on the war, but their unprecedented deficits and debilitating regulatory agenda raise the specter that the coming decades will reveal persistently high unemployment and slow wage growth.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Obama: A Domestic LBJ?

    1. Missourimule says:

      Amen – but in my opinion, the president's infraction is more serious than the writer would indicate. We do seem to have a foreign policy, by fits and starts – but it seems to hinge on making it clear that our traditional alliances are no longer of great importance to us — and our "old friends" are clearly aware of this. The president has openly 'dissed' (a new, but descriptive word) England, France and Germany, and not just once. He obviously holds Israel in low regard. And in the process of shuffeling off all of our old partners, he doesn't seem to have any real plan toward picking up NEW ones.

      George Bush was criticized for his "go it alone" strategy (though that was undeserved). Obama doesn't seem to even be aware that anyone else is there.

    2. Pingback: Eunomia » Egads, A Postponed Foreign Trip!

    3. Awktalk says:

      This has got to be about the stupidest, most childish screed ever penned. Who pays this guy to write such drivel? What a tool.

    4. Paul Terry Stone, Su says:

      Very True. He's ignoring an economic crisis to push through his agenda at any cost even though it's not in the best interest of the country.

    5. Kevin A, Texas says:

      He didn't have a clue in 2008 and he still doesn't. Just because you occupy an office doesn't mean you are competent. Go back to Chicago and help your old city. They need you back.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×