Shadow Government

The inconvenient truth

Over at the indispensable Cable, word comes that the White House is now pushing the line that President Obama eschews the notion of "American decline," and has even become a devoted reader of Bob Kagan. As presidential reading lists go, this is a welcome development. If present trends continue, perhaps the White House communications shop will soon issue a story noting that President Obama is also a reader of Shadow Government? [ed. Dream on! Are you just saying this to bait the anonymous snarky responses that will soon appear in the "Comments" section? Or are you in denial that the President is much more likely to read Dan Drezner's blog? Who, by the way, is funnier than you -- and also doesn't believe in American decline.]

All kidding aside, this is a serious issue that merits some scrutiny. On the one hand, President Obama's rhetorical rejection of American decline is significant and welcome, precisely because presidential rhetoric plays a role in forming a nation's character and actions. As I have commented before, if a nation's leadership and citizens start believing the nation is in decline, it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy and infecting the nation's actions.

But presidential rhetoric is only a small part of the decline debate. Actions and policies are more important. So before junior White House staff start emulating their boss's reported new reading tastes and prompt a surge in Pennsylvania Avenue subscriptions to the likes of the Weekly Standard (to our friends at the Standard: may it be thus!), it is worth taking a closer look at this claim that the Obama administration rejects American decline.

This theme not inconveniently comes in an election year, as President Obama attempts to lay out his policy successes. As many others have pointed out, the White House seems reluctant to run on his major domestic policy initiatives such as ObamaCare or the $787 billion stimulus, judging by their almost complete absence from the State of the Union address. Instead, part of the campaign strategy seems to be pointing to foreign policy successes, such as in Obama's recent interview with Fareed Zakaria (himself a frequent apostle of American decline) where the president repeatedly claims that America's standing in the world is better than it was three years ago.

The inconvenient truth behind this claim is that most the Obama administration's foreign policy successes have come from adopting policies and strategies from the Bush administration. While as Jackson Diehl among others has pointed out, most of the Obama administration's signature initiatives have been failures. On the explicit question of American decline, rather than offering a full-throated rebuttal in his interview with Zakaria, Obama seems curiously ambivalent. On the one hand he strongly affirms American global leadership and repeats Madeleine Albright's description of the United States as the "indispensable nation," but on the other hand he says it is "inevitable" that China will overtake the United States as the world's largest economy.

Besides being a gifted journalist, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker has also emerged as one of the White House's favored conduits for channeling the Administration's mindset and messages. For example, earlier this week Lizza published an article based on exclusive access he'd been given by the White House to internal decision memos on domestic policy. And it was also Lizza who received extensive access from senior administration officials for his famous profile of the White House's foreign policy last spring. Most notorious is the "leading from behind" phrase that the White House has regretted ever since, but the context it came from in the article is revealing and bears recalling (emphasis added):

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President's actions in Libya as "leading from behind." That's not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It's a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world.

This deliberate message from the White House probably bears a closer resemblance to President Obama's strategic mindset than election year sit-downs with journalists or campaign lines from State of the Union addresses. Why? Because it also reflects many of the administration's actions. Such as the drawdown decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan that seemed to reflect political timetables more than conditions on the ground and commitments to maintaining American credibility. Or the recent "pivot" to Asia, which as many of us have pointed out is a welcome assertion of American presence in a strategic region but loses its potency if it is under-resourced, and presented as a retreat elsewhere because of our diminished capabilities. Or the administration's persistent refusal to make any serious cuts and reforms to the domestic entitlements that are fueling our runaway debt -- while the only spending cuts the White House has actually implemented are to the defense budget, which as Gary Schmitt points out is what we can least afford. And yes, even "leading from behind" our European allies during the Libya intervention.

Given the above actions the administration has taken that do diminish America's power and credibility in the world, is America actually in decline? No -- not yet anyway. Bob Kagan is correct. Our nation has too many strengths and is too resilient to be set back that much in such a short time. America's problems are considerable, but I would still rather have our challenges than the problems facing any other nation, whether China's brittle governance, imbalanced economy, demographic troubles, and resentful neighbors, or the European Union's currency and debt crisis, democratic deficit, and anemic defense capabilities. Rather, the worry is that the Obama administration's combination of actions and inactions are setting the United States on a trajectory towards decline -- a trajectory that if it continues unabated will be hard to arrest.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Shadow Government

Ecuador’s authoritarian creep -- and Washington’s silence

You have to hand it to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa. He has a plan and he is working it relentlessly. Unfortunately, for those concerned about democracy in the hemisphere, his plan calls for the gutting of democratic institutions in Ecuador and concentrating all power in his person.

It may be that the Ecuadorean populist doesn't generate the international headlines like his amigo in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, but that doesn't make him any less of a threat to democracy in the region.

Recently, Correa has generated some attention in the U.S. for the campaign of intimidation he is waging against one of the country's most respected newspapers, El Universo. Editorials in the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times have harshly criticized his efforts to drag the newspaper owners and a columnist into court and winning a $40 million judgment in a trumped-up defamation proceeding.

According to the Post, what is occurring in Ecuador is, "the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media underway in the Western Hemisphere."

The problem is that abuse of the media is only one troublesome aspect of Correa's populist project. Undermining rule of law is another. This week, for example, a new Ecuadorean Supreme Court will be seated, the product of referendum Correa rammed through last year, giving his latest power grab a patina of legitimacy.

Evidently not satisfied with the provisions on selecting judges in his own rewritten constitution of 2008, Correa changed the rules again. The standing Supreme Court was abolished and through a new, convoluted selection process -- controlled by the Executive -- Correa got what he wanted: 13 of the new 21 judges are now in his pocket.

But with control of the judiciary and his party's present control of the National Assembly, Correa is still not satisfied. He has set as his next priority ensuring that his party remains in control of the legislature by rewriting electoral laws to unduly favor incumbents (including himself) in the run-up to 2013 elections.

For example, a law he is currently pushing would prohibit the news media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message." As to how anyone could run a campaign under such a law is mind-boggling -- which is obviously the way Correa wants it.

Correa's defenders point to his current popularity in Ecuador to somehow justify his policies, but that is hardly a measure of the health of any democracy. Demagogues have never had much problem recording high popularity numbers by playing to mass resentments and envy. The true measure of the health of any democracy is the respect and protection afforded the rights of the minority. And, in Ecuador, those protections are increasingly non-existent.

Drinking from the populist cup will someday soon cause a massive hangover for Correa's mass of supporters. But there is plenty the U.S. and other defenders of democracy in the region can do and say to stand up to Correa's steady suffocation of democratic processes and hollowing out of democratic institutions.

Unfortunately, the administration response to date has been only to silently and feebly nominate a new U.S. ambassador to Ecuador following Correa's intemperate expulsion of respected career diplomat Heather Hodges in April 2011. (The nomination of the new ambassador has been held up, however, by Senator Marco Rubio [R-FL] out of frustration with the administration's languorous policies towards the steady erosion of democracy in the region.)

The least the administration could do is speak out against Correa's trampling of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and provide public support to those Ecuadoreans standing up for their rights. If the administration aims to pursue a new ambassador to Quito, then it needs to select someone more experienced in difficult environments who is not afraid to publicly stand up for the principles and values enshrined in the Charter.

As the New York Times noted, "Latin America has a bitter history of authoritarian rule. It has struggled hard to get beyond those days. All of the hemisphere's democratic leaders, including President Obama, need to push back against Mr. Correa." Indeed, Ecuadorean democrats cannot do it alone.