[Clover] ECO debate by 辰

missingusaUID: 2625832

Obama
This house believes that Barack Obama is failing.

Representing the sides
Defending the motion
David Boaz
Mr Obama seems to be on shaky ground. His policies are not working, his ability to drive his agenda seems to have ground to a halt(停止, 暂停) and the political environment has shifted sharply against him.

Against the motion
Elaine Kamarck
Most of Mr Obama's policies are sensible and centrist(中间派议员). He has had problems in his first year because he fell for a style of legislation and a political strategy that called for doing everything at once.

missingusaUID: 2625832

Background reading
A
Mr Obama's unpromising year
Americans will blame bad times on the president
Nov 13th 2009 | From The World in 2010 print edition
By Peter David, WASHINGTON, DC

When they voted to send a black man to the White House at the end of 2008, Americans performed one of the most remarkable acts of rebranding(再呼吸) in the history of their remarkable nation. The coming year, however, will be a miserable one for Barack Obama. This is not only because of the iron law of waning novelty(新颖, 新奇). His second year as president will expose the underlying weakness of the political coalition(合并, 接合, 联合) that elected him, the scale of the difficulties he inherited, the stubborn resistance of Americans to sudden change, and their enduring attachment to the dream of small government and individual opportunity.

Note first that the novelty of Mr Obama’s colour and style did not last all that long even during his first year. The approval ratings of 70% or thereabouts(在那附近, 大约) that he enjoyed at the beginning of 2009 fell by the end of the summer to around 50%, pretty much the average (if anything a bit lower) for presidents after their first eight months. That this happened so soon after he performed some decisive(决定性的) economic firefighting—the fiscal stimulus, the restructuring(更改结构, 重建构造) of Detroit’s carmakers—suggests that voters in 2010 will not be inclined to thank him for averting(转移) a depression that did not come.

They are more likely to blame him for the recession that did. And most Americans will not feel good about their prospects. Jobs will continue to be scarce(缺乏的, 不足的); taxes will rise in spite of Mr Obama’s rash(轻率的, 匆忙的, 卤莽的) promise not to raise them for the middle classes; and the deficit(赤字, 不足额) will still be rocketing heavenwards(朝向天空地,朝向天国地) on an unsustainable trajectory.( (射线的) 轨道, 弹道, 轨线)

By 2010, moreover, Mr Obama will no longer be able to fall back on the excuse that all of this was beyond his control. Given the scale of the crisis he inherited, he could have decided to focus the whole of his first term single-mindedly on economic recovery. Instead he made a bold(大胆)—and some will say reckless(不计后果的)—decision to reach for more.

It is true that large constituencies(选民) supported Mr Obama’s call for comprehensive health-care reform and legislation to tackle(固定, 应付(难事等), 处理) global warming. But in 2010 many of these true believers, who wanted and expected audacious(大胆的, 卤莽的) change, will be feeling let down by the weak legislation that will squeak out of Capitol Hill. Others will say that it was a mistake all along to embark on expensive reform at a time of acute economic distress. Beyond this, an underlying problem for Mr Obama is that in 2010 most voters will be feeling the short-term costs of changes in health care and energy and not yet any of the long-term benefits.

The politics of change
This points to another vulnerability. The coalition Mr Obama marshaled(编组的) in 2008 around the alluring but ambiguous banner of “change” will splinter(裂成碎片, 分裂). The most ideological members of that coalition are already dismayed by “betrayals” such as the president’s inaction(无行动, 不活动) on causes such as gay marriage, and by policy calls such as the continuing detention of suspected terrorists without trial. Disappointed expectations will keep some of them at home in the mid-term congressional elections in November. Other stay-at-homes will include many of those first-time voters, mainly the black and the young, who in 2008 were electrified(使充电, 使通电) by his person rather than his policies. Many are likely to take the view that they did enough when they sent Mr Obama to the White House. Unexcited by the ins and outs of cap-and-trade and health-care legislation, and by an election in which Mr Obama’s own job is not up for grabs, why should they turn out again?

Since the complaint of the left is that Mr Obama is governing from the centre, you might expect the self-described independent voters who backed Mr Obama in 2008 to stay with the Democrats in the mid-terms.

Think again. A number of independents will feel no less betrayed by Mr Obama than the left already does. The Republican message that Mr Obama has presided over the biggest expansion of government for decades, and that he has done nothing to rein(统治, 支配) in the Democratic Party’s worst partisans and protectionists(保护贸易论者) on Capitol Hill, will gain traction(牵引). A good number of Americans in the middle of politics are furious at the spectacle of Wall Street being bailed out while so many ordinary Joes are losing their jobs, homes and pensions. Hard times in 2010 will ensure that their anger is not going to subside(下沉, 沉淀, 平息) quickly.

Mr Obama will find no consolation((被)安慰, 起安慰作用的人或事物) on the world stage. Whatever his long-term decisions on Afghanistan and Iraq, American forces will still be suffering casualties(伤亡) in both countries in 2010. In his second year it will become increasingly clear to people at home that America risks losing its status as the world’s sole superpower and undisputed (无可置辩的, 无异议的) top nation as its relative economic power wanes. This trend may be inexorable with the rise of new powers in Asia, but that will not stop voters from blaming the fellow in the White House.

Losing his House?
Above all, the result of November’s mid-term elections will reflect the fact that even an economic crisis of extra-ordinary proportions cannot make most Americans ditch(沟, 沟渠, 壕沟) their ingrained(彻底的, 根深蒂固的) belief in a free-market system and embrace bigger government. The perception that Mr Obama is tilting too far left will cost the Democrats a host of seats. Although the Senate will remain out of the Republicans’ reach, they might take control of the House of Representatives. No fewer than 84 of the Democrats’ seats in the House represent districts that were won by George Bush in 2004 or Senator John McCain in 2008; they could turn Republican again.

It is worth remembering that a miserable 2010 does not mean that Mr Obama will necessarily fail to win re-election in 2012, or that his presidency is destined to be remembered as a failure. Other presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, managed to bounce back from wretched(可怜的, 悲惨的) second years and setbacks in the mid-terms. But the coming year will be a trying one for America’s no-longer-so-fresh new president.

missingusaUID: 2625832

B
Still talking, at any rate
Barack Obama refocuses on jobs and the deficit but promises to press on with health-care reform
BEING a president and not a journalist, Barack Obama buried the lead. But for all his talk about creating jobs and taming(驯养, 驯服) the deficit, the big news in his state-of-the-union speech on Capitol Hill this week was that despite the Democrats’ recent stunning(足以使人晕倒的, 极好的) loss of Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat—and with it their supermajority in the Senate—the president intends to press ahead with health-insurance reform. The only thing he could not say was how he intends to do it.

Less than a fortnight(每两周的, 每两星期一次的) ago Mr Obama had reason to believe that he would be addressing Congress in far happier circumstances. The House and Senate had each passed their own versions of a health bill and seemed on course to meld them into a single piece of legislation for Mr Obama to sign—perhaps tucking it away in time for a triumphant(胜利的, 成功的) first state-of-the-union speech. The upset in Massachusetts demolished(毁坏, 破坏) that calculation. It has made it impossible for the Democrats to take a new bill through the Senate without some Republican support; and it has terrified many Democrats who were already fearing for their own seats in November’s mid-term elections. Many implored(恳求的, 哀求的) the president to heed the voters of the Bay State, accept that he had overreached(走过头) and either trim(裁减) down his health plan or abandon it altogether.

On the evening of January 27th, however, a beaming(照耀的, 光亮的) and to all appearances relaxed president strode into the Senate like a lion into a den of Daniels, spoke at length about jobs, the deficit and the broken politics of Washington, and then accepted briskly(活泼地, 精神勃勃地) that he shared some of the blame for failing to explain health reform clearly enough. He said he would listen to anyone from either party who had a better approach, but claimed that his plan offered a “vast(巨大的, 辽阔的) improvement” over the status quo(现状). He would not back down, and nor, he said, should Congress: “Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.”

One way or another
As to how to get it done, the president was silent—no doubt because he and his divided party are still in the throes of a bitter behind-the-scenes quarrel over tactics(战术, 策略). It is still possible that if all else fails the House Democrats will reluctantly adopt the Senate bill, removing the need for the Senate to vote on it again, and then introduce amendments under a budget reconciliation (和解, 调和, 顺从) procedure that does not require a supermajority. All Mr Obama had to say in his speech was that even in an election year it remained necessary to govern: “We still have the largest majority for decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.”

Despite his show of breezy(活泼的, 轻松愉快的) confidence, Mr Obama plainly knows that on its first anniversary his presidency is in deep trouble. Only 48.7% of voters approve of his job performance and 46.3% disapprove, according to the polling average compiled by Real Clear Politics, a website. Gallup reported last week that after the vote in Massachusetts a majority of Americans (55%) wanted Congress to slow health-care reform efforts and consider alternatives that can win more Republican support. Plenty of senior Democrats concur. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana told the Wall Street Journal this week that the party had drifted too far to the left, and had not tried hard enough to seek consensus(一致同意, 多数人的意见, 舆论) with moderates and independents. It might take a “political catastrophe(大灾难, 大祸) of biblical(圣经的) proportions(提议, 建议)”, he quipped, before some of his colleagues got it.

That may be why Mr Obama buried his lead. While persevering with health reform he is also trying to refocus his administration on the issues that voters now say matter more to them, especially jobs and the deficit (see chart). That entails(使必需, 使蒙受) defending his record on the economy. Without the controversial Recovery Act, he claimed, about 2m Americans now at work would have been unemployed. The House has approved a $150 billion jobs bill, focused on infrastructure(下部构造, 基础下部组织) spending and aid to the states. As the first order of business this year, Mr Obama said in his speech, the Senate should do the same. The administration plans to create or save tens of thousands of jobs by using stimulus money to develop a high-speed rail network for 13 major corridors(走廊), including lines from Orlando to Tampa in Florida and Sacramento to San Diego in California.

So far, however, job creation has been painfully slow. Unemployment has grown to 10%, despite forecasts that it would peak at 8% in late 2009. Mr Obama’s problem is that his two aims—stimulating the economy in order to create jobs, and reducing the deficit—pull policy in opposite directions. Because the recession has been deeper than expected, forecast revenues have fallen by $250 billion since last January. On the day before the speech the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that at an estimated $1.3 trillion and 9.2% of GDP, the 2010 federal deficit will be the second-largest in America’s post-war history—second only to last year’s.

Future deficits are forecast to shrink as the economy recovers (see chart), but to climb again from 2015. And even under the CBO’s rosy “baseline” forecast (which assumes, among other improbables, that Congress will control spending and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire), the deficit will rise to about $700 billion by 2020. A more realistic scenario(情节) (which assumes that politicians will show less discipline) expects the deficit to move towards $1.3 trillion by that year. Even the baseline forecast has annual interest payments on the debt more than doubling, from 1.4% of GDP this year to 3.2%, or $723 billion, by 2020.

Against this background, Mr Obama’s plan to freeze “non-security” discretionary(任意的, 自由决定的) spending for three years from 2011 to 2013 is at best a signal of intent, saving only $250 billion over ten years as the cumulative deficit billows to $6 trillion(万亿) over the same period. But even this small nod toward fiscal discipline has provoked howls of outrage from the liberal wing of his own party, aghast at the notion(概念, 观念, 想法) of protecting defence spending. And if the Democrats cannot agree among themselves on how to shrink the deficit, the hope of agreement across party lines looks scanter still.

One day before the state-of-the-union message, the Senate failed to approve a proposal(提议, 建议) to create a bipartisan(两党连立的) commission to consider ways to increase taxes and reduce spending. The yeas outnumbered the nays by 53 to 46, but failed to reach the 60-vote supermajority. Republicans by and large recoiled at the taxes, Democrats at the cuts. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican co-sponsor of the proposal, called this “yet another indication that Congress is more concerned with the next election than the next generation.” Mr Obama responded in his speech by announcing that he would create a commission by executive order. But with the two parties at loggerheads and his own divided, the value of the commission(委任, 委托) is questionable, since none of its recommendations will be able to bind Congress.

Running against Washington, again
Can Mr Obama’s speech galvanise(使兴奋, 激励) and unite a party that remains stunned and demoralized(士气受挫) by the upset in Massachusetts? Mr Obama’s speech included a sop(面包片) to the liberal wing of the party, in the shape of a promise to end the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces. There is to be new help for working families, including measures to make it easier for families to pay for child care and college tuition, save for retirement and take care of elderly relations. Even so, Charlie Cook, a close follower of the electoral horse-race, takes a dim(暗淡的, 模糊的) view of Democratic prospects in November. He predicts a net gain for the Republicans of five to seven seats in the Senate and between 25 and 35 in the House. More ominous(预兆的, 恶兆的, 不吉利的) still is that so many Democratic candidates have read the runes already and decided to quit the field.

The chicken run started before Massachusetts. In early January two Democratic senators—Byron Dorgan from North Dakota and Chris Dodd of Connecticut—said they would not seek re-election. This week Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Beau, chose discretion over valour(英勇, 勇猛): he announced that he would be sticking to his job as Delaware’s attorney-general instead of making a run for the Senate seat his father vacated(腾出, 空出,离(职),退(位)). That makes it all the likelier that the seat will fall to a 70-year-old Republican candidate, Mike Castle. Also this week Marion Berry, a “Blue Dog” conservative Democrat from Arkansas, said that he would not be defending his seat in the House.

The president’s own former seat in Illinois—a state that voted 62% for Mr Obama and 37% for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election—is now considered in play as well. Roland Burris, whom the disgraced(玷污) Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, appointed to fill the seat Mr Obama vacated, is not running, and none of the Democrats vying(竞争的) to capture the nomination in next week’s primary can be confident of beating the Republicans in November. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who rebranded himself from Republican to Democrat last year, is also facing a serious primary challenge in May. Some polls show his Republican challenger, Pat Toomey, defeating him in the mid-terms.

That the president understands the trouble his party is in cannot be doubted. Even before voting ended in Massachusetts, he had brought David Plouffe, the successful manager of his 2008 campaign, back to co-ordinate strategy as November’s mid-term elections approach. But in the 2008 campaign Mr Obama was the outsider running against George Bush and the tawdry(俗丽的, 非常华丽的) ways of Washington. This time it is he who is the incumbent and the Republican grassroots who have the fire in their bellies (see Lexington).

Hence another theme of Mr Obama’s speech. President he may be, but he continues to portray himself as a crusader against Washington. America’s government suffered not just from a deficit of dollars but from “a deficit of trust”, he said. “To close that credibility(可信性) gap we must take action at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsize influence of lobbyists(活动议案通过者); to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.” Having already excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal(联邦的) boards and commissions, Mr Obama now wants to require them to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with the administration or with Congress.

For a president running a war or two, Mr Obama devoted relatively little of his speech to foreign policy. The fight against al-Qaeda would continue, but the war in Iraq was ending and all American combat troops would leave by August. The security gaps revealed by the foiled Christmas bomb plot were being closed. American diplomacy had brought deeper isolation and sanctions to bear on North Korea, and if Iran continued its nuclear defiance it would face “growing consequences” (though these were not specified). For most Americans, however, foreign entanglements have seemed less enthralling(迷人的) in the past fortnight as a presidency that had been running fairly smoothly smashed into the buffer of Massachusetts. It remains to be seen whether Mr Obama can recover in time for November.

missingusaUID: 2625832

C
Homeward bound
How Barack Obama's concerns have changed over the past year
IN HIS state-of-the-union speech on Wednesday January 27th Barack Obama shifted emphasis from his inaugural(就职的, 开始的) address, a comparable oratorical(演说的, 雄辩的) set-piece delivered a year ago. The internationalism of a year ago has given way to a focus on domestic matters with the relative frequency of references to “America”, “Americans” and the nation going up, while those to the world declined. Whereas his inaugural address made no mention of banks or the financial sector, these appeared often in this week's speech. A sharper emphasis on the economic concerns of ordinary Americans shows up in Mr Obama’s more frequent references to jobs, workers and the economy.

missingusaUID: 2625832

E1
Is there an Obama doctrine?
“Just war”, not just war. And affordable, please
BY HIS own admission, Barack Obama received his Nobel peace prize when his accomplishments were still “slight”. But he has big plans—including signing a new nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia and, eventually, ridding(使摆脱, 使去掉) the world of atomic weapons altogether. When he collected his prize in Oslo on December 10th, he also gave a thought-provoking acceptance speech. To some it hit the rhetorical heights of Cicero (Simon Schama, a historian, in the Financial Times). For others (David Brooks, in the New York Times), there were echoes of Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian with a gloomy(黑暗的, 阴沉) view of human nature. The question now obsessing America’s commentariat is whether this speech outlines an “Obama doctrine” in foreign policy. If so, what is it?

Mr Obama has never claimed to be a pacifist. Yet his critics on the right seemed surprised, pleasantly, when he said in Oslo that “there will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” Bill Kristol, the neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, praised his “hardheaded and pro-American tone”. Sarah Palin appeared to like his observation that “evil does exist in the world”. (She also reminded Americans that they could read her own musings(沉思) on man’s fallen state in her new book.) John Bolton, on the other hand, remained in a grump. George Bush’s former ambassador to the United Nations took exception to Mr Obama’s acknowledgment that the world would “not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes”. End violence? Merely to entertain such a possibility, he huffed(生气的, 不高兴的) on television, “reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature”.

A presidential “doctrine”, however, needs to say more than that America will sometimes have to fight, and sometimes alone. The question is: when? If Mr Bush had a doctrine it was his belief in pre-emptive war, enunciated(阐明) in the National Security Strategy of 2002 and enacted(制定法律) in Iraq the next year. Does Mr Obama, who opposed that war, accept the idea of pre-emption in any circumstances? Here the Oslo speech was vague. He cited the concept of “just war” (war waged(发动) only as a last resort or in self-defence, with “proportional” force and sparing(节俭的, 保守的) civilians where possible), but said that nuclear proliferation(扩散) and failed states made it necessary to think about just war “in new ways”. These he did not specify. After referring to North Korea and Iran, he said only that “those who seek peace cannot stand idly(懒惰地, 空闲地) by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”

Sometimes Mr Obama is accused of soft-headed idealism (eg, for extending a tentative(试验, 假设) hand to Iran and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, to whom he passed a letter last week), and sometimes of a hard-hearted realism that pays too little heed to human rights. When Iran cracked down on pro-democracy protesters in June, he muted(减弱...的声音) his criticism for fear of disrupting the nuclear talks. His administration has made less fuss than some about human rights in China. In Oslo he defended his decision to treat with repressive(压抑的, 压制的) regimes by arguing that “sanctions without outreach” and “condemnation without discussion” could end in stalemate(僵局). On December 14th Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, took up the refrain. “Our principles are our north star,” she said, “but our tools and tactics must be flexible.”

So is this a distinctive Obama doctrine(教条, 学说)? Mr Bush’s officials also talked to North Korea and Iran, and got along well enough with China and Russia. What makes Mr Obama most different so far, argues Peter Beinart of the New America Foundation, a think-tank, is his conviction that an economically stricken America needs to pare down its foreign commitments.

When Mr Obama said at West Point at the beginning of December that he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, he also said that he refused to set goals “that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests”. By definition, a superpower has to sally(突围, 出发) forth into the world. Arguably, Mr Obama’s main new idea, much easier to say than to achieve, is that it should also live within its means.

Rebuttal statements
The moderator's rebuttal remarks

It's round two, and our distinguished debaters are once again politely slugging(强击) each other on the jaw.

David Boaz concedes that President Obama still commands great personal respect. Then he goes on the attack. Addressing Elaine Kamarck's worry about the lack of trust Americans have for their government, he retorts: "One thing that surely reduces trust is the growing size and scope of government." A government that takes on more and more responsibilities is bound to disappoint more and more people, he says. "If government is going to fund and direct health care, then people are going to fight over whether it will cover abortion or Christian Science treatments; which providers or patients will get less than they expected; which treatments will be denied; and so on. Each one of those decisions will reduce someone's trust in government to do the right thing."

Mr Boaz accuses Mr Obama of using the financial crisis as an excuse to lengthen the government's tentacles(触须): "[Since 2008], we got expanded powers for the Federal Reserve, Wall Street bailouts(保释保证人), takeovers of financial companies and car makers … the kitchen-sink spending bill known as stimulus [and] expanded federal control over energy, education and health care."

Some people think that Mr Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, is doing a good job of standing up to reactionary(反作用的, 反动的) unions and promoting(促进, 发扬) reform. But I'm guessing Mr Boaz would rather leave that job to the states.

Ms Kamarck says that Mr Obama has had problems in his first year because he tried to do everything at once. "Congress and the administration should make one simple rule for themselves," she says: "No more 1,000-page pieces of legislation." No one understands mammoth (猛犸, 毛象) health and energy bills, she says, so it is easy for misguided voters to imagine that they include "death panels(全体陪审员)".

But she thinks Mr Obama is on the right track. His policies are "sensible and centrist". Americans like environmental and consumer protections, she says. She challenges Mr Boaz "to find anyone in the country who thinks it's a good idea to allow health insurance companies drop coverage when people get very sick". And she would like to see Mr Obama use all his rhetorical skills to push for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. "There are plenty of people out there who got flim-flammed" into taking on debt they couldn't afford, she says. She doubts they would object "to the government making sure that that doesn't happen again".

This is no doubt true, but if Mr Obama makes it harder for less creditworthy(信誉卓著的，有信誉的) Americans to borrow, sooner or later another politician will start a campaign to make it easier again. People have short memories.

missingusaUID: 2625832

E2
The proposer's rebuttal remarks
If the measure of failure for President Obama is whether it looks like he is on the road to slowing the rise of the oceans, ending a war and restoring our image as the last, best hope on Earth, then he doesn't look so good. Elaine Kamarck proposes a stricter test: Has he encountered a swift and deadly drop in his personal reputation to Nixonian depths?

If we set a standard somewhere between these extremes, then Mr Obama does seem to be on shaky ground. His policies are not working, his ability to drive his agenda seems to have ground to a halt and the political environment has shifted sharply against him.

Ms Kamarck is right to say that Mr and Mrs Obama still command great personal respect. He looks good by comparison with such scandalous rivals as John Edwards. A recent Washington Post feature hailed the inspiring example he has set for young African-Americans, and given the plight of young people in many black communities, that is an achievement worth celebrating.

Actually, his personal approval rating has fallen from near 70% to just above 50%, though I do think the broad centre of Americans still admire him. But he has lost his aura—that "tingle up my leg," "agent of transformation," "quantum leap(跳, 跳越, 跳跃) in American consciousness," "sort of God" image—that journalists and many voters swooned(昏晕, 惊讶, 酣睡) over. That matters when your personal power is part of your political strategy. A Democratic congressman told his home-state paper last month that Obama had wooed Blue Dog Democrats by telling them that health care would go better this time than in 1994 because "the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me".

One question here is how do you measure a politician's failure. Is it, for instance, a failure to get his policies enacted(颁布), or his success in enacting bad policies? Surveys of historians always give high marks to presidents who expanded government or fought wars. Washington's most-quoted political scientist, Norman Ornstein, recently defended the productivity of the current Congress; his article illustrated that to the Washington establishment the very definition of a productive Congress is the spending of more taxpayers' money, the creation of new agencies and bureaucracies(官僚, 官僚作风, 官僚机构), and the concentration of more power in the hands of federal regulators. Citizens might prefer a government that kept us out of war, let the economy grow, and left us alone.

That gets us to the problem of trust in government, which Ms Kamarck warned him back in 2008 not to ignore. One thing that surely reduces trust is the growing size and scope of government. When the federal government confined itself to a limited range of constitutional duties, voters trusted it more. Over the past few decades, as government took on more and more duties, trust fell. An expansive government is less able to satisfy everyone, even as it doles out more benefits to more people. The more complex and encompassing(包围, 环绕) a policy gets, the more different aspects of life it touches. If government is going to fund and direct health care, then people are going to fight over whether it will cover abortion or Christian Science treatments; which providers or patients will get less than they expected; which treatments will be denied and so on. Each one of those decisions will reduce someone's trust in government to do the right thing.

In her 2008 study Ms Kamarck warned that Americans were evenly split on whether they want more activist government (43% for, 43% against). The numbers may be worse than that. As I mentioned previously, in a January Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans said they prefer "smaller government and fewer services" to "larger government with more services" by 58% to 38%. And when you remind people that the cost of more services is higher taxes, and ask them whether they prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes or a more active government with more services and higher taxes, you get a margin of 66% to 22% in favour of smaller government (Rasmussen Reports, December).

In a country where government is already larger than the voters would prefer, and trust in government is low, it is difficult to advance ambitious activist programmes, unless there's a crisis. For 200 years the US government has tended to expand during wars and economic crises. After the 9/11 attacks we got the Patriot Act, federalization(联邦政治, 联邦制度) of airport screeners, the Department of Homeland Security, rapid spending increases and arguably the war in Iraq. After the financial crisis of 2008 we got expanded powers for the Federal Reserve, Wall Street bailouts, takeovers of financial companies and carmakers and the kitchen-sink spending bill known as stimulus(刺激物, 促进因素). Moreover, the Obama administration tried to present its programme of expanded federal control over energy, education, and health care as a response to the crisis.

Mr Obama now seems to have switched tactics(战术, 策略). He is campaigning(竞选运动) as a trust-busting(半身像, 胸像)(这句没看懂- -), bank-bashing(打坏) populist who is here to take on the big boys. But that is a problem for him. Not only was his career boosted by the biggest boys in Washington—Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy—he has also been a Wall Street man. He took in more money from Wall Street than John McCain did, and four times as much money from lawyers and lobbyists, and he reappointed or promoted two of the three architects of the Wall Street bailout. Huey Long he ain't.

And then there is the basic cognitive dissonance(不一致, 不调和) in his new theme, as George F. Will noted after the state-of-the-union address: "Obama's leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily Washington is toxic—yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc."

Some analysts note that Ronald Reagan had low ratings at this point in his term, and a bad midterm election, but came back strong. As it turns out, tax cuts, spending restraint, deregulation and sound money tend to create strong economic recoveries. Threats of tax hikes, unprecedented (空前的) levels of deficits, a wave of new regulations and fears about Fed monetization(当作货币, 铸造货币) may not.
              
Has Mr Obama failed, a year into his term? Of course not. But that's the direction he's headed.

missingusaUID: 2625832

E3
The opposition's rebuttal remarks
David Boaz begins his piece by quoting President Obama's soaring 2008 convention rhetorical opening that is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand. American presidents (or American presidential speechwriters, to be precise) are all about promising the moon. The fact that they over-promise and under-deliver may be a problem for American democracy but it is a bi-partisan problem. Who can forget George Bush's second inaugural(就职的, 开始的) address? In it he promised: "All who live in tyranny(暴政, 苛政, 专治) and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." George Bush did not deliver the world from oppression(压迫, 镇压, 压抑, 苦恼). But in a media-savvy(机智,悟性) country like the United States where we know in our heart of hearts that a new hair colour will not give us everlasting youth, did anyone really expect him to? No.

But Mr Boaz is correct in identifying the anti-government sentiment that has motivated the American pubic for decades, a factor contributing to their low trust in government discussed in my opening remarks. What he is wrong about is the substance of Mr Obama's policies. In robust, healthy capitalist societies government is important on two counts: it regulates markets and provides a social safety net that protects their citizens from the creative destruction of capitalism. Does any American really want to live in a country where there is no effective regulation of the market? Does anyone really want to live in a place where there is no social safety net? There is no large-scale migration to Russia, Nigeria or any one of the dozens of countries where there is no effective government.

The fact of the matter is that Americans are very angry about big government in the abstract but not government in the particular. Democrats never understand the former but Republicans never understand the latter.

Let us walk through some of the issues of Mr Obama's first year. As he was beginning the general election campaign the bottom fell out of the US economy. As the housing bubble burst (with no warning or preventative actions on the party of the Bush administration) the possibility of a US and a global meltdown was terrifyingly real. The stimulus package (ridden with pork as it was) did indeed prevent a much worse situation. Highly respected economists like a Nobel prize-winner, Joe Stiglitz, think we need more, not less. But Mr Boaz sees this as the first in a series of big government takeovers(接收；接管). He ignores, however, the fact that most of the big banks rushed to pay the government back in order to get out from under the government's thumb. In the process they created a new problem for Mr Obama: the massive bonuses they paid themselves. But wait a minute, if they were under government control this wouldn't be happening!

By and large Americans like environmental protection laws, especially when it keeps the air clean and fish in the lakes and deer in the woods (for shooting). Mr Boaz calls the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to regulate greenhouse gases "previously unknown". Well, three years ago the United States Supreme Court, a court heavily influenced by conservative appointees, decided that the EPA did indeed have the right to regulate greenhouse gases. Americans are also very fond of government that protects them against pollutants(污染物质) and against health hazards like bad hamburger meat at fast-food restaurants. In the mid-1990s Newt Gingrich led a conservative revolution against big government. He took over the Congress but in the end he failed to do anything about big government—a political victim of cryptosporidium (a parasite found in polluted water.)

Americans like environmental protections and they like consumer protections. I hope that as the Obama White House picks itself up from its bruising first year that it will use all the president's rhetorical skills to pass a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. There are plenty of people out there who got flim-flammed into houses and credit cards that they cannot afford. I doubt that they would object to the government making sure that that does not happen again.

The fact is that most of Mr Obama's policies are sensible and centrist. I challenge Mr Boaz to find anyone in the country who thinks it is a good idea to allow health insurance companies drop coverage when people get very sick.

To the extent that Mr Obama has had problems in his first year it is because he fell for a style of legislation and a political strategy that called for doing everything at once. I am not sure where this propensity(倾向) to solve every conceivable problem simultaneously came from, but Congress and the administration should make one simple rule for themselves: no more 1,000-page pieces of legislation. Those pieces of legislation provoke(激怒, 挑拨) suspicion(猜疑, 怀疑), as well they should. They are dense and incomprehensible. They are larded with special deals. It is easy to read death panels into such legislation. How on earth is any normal person expected to read this kind of bill and conclude: "No, Mildred, there really aren't any death panels in here."

There is no reason why the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration shouldn't pass pieces of their agenda in an orderly sequence. For instance, first pass insurance reform, then expand Medicaid to the parents of poor children, then offer some subsidies to the middle class. And why take on the boogey man of the "public option" when you could put more money into the already existing public health service? Similarly on climate change, why not pass tough standards for new buildings and follow it up with a new look at nuclear power, as the president suggested in his speech the other night?

The strategy of trying to do everything at once allows people like Mr Boaz (who is more like most of America than Democrats want to admit) to conjure up the spectre of big government.

It is time to step away from grand plans and move towards financial reform, health-care reform and climate-change legislation in a series of bills that the public can understand. There is no better way to show that the big government boogeyman(具有超人力量的恶巫) is nothing more than a figment(臆造的事物, 虚构的事) of the conservative imagination.

missingusaUID: 2625832

summary:
halt(停止, 暂停)
centrist(中间派议员)
rebranding(再呼吸)
novelty(新颖, 新奇)
coalition(合并, 接合, 联合)
thereabouts(在那附近, 大约)
decisive(决定性的)
restructuring(更改结构, 重建构造)
averting(转移)
scarce(缺乏的, 不足的)
rash(轻率的, 匆忙的, 卤莽的)
deficit(赤字, 不足额)
heavenwards(朝向天空地,朝向天国地)
trajectory.( (射线的) 轨道, 弹道, 轨线)
bold(大胆)
reckless(不计后果的)
constituencies(选民)
tackle(固定, 应付(难事等), 处理)
audacious(大胆的, 卤莽的)
marshaled(编组的)
splinter(裂成碎片, 分裂)
inaction(无行动, 不活动)
electrified(使充电, 使通电)
rein(统治, 支配)
protectionists(保护贸易论者)
traction(牵引)
subside(下沉, 沉淀, 平息)
consolation((被)安慰, 起安慰作用的人或事物)
casualties(伤亡)
undisputed (无可置辩的, 无异议的)
ditch(沟, 沟渠, 壕沟)
ingrained(彻底的, 根深蒂固的)
wretched(可怜的, 悲惨的)
taming(驯养, 驯服)
stunning(足以使人晕倒的, 极好的)
fortnight(每两周的, 每两星期一次的)
triumphant(胜利的, 成功的)
demolished(毁坏, 破坏)
implored(恳求的, 哀求的)
overreached(走过头)
trim(裁减)
beaming(照耀的, 光亮的)
briskly(活泼地, 精神勃勃地)
vast(巨大的, 辽阔的)
status quo(现状)
tactics(战术, 策略)
reconciliation (和解, 调和, 顺从)
breezy(活泼的, 轻松愉快的)
consensus(一致同意, 多数人的意见, 舆论)
catastrophe(大灾难, 大祸)
biblical(圣经的)
proportions(提议, 建议)
entails(使必需, 使蒙受)
infrastructure(下部构造, 基础下部组织)
corridors(走廊)
scenario(情节)
discretionary(任意的, 自由决定的)
trillion(万亿)
notion(概念, 观念, 想法)
proposal(提议, 建议)
bipartisan(两党连立的)
commission(委任, 委托)
galvanise(使兴奋, 激励)
demoralized(士气受挫)
sop(面包片)
dim(暗淡的, 模糊的)
ominous(预兆的, 恶兆的, 不吉利的)
valour(英勇, 勇猛)
vacated(腾出, 空出,离(职),退(位))
disgraced(玷污)
vying(竞争的)
tawdry(俗丽的, 非常华丽的)
credibility(可信性)
lobbyists(活动议案通过者)
federal(联邦的)
enthralling(迷人的)
inaugural(就职的, 开始的)
oratorical(演说的, 雄辩的)
discord(不一致, 意见不合)
disengaging(脱离)
presidency(任期)
animate(鼓舞)
rhetoric(花言巧语的)
diffidence(缺乏自信)
provision(供应)
bankruptcy(破产)
comprehensive(全面的, 广泛的)
magisterially(有权威地, 专横地)
aloof (避开, 远离)
spooked(惊吓)
harsh(粗糙的, 荒芜的)
incidentally(附带地, 顺便提及)
reluctance(不愿, 勉强)
goodwill(善意, 亲切)
brusque(唐突的, 直率的)
jackass(公驴,愚人, 傻子)
grievances(申诉人)
unity(团结, 联合)
discord(不一致, 意见不合)
inauguration(就职典礼, 开幕式)
quadrupled(使成四倍)
vowing(宣誓, 立誓)
outraged(蛮横的, 残暴的)
protests(主张, 断言抗议)
mutated(变化, 转变)
obstruct(阻隔, 阻塞)
consultants(请教, 咨询)
downturn(低迷时期)
catastrophic(悲惨的, 灾难的)
mammoth (猛犸, 毛象)
barred(隔绝的, 被禁止的)
detractors(诽谤者, 恶意批评者)
scoff(轻蔑地说, 嘲笑)
gripe(抓紧, 抱住)
troops(军队)
exuded((使)渗出, 发散开来)
irresolution(不决断, 优柔寡断)
presumably(推测起来, 大概)
bondholders(债券持有人)
insurers(保险业者, 保险公司)
prompting(促进, 激励, 提示)
frowns(不赞成, 反对)
tightened(变紧, 绷紧, 拉紧)
imperil(使处于危险, 危害)
turbulent(狂暴的, 吵闹的)
ridding(使摆脱, 使去掉)
gloomy(黑暗的, 阴沉的)
musings(沉思)
huffed(生气的, 不高兴的)
enunciated(阐明)
enacted(制定法律)
waged(发动)
sparing(节俭的, 保守的)
proliferation(扩散)
idly(懒惰地, 空闲地)
tentative(试验, 假设)
muted(减弱...的声音)
repressive(压抑的, 压制的)
stalemate(僵局)
doctrine(教条, 学说)
sally(突围, 出发)
slugging(强击)
tentacles(触须)
bailouts(保释保证人)
reactionary(反作用的, 反动的)
promoting(促进, 发扬)
mammoth (猛犸, 毛象)
panels(全体陪审员)
creditworthy(信誉卓著的，有信誉的)
leap(跳, 跳越, 跳跃)
swooned(昏晕, 惊讶, 酣睡)
enacted(颁布)
bureaucracies(官僚, 官僚作风, 官僚机构)
encompassing(包围, 环绕)
federalization(联邦政治, 联邦制度)
stimulus(刺激物, 促进因素)
tactics(战术, 策略)
campaigning(竞选运动)
busting(半身像, 胸像)
bashing(打坏)
dissonance(不一致, 不调和)
unprecedented (空前的)
monetization(当作货币, 铸造货币)
inaugural(就职的, 开始的)
tyranny(暴政, 苛政, 专治)
oppression(压迫, 镇压, 压抑, 苦恼)
savvy(机智,悟性)
takeovers(接收；接管)
pollutants(污染物质)
propensity(倾向)
provoke(激怒, 挑拨)
suspicion(猜疑, 怀疑)
boogeyman(具有超人力量的恶巫)