Priorities for the New President

In the days before the great election of 2008, your nation’s capital was consumed by a single question: If Barack Obama wins, what’s in it for me? A week before the balloting, I sat in the dining room of one of Washington’s finest hotels and, eavesdropping madly, realized that my neighbors at every one of the adjoining tables were consumed by the vagaries of appointive politics–as I was, after my guest arrived. The game of turbocharged, Cabinet-level musical chairs is the autumnal version of the summer speculation about vice-presidential picks: lots of fun, but not very nourishing, and I’m not going to indulge in it here (O.K., maybe a little). There are bigger fish to fry, like what’s the new President–Obama is universally, prematurely, assumed the victor–actually going to do?

It was possible, in this rotisserie of naked self-promotion, to discern some larger themes. For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, the next President will face the prospect of neither peace nor prosperity–and there seems a consensus that, as much as Obama (or John McCain, for that matter) wants to play in the world, the financial crisis will demand most of his time and political capital. From that assumption flows another. For the sake of continuity and the absence of drama, it might not be a bad idea for Obama–if elected–to stick with the current national-security players in the battle against Islamic extremism.

When I interviewed him on Oct. 18, Obama said he was “happy” that General David Petraeus was at Central Command, supervising the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last June, Obama told me that he would want “people like” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his Cabinet. Petraeus is studying the options in Afghanistan, with the goal of producing a detailed action plan for the next President by the end of December. It is likely the general will recommend the resumption of troop withdrawals from Iraq on something resembling the Obama timetable. Indeed, Iraq has slipped down the list of national-security priorities as it has stabilized (in a recent week, the U.S. military casualties there were … four wounded). It is also likely that at least two brigades scheduled to deploy to Iraq in 2009 will be sent to Afghanistan instead. Already, Obama has indicated that he approves the general direction in which Petraeus is heading. Unlike President Bush, Obama strongly supports nation-building in both Afghanistan and Pakistan; and, like Petraeus, he favors negotiations with some of the pro-Taliban tribes (at least those who are not al-Qaeda). Unlike McCain, Obama will not be reluctant to continue the current cross-border strikes, via Predator drone, against selected terrorist targets in Pakistan.

Pakistan will have to be handled carefully. A senior U.S. official told me that the intelligence community now considers Pakistan the “central front” in the war on terrorism. “Al-Qaeda wants to go after the Pakistani leadership,” the official said. With foreign fighters coagulating in Pakistan’s border regions, forging a renewed U.S.-Pakistani alliance against al-Qaeda will be a top priority.

But it won’t be the top priority. As Obama told me in our interview, a government-propelled transition to an alternative-energy economy will be his most important initiative. Translated into Washington terms, this means a massive infrastructure and stimulus package–in the neighborhood of $300 billion, according to the current speculation. There is a back-to-the-future quality to this: it’s what used to be derided as big-spending liberalism. The Beltway consensus is that the economic crisis makes it necessary now. But public cynicism about government requires that the next President builds accountability into his spending programs. That’s why the Infrastructure Bank that Obama proposed during the campaign may be crucial: it would create a bipartisan board of five governors who would judge and approve all major projects.

In normal times, getting an Infrastructure Bank through Congress would be impossible. “It is a direct threat to their way of life,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “It changes the dynamic of how you deal with earmarks,” by taking the decision-making, and to some extent the credit, away from politicians. “I know one huge ally Obama would have on this,” Ornstein adds with a laugh. “John McCain.”

This could be an early test for President Obama (it would be an impossible task for President McCain, given the Democratic enmity should he win). Will Obama be able to convince his party’s leaders that the economic situation is so dire, and the public’s opinion of Congress so low, that big new public-works projects will need the validation of an independent board? Will he be willing to spend his political capital on this relatively obscure notion? When Bill Clinton arrived in Washington, he found that his toughest challenge was herding the donkeys in his own party. The nation’s capital awaits the new President, wondering not just who gets what, but also how tough–and skilled–the new guy will really be.

time.com/swampland