Export Opportunism

President Barack Obama finished his first State of the Union address last week with the same vigor and rousing rhetoric that helped win him the presidency 15 months ago. But politics were on bright display and there seemed to be little 2010 doubt that, despite Obama's calls for congressmen to set politics and ambition aside to do what their electorate sent them to Washington to do, political impasse would be the name of the game in a year of midterm elections.

The speech has been President Obama's most useful tool in tackling a political crisis. When it came to selling the health care bill or troop surge in Afghanistan, the slumping president has looked to his rhetorical skills to remind everyone how inspiring he is and why a large majority of Americans liked him in the first place.

In practical policy, however, Obama has numerous challenges he ambitiously set forth in his speech last week, the most peculiar of which is his goal to double exports from the United States in five years. It is a seemingly innocuous pledge in a sea of promises that define state of the union addresses, however, it is much more puzzling considering that doubling exports is a keystone of his strategy to repair the American economy.

The United States has run a trade deficit every year since 1975, and contentious squabbles over the reasons why have dominated American international economic policy debates ever since. In the 1980s, it was Japan who bore the brunt of American criticism for weakening the yen and boosting exports at the expense of Michigan auto workers and other Rust Belt industrial firms. In the 1990s, the post-NAFTA "sucking sound" from Mexico was the scapegoat for another swath of American manufacturing job cuts and a drop in the number of things we consume that are produce at home.

The 2010 rhetoric signals that the United States will either enhance protectionist measures against foreign imports, or, more interestingly, take on the Chinese and pressure the world's fastest growing economy to halt its alleged currency devaluation, allowing the dollar to depreciate, boosting exports and reducing the trade deficit.

Either strategy would go contrary to the international economic policies that are in the country's best interest in the short term. The former would only jeopardize any hard-earned progress on recent trade negotiations, and the latter would further alienate the single most important country to America's economic future, in terms not only of trade but of finding a willing lender to finance America's massive debt-driven recovery. Or, it could just be a matter of semantics: the U.S. might well double exports in five years' time, but it might also double its imports, only worsening its untenable current account deficit.

Each of these potential reasons signals very little economic policy creativity; though it will be no small achievement if the United States can actually double its exports in five years.

Taro Aso's Nightmare

Less than one year after Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso took the reigns of the hobbling Japanese government and economy, he is faced with a daunting prospect - the end of his term as Japan's leader, and of one-party rule in Japan.

While Aso is well regarded by foreign leaders, his tenure is sure to come to a close now that Tokyo municipal elections delivered a smashing blow to Aso's party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), in favor of the rival Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ).

As various news outlets have reported, Aso has attempted to use pork barrel spending - a time-worn tradition in modern Japanese politics - to assuage voters ahead of the election he has called for Aug. 30. And recent economic data show Japan's slump could be nearing an end. Aso hopes these factors will renew some public trust in the LDP's national leadership in the next month.

The elastic thinker thinks Japan deserves and is ready for political change. The LDP has not necessarily squandered Japan's economic might - but it has certainly allowed back-room politics to become even more entrenched. Whether the DPJ will bring fresh ideas, or serve simply as the "anti-LDP," is a huge question mark, but one that the Japanese people deserve an answer for after years of LDP dominance. The biggest risk from DPJ election gains, of course, is a government that much more politically polarized that solving Japan's myriad economic issues will become even more onerous.

But the Japanese public, who are about to descend in what could be another "lost decade" of economic stagnation, most likely want change. It appears they will get it this time around. This will prove to be a significant development in world politics, and in the world's second largest economy.

Transparency or "Obama 2012"?

Today I received an e-mail addressed from David Plouffe, President Obama's campaign manager, on behalf of BarackObama.com. He asks me to watch a YouTube clip of the president's nationally televised plea for Americans to support his economic recovery plan. An abbreviated screen shot of the e-mail:


Note that it is signed by Mr. Plouffe, as Mr. Obama's campaign manager. So, what exactly is Mr. Plouffe's role in the Obama Administration? Obviously, having engineered one of the most effective (and expensive) presidential campaigns ever, Mr. Plouffe undoubtedly has won the president's loyalty. But with such an e-mail, who is Mr. Plouffe representing (especially when, at the e-mail's end, a statement reads that it was paid for by the Democratic National Committee)?

Ultimately, I think this e-mail is fairly innocuous - and it reveals the president's desire to communicate directly with constituents (or those who signed up to an e-mail list) in a direct, seemingly transparent fashion - but is this e-mail an item of electioneering? Or is it the president communicating with his constituency? I think Mr. Obama should be careful in such messages, as they could be construed as an ongoing re-election project, rather than factual communication on public policies currently being debated.

Time for the Dems to Grow a Pair

The honeymoon of the Barack Obama presidency lasted about as long as a Britney Spears nuptial. As America got back to business after the euphoric day of January 20, several large corporations announced layoffs, unemployment claims rose, the GDP shrank, and Citigroup held off (at least for now) its plans to buy a multi-million dollar corporate jet. These are just a few of the ridiculous headlines to remind us that, yet again, the little guy pays while the big-wigs suffer minor setbacks (the folks at Merrill Lynch might afford only one vacation to southern France, instead of three).

Mr. Obama's approach to the economy has, in my view, sent mixed signals. First, his recently-confirmed Treasury secretary (Timothy Geithner) irresponsibly sounded the battle cry of a trade war with China, outwardly stating the obvious but unspeakable - that China manipulates its currency to boost its export-drive economy (at the expense of American industry). This, ironically, before the passage of a massive spending bill that will need to be financed entirely by parties other than the debt-ridden U.S. government, namely the Chinese central bank. Not to mention the even more devastating consequences to China's economy if it were to revalue its currency further, an event that is not in anyone's best interest and least of all China's biggest trading partner, the United States. Japan is already hitting a wall with the yen at its strongest level in years.

On the domestic front, we have quickly found out that Mr. Obama's admired approach to building consensus may not be a match for the intensity of the current economic crisis and the political fault lines that have become clear this week. We need not look further than the fact that the House of Representatives passed President Obama's $819 billion stimulus bill without a single Republican supporter.

So what does all this mean? I respect Mr. Obama's desire to hear both sides of the issue, but ultimately, he is the boss that the American people elected. Somehow, the Democrats have such an inferiority complex and manage to bungle even those times when they have unequivocal legislative power - it is time to create the policies that the American people overwhelmingly demanded in the November election, not watered down, ineffective policies that attempt to bridge some sort of political chasm. It's time to ignore Republican obstructionism and faux consensus building and play hard, cold politics, if Mr. Obama is to get anything done for the economy in a swift manner. And I have faith that he will.