Barack Obama should learn from David Cameron

It is hard for foreign politicians to make their mark in the capital of the world's only superpower. There is a revolving door of overseas dignitaries at the White House, and it is rare that anyone in this demanding town stops to take notice of who is passing through.

Which is why the Conservatives and coalition government have every right to be pleased with David Cameron's debut last week.

In a joint press conference with Barack Obama, the Prime Minister dealt with the potentially awkward issue of BP's role in the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber in a convincing fashion. He enthused about "special relationship" between the two countries without appearing enslaved to its service. On Afghanistan and Iran, he was the solid ally.

Like his host, Cameron wore a dark blue suit and royal blue tie, but it was only he who gained any laughs from a White House press corps assembled for a look at the new PM.

At one point the President even followed his lead on what turned into an extended joke about the tidiness of the Obama girls' bedrooms, which the Prime Minister had seen during a tour of the residence. If there was a poodle on the stage, it wasn't the man from Oxfordshire.

The reviews were glowing. "David Cameron was quite the charmer. He owned that East Room," was the view of Chuck Todd on MSNBC, a cable news station.

"He had a lot of verve, that's for sure," chirped his co-host Savannah Guthrie. Many Republican commentators looked on and yearned for someone of Cameron's sharpness and broad appeal to lead them into battle in 2012.

Before their meeting the similarities between Cameron and Obama had been plain: both were young and gifted and saw themselves as agents of change.

Both could change the course of a political campaign with well delivered and chosen words, but both were of limited experience.

But long before the Prime Minister flew into Washington on a commercial British Airways flight, a crucial difference had become clear: the British leader is intent on tackling his country's deficit and the American is not.

Mr Obama faced a spiky question about this during the press conference. In his opening remarks he had praised Cameron for taking "courageous decisions" on deficit reduction, yet after 18 months in office he had made only pledges towards cutting the US deficit in half. So what was he actually going to do?

Was it time for a stiff British-style remedy?

Because he doesn't have a plan yet, the President could only repeat his pledges – and some modest measures enacted so far.

But unless he and his advisers are utterly tone deaf to the popular mood, they need to present some serious proposals about balancing America's books, and soon.

Polls show that the deficit, which, it was announced on Friday, will hit a record $1.47 trillion this year, is the second most troubling subject to voters behind jobs. Fears that the administration's $787 billion stimulus and $1 trillion health care reform will be nationally ruinous have been the primary motivators of the Tea Party movement, whose protest vote threatens the Democratic Party's majority in Congress.

As the Conservative leader pointed out, the US is in a far stronger position than Britain because the dollar is a reserve currency and the old country is proportionately much deeper in the red. The world's largest economy, he was in effect saying, can better afford to spend its way out of recession.

That is true only up to a point. As Mr Obama keeps warning his compatriots, they are on a not-so-slow slide to bankruptcy unless something is done about the cost of Medicare – the heavily subsidised health care scheme for the retired – and Social Security, the equivalent of National Insurance.

George W Bush tried and failed to introduce a privatised version of Social Security. Obama made major savings in Medicare in his health bill, but used them to pay for expanding insurance coverage.

Part of the President's problem is that the American public hasn't quite faced up to the reality that something has to give, that some creative reforms to their beloved entitlements will have to be shouldered.

But it is his job to help them swallow the bitter medicine of austerity, just as Cameron has, at least so far, been able to do at home. Before long, the President may well need to follow the example of his junior partner from across the Atlantic. That would indeed make for a special relationship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7908172/Barack-Obama-should-learn-from-David-Cameron.html

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:How is the visit being seen on the other side of the pond?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Is there perhaps something in the American attitude toward money that means that any President, no matter which party, would shy away from such a public insistence on austerity?