SOME of the steps taken – or foreshadowed – by the Obama administration in its first six weeks may indeed deserve a round of applause. But the number of times American legislators stood up to demonstrate their approval during last week’s presidential address to a joint session of Congress was nothing short of ridiculous.

It may have been possible to condone the enthusiasm of the audience had it been been attributable primarily to persisting relief over the regime change effected on January 20. But who can forget that George W. Bush’s mangled prose, non sequiturs, inadvertent neologisms and straightforward untruths frequently attracted the same reaction? All too often, the atmosphere surrounding his state of the union addresses was redolent of the notorious Nuremberg rallies.

I would hesitate to extend that analogy to Barack Obama, so let’s just say that it’s unlikely Josef Stalin in his prime would have received a comparable number of standing ovations at a gathering of the party faithful – notwithstanding his life-and-death power over members of the audience. This is not to suggest that members of the US Congress are, on such occasions, uncommonly obsequious towards their commanders-in-chief out of fear – although one suspects quite a few of them are guided by the herd instinct, and by a reluctance to appear meanspiritedly partisan or unpatriotic.

Be that as it may, the result is a level of absurdity that is compounded by every successive wave of confected adulation. The cumulative effect can be as annoying as the canned laughter that punctuates American sitcoms as a means of alerting television audiences to each joke. In the case of Bush, canned laughter might actually have been more appropriate. Obama is an infinitely superior speaker, but the happy-clappy reaction to every rhetorical flourish only impedes his natural flow. If his aides could let it be known that the president would prefer to have his say sans the seemingly choreographed interruptions, they would be doing their boss a huge favour.

Obama’s congressional address was devoted mainly to economic matters, and may have been prompted by concerns that presidential comments about the dire straits in which the US finds itself were adding to the gloom, amid job losses and property foreclosures on a scale not witnessed since the Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society have been cited as templates for government initiatives, and on the face of it Obama’s plans on this front are significantly different in some respects from what might have been expected from a Republican administration. Bush and Dick Cheney would have been more inclined, for instance, to further reduce corporate taxes instead of funding public works projects as a means of stimulating the economy. Obama does not envisage a radical redistribution of wealth, but the very fact that his priorities are not geared exclusively towards shoring up the misbegotten fortunes of the filthy rich makes for a refreshing change.

The extent to which his efforts to stimulate the economy will bear fruit is unclear, and reactions range from claims of insufficiency to criticism of the relevant priorities. Economists are divided over when an upturn can reasonably be expected, but it’s difficult to take them seriously given that the severity of the crunch took them largely by surprise. A relatively early resuscitation would be a significant boost for Obama, while a prolonged recession could dampen his chances of re-election, even though his administration can hardly be held responsible for the prelude to the pain.

It cannot be held accountable for the Iraq debacle either, although in that case achieving discernible progress is a relatively less complicated task. Albeit only slightly. The withdrawal timetable Obama presented last week provided cause for consternation not just to antiwar activists, who were expecting a quicker and more decisive disengagement plan, but even to some of his Democratic colleagues, while offering a degree of comfort to Republicans of John McCain’s ilk. It could have been worse, though: the top generals apparently wanted combat troops to hang on for another 23 months, whereas Obama had presaged a 16-month exit strategy during the presidential campaign. That suggests 19 months is a median compromise, although 50,000 troops is a rather large contingent to maintain well into 2011, ostensibly for "support and training" purposes.

The trouble is, no matter how long the occupation army stays in place, the consequences of its withdrawal will be unpredictable. At the same time, not even the best-case scenario – the extremely improbable prospect of a somewhat stable, relatively liberal democracy – can even begin to justify all the blood that has flowed down the rivers of Babylon over the past six years. It’s considerably likelier, though, that Iraq, or whatever remains of it, will eventually end up with a strongman of the Saddam Hussein variety, underlining the sheer futility of 21st-century imperialism.

Nor is a troop surge likely to produce a miracle in Afghanistan. It must be hoped that the ongoing review of America’s strategy in that country will yield a recipe for disengagement. It is very difficult to envisage circumstances in which a preponderant US military presence in the region could produce more good than harm. The armed factions collectively known as the Taliban are a toxic presence on Afghan and Pakistani soil, but it’s a presence that has swelled in the wake of the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Ultimately, if the Taliban are to be tackled successfully, this must be achieved locally. Admittedly, that’s easier said than done. But there is no good alternative.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Middle Eastern foray this week should provide some indication of whether any progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front can be expected under Obama. It’s a long shot, admittedly, but the appointment of George Mitchell as a special envoy and of Charles Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council may bode well.

It would be unwise to expect too much on any given front, but one should not hesitate to give credit where it is due. One of the many qualities that distinguishes Obama from his predecessor is his willingness to entertain a variety of points of view. The ideal decisions don’t necessarily follow, but the open-mindedness is most welcome. It has been displayed, inter alia, in reactions to a pair of significant referenda in Bolivia and Venezuela, with the pro-government results being greeted as an affirmation of democracy. It isn’t hard to imagine how the bitter and twisted Bush regime would have reacted.

That offers cause for hope. And an excuse for scattered applause, if not quite a standing ovation. Not just yet.

Email: [email protected]

---