Tweet
WHO SHARES RESPONSIBILITY WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA?
© Сollage by RIA Novosti
15:00 04/11/2014
Ekaterina Kudashkina
For a major part of his term President Obama has been blamed both for
his own mistakes as well as for those of his predecessors, for those
which he never committed. But - how independent is the US President
in his decision making and what kind of pressure is he subject to?
Radio VR is discussing it with Russian expert in US policiesAreg
Galstyan.
"First of all, we must understand that the US is the only state in the
world where lobbying is permitted and regulated at the legislative
level. Today in America there are hundreds of different companies
providing power to the wealthy customers. At the same time, there
are very powerful lobbies. For example, the oil lobby, the health
lobby, gun lobby, which are a Republican Party-oriented commercial
and educational, financial lobbies, which is in close contact with
the Democrats.
It should be noted that the majority of larger organizations and
corporations operate and win over the legislature from both parties.
And now lobbying is the third largest enterprise in the American
national capital, after the Government and tourism. There are thousands
or more people lobbying the legislature and some executive branches
at different levels of the American Government. And the lobby center,
interest groups and advocates of all kinds are very influential in
the American elections. And they participate in the campaigns in a
variety of ways.
That's why, first, we must understand the difference between lobbying
and public advocacy. Despite the fact that public advocacy and
lobbying come from the same source - a fundamental right of free
speech, assembly and the right to petition the government, which
are guaranteed by the American Constitution. However, a federally
registered lobby is defined in the law. And now the lobbies play
an assertion role in the five key functions of Congress. There are:
representation, law-making, deliberation, oversight and education of
the American public. It plays an assertion role in the administration
of a public policy in the executive branches of Government.
Whatever we call it - lobby or advocacy - we mean a horrible
profession. Yes, lobbyist is a horrible profession. And we also have
negative examples as, for example, Jack Abramoff or Bob Ney. And in
the US we have top ten lobbyists who are influencing the American
foreign policy.
Do I get you right that President Obama, if I remember it correctly,
used to somehow try to oppose this practice? Is my understanding
correct?
Yes, it is correct. Obama was famous for being anti-lobbyist. In 2008
he said that - lobbies don't fund my campaign, they will not run my
White House and they will not draw out the voices of the American
people when I'm the President of the US. But Obama has promised a lot
of things. We must understand that Obama as the candidate and Obama
as the President are at different levels of political reality. Obama
was sure that he could ignore the lobbies and could take them not
seriously.
But lobbying is an integral part of the American political system.
Moreover, you cannot find any serious political decision in Washington
accepted without the lobbies' participation. And in this case, as
the Illinois Senator, he lobbied the interests of Polish and Armenian
diasporas. In addition, he has close contacts and very strong ties with
the leading Saudi Arabia lobbyists in America, such as Tony Rezko. And
now, a large number of lobbyists work in the Obama administration -
Eric Holder, John Podesta, Patrick Gaspard, Thomas Donilon and others.
And now, according to the analysts from the Center of Responsive
Politics, more than 15 current members of the Obama administration
are the former lobbyists and, if combined, they've worked for over
500 years for the firms that lobby the government. And I think it is
very remarkable. It shows that Obama, making some political decision,
cannot ignore this factor.
On the other hand, now Obama is anti-big-oil lobbyist and
pro-financial lobbyist. The oil industry is integral with the law
makers. Nobody can argue with that. For example, George W. Bush and his
presidential cabinet had deep ties to different oil companies. For
example, the Vice-President Dick Cheney was the Chief Executive
of Halliburton. Condoleezza Rice was the Director of Chevron. In
addition, big oil spends on lobbies more than any other group. Only
in 2010 they've spent near $200 million for lobbying.
But Obama is anti-oil lobbyist and a pro-financial lobbyist. He
supports such financial organizations as the Goldman Sachs, because
Goldman Sachs has contributed to Obama's campaign nearly $4 million.
But how does that translate into what we actually see in the US
foreign policies, in the US domestic policies? How does the influence
of those influence groups affect the decision making in those domains?
Well, the lobbies, for example, some financial or some oil
organizations, the gun lobby, they have their representatives in
Congress and in the White House and they lobby their interests. It is
a very easy system for lobbying; it is the direct lobbying. They can
do that, because they have a lot of money, they have the influence,
they have the strong political ties with the most powerful American
politicians. For example, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid,
he is the lobbyist of Exxon Mobil. And Exxon Mobil pays him and he
lobbies the interests of this corporation. And there are others.
I want to say that it is very easy, because the legislator needs
money and you, as a director of a big company or corporation, your
success cannot be effective without your direct lobbyist in Congress
or in the White House.
Right! Suppose, we take, for example, something of the latest news
in the foreign policy, say, the ME. How have those interests of the
lobbying groups been translated into the developments in the ME? Could
we talk about that?
Yes, we can. But, first of all, it is necessary to understand
that lobbyism is a very important factor in the political decisions
making process, but not the main one. The main factor is the national
interests of the US. In this case we have the national interests of the
US in the ME and the interests of some lobbyists there. For example,
now the US needs a dialog with Iran. But the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee as a lobby, they are not interested in it.
And we see the conflict between the American national interests and
this lobby.
In Syria we have the interests of the US and we have the interests
of, for example, some Saudi Arabian lobby. But in this case we have
no conflict, because the US is interested in a coup d'état in Syria
and Saudi Arabia is interested in this. And they give money for some
legislator, and they are effectively lobbying it. A lot of senators
and congressmen, they have strong ties with the representatives of
the Saudi Arabian lobby in the US, including Obama as well. As I've
mentioned Obama has a good relation with Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko is
the main representative of the Saudi lobby in the US. And they support
the Syrian rebels. And in this case, Obama supports the Syrian rebels,
and Congress supports the Syrian rebels.
But if the interests of lobbies come into a conflict with the national
interests of the country, you cannot be successful. For example, Obama
as the candidate promised to recognize the Armenian genocide. But as
the President he didn't, despite the serious influence of the Armenian
lobby. Why? Because the strategic relationship with Turkey is more
important for America, than the Armenian question. Or for example,
in the ME, despite the influence of the powerful Israeli lobby,
America takes off the sanctions against Iran. And now Iran and the
US have a political dialog. That's why lobbying shouldn't be idealized.
For example, if we connect the lobby with the Ukrainian question,
we can see that Obama was trying to maintain his own policy without
connection to the lobbyists. And he supported Ukraine, and he tried
to hold onto the point of reforming the International Monetary
Fund. But Koch brothers' oil lobby blocked this resolution and Obama
realized that he must accept the interests of this lobbyists. So,
every situation is unique.
>From what you are saying I get an impression that, perhaps, it is
not exactly fair to blame all the faults and all the trouble the US
is going through now on President Obama alone.
Yes, of course. You must understand that Obama has received a very
heavy political legacy of Bush and neoconservative elite in general.
But he withdrew the American troops from Iraq and the majority of the
American contingent from Afghanistan. So, we cannot say that Obama
failed the entire foreign policy. But, of course, he's made a lot of
mistakes. We must understand that Obama is a very proud politician.
And he doesn't want to admit that he was wrong. He doesn't like some
advices. He often ignores the members of his administration, Congress
and lobbies.
At the same time, Obama likes to blame the others. So, he accused the
secret service that they had underestimated the threat of the ISIS,
for example. If you want to know about the critics from the mass media,
I want to say that many media outlets received financial support from
various corporations and they lobby their interests. So, many of the
articles against Obama are just the orders from the lobbies. And on
the other hand, we have the factor of personal dislike. For example,
the speaker of the House John Boehner doesn't like Obama and he doesn't
support his decisions, even if he makes the correct ones and even if
these decisions are pro-Republican. He just doesn't like Obama and
that's all.
So, of course, we cannot say that Obama failed the entire foreign
policy, that it is just Obama or any other person. In the US you
cannot say that only one person is guilty. It is not like that,
because we have Congress, we have the Ministry of Defense, we have
the secret services and others. And we cannot say that Obama can
control all the American political elites.
You said that he doesn't listen to some of his advisors. Whom does
he listen to? Who are his closest aides and advisors, whom he still
listens to?
There are some persons, for example, John Podesta. Now John Podesta
works in Obama administration. And he is the close friend of Obama. As
I've mentioned, Tony Rezko, he is also the close friend of Obama,
and also, in the Syrian case. Michael Kempner, he was the General
Director of the one of the largest American farm lobbying groups. And
I think that's all, four or five persons.
How professional are they as policy advisers?
Tony Rezko is not a politician, he is a businessman, but he is a
lobbyist. He is the Chief Executive Director of one of the Arabian
funds which is situated in the US. He has strong ties with the
Democratic Party and with Obama, because he is from Chicago, as
well as Obama. John Podesta is a professional politician and he is a
professional lobbyist. And I think that Podesta can say Obama that
something is wrong, and Obama can accept it. Michael Kempner is a
professional lobbyist, he is a political technology expert. But I don't
think that he is a very serious foreign affairs advisor. I think that
Michael Kempner just helps Obama to understand the internal processes
in the US and Michael Kempner gives some advice on, for example, the
immigration reform or the budget reform and others. So, that's why we
have this situation when Obama doesn't listen to his Vice President
Joe Biden, but he can accept the advices from non-politician Tony
Rezko. And of course, I think that he is one of the main factors that
influenced on Obama's decision making process, and that's why he made
a lot of mistakes".
http://en.ria.ru/burning_point/20141104/195103113/Who-Shares-Responsibility-with-President-Obama.html
© Сollage by RIA Novosti
15:00 04/11/2014
Ekaterina Kudashkina
For a major part of his term President Obama has been blamed both for
his own mistakes as well as for those of his predecessors, for those
which he never committed. But - how independent is the US President
in his decision making and what kind of pressure is he subject to?
Radio VR is discussing it with Russian expert in US policiesAreg
Galstyan.
"First of all, we must understand that the US is the only state in the
world where lobbying is permitted and regulated at the legislative
level. Today in America there are hundreds of different companies
providing power to the wealthy customers. At the same time, there
are very powerful lobbies. For example, the oil lobby, the health
lobby, gun lobby, which are a Republican Party-oriented commercial
and educational, financial lobbies, which is in close contact with
the Democrats.
It should be noted that the majority of larger organizations and
corporations operate and win over the legislature from both parties.
And now lobbying is the third largest enterprise in the American
national capital, after the Government and tourism. There are thousands
or more people lobbying the legislature and some executive branches
at different levels of the American Government. And the lobby center,
interest groups and advocates of all kinds are very influential in
the American elections. And they participate in the campaigns in a
variety of ways.
That's why, first, we must understand the difference between lobbying
and public advocacy. Despite the fact that public advocacy and
lobbying come from the same source - a fundamental right of free
speech, assembly and the right to petition the government, which
are guaranteed by the American Constitution. However, a federally
registered lobby is defined in the law. And now the lobbies play
an assertion role in the five key functions of Congress. There are:
representation, law-making, deliberation, oversight and education of
the American public. It plays an assertion role in the administration
of a public policy in the executive branches of Government.
Whatever we call it - lobby or advocacy - we mean a horrible
profession. Yes, lobbyist is a horrible profession. And we also have
negative examples as, for example, Jack Abramoff or Bob Ney. And in
the US we have top ten lobbyists who are influencing the American
foreign policy.
Do I get you right that President Obama, if I remember it correctly,
used to somehow try to oppose this practice? Is my understanding
correct?
Yes, it is correct. Obama was famous for being anti-lobbyist. In 2008
he said that - lobbies don't fund my campaign, they will not run my
White House and they will not draw out the voices of the American
people when I'm the President of the US. But Obama has promised a lot
of things. We must understand that Obama as the candidate and Obama
as the President are at different levels of political reality. Obama
was sure that he could ignore the lobbies and could take them not
seriously.
But lobbying is an integral part of the American political system.
Moreover, you cannot find any serious political decision in Washington
accepted without the lobbies' participation. And in this case, as
the Illinois Senator, he lobbied the interests of Polish and Armenian
diasporas. In addition, he has close contacts and very strong ties with
the leading Saudi Arabia lobbyists in America, such as Tony Rezko. And
now, a large number of lobbyists work in the Obama administration -
Eric Holder, John Podesta, Patrick Gaspard, Thomas Donilon and others.
And now, according to the analysts from the Center of Responsive
Politics, more than 15 current members of the Obama administration
are the former lobbyists and, if combined, they've worked for over
500 years for the firms that lobby the government. And I think it is
very remarkable. It shows that Obama, making some political decision,
cannot ignore this factor.
On the other hand, now Obama is anti-big-oil lobbyist and
pro-financial lobbyist. The oil industry is integral with the law
makers. Nobody can argue with that. For example, George W. Bush and his
presidential cabinet had deep ties to different oil companies. For
example, the Vice-President Dick Cheney was the Chief Executive
of Halliburton. Condoleezza Rice was the Director of Chevron. In
addition, big oil spends on lobbies more than any other group. Only
in 2010 they've spent near $200 million for lobbying.
But Obama is anti-oil lobbyist and a pro-financial lobbyist. He
supports such financial organizations as the Goldman Sachs, because
Goldman Sachs has contributed to Obama's campaign nearly $4 million.
But how does that translate into what we actually see in the US
foreign policies, in the US domestic policies? How does the influence
of those influence groups affect the decision making in those domains?
Well, the lobbies, for example, some financial or some oil
organizations, the gun lobby, they have their representatives in
Congress and in the White House and they lobby their interests. It is
a very easy system for lobbying; it is the direct lobbying. They can
do that, because they have a lot of money, they have the influence,
they have the strong political ties with the most powerful American
politicians. For example, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid,
he is the lobbyist of Exxon Mobil. And Exxon Mobil pays him and he
lobbies the interests of this corporation. And there are others.
I want to say that it is very easy, because the legislator needs
money and you, as a director of a big company or corporation, your
success cannot be effective without your direct lobbyist in Congress
or in the White House.
Right! Suppose, we take, for example, something of the latest news
in the foreign policy, say, the ME. How have those interests of the
lobbying groups been translated into the developments in the ME? Could
we talk about that?
Yes, we can. But, first of all, it is necessary to understand
that lobbyism is a very important factor in the political decisions
making process, but not the main one. The main factor is the national
interests of the US. In this case we have the national interests of the
US in the ME and the interests of some lobbyists there. For example,
now the US needs a dialog with Iran. But the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee as a lobby, they are not interested in it.
And we see the conflict between the American national interests and
this lobby.
In Syria we have the interests of the US and we have the interests
of, for example, some Saudi Arabian lobby. But in this case we have
no conflict, because the US is interested in a coup d'état in Syria
and Saudi Arabia is interested in this. And they give money for some
legislator, and they are effectively lobbying it. A lot of senators
and congressmen, they have strong ties with the representatives of
the Saudi Arabian lobby in the US, including Obama as well. As I've
mentioned Obama has a good relation with Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko is
the main representative of the Saudi lobby in the US. And they support
the Syrian rebels. And in this case, Obama supports the Syrian rebels,
and Congress supports the Syrian rebels.
But if the interests of lobbies come into a conflict with the national
interests of the country, you cannot be successful. For example, Obama
as the candidate promised to recognize the Armenian genocide. But as
the President he didn't, despite the serious influence of the Armenian
lobby. Why? Because the strategic relationship with Turkey is more
important for America, than the Armenian question. Or for example,
in the ME, despite the influence of the powerful Israeli lobby,
America takes off the sanctions against Iran. And now Iran and the
US have a political dialog. That's why lobbying shouldn't be idealized.
For example, if we connect the lobby with the Ukrainian question,
we can see that Obama was trying to maintain his own policy without
connection to the lobbyists. And he supported Ukraine, and he tried
to hold onto the point of reforming the International Monetary
Fund. But Koch brothers' oil lobby blocked this resolution and Obama
realized that he must accept the interests of this lobbyists. So,
every situation is unique.
>From what you are saying I get an impression that, perhaps, it is
not exactly fair to blame all the faults and all the trouble the US
is going through now on President Obama alone.
Yes, of course. You must understand that Obama has received a very
heavy political legacy of Bush and neoconservative elite in general.
But he withdrew the American troops from Iraq and the majority of the
American contingent from Afghanistan. So, we cannot say that Obama
failed the entire foreign policy. But, of course, he's made a lot of
mistakes. We must understand that Obama is a very proud politician.
And he doesn't want to admit that he was wrong. He doesn't like some
advices. He often ignores the members of his administration, Congress
and lobbies.
At the same time, Obama likes to blame the others. So, he accused the
secret service that they had underestimated the threat of the ISIS,
for example. If you want to know about the critics from the mass media,
I want to say that many media outlets received financial support from
various corporations and they lobby their interests. So, many of the
articles against Obama are just the orders from the lobbies. And on
the other hand, we have the factor of personal dislike. For example,
the speaker of the House John Boehner doesn't like Obama and he doesn't
support his decisions, even if he makes the correct ones and even if
these decisions are pro-Republican. He just doesn't like Obama and
that's all.
So, of course, we cannot say that Obama failed the entire foreign
policy, that it is just Obama or any other person. In the US you
cannot say that only one person is guilty. It is not like that,
because we have Congress, we have the Ministry of Defense, we have
the secret services and others. And we cannot say that Obama can
control all the American political elites.
You said that he doesn't listen to some of his advisors. Whom does
he listen to? Who are his closest aides and advisors, whom he still
listens to?
There are some persons, for example, John Podesta. Now John Podesta
works in Obama administration. And he is the close friend of Obama. As
I've mentioned, Tony Rezko, he is also the close friend of Obama,
and also, in the Syrian case. Michael Kempner, he was the General
Director of the one of the largest American farm lobbying groups. And
I think that's all, four or five persons.
How professional are they as policy advisers?
Tony Rezko is not a politician, he is a businessman, but he is a
lobbyist. He is the Chief Executive Director of one of the Arabian
funds which is situated in the US. He has strong ties with the
Democratic Party and with Obama, because he is from Chicago, as
well as Obama. John Podesta is a professional politician and he is a
professional lobbyist. And I think that Podesta can say Obama that
something is wrong, and Obama can accept it. Michael Kempner is a
professional lobbyist, he is a political technology expert. But I don't
think that he is a very serious foreign affairs advisor. I think that
Michael Kempner just helps Obama to understand the internal processes
in the US and Michael Kempner gives some advice on, for example, the
immigration reform or the budget reform and others. So, that's why we
have this situation when Obama doesn't listen to his Vice President
Joe Biden, but he can accept the advices from non-politician Tony
Rezko. And of course, I think that he is one of the main factors that
influenced on Obama's decision making process, and that's why he made
a lot of mistakes".
http://en.ria.ru/burning_point/20141104/195103113/Who-Shares-Responsibility-with-President-Obama.html