Barack Obama: risks angering the America-first, Reagan Democrats who gave him the job

It is a uniquely American, and actually quite foolhardy, pastime to try and evaluate the merit of a new president's performance after just 100 days in office. True to form, the commentariat is now asking itself whether President Obama has lived up to the promise of candidate Obama. The questioners inevitably arrive at different answers, which typically align with their own ideological stripes.

A related, albeit more cynical, question is: how has Obama moved politically in these first 100 days in dealing with the myriad challenges? After all, a congressional campaign will be underway this time next year and another presidential campaign will be well underway two years from now.

On the domestic front, Obama inherited an economy in freefall. His solution, developed in consultation with some of America's foremost economists, is to stimulate the economy through a combination of tax cuts and increases in spending. While the specifics of his plan came under attack from both the left and the right, it made its way through the Democratic Congress with a few amendments that watered down some of the plan's most ambitious elements.

He has also advanced plans targeted to assist those homeowners finding it difficult to make mortgage payments and to ensure access to credit for small business owners. More controversially, his administration has proposed initiatives to bail out the banks and to keep America's struggling auto industry afloat.

How does this cut politically? Poll numbers indicate that the stimulus plan is backed by an overwhelming percentage of Americans. This support is a stinging rebuke to the Republicans generally and the conservative movement in particular.

Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich et al wail on that they hope Obama fails because his proffered solution is statist and socialist. But the economic conservatives have lost the political battle – for the time being, at least. When the economy weakens and Americans are hurting, they embrace inter­­vention. A small government, laissez faire economic philosophy may resonate when times are good, but it certainly does not now. Big government is back because the overwhelming majority of Americans need and want their government's help.

The bank bailout, as contentious in the US as it is in Ireland, is decidedly less popular. It does seem that many Americans, although begrudging the bailout of financial institutions that behaved so egregiously, recognise that the system depends on their stability.

The ongoing attempt to rescue the auto industry is inextricably linked to Obama's campaign promise to protect what's left of the manufacturing base. His overtures in this regard to blue collar workers almost certainly account for his healthy margins of victory in places like Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. Assuming the rescue effort is not abandoned, there are two issues that his political calculus must confront. First, is the American auto industry salvageable? Second, will the rescue effort alienate struggling Americans elsewhere, or other constituencies in his party?

Globally, Obama has moved slowly. When he assumed the presidency on 20 January, the world excitedly breathed a deep sigh of relief and couldn't hide its collective optimism. The expectation was that the US would no longer act unilaterally as a first resort. Cooperation, not comeuppance, would be the hallmark of an Obama foreign policy. While he has symbolically planted these seeds and sought to reassure traditional allies of his bona fides, his movements are the product both of appropriate caution and domestic realities.

He has devised an exit strategy from Iraq, yet proposed measures to ensure that chaos does not ensue. Simultaneously, he has upped the number of troops in Afghanistan to overcome resurgent threats posed there. Broadly speaking, this two-pronged military strategy – particularly the withdrawal of troops from Iraq – is favoured by a large majority of Americans, even Republicans.

Domestic political realities have similarly shaped Obama's approach to other potential trouble spots, especially in the Middle East and Central America.

Obama, both as candidate and president, has championed the cause of a two state solution in the Middle East. Yet he has been careful not to offend Israeli hardliners like Benjamin Netanyahu who have deep reservations about the creation of a Palestinian state. His reticence stems from the well-documented influence of the America Israel Political Action Committee. Keeping US supporters of Israel on side will continue to be a priority.

During the Bush administration, leaders in Central America grew increasingly and more vocally hostile to the US. Some of their criticisms were ideological; others were more personal and meant to caricature George W Bush. For a variety of good reasons, Obama now wishes to engage more constructively with them. In so doing, however, he must be careful not to go too far so as to be seen as appeasing. If he does, he risks angering the America-first, Reagan Democrats who gave him the job.

Most recent polls indicate that Americans remain confident in their new president and are willing to give him a chance. Accordingly, his first 100 days must be deemed a political success. But that's just for today. And as for an answer to the question on the merits of Barack Obama's first 100 days: the world waits.

Larry Donnelly, a Boston attorney and Counsel to Democrats Abroad Ireland, is a Law Lecturer at NUI Galway