The US special election results on Tuesday night offered a few tea leaves for the sages. The message they delivered won't comfort the Obama administration. Republicans generally did well. Voters gave marching orders to Democrats even in some constituencies in which President Obama campaigned.

The American political system creates a virtually permanent electoral cycle. Between the congressional cycle, which sees elections taking place every two years, and the need to fill vacated spots, which fills the intervening years, American politics is in a non-stop campaign mode. In recent decades, this has led American presidents to systematise their public relations strategies, feeding every policy announcement into the 'permanent campaign'.

At its most extreme, this can become a recipe for policy inertia. Especially in the early years of his presidency, Bill Clinton was widely derided for running every policy decision past his pollsters. From welfare reform, to whether to intervene in the Rwanda genocide - Clinton notoriously opted not to because his aides couldn't find a 'political constituency' for action, a decision even he later regretted - it was said nothing was done if it couldn't play in Peoria.

Big, bold visions

So big, bold visions that require heavy investments upfront are tough sells. But they are not impossible. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and public sector employment, worsening a recession. But the economy later turned around, and voters forgave him.

Barack Obama is surely repeating this to himself this right now. Given the ambition of his domestic agenda - bailing out the economy, reforming health care, encouraging alternative energy - it is no surprise that he prefers to compare himself to Ronald Reagan than to Bill Clinton. But the price tag of his programme is steep. Recent polls show that voters are anxious both about the size of the national debt, and about whether the programme will work.

The economy must be giving Obama restless nights. Despite the massive injection of federal money, the US doesn't yet show signs of a sustainable and strong rebound. Worse, unemployment appears to still be rising. Little of that is Obama's fault; he inherited a mess bequeathed by his predecessors. Meanwhile, his strategy, of basically coddling the banks while pumping borrowed money into the economy, may be working.

Then again, it may not be. It's probably too soon to tell. But ordinary Americans are understandably troubled that the rising stock market is making the rich richer, while the worsening job market is making the poor poorer.

Good news for Obama

The good news for Obama is that there appears to be little sign yet of an actual voter backlash. They are not necessarily rejecting the president, or turning to Republicans. Instead, Democrats suffered losses on Tuesday because many of their own supporters stayed home.

This is, in fact, fairly typical of mid-term and special elections. Nonetheless, it is a cause for concern for the White House. Obama sailed to victory last year on a wave of support from first-time and young voters, who were energised by his message of change. Disappointment that he then filled his administration with more of the same quickly took hold. Obama drew on much the same set of Wall Street bankers as his predecessors, and they produced much the same set of policies.

Of course, if the economy bounces back, all will be forgiven in another year's time. But that is the concern. Friday's employment figures will reveal if the rise in unemployment is nearing its peak. If so, the White House will take comfort that the corner may soon be turned.

If not - worse, if, the rate goes into the double-digits - Obama will sprout some more grey strands on his head.

John Rapley is president of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), an independent research think tank affiliated with the University of the West Indies, Mona. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.