During the 2008 United States (US) presidential campaign, Barack Obama said his ambition was to be a transformational president. To the consternation of Hillary and Bill Clinton, he likened himself to Ronald Reagan, slighting the last Democrat to be president.
On the evidence so far, he is sticking to his plan. In the face of fierce condemnation by his opponents and sagging popularity among his supporters, he is standing by his programme of economic stimulus and health-care reform, not to mention an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
And now, at a time when critics of climate-change treaties have started dancing on the grave of next week's Copenhagen Summit, he will head to Denmark. By this stage, Bill Clinton might well have bailed out. "Mid-term elections are coming!" his consultants might have cried "Our focus groups don't like it!" But Obama, to his credit, is staying the course he charted for his country, no matter how unpopular it is making him.
It's a lonely journey, but it is closer to how Ronald Reagan did things. Though revered today by the Republican Party, and grudgingly respected by Democrats, Reagan was, in fact, unpopular in the early years of his presidency. Then, painful restructuring amid recession caused much of America to turn against him. Later, his fans credited him with restoring America to a long-term growth path, and even his foes admired him for having transformed America in a Republican image.
Success and failure
Today, US leadership will make the difference between success and failure in the war on global warming. It is significant that the day after Obama set a provisional target for US carbon emission reductions, the Chinese reciprocated in kind (with India soon following). While they did not commit to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, the Chinese pledged to reduce substantially the carbon intensity of their economy. That means the impact of their growing economy on the global environment will be greatly mitigated.
It is hardly coincidental that these announcements followed, by less than two weeks, the meeting of Obama and the Chinese president in Beijing. No doubt, the Chinese looked for American leadership on an issue on which they are feeling pressure. They got it.
There was some question whether the Chinese and US presidents would even attend the climate summit. They will. Those who celebrated the death of Copenhagen, probably started their dance too soon.
As ambitious as they may seem, the US and Chinese promises might not be enough. Even deeper cuts will be needed if the threat of climate change is to be tackled. Nonetheless, in the midst of a punishing recession, for Obama even to privilege environmental concerns, took political courage.
Will it pay off? Obama may grow even more unpopular at home. But he seems to be playing for the history books, not the Peoria voters. As it happens, presidents whom historians hold in high regard - Truman or Reagan - were often unpopular in their own time; while some of the more popular presidents in their own time - Eisenhower or Clinton - are seen as being relatively inconsequential to history. It is as if the true measure of leadership is to give a people not what they want, but what they need (whilst having the wisdom to get it right).
The same can be said for our own leaders. As CaPRI reports in a brief on its website today (capricaribbean.org), the opportunities that lie in a shift to renewable energy across the region are considerable. The potential long-term gains are great. But the short-term costs are not small. In Copenhagen, will our own leaders play for the history books, or for the evening news?
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.