Olympics bid squanders Obama's political capital

Over the coming days and weeks, the analysis over President Barack Obama's unsuccessful and very public lobbying for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to bestow the 2016 Summer Olympics on his hometown of Chicago is set to continue. His dramatic intercession in Copenhagen - the first of its kind by a sitting U.S. president - and the awarding of the games to Rio de Janeiro has raised questions as to whether the effort was an efficient use of taxpayer dollars and presidential prestige.

To be certain, the president doesn't singularly own this failure: the IOC's voting criteria are arcane and notoriously fickle. That said, President Obama's ostentatious eleventh hour appearance and self-referential speech certainly didn't help. Despite private assurances by Chicago's Olympics committee that the city was a strong contender, its bid was jettisoned in the very first round, meaning that the president's efforts were ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. And, when the normally supportive editorial writers at the New York Times question the president's decision, you know he's in trouble.

President Obama's willingness to expend personal capital on the Olympics can be viewed as a microcosm of his foreign policy. International organizations are motivated by interests that are parochial and difficult to discern and as the president discovered, personal charisma and soaring rhetoric have their limits, especially when dealing with world leaders who can't always be trusted to be reliable negotiating partners.

Currently, Iran is racing toward declaring itself a nuclear power as Afghanistan deteriorates into a quagmire. North Korea has become increasingly bellicose and Russia is moving to intimidate former satellite countries seeking their independence. Using the U.S. presidency as an effective tool of influence is, therefore, very important. But while the willingness to engage these nations in dialogue is understandable, it presumes mutual respect and shared values.

And therein lies the danger for the president. Critics of his foreign policy approach rightfully argue that putting the prestige of the presidency on the line must be accompanied by a reasonable degree of certainty that the rewards will outweigh the risks.

While President Obama's popularity around the world can't be denied, the Olympics letdown leads us to ask whether popularity alone can be leveraged to achieve tangible outcomes. As the world becomes more turbulent and dangerous, was lobbying for the Olympics the best use of the presidential pulpit? And does it presage even bigger disappointments when it comes to high-stakes diplomatic efforts?

It's natural for any head of state to seek the Olympics. It's the premier athletic event in the world and carries a tremendous amount of recognition and esteem. But the takeaway for President Obama should be that the prestige of the presidency is something best deployed very selectively. When too much emphasis is placed on intangibles like charisma and powers of rhetoric, the president risks coming away looking diminished when the people seated across the table prove immune to his vaunted charms.