From the outset of the 2008 campaign, the rationale for his long-shot candidacy was that he stood firmly for a set of principles in policy and governance and against political business as usual, as well as a style of politics that emphasized citizen activism. He would drive the corporate lobbyists away from Capitol Hill, the White House and the federal agencies. He would insist on transparency and integrity in conducting the people’s business. Above all, he would pursue the public interest forthrightly rather than inch forward triangularly and incrementally.
Perhaps none of these happy promises was likely to be fulfilled, and perhaps that was something Obama and his campaign aides always understood. But as the new White House came to terms with the realities of Washington, they seem to have thrown off their original images and ideals insouciantly — as if unburdening themselves of unfashionable baggage that embarrassed them in the big city.
Nowhere has this fundamental mistake been more visible than in the effort to reform healthcare. (Joe Conason)
"Insouciant" is the right word that captures, for me anyway, what's so galling about the presidential performance so far. There isn't even the pretense that those values and principles that he campaigned on play a role in his decsionmaking. Supporters like me hoped against hope that we were not being played, but it was not a good sign when he reversed himself on the FISA issue before the election–but his casual disregard for the principles he said he stood for is pretty astonishing.
I don't know which is worse: that he is an empty suit for whom everything he said was just substanceless electioneering or that once in office he has had no other choice but to back away from his principles because the presidency is an impotent shell occupied by a telegenic marionette whose strings are pulled by others.
There might be other, more generous explanations, but Obama is vulnerable to be branded with either of these unless he finds a way to vigorously present himself to the base in a more compelling way. Whatever the reality might be behind the scenes, the public presentation has been pathetically and typically true to the Democrats' stereotype as morally rudderless weaklings for whom political expediency is the only motivator. We've seen from Obama what we would have expected from Kerry had he been elected.
It would have been interesting if Obama was as passionate about his principles and willing to fight for them and to communicate them as Reagan was for his. It might have been interesting to see a galvanized base rally to his support. But all we've got left now from the excitement he's generated is like a limp, sagging balloon.
History has a way of turning a corner unexpectedly, and so there's no predicting what things will look like from the perspective of 2012. Presidents often recover from weak starts. But 'disappointing' understates what we've seen so far. It's just been the same old, same old.
It's clear now, if there was ever any real doubt, that if there's to be real change, Americans who want a politics in the public interest have to develop a machinery to effect policy in the majority's interests in the same way that movement conservatism has developed the machinery to effect policy in their minority's interests. Elected Republicans follow the lead of movement leaders. Beck and Limbaugh have more power than McCain or McConnell.
Leave a Reply