Oct29 |
 |
Why Barack Obama may not be all that
And today is my day to sound a note of caution: Unless he’s got a trick up his sleeve that nobody’s ever seen before, Barack Obama will not turn the United States into some kind of grand utopia. There are a couple of reasons for this: First, a president isn’t in control of every event and outcome; it’s very possible that — had 9/11 never happened — George W. Bush would’ve served four or eight years as the country’s amiable caretaker. History had other ideas and they ended up both facilitating and revealing the worst impulses of Bush and everybody around him. So history may well have a few ideas during a Barack Obama presidency that will test him as a president and reveal flaws that we can’t yet discern. Second, even very good Democratic presidents have very bad days. Franklin Roosevelt tried packing the Supreme Court. John Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs. If Lyndon Johnson hadn’t enmeshed us in Vietnam, he might be better remembered as the president who muscled civil rights legislation through Congress. Bill Clinton … well, we all remember what happened there. Most presidents are a mix of good and bad decisions. All of them want to be remembered as “great,” but only a few can be, as compared to the others. We should assume, then, that whoever ends up in office would end up in the middle of the pack. What do we know about Barack Obama and the presidency that makes me fearful for him? • He’s made compromises already. If our nation’s decision to torture terror suspects ranks as the Bush Administration’s chief betrayal of American values during the last eight years, then the “warrantless wiretapping” program ranks second. The administration decided to ignore existing wiretapping law — scratch that, broke the law — so that it could listen into private telephone conversations involving Americans. And one of the reasons it did so is because it wanted to prove it could, that there was no check or balance provided by Congress and the courts that presidential power couldn’t override. When it came time to let participants be punished, or give them retroactive immunity and the power to continue the program — well, Barack Obama voted for the second option. It’s easy to understand why: He didn’t want a “soft on terror” vote (which would’ve been a bogus charge) following him around this campaign. And let’s not forget that Barack Obama promised to take public financing for his campaign, only to back down when it became less advantageous for him to do so. This makes him a smart politician probably, but it also means that Obama is not a being of pure light. Which leads us to point No. 2. • Presidential power doesn’t contract itself. The last eight years have seen the Bush Administration repeatedly assert its authority to act as it pleases, without limits from Congress and the courts. The courts have been more effective than Congress in pushing back, but the presidency holds more unilateral power in governmental decision-making than it did when Bill Clinton left office. And here’s something fundamental about human nature: Presidents don’t tend to give power away. Somebody has to take it away. Congress did a lot of this in the post-Vietnam era, and a lot of those safeguards stood (though they eroded a bit) until the current presidency. Barack Obama has promised to live by the older, less dictatorial limits, but he would be an extraordinary president if he didn’t claim some of the authority the Bush Administration has grabbed for itself. Seems unlikely to me. • No one can live up to the hype. This is probably pretty self-explanatory. There are a lot of hopes for the possibilities of an Obama presidency. He will disappoint some of those hopes. The question becomes whether he can be an effective leader once the shine is off. We don’t know yet. And the shine will come off, because… • The Republicans will be coming after him. Oh, lordy, will they come after him. Conservatives never liked Bill Clinton, claiming that his infidelities made him a poor leader and poor example — funny how we never hear about that anymore, huh? Even though he ended up being pretty much a pro-business centrist by any reasonable standard, Clinton was still subject to years of investigations, lawsuits and an impeachment process that proved … what exactly? Anybody who thinks that Obama will be able to avoid this process hasn’t been paying attention. A little less than half the nation is going to wake up very unhappy next Wednesday morning; it’s unlikely that the richer and nuttier among them will be content to bide their time until the next election. Obama had better be ready. But that’s not a good reason not to vote for him, is it? Still, we probably need a few good reasons to vote for Barack Obama. Tomorrow: My reasons. |
|
|
The Trouble with Spikol | Make Major Moves | PW Style | Cup o'Joel
I’ve spent the last couple of days talking about John McCain — why he 
You make a sound argument here. American politics being what it is, no president is ever going to be perfect.
But I think there’s some substance behind all the ‘change’ rhetoric. This guy really *is* different than anything we’ve seen. From his bio, to his policies, to some of the people he has advising campaign, Obama’s candidacy is unprecedented in modern history.
But you’re right, there are political constraints. It won’t be perfect. But I do think we’ll start to see a fundamental shift in the way our society and government function.
Not only did this liberal junior senator come out of nowhere and defeat the Clinton dynasty (which itself signifies a dramatic shift in American politics), but some of the things he’s proposing are a tad revolutionary.
Case in point: technology. Dude proposes appointing a federal CTO, expanding broadband adoption, using the Internet to make government more transparent, webcasting cabinet meetings, and so forth.
If he makes good on these promises, Obama’s presidency *is* going to fundamentally change the way government works, and likely increase popular participation.
Might not be utopian, but it’s a big step in the right direction and hopefully the beginning of a longer transformation.
Those technology ideas are good, but they’re the kind of good government stuff that most people aren’t going to care all that much about.
But you’re right about Obama’s political wiles — the defeat of Clinton really was impressive.
I’m enjoying the hell out of this series, Joel. Too bad I’ve been up to my eyeballs in other paying work, or I’d be able to offer more thorough rejoinders. Two quick points:
1) “And here’s something fundamental about human nature: Presidents don’t tend to give power away. Somebody has to take it away.”
I would quibble with the phrasing here. Congress cannot take a president’s power away, any more than the president can, say, dissolve the Congress. The fundamental issue here is what powers do presidents have to guard the nation’s security? From a constitutional standpoint, he has quite a few. And he certainly has more than the Congress.
What we’ve seen over the past eight years is simply an extension of the politics of the last 60: the old checks-and-balances/separation of powers drama. As you know, I’ve been critical of the Bush Administration from the right. I’m more libertarian than some, but not as libertarian as many conservative Bush critics. I don’t see in Bush’s record the same record of abuses against civil liberties we saw during the Wilson, Roosevelt II, LBJ and Nixon epochs, for example. But I do see the potential for vast abuses, and the desire for payback among some Democrats. So I worry about the unintended domestic consequences of Bush’s counter-terrorism policies.
2) “The Republicans will be coming after him.” Lordy, I hope so. Much the same as the Democrats felt obliged to go after Bush. I hope, however, that instead of succumbing to a mutation of Bush Derangement Syndrome or Clinton Hatred, the Republicans — or, if not the GOP, then the remnant conservative movement — can mount a fierce but principled opposition to the worst of Obama’s policy initiatives.
3) On beating the Clintons, you might consult your earlier advice and remember that “no one can live up to the hype.” As you observed elsewhere, Obama simply had better organization on the ground. Also, as others have pointed out, nobody owed Hillary anything. She didn’t spread a lot of money around to help other candidates or do the sorts of things that build the political capital she needed to prevent party bigs from defecting to the Obama camp. In other words, Obama won the old-fashioned way: He wheeled-and-dealed, shucked-and-jived, and generally out-campaigned Hillary and everyone else. Developing a cult of personality didn’t hurt, either.
We’ll see if it pays off, and how long it lasts.
Oops… I guess that was three points, and none-too-quick.
kid, the things you say are ridiculous. you think its a coincidence we entered irak instead of Israel, when trying to hunt down Alqueda. irak has barely anything to do with 911. and you think it, that chainy CEO of Haliburton (what used to be the largest oil corporation) did not sway us to go into an unnecessary war, for oil in one of the most untapped oil countries in the middle east. If bush did not screw up 911 he would of found another way to fuck us over. Anyone stupid enough to give us tax breaks during war time, and let us go into such a defecate must be a god awful president.
Obama on the other hand will help us get out of the defecate, the war, and hopefully the stock market crash. Though i agree with you that he may not be the solver to all our problems, he will definitely help. By taxing the top 5 percent of the population, which i think can spare the cash, he is helping raise the middle class, which is in desperation. he has a 16 month plan for getting out of irak, and in general he is surrounding himself with people of different views, to see all sides of an argument. something that hasnt been done since the founding fathers. He always tries to understand the citizens arguing on the other side of his issues, which is different from most presidents who have the moto it seems to deny them of their freedom of speech, and other rights. Obama also, like his running mate biden, grew up in proverty, not born into wealth, so has an understanding. unlike Mccain, or as i call him the GOP (the great old poop),who has completely greedy, smear tactic using,campaigning ideas.
Hey MooWaffles: I voted for Obama. But I think a little caution in these matters is warranted.