Obama is in a peculiar situation right now: he just can't win. It seems that no matter what he does, he's going to be wrong in the eyes of most of the American public.
Some of the shift to this position can be seen in the differences between two articles written by Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan in recent months. Krauthammer, earlier in September, wrote about how Obama has lost some of his superstar status of late for the Washington Post in an oped entitled Obama the Mortal; Noonan's can be found as an oped for the WSJ entiteld It's His Rubble Now. While Krauthammer focuses on how Obama's political star power has dwindled a bit, Noonan focuses on how Obama can no longer really blame the Bush administration for all things wrong with the US today. (Krauthammer has another insightful piece that contributes to Obama's present situation as well, entitled Does He Lie? - an obvious reference to Congressman Wilson's "YOU LIE" outburst; the article is relevant here as it details some of the doublespeak people are detecting in Obama's presentations and agenda.)
Even though these are both conservative commentators writing in conservative journals, their arguments and examples are not so particularly conservative that only a conservative could accept them. Obama has gone from a super star to a mere mortal to someone that much of the country is pretty frustrated with. The man can't even win the Nobel Peace Prize properly. Think about that for a moment - a sitting president of the United States of America has been nominated for and received an international peace prize, and most peoples reactions are "why" and "how could this happen?" While I too had this same reaction, it is interesting to note that this is the reaction rather than a sense of pride over our nation's leader and his office being recognized. So too with healthcare, stimulus, and global warming initiatives; Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He simply can't do anything right.
How did we get this way? Is the handling of the Monica Lewinsky scandal to blame? Is it the liberals' treatment of Bush to blame? Is it Obama's campaign style, the notion of charisma over character, and both over the office?
Years ago, when Clinton was being prosecuted by Kenneth Starr, there was an absolute media circus over the ordeal. Clinton himself did little to help, lying in an attempt to cover himself and giving a televised discourse on the meaning of "is" to try and cover up his lies. While Clinton certainly did damage to the office at this juncture, so too did the media. This is especially true of conservative commentators who took absolute glee in the scandals as a way to discredit a popular liberal president. Two things happened here that shouldn't have: Clinton should have maintained decorum, both in the first place (by not having affairs in office, let alone with interns) and the second place (by acknowledging his personal failing with a sense of humility and attempting to distinguish between his personal failings and the nature of the office he held). The media too should have handled the ordeal differently; rather than morbidly focusing on the character flaws of a sitting president or joyfully proclaiming his personal shortcomings, they should have upheld the respect that is owed to an office of such dignity.
This latter problem continued on into the Bush years, although at this point the attacks were primarily coming from liberals. Again, rather than recognizing the dignity of his office, many in the media attacked Bush. These attacks were often personal and with regard to his character or intelligence, and the blatant disrespect was shown to the sitting president by members of congress (particularly by people like Nancy Pelosi). Regardless of whether Bush actually deserved this criticism personally or not is irrelevant: rather than keeping criticisms to his policies while showing due respect to the office and the man who holds it, many commentators and politicians turned to attacks on the man (thus weakening respect for his office).
Finally we have Obama. If ever there was a candidate who campaigned on personal charisma, it was Obama. I still believe that's really what Obama had going for him - he certainly didn't have a lot of political experience or wisdom, nor did he have clearly articulated stances on issues (partly because his political tenure wasn't long enough to show clearly articulated or long held positions on issues). What he did have was charm and wit, good looks, and youth. This, I think, is how we ended up with Obama: rather than looking at the office of President as something to be revered and respected, we started looking for someone with charisma. Someone who looked good, someone who was capable of speaking gracefully, someone who would make us feel good.
Unfortunately, those good feelings can only last for so long. And a candidate who has done nothing to build up respect for the office (or has done quite the opposite) cannot expect to win once his charisma runs out. Obama has consistently been critical of an administration where he has done little different or better. Guantanamo is not closed, nor is any closure in sight on it (just as the Bush administration warned). Afghanistan is not over, nor is Iraq, and no closure is in sight (just as the Bush administration warned). We're still in a recession, neither stimulus (neither Bush's nor Obama's) has been successful in any meaningful way to the public. All the promise that Obama held isn't really coming to fruition, and the office itself has been weakened in the imagination of the American public.
None of this is to say that charisma and character shouldn't be involved in our view of the presidency; nor should we feel that the president should be a man without these qualities. However, character should be the most important aspect, much more so than charisma (or, the ability to connect with people on an emotional level). Further, the POTUS should be viewed and treated in a respectful manner even when his character is questionable, and matters dealing with his character that do not directly pertain to his ability to stay in office should not be made into a media circus. At the very least, politicians and commentators should be able to refrain from publicly insulting or calumniating a sitting or former president. This isn't about ignoring the emperor's new clothes; rather, it's about recognizing the dignity of the president's office and according him with the respect that is due to the office and the meaning of America.
Obama can't win right now, but he should be able to. This is not to say that his policies or agenda should be enacted (they certainly should not); rather, it is to say that his office should be given due respect even if we do not respect or agree with the man who possesses it. I think the true task America has before it right now is to find a way to restore this sense of awe without losing sight of our ideals or founding values - to find a way to express our respect for our President even when we are deeply opposed to his values, his policies, or his person. Obama himself could do well to learn this, not only in the way that he carries out his own office, but also in how he discusses previous administrations as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting. I think you're right about the need for critics to respect the office of the president and stick to criticizing policy, and the need for leaders to recognize the obligation they have to uphold the dignity of their office. Perhaps it will be a useful exercise for people, having a president who must be criticized with kid gloves, to actually focus the debate on policy, not personal attacks.
I think the reason people had such a skeptical reaction to the Nobel prize was because there was not a sense that the American president was getting that prize. Barack Obama was being honored, personally. America and her people were in no way being honored. I hope I don't sound too cynical when I say it was the "Not Bush" prize, and the Nobel committee liked Obama because he has a post-American outlook. There is no way most people here would feel honored by that. The POTUS is supposed to represent the American people, not suggest that we need his superior viewpoint to tell us how to be better. It would be easy to interpret voters' enthusiasm for his personal charisma as a mandate for his policies, and we see now that that was not the case.
And I think the criticism that came from the left on that prize, which surprised me, was because it drew so much attention to the fact that Obama really hadn't done anything yet, and even his supporters would have liked some solid work done first.
I'm interested to see how this all works out, and if we can get a good relationship with our politicians back again. Very thought-provoking.
Post a Comment