Tag(s): , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 5/9/09:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (12 comments)

Get Obama

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (41 fans)   -- Page 3 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com

Even in crisis, he’s all incremental, all the time.

It is true, of course, that a bold leader risks getting in serious trouble if he or she gets too far out ahead of the public. I don’t think that’s such a great problem here, as the public is really in the mood for – what did he call it, during the campaign? – oh yeah, “change”.

More importantly, even when that is not the case, presidents have a remedy for this conundrum. It’s called selling your policy. Sometimes you have to create the demand for the product you’re offering. Sometimes you have to educate people about problems and threats they’re not seeing, before you can get them to subscribe to your solution.

Obama has all the conditions necessary to be a bold and historic president. He came to office at a time of great and multiple crises. He promised change and the people gave him a mandate for precisely that purpose. The opposition is in complete disarray, and is rightly blamed by the public for the mess Obama has inherited. People are frightened and hurting, and looking for relief. And, for the first time in a long time, they’re overtly looking to government for that relief.

To be honest, he really doesn’t have to market bold changes on the environment or healthcare or foreign policy in order to win the support of the public, but he could surely increase that support significantly if he did. Ironically, it seems to me that this president, who has the most effective potential bully pulpit skills in a generation if not a century, has been largely AWOL from the stage. He is much more popular with the public than his policies are, and that’s because he really doesn’t advocate for his policies much.

The biggest irony, however, is that the fate of his presidency is tied to the fate of those policies. If half-measures produce half-solutiuons or non-solutions, it’s Barack Obama himself who will be punished by voters. I mean, how hard is it to imagine that by 2012 not much has changed in America besides the size of the national debt? The economy is still anemic, the military is still stuck in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is still stagnated, there is no national healthcare system, nothing has been done about global warming, etc., etc.? Does that seem so completely implausible at the rate this administration is going? Indeed, does it even seem improbable?


And what would be the outcome of such a scenario? Most likely it would be a presidential election pitting a vicious Republican candidate against a mealy-mouthed incumbent self-saddled with a lousy performance record to defend before a dissatisfied electorate. Even if Obama only cares about winning re-election for himself, he should really consider turning his boldness quotient up to eleven (or at least three, for chrissakes), before it’s too late.

Because, I take it back, after all. The biggest irony may just be this: That Barack Obama’s instinct for the capillary could be the one thing that has the capability of reaching deep down into the toilet bowl, down through the pipes and into the sewer system, and dragging the shit-encrusted Republican Party back to the surface, miraculously offering it a magical elixir of renewed viability despite its own immensely successful attempt at party suicide.

And, come to thing of it, given where the GOP is today, an accomplishment that huge would represent a historic and monumental achievement for this or any other presidency, after all.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

www.regressiveantidote.net

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.  He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Ouch. by Jennifer Hathaway on Saturday, May 9, 2009 at 6:48:33 PM
The Clinton Obama liberals by Patrick Lafferty on Saturday, May 9, 2009 at 8:48:06 PM
Its weird by Jeffrey Rock on Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 12:49:54 AM
Out-Clintoning Clinton? by Perry Logan on Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 9:31:43 AM
DMG makes points hard to argue with by Daniel Geery on Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 1:03:32 PM
Methinks this was sarcasm by Maxwell on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 10:07:13 AM
THE RING OF POWER by William Whitten on Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 7:12:13 PM
Few desire to by Maxwell on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 10:05:02 AM
I don't find by sommers on Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 7:33:30 PM
I agree Sommers by William Whitten on Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 11:55:15 PM
Alternative Explanation by Maxwell on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 9:30:24 AM
Poll Tax by UncleSim on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 2:30:17 PM