Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ;
Add to My Group
November 5, 2009 at 22:23:18

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/5/09:

Can You Hear Us Now?

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg
Tell A Friend

By David Michael Green (about the author)     Page 1 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: David Michael Green - Writer

So, let me see if I have this straight.

One year ago, the Democrats won commanding victories resulting in control of the presidency and lopsided majorities in the House and Senate.

One year ago, the Republican brand was so weak that the party was on death watch, literally capable of sliding into the history books alongside the Whigs and the Federalists.


One year ago the country was enthralled with the notion of a new president who seemed committed to solving a host of problems and, above all, offering change from a hated predecessor and his disastrously failed politics.

But now, today, that promised change seems a lot more like chump change instead.

Now, today, the Big Hope president has virtually nothing of import to show for nearly a year in office.

Now, today, that president continues to follow the policies of his horrid predecessor on everything from civil liberties to civil rights to economics and foreign policy.

And now, today, he and his comrades in Congress have squandered whatever goodwill they once had and face an angry public turning back to the right, desperately seeking solutions to their problems.

Better still, this is likely only the beginning. Does anyone think the job situation is going to get better in the next year? How about Afghanistan? Does anyone believe that the public will be enthusiastic about Obama's healthcare plans, assuming anyone can locate them, and assuming that a bill can actually get through Congress? Who out there thinks that his position on global warming will please anyone in America, even as it does next to nothing serious about addressing the problem, and even as it remains – like his healthcare ideas – playing hide-and-seek with the American public?

I am not surprised that Barack Obama – like the last two Democratic presidents – has turned out to be a conservative, corporate creature whose interest in the public interest is scarce and superficial. What does surprise me, though, is just how bad he is at playing politics, especially where his own self-interest is overwhelmingly at stake. Can this really be the same person who ran such a remarkable campaign last year, stealing the presidency from two of the great figureheads of American politics?

Obama is one of the most articulate politicians in American history. And yet, his communications strategy is the absolute worst I've seen since Carter. In fact, what's most stunning about it is that his team seems to have dismissed all the lessons learned over the last three decades – especially from masterful Republican administrations – about how to market presidents and policies from the White House. This is no longer rocket science, if it ever was. How can a guy this sharp be so clueless and, thus, adrift?

Obama is also one of the smartest people ever to sit in the Oval Office, but he has demonstrated astonishing levels of cluelessness about what the public wants, about the nature of his opposition, and about what makes a presidency successful. He doesn't understand that the public will follow you if you lead them, especially if you do so with passion. He doesn't get that the conservative movement is a lethal cancer seeking to commodify, monetize and profitize every aspect of America, and therefore is committed to the destruction of all else, including this administration, despite even that it is essentially staffed by Goldman Sachs. He doesn't understand that the most successful American presidents were the ones who brought a vision to the table, and fought for it.

Fundamentally, Obama is an anachronism. He is essentially a nineteenth century president operating in a crisis era, as the early twenty-first grapples with cleaning up after the late twentieth.

Historians sometimes debate over whether history makes the man or the man makes history. Leaving aside the sexist construction of the question, I think, manifestly, it has to be both. Almost all the great presidents served during time of great crisis, usually war. But that doesn't guarantee their place in the historical pantheon. You have to also meet those challenges of your time. Lincoln is widely considered America's greatest president. His predecessor, James Buchanan, is generally thought to be the country's worst. Both faced the same crisis of Southern secession, but they responded to it very differently, earning their respective places in history. On the other hand, had the civil war come twenty years earlier or later, we'd hardly even know their names, except as the answer to trivia questions. “Who was the first president from Illinois?!” “Who was our tallest president?” And so on.

Obama could be Lincoln – or better still, FDR – if he wanted to be. He has chosen instead to be Buchanan. Faced with crisis scenario after crisis scenario, the candidate of ‘change' repeatedly and instinctively homes in on the weakest, most centrist, most useless response possible. His stimulus bill probably stopped the economy from continuing its free fall, but it leaves the country stuck in months or even years of unyielding recession at worst, and jobless recovery at best. His healthcare bill helps in some important ways, but does nothing to hold down costs in a society that utterly wastes one dollar out of every three it spends in this area, and it does nothing to make healthcare more affordable for most Americans. He seems to have some interest in a global warming bill and a banking regulation bill and maybe even doing something about civil rights for gays. But in none of these areas is there any sense that he will do what is morally necessary. Likewise, with Afghanistan, all the indicators seem to suggest that he will opt for some numbingly anodyne middle ground.

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

 

Book Recommendations for "Change History"
Structure and Change in Economic History
by Douglass C. North

$14.00

Number of pages: 240
Publisher: W.W. Norton

Capitalizing on Change: A Social History of American Business (The Luther H. Hodges Jr. and Luther H. Hodges Sr. Series on Business, Society and the State)
by Stanley Buder

$45.00
Lowest New Price $38.87

Number of pages: 568
Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press

Communication and Change in American Religious History

$25.00
Lowest New Price $7.10

Number of pages: 487
Publisher: Eerdmans Pub Co

Sound Change and the History of English
by Jeremy J. Smith

$39.95
Lowest New Price $29.77

Number of pages: 224
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA

View All Book Recommendations

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

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

Obama by Simple Truth on Sunday, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:40:01 AM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum