Herewith I begin a series in which I wonder out loud whether Obama's strategy against evil is the best of his available choices.
The principle ideas of this series are these:
** Obama is fully committed to the cause of Good against Evil, but has chosen a strategy of avoiding direct, confrontational battle against evil, even where that would involve the enforcement of the law required by his oath of office.
** Obama's strategy is partly a matter of picking which fights to fight and which to avoid, and partly a matter of his own distinctive style of fighting the fights he seems to avoid.
** Whether or not Obama's strategy is the wise choice, it certainly entails significant costs, not least of which is that he has foregone a kind of purity that could have been a major source of political strength for him.** Despite the significant costs of Obama's strategy, which muddies the moral waters, there are substantial reasons why his confrontation-avoidant strategy might be a wise course for long-term victory.
** One question (albeit not the only one) on which depends making that judgment as to the wisdom of his strategy is this: What is the correlation of forces right now on the battlefield between Good and Evil in America today.
** Given the uncertainty regarding that question, and given the possibility that Obama's approach is excessively cautious, it would be worthwhile for Obama to find ways of testing the effectiveness of a bolder, more confrontative course that will give indications of the risk/reward ratio without committing him to that approach.
In the coming days I will be expanding upon these points.