I hate to say it, but I think this characterization of President Obama, by Glen Greenwald, is fundamentally correct. I don't believe President Obama is a liar. He lies, of course - we all do. But “liar" doesn’t accurately summarize his character the way it summarized Bush's character.
That being said, what intellectually honest conclusion can one draw from Obama’s seemingly endless (1) stating his strongly held convictions publicly, (2) encountering political attacks, (3) backing down and reversing himself style of governing? The only conclusion that readily comes to mind is that President Obama lacks political courage.
As I’ve said before, I despised President Bush - justifiably so, I think, in light of the facts. But he was no coward. He had the courage of his mindblowingly stupid convictions. And to his credit, he fought for them - mainly on the assumption that he was elected to purse the agenda that he ran on. In numerous instances, Bush refused to back down and accept defeat. I admire that. It is unfortunate that Bush's ideas were terrible. It is also unfortunate that the America people were stupid enough to elect, and then relect, such an utterly unqualified man. But you can't blame Bush for that. For all the things Bush lacked, courage and determination were not among them.
I fear the same cannot be said for Barack Obama. I saw a glimpse of political courage a few days ago, during Obama's health care press conference. But the rule of law is FAR, FAR, FAR more important than reforming our health care insurance system. You cannot, as Barack Obama recently did, wax eloquent regarding the critical importance that criminally trying terrorism suspects holds for the rule of law, and then back away from that position because it is too politically difficult. If it really is that important, and it is, you do it, regardless of the consequences, and you explain to the American people why it is so important.
Hillary is no coward. Perhaps she should wage a primary campaign against Obama in 2012.
Joe H.
Update:
It appears that this view of Obama is gaining steam. Here's the money quote:
"When fighting the Bush Administration for accountability related to 9/11, the war in Iraq, and adherence to the Constitution when it came to torture and the Patriot Act, I found that President Bush had deeply held--albeit, inherently flawed-- convictions. Indeed, President Bush and I agreed on very little. But, at the very least, I knew clearly what he stood for and where I stood with him. I can't say the same for President Obama."
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
3 comments:
I wonder, too, if what is perceived as cowardice may be a reflection of Obama's relative lack of experience as a leader. I mean, what were his actual, measurable accomplishments before he became president? And, unlike Bush in his role as governor, he has had very little actual experience of making executive decisions. In what previous role, as senator, state legislator, community activist, has he been forced to make decisions on his own, as opposed to co-sponsoring legislation or working to effect change as part of a group. Being a dynamic speaker and a team player is very different than "being in charge" and seeing things through, no matter what.
I do think Clinton would have made a more effective president, and would have voted for her in 08, but she is too pragmatic for the far left. If she does decide to run in 2012, I will consider voting for her, even though I don't consider myself a democrat. I have been very impressed with her as secretary of state.
Anonymous hit the nail on the head. I've often wondered about how well Obama's short experience in the legislative branch and zero experience in the executive prepared him for the presidency. I've commented to you in the past that I think his primary weakness is inexperience, not duplicity or cowardice. I still think this is the case. But maybe you're right, Joe. I wonder what kind of governor he would have made. Not a very courageous one, I'm beginning to suspect.
Anonymous and Chris,
I don't think executive experience is the issue. We call the president the "Chief Executive but, aside from foriegn policy, he does little executive work.
I'm criticising him as a political leader and/or statesman. Obama was naive in thinking he could work with Republican moderates. That bit of inexperience cost him a lot of time and gave his opposition a change to spread disinformation about his health care proposal.
But what I'm taliking about concerns his backing away from positions that he, by his own admission, knows are essential for long term survival of our republic. Ignoring the requirements of due process out of political calculation is an act of cowardice.
Compromising away the "Public Option" is one thing. Continuing unconstitutional practices [like indefinite detention without trial] because one is afraid of the political fallout of doing what the constitution requires is quite another.
Joe H.
Post a Comment