Sarah Palin announced today that she would not only not seek re-election as Governor of Alaska but that she intended to resign at the end of this month. Unfortunately, I suspect many of her supporters will somehow find her decision and explanation quite reasonable or better. Within the space of about 15 minutes following her announcement, Pat Buchanan managed to stumble from first fully understanding her decision to not seek re-election but feeling puzzled about her decision to immediately quit to, when next quizzed on MsNBC minutes later, finding both decisions sensible. William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor and a Palin supporter, commented that “Everybody I’ve talked to thinks it’s a little crazy,” but then stated “maybe not,” asking rhetorically “what is she going to accomplish in the next year as governor.” But I found Palin’s decision to resign her post shocking and her explanation pure Sarah Palin, rambling and lacking in any clarity.
Palin claimed that resigning now would be in the best interests of her state. She didn’t argue, as many of her critics would, that resigning now would help Alaska because she simply has been a poor governor. No, she claimed that lame duck governors often waste their states’ resources by hitting the road, going on political junkets and the like while drawing paychecks and that she would be saving Alaska those expenses. Huh? What logic is that? How about simply pledging not to go on political junkets or otherwise waste state resources and remaining in the governor’s office to provide leadership to her state through the end of her term? Surely it didn’t take resigning to best conserve state resources. And some “lame duck” leaders actually develop spine during that period in office, being willing to make tough decisions without fear of offending various sectors of the electorate.
And then Palin turned to a sports metaphor in a further attempt to explain or justify her decision, comparing herself to a point guard on a basketball team under attack by a full court press who drives through a full court press but knows when to give up the ball so the team can win. Palin’s decision to abandon office is not even remotely analogous to the basketball player she described. The guard who gives up the ball to another teammate who may be open for an easier shot at the basket isn’t quitting the team! Quite the opposite. She is typically leading the team and remains doing so. A more fitting description of Palin’s actions may be found in former President Harry Truman’s statement about political leadership? “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” That appears to me to be a far more apt description of what Sarah Palin did today.
Some speculate that Palin has decided to exit politics and return to life as a private citizen. She noted today that her family approved of her decision and that her son Trig needed her and that she needed him even more. Some speculate that she may want to escape the political criticism she has increasingly experienced as Alaska governor. She has been under increasing political pressure, including a considerable decline in her support at home although still over 50% and an apparently highly critical piece in this month’s Vanity Fair, which I have not yet read. If her decision was based on a desire to abandon public life and return to private life, then quitting as governor without further delay might make some sense, at least on a purely personal level, although leaving such a major political post long before the expiration of her term, after having vigorously sought it and even run as the vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party, seems bizarre and certainly an abdication of the responsibilities she agreed to discharge.
But her other comments today strongly suggested that she has no intention of leaving the political stage. Rather, she spoke of working from the outside and that her decision was a sign of “no more politics as usual.” Most believe, myself included, admittedly without knowing, that Palin will seek higher office and will likely pursue the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2012. If that is her plan, resigning the governorship at this point is irresponsible and hopefully even those who lean in her direction will recognize it as such. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has announced that when his term as governor expires in 2010 he will not seek re-election. That appears linked to his presidential ambition. And that makes sense. Were Palin to have served out her current position until 2010 and not sought re-election, that too would have made good sense and would have been responsible. Few of us appreciate politicians who run or re-run for an office, pledging to remain for the full term, only to jump ship early to pursue a presidential nomination and essentially abdicate their responsibilities after re-election by turning their attention to seeking the nomination.
But, if it is part of a strategy to seek, or to consider seeking, higher elective office, for Palin to resign her gubernatorial position at this juncture and to abandon the leadership role she promised to provide her state, particularly for the reasons she gave, is irresponsible. It shows poor judgment and the absence of leadership qualities. I sincerely hope that voters in and out of Alaska of all political persuasions take note of this decision and remember it in the next year or two if Sarah Palin turns her sights toward the presidency. However, it is likely that Palin’s supporters will find this to be a shrewd, wise and courageous decision. That is too bad.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Is Obama already a transformational figure? I think so.
In writing about President Obama's speech today at Cairo University, The NY Times noted: "While the message touched upon a litany of challenges, it boiled down to simply this: Barack Hussein Obama was standing at the podium as the American president."
That made me think: had I been asked to guess a few years ago, before I had ever heard of Barack Obama, which country on the face of the globe a rising politician named Barack Hussein Obama was seeking to lead, based upon his name I might have guessed some Muslim country or even an African country with a Muslim presence. Never would I have chosen the United States of America.
Yes, I supported Hillary Clinton. And no, I don't agree with every policy that Obama is currently pursuing, although far more than not. And yes, in many respects, Obama is another American politician, mixing promises to various groups with flip flops on some positions he long ago had seemingly embraced.
Nonetheless, his election as President of this country does represent a profound change, not only generational but also in reflecting the demographic and ethnic changes in this great country.
I have in recent years suggested that this 21st century will not be America's century. That America's half century was the second half of the 20th century. To me, the tragic events of September 11, in a dark and troublesome way, may in retrospect come to symbolize, together with other events, the beginning of the decline in America's hegemony. The bankruptcy of General Motors may also come to symbolize that movement from America's dominance to the emergence of China and other Asian countries as the new engines of development on the planet. Only time will tell and I shall not be around long enough to see what actually happens.
But Obama's emergence and election to lead the United States, whether you like his policies or not or even him as a person, reflects to me that America is continuing to change, to evolve, to adapt, and to grow. He may indeed be a transformational figure, perhaps with respect to the policies he espouses, but more so as a figure who bridges a transition from America as a nation dominated by its Caucasian majority and led in the main by white males to a far more pluralistic country in terms of ethnic mix led by leaders from all the various sectors, be they African-American, females, Hispanics or others. He is the first African-American president but he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African (not African-American) father, able to call upon his own rich life experiences to provide that transitional leadership.
For me, Obama as President gives me more hope than I've had in recent years that the United States will adapt to circumstances in this 21st century and at least remain a force to be reckoned with, hopefully a progressive and wise force, and a nation that continues to grow and prosper, even as other countries around the globe, particularly in Asia, emerge as major if not dominant actors on the world stage.
That made me think: had I been asked to guess a few years ago, before I had ever heard of Barack Obama, which country on the face of the globe a rising politician named Barack Hussein Obama was seeking to lead, based upon his name I might have guessed some Muslim country or even an African country with a Muslim presence. Never would I have chosen the United States of America.
Yes, I supported Hillary Clinton. And no, I don't agree with every policy that Obama is currently pursuing, although far more than not. And yes, in many respects, Obama is another American politician, mixing promises to various groups with flip flops on some positions he long ago had seemingly embraced.
Nonetheless, his election as President of this country does represent a profound change, not only generational but also in reflecting the demographic and ethnic changes in this great country.
I have in recent years suggested that this 21st century will not be America's century. That America's half century was the second half of the 20th century. To me, the tragic events of September 11, in a dark and troublesome way, may in retrospect come to symbolize, together with other events, the beginning of the decline in America's hegemony. The bankruptcy of General Motors may also come to symbolize that movement from America's dominance to the emergence of China and other Asian countries as the new engines of development on the planet. Only time will tell and I shall not be around long enough to see what actually happens.
But Obama's emergence and election to lead the United States, whether you like his policies or not or even him as a person, reflects to me that America is continuing to change, to evolve, to adapt, and to grow. He may indeed be a transformational figure, perhaps with respect to the policies he espouses, but more so as a figure who bridges a transition from America as a nation dominated by its Caucasian majority and led in the main by white males to a far more pluralistic country in terms of ethnic mix led by leaders from all the various sectors, be they African-American, females, Hispanics or others. He is the first African-American president but he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African (not African-American) father, able to call upon his own rich life experiences to provide that transitional leadership.
For me, Obama as President gives me more hope than I've had in recent years that the United States will adapt to circumstances in this 21st century and at least remain a force to be reckoned with, hopefully a progressive and wise force, and a nation that continues to grow and prosper, even as other countries around the globe, particularly in Asia, emerge as major if not dominant actors on the world stage.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Jerry Brown: Not Again Please
Below is an email I sent to Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton in response to his column on Jerry Brown, "Once and future governor?", that appeared on Monday, April 20, 2009 at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap20-2009apr20,0,2315392.column.
Dear George,
I offer you my initial reaction to your “Once and future governor?” in Monday’s April 20, 09 Los Angeles Times edition.
I came to California in 1969 at 26 years old to teach at a state university. I voted for Jerry Brown the first time he ran for Governor. As I recall, but you would no doubt recall far more accurately, Brown ran as more or less a traditional liberal Democrat. But once in office we were exposed to the ‘real’ Jerry Brown, or what we thought at the time was the ‘real’ Jerry Brown. With “small is beautiful” as one of his themes, he became Mr. Gadfly (yes, some preferred the title Mr. Moonbeam but for me Gadfly fit far better). He criticized everything while embracing little, challenged all while remaining distant, non-committal and aloof. He seemed to prefer it that way, surrounding himself with some unusual people and some very usual ones, like Gray Davis.
I came to dislike and distrust Jerry Brown and still do. Perhaps he has an underlying philosophy; he certainly has sought to suggest as much but he has never really delivered. His was initially more an aura, of mystery, Zen philosophy, and austerity, than that of a person with a concrete and consistent view of the world, although he seemed to be willing to adopt some identifiable views such as, if I recall correctly, a deep opposition to the death penalty.
But I found him even then and certainly over the years to be a political chameleon. His ‘style’ remained fairly consistent but not his views or positions. And it became impossible to identify the ‘real’ Jerry Brown; there didn’t seem to be one. As he has moved from one political position to another, leader of the Democratic Party in California, if I recall correctly, big city mayor of Oakland, occasional Presidential candidate, and now Attorney General, he has tended to transform himself from one persona to another, advancing plans, agendas and programs often quite at odds with his previous stances, bent or positions.
I understand and accept that people, including politicians, change over time. Surely that has been true for me. But Brown’s changes seem mercurial, superficial and tactical. I decided years ago I would not vote for him again and that remains the case.
In my view, we do not need Jerry Brown as Governor again. While I did not support Obama initially, I supported Hillary, I hesitatingly accepted him as standard bearer once he won the nomination and am glad I did. He is no panacea, but he is a breath of fresh air. His youth concerned me but less so now. We need new leadership in California as well. I do not mean to suggest that youth necessarily begets fresh ideas or that elder individuals are stuck in the past. I’d like to think I bring wisdom and insight to my current position as a lawyer. But I think Jerry Brown will end up simply offering us more Jerry Brown and I think we’d be better off moving on. And, no, I don’t mean to Diane Feinstein. If this state cannot find its way to identifying and selecting new leaders, we’re in real trouble. Oops, we’re already in real trouble, aren’t we!
I hope as the ‘campaign’ for the next Governor of California moves forward you will offer more of your own personal views of the candidates. There is nothing wrong with giving candidates a chance to express themselves through your column but, given your years of political experience, I hope you take a very critical look at all of them. While I have often not agreed with your views (and have written you before to comment), I have come to appreciate your perspective on events and enjoy reading your column.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Dear George,
I offer you my initial reaction to your “Once and future governor?” in Monday’s April 20, 09 Los Angeles Times edition.
I came to California in 1969 at 26 years old to teach at a state university. I voted for Jerry Brown the first time he ran for Governor. As I recall, but you would no doubt recall far more accurately, Brown ran as more or less a traditional liberal Democrat. But once in office we were exposed to the ‘real’ Jerry Brown, or what we thought at the time was the ‘real’ Jerry Brown. With “small is beautiful” as one of his themes, he became Mr. Gadfly (yes, some preferred the title Mr. Moonbeam but for me Gadfly fit far better). He criticized everything while embracing little, challenged all while remaining distant, non-committal and aloof. He seemed to prefer it that way, surrounding himself with some unusual people and some very usual ones, like Gray Davis.
I came to dislike and distrust Jerry Brown and still do. Perhaps he has an underlying philosophy; he certainly has sought to suggest as much but he has never really delivered. His was initially more an aura, of mystery, Zen philosophy, and austerity, than that of a person with a concrete and consistent view of the world, although he seemed to be willing to adopt some identifiable views such as, if I recall correctly, a deep opposition to the death penalty.
But I found him even then and certainly over the years to be a political chameleon. His ‘style’ remained fairly consistent but not his views or positions. And it became impossible to identify the ‘real’ Jerry Brown; there didn’t seem to be one. As he has moved from one political position to another, leader of the Democratic Party in California, if I recall correctly, big city mayor of Oakland, occasional Presidential candidate, and now Attorney General, he has tended to transform himself from one persona to another, advancing plans, agendas and programs often quite at odds with his previous stances, bent or positions.
I understand and accept that people, including politicians, change over time. Surely that has been true for me. But Brown’s changes seem mercurial, superficial and tactical. I decided years ago I would not vote for him again and that remains the case.
In my view, we do not need Jerry Brown as Governor again. While I did not support Obama initially, I supported Hillary, I hesitatingly accepted him as standard bearer once he won the nomination and am glad I did. He is no panacea, but he is a breath of fresh air. His youth concerned me but less so now. We need new leadership in California as well. I do not mean to suggest that youth necessarily begets fresh ideas or that elder individuals are stuck in the past. I’d like to think I bring wisdom and insight to my current position as a lawyer. But I think Jerry Brown will end up simply offering us more Jerry Brown and I think we’d be better off moving on. And, no, I don’t mean to Diane Feinstein. If this state cannot find its way to identifying and selecting new leaders, we’re in real trouble. Oops, we’re already in real trouble, aren’t we!
I hope as the ‘campaign’ for the next Governor of California moves forward you will offer more of your own personal views of the candidates. There is nothing wrong with giving candidates a chance to express themselves through your column but, given your years of political experience, I hope you take a very critical look at all of them. While I have often not agreed with your views (and have written you before to comment), I have come to appreciate your perspective on events and enjoy reading your column.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Do We Care Whether Fineman's Establishment is Mumbling that the President May Not Have What it Takes? Not I!
Newsweek's Howard Fineman penned an article on March 10, 2009, entitled "A Turning Tide?" on the newsmagazine's webpage whose sub-title read: "Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes." The article may be found at http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565. I found the article rather lame but, then, I am not a particular fan of Howard Fineman.
My critical email response to Mr. Fineman follows:
Dear Howard,
By way of introduction, I’m a 66 year old Brooklyn-born Californian, Princeton educated political scientist turned attorney whose love of politics remains strong, Hillary Clinton supporter who voted for Obama, and a blogger at http://dnewmanpost.blogspot.com/. I remember you as a young pup on “Washington Week in Review” but I admittedly found the program most stimulating during the Peter Lisagor era.
Your March 10, 2009 column, “A Turning Tide?”, was most distressing not because of your assertion that the so-called Establishment, as you define it, has begun to question Obama’s mettle but because you essentially merely repeat the criticisms, which you yourself describe as contradictory, rather than address whether or not they make any sense.
Yes, Obama is seeking to govern from the center. That surely is no surprise to anyone who followed his campaign, which you did. Given his attempt to straddle the center, it is also not surprising that almost no one is quite content with him since the political center is notoriously not the home of ideologues who tend to mass toward the right and left of the spectrum.
So, some want him to spend much more to stimulate the economy, such as Paul Krugman. Others want him to nationalize certain big banks or even eliminate them, such as Alan Greenspan and Senator Shelby. Still others purport to believe that the marketplace provides the solution to our economic woes and therefore advocate no further government support for General Motors or Citigroup, such as John McCain. But should we really care what your Establishment folks think at this juncture?
What seems very clear to many of us is not only that no one has a monopoly of wisdom in the present situation, not even your friends at MsNBC, Olbermann and Matthews, but that few seem even to know what they are talking about. There is much unchartered territory here and the three sides to your Establishment have proven themselves inept in terms of effectively governing this country and leading it in a positive direction or even, in the case of the media, constructively and knowledgeably commenting upon events.
Unfortunately, it isn’t as if America has an alternative elite standing in the wings ready to try its hand at the levers of power. Surely the Republicans don’t meet that standard. I for one would like to fire all the bank executives and mortgage leaders who led us into this debacle. But who is left to lead? Their subordinates who were often equally culpable and who probably drew up the blueprints for the bank CEOs? Legislators who permitted the sub-prime disaster to occur despite the nation’s prior experience with the savings and loan debacle? Indeed, Geithner, claimed by the Administration as a “must have” when he was drowning in his tax misconduct, was surely very much part of the problem so it shouldn’t be too surprising that he has provided no leadership to date.
I’m distressed by some aspects of Obama’s leadership, most notably his penchant to leave to the Congressional Democrats responsibility to design the specifics of his major legislation. I recall during the campaign when Obama praised Reagan as a transformational president, a view that left me, a Hillary supporter, cold, but in addition he also seemed to hold Reagan up as a model for his own leadership style when he praise Reagan for providing the grand designs and leaving to others the task of filling in the details. If Pelosi and Reid are left to fill in the details, Obama’s presidency will not succeed. But the notion that the Establishment is able to determine that Obama lacks what it takes to be a successful president after the first 50 days of his presidency would be laughable were it not dangerous, given the influence some in your Establishment still wield over the body politic.
While I expect you will claim that you were merely reporting the mood of the Establishment in your commentary, you can and must do much better. I don’t ask that you become a partisan. Leave that to your appearances on MsNBC, such as they are. But step forward and analyze what you report, in this case the vacuous thinking of those to whom you attribute the notion that Obama lacks what it takes. I don’t know whether President Obama will succeed but I surely don’t think I or others can meaningfully decide that based upon events to date. Apart from his continuing popularity in the polls, he continues to show grit, determination, calmness under pressure and a sense of direction. Perhaps rather than merely reporting what your Establishment thinks, you ought to be noting to us and to its members that these so-called leaders have already shown us that they lack what it takes to guide this nation.
Borrowing from your buddy Keith, someone I find far too shrill and narcissistic and not someone you should be spending so much time with, “thank you for your time, Howard.”
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
My critical email response to Mr. Fineman follows:
Dear Howard,
By way of introduction, I’m a 66 year old Brooklyn-born Californian, Princeton educated political scientist turned attorney whose love of politics remains strong, Hillary Clinton supporter who voted for Obama, and a blogger at http://dnewmanpost.blogspot.com/. I remember you as a young pup on “Washington Week in Review” but I admittedly found the program most stimulating during the Peter Lisagor era.
Your March 10, 2009 column, “A Turning Tide?”, was most distressing not because of your assertion that the so-called Establishment, as you define it, has begun to question Obama’s mettle but because you essentially merely repeat the criticisms, which you yourself describe as contradictory, rather than address whether or not they make any sense.
Yes, Obama is seeking to govern from the center. That surely is no surprise to anyone who followed his campaign, which you did. Given his attempt to straddle the center, it is also not surprising that almost no one is quite content with him since the political center is notoriously not the home of ideologues who tend to mass toward the right and left of the spectrum.
So, some want him to spend much more to stimulate the economy, such as Paul Krugman. Others want him to nationalize certain big banks or even eliminate them, such as Alan Greenspan and Senator Shelby. Still others purport to believe that the marketplace provides the solution to our economic woes and therefore advocate no further government support for General Motors or Citigroup, such as John McCain. But should we really care what your Establishment folks think at this juncture?
What seems very clear to many of us is not only that no one has a monopoly of wisdom in the present situation, not even your friends at MsNBC, Olbermann and Matthews, but that few seem even to know what they are talking about. There is much unchartered territory here and the three sides to your Establishment have proven themselves inept in terms of effectively governing this country and leading it in a positive direction or even, in the case of the media, constructively and knowledgeably commenting upon events.
Unfortunately, it isn’t as if America has an alternative elite standing in the wings ready to try its hand at the levers of power. Surely the Republicans don’t meet that standard. I for one would like to fire all the bank executives and mortgage leaders who led us into this debacle. But who is left to lead? Their subordinates who were often equally culpable and who probably drew up the blueprints for the bank CEOs? Legislators who permitted the sub-prime disaster to occur despite the nation’s prior experience with the savings and loan debacle? Indeed, Geithner, claimed by the Administration as a “must have” when he was drowning in his tax misconduct, was surely very much part of the problem so it shouldn’t be too surprising that he has provided no leadership to date.
I’m distressed by some aspects of Obama’s leadership, most notably his penchant to leave to the Congressional Democrats responsibility to design the specifics of his major legislation. I recall during the campaign when Obama praised Reagan as a transformational president, a view that left me, a Hillary supporter, cold, but in addition he also seemed to hold Reagan up as a model for his own leadership style when he praise Reagan for providing the grand designs and leaving to others the task of filling in the details. If Pelosi and Reid are left to fill in the details, Obama’s presidency will not succeed. But the notion that the Establishment is able to determine that Obama lacks what it takes to be a successful president after the first 50 days of his presidency would be laughable were it not dangerous, given the influence some in your Establishment still wield over the body politic.
While I expect you will claim that you were merely reporting the mood of the Establishment in your commentary, you can and must do much better. I don’t ask that you become a partisan. Leave that to your appearances on MsNBC, such as they are. But step forward and analyze what you report, in this case the vacuous thinking of those to whom you attribute the notion that Obama lacks what it takes. I don’t know whether President Obama will succeed but I surely don’t think I or others can meaningfully decide that based upon events to date. Apart from his continuing popularity in the polls, he continues to show grit, determination, calmness under pressure and a sense of direction. Perhaps rather than merely reporting what your Establishment thinks, you ought to be noting to us and to its members that these so-called leaders have already shown us that they lack what it takes to guide this nation.
Borrowing from your buddy Keith, someone I find far too shrill and narcissistic and not someone you should be spending so much time with, “thank you for your time, Howard.”
Sincerely,
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Saturday, January 31, 2009
An Early Report Card on Obama: B+
Some of Obama’s personality traits that benefited him in the primaries and the general election — his cool, calm demeanor, his reflective, controlled response to questions, his effort to straddle the middle and build consensus — are still benefiting him. He does not seem to get rattled despite unforeseen developments. In contrast to his immediate predecessor who almost always mangled words in his remarks and often did not seem to have a clear focus or direction, Obama speaks well if sometimes haltingly and he seems to stay on message most of the time.
But despite all the hoopla leading up to his inauguration, I think some of the magic that surrounded him to that point has slipped away. His poll approval ratings remain strong, and that is good. He will need high ratings to carry him through his singularly most important task, guiding the government and the nation through this incredibly wretched economic collapse.
I did not find his inaugural address inspiring. In contrast to the soaring rhetoric and cadenced style he had brought to bear on frequent occasions during the election process, I found his inaugural delivery, particularly the first half that was focused on the economy, to be a bit lackluster. He was too matter of fact and his speaking lacked uplifting emotion. Perhaps he purposefully intended not to bring his charisma to bear but I found it disappointing. He seemed to regain his stride in the second half of his address, where he focused on foreign affairs, and at its conclusion. But overall I was disappointed.
After months of sharing the spotlight with the outgoing president and making a point that there can only be one president at a time, to his credit Obama hit the ground running upon assuming office. He and his staff obviously had prepared the groundwork to issue various executive orders on issues such as closing Gitmo, the use of funds in international programs which provide birth control assistance, and limiting lobbyists in his Administration. He also quickly signed his first piece of legislation which overturned a Supreme Court decision that had imposed a very restrictive statute of limitations on wage discrimination claims. And he has kept himself in the public eye day after day talking about the need for a government stimulus package and seeking to bring Republicans on board in support of his favored legislation.
But there have been enough unanticipated distractions, some of which should have been anticipated, that, while not derailing Obama’s ambitious plans, have slowed them down and caused concerns. Not in any particular order, Obama’s designation for secretary of commerce, Governor Bill Richardson, was forced to withdraw from consideration because of an ongoing investigation of possible wrongdoing. He had made a splash and earned the enmity of the Clintons and many of Hillary’s supporters when he opted to support Obama rather than Clinton after he ended his own campaign for the nomination. He, like Senator Kerry, seemed to covet the secretary of state position but it turned out he couldn’t even survive the nominating process to become secretary of commerce. This was a personal flame out for Richardson but also a mark against Obama’s transition team for not having better gauged the seriousness of, and acted earlier on, the matter. Next Obama and his team had to weather the mini-scandal surrounding Timothy Geithner, initially seemingly everyone’s pick for secretary of the treasury, after it emerged that Geithner had failed to pay certain payroll taxes until after he had been picked for Obama’s cabinet or shortly before. Instead of cruising into office as a consensus All-American, Geithner won Senate approval but only after many had remarked about his bad judgment and the irony that in his new position he will oversee the Internal Revenue Service. This was another black and blue mark for the Obama team and its leader. The latest pratfall involves Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, who apparently recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,000 in back taxes and roughly $12,000 in interest. Daschle apparently failed to report income from the use of a car service provided him by a friend and business associate as well as income from consulting.
Rather than the agent of change, Obama has appeared to be the ‘same old same old’ Washington politician when it has come to the selection of his cabinet. Whether these embarrassments have been the result of poor vetting on the part of Obama’s transition team or poor judgment on the part of the nominees, or both, they run the risk of bringing Obama back down to earth too early in his Administration.
Obama’s idealism has also taken a beating in the area of lobbyists in government. Obama issued an executive order on day one establishing strict rules intended to bar former lobbyists from joining Obama’s Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. No sooner had the order been promulgated than exceptions were being made, first at the Department of Defense where William Lynn was chosen as deputy secretary of defense after having served at Raytheon, a major defense supplier, and then at the department of the treasury, where a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, was being chosen as chief of staff to Geithner. Several Obama aides apparently justified the exception for Lynn on the ground that he was “uniquely qualified” for the job. But wasn’t that the same rationale Obama used to justify his continued support for Geithner after his failure to pay taxes came to light? What exactly does “uniquely qualified” mean anyway? It suggests that no one else could do the job better. And that, as we all know, is hogwash. More importantly, the cynics have already started to criticize Obama for failing to live up to the standards he just set within a week of his setting them.
Obama’s effort to put in place a major stimulus package by mid-February, while still on target, is suffering from the limits to bipartisanship. The President has shown strong leadership not only in remaining focused on obtaining a stimulus package but also in making major overtures to the Republican minority in an effort to craft a bipartisan approach. He should be commended for this effort. Indeed, he may still succeed in obtaining considerable Republican support for a Senate stimulus bill. But the first vote in the House was completely along partisan lines. No Republicans voted for the measure. Even ten Democrats dissented. And many feel the bill was too much the product of the very partisan House Democrats, filled with earmarks and funds for activities that would questionably stimulate the economy in short order.
Obama may be in danger of losing momentum on the stimulus effort. He must again get out in front of the legislation, assure that the ultimate legislation is not merely a vehicle for the advancement of Democratic Party interests, and try to build a currently non-existent consensus that the mixture of tax reductions and government spending in the final legislation is the best way to quickly stimulate the economy. Obama cannot afford to see this project get bogged down in legislative horse trading or fall prey to withering debate on the relative merits of greater tax cuts versus public works expenditures. He must hammer out terms with a coalition of Democratic and Republican senators and then have the Democratic majority in the House pass it if no Republicans there will support it. If the bill represents a bipartisan effort in the Senate continued full scale Republican opposition in the House will matter less.
Obama began with bold steps on the international front, appointing two talented negotiators as his special envoys to the Middle East and Afghanistan. The President also projected a fresh image of America in its relationships abroad by placing his first telephone call to a foreign leader to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, and offering his first television interview to Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned cable network. These were positive steps done in a decisive manner. Unfortunately, heavy lifting follows. Obama will need to figure out what to do with those held at Gitmo as he moves forward in closing the base. And Obama will have the even more challenging task of designing America’s approach toward Afghanistan in an effort to strength opposition to the Taliban and stabilize the region without turning Afghanistan into his Iraq.
Overall, I give Obama a B+ to date. He has acted with relative clarity, decisiveness and boldness in his first ten or eleven days in office. At the same time, problems with those he has nominated to his cabinet, a less than uplifting inaugural address, his inability despite great efforts to fashion a bipartisan approach to a stimulus bill in the House and a lack of success thus far to do so in the Senate, and some quick deviations from his high minded anti-lobbyist rules within days of its promulgation, have joined to keep him from realizing an A or A- thus far. More later!
But despite all the hoopla leading up to his inauguration, I think some of the magic that surrounded him to that point has slipped away. His poll approval ratings remain strong, and that is good. He will need high ratings to carry him through his singularly most important task, guiding the government and the nation through this incredibly wretched economic collapse.
I did not find his inaugural address inspiring. In contrast to the soaring rhetoric and cadenced style he had brought to bear on frequent occasions during the election process, I found his inaugural delivery, particularly the first half that was focused on the economy, to be a bit lackluster. He was too matter of fact and his speaking lacked uplifting emotion. Perhaps he purposefully intended not to bring his charisma to bear but I found it disappointing. He seemed to regain his stride in the second half of his address, where he focused on foreign affairs, and at its conclusion. But overall I was disappointed.
After months of sharing the spotlight with the outgoing president and making a point that there can only be one president at a time, to his credit Obama hit the ground running upon assuming office. He and his staff obviously had prepared the groundwork to issue various executive orders on issues such as closing Gitmo, the use of funds in international programs which provide birth control assistance, and limiting lobbyists in his Administration. He also quickly signed his first piece of legislation which overturned a Supreme Court decision that had imposed a very restrictive statute of limitations on wage discrimination claims. And he has kept himself in the public eye day after day talking about the need for a government stimulus package and seeking to bring Republicans on board in support of his favored legislation.
But there have been enough unanticipated distractions, some of which should have been anticipated, that, while not derailing Obama’s ambitious plans, have slowed them down and caused concerns. Not in any particular order, Obama’s designation for secretary of commerce, Governor Bill Richardson, was forced to withdraw from consideration because of an ongoing investigation of possible wrongdoing. He had made a splash and earned the enmity of the Clintons and many of Hillary’s supporters when he opted to support Obama rather than Clinton after he ended his own campaign for the nomination. He, like Senator Kerry, seemed to covet the secretary of state position but it turned out he couldn’t even survive the nominating process to become secretary of commerce. This was a personal flame out for Richardson but also a mark against Obama’s transition team for not having better gauged the seriousness of, and acted earlier on, the matter. Next Obama and his team had to weather the mini-scandal surrounding Timothy Geithner, initially seemingly everyone’s pick for secretary of the treasury, after it emerged that Geithner had failed to pay certain payroll taxes until after he had been picked for Obama’s cabinet or shortly before. Instead of cruising into office as a consensus All-American, Geithner won Senate approval but only after many had remarked about his bad judgment and the irony that in his new position he will oversee the Internal Revenue Service. This was another black and blue mark for the Obama team and its leader. The latest pratfall involves Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, who apparently recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,000 in back taxes and roughly $12,000 in interest. Daschle apparently failed to report income from the use of a car service provided him by a friend and business associate as well as income from consulting.
Rather than the agent of change, Obama has appeared to be the ‘same old same old’ Washington politician when it has come to the selection of his cabinet. Whether these embarrassments have been the result of poor vetting on the part of Obama’s transition team or poor judgment on the part of the nominees, or both, they run the risk of bringing Obama back down to earth too early in his Administration.
Obama’s idealism has also taken a beating in the area of lobbyists in government. Obama issued an executive order on day one establishing strict rules intended to bar former lobbyists from joining Obama’s Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. No sooner had the order been promulgated than exceptions were being made, first at the Department of Defense where William Lynn was chosen as deputy secretary of defense after having served at Raytheon, a major defense supplier, and then at the department of the treasury, where a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, was being chosen as chief of staff to Geithner. Several Obama aides apparently justified the exception for Lynn on the ground that he was “uniquely qualified” for the job. But wasn’t that the same rationale Obama used to justify his continued support for Geithner after his failure to pay taxes came to light? What exactly does “uniquely qualified” mean anyway? It suggests that no one else could do the job better. And that, as we all know, is hogwash. More importantly, the cynics have already started to criticize Obama for failing to live up to the standards he just set within a week of his setting them.
Obama’s effort to put in place a major stimulus package by mid-February, while still on target, is suffering from the limits to bipartisanship. The President has shown strong leadership not only in remaining focused on obtaining a stimulus package but also in making major overtures to the Republican minority in an effort to craft a bipartisan approach. He should be commended for this effort. Indeed, he may still succeed in obtaining considerable Republican support for a Senate stimulus bill. But the first vote in the House was completely along partisan lines. No Republicans voted for the measure. Even ten Democrats dissented. And many feel the bill was too much the product of the very partisan House Democrats, filled with earmarks and funds for activities that would questionably stimulate the economy in short order.
Obama may be in danger of losing momentum on the stimulus effort. He must again get out in front of the legislation, assure that the ultimate legislation is not merely a vehicle for the advancement of Democratic Party interests, and try to build a currently non-existent consensus that the mixture of tax reductions and government spending in the final legislation is the best way to quickly stimulate the economy. Obama cannot afford to see this project get bogged down in legislative horse trading or fall prey to withering debate on the relative merits of greater tax cuts versus public works expenditures. He must hammer out terms with a coalition of Democratic and Republican senators and then have the Democratic majority in the House pass it if no Republicans there will support it. If the bill represents a bipartisan effort in the Senate continued full scale Republican opposition in the House will matter less.
Obama began with bold steps on the international front, appointing two talented negotiators as his special envoys to the Middle East and Afghanistan. The President also projected a fresh image of America in its relationships abroad by placing his first telephone call to a foreign leader to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, and offering his first television interview to Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned cable network. These were positive steps done in a decisive manner. Unfortunately, heavy lifting follows. Obama will need to figure out what to do with those held at Gitmo as he moves forward in closing the base. And Obama will have the even more challenging task of designing America’s approach toward Afghanistan in an effort to strength opposition to the Taliban and stabilize the region without turning Afghanistan into his Iraq.
Overall, I give Obama a B+ to date. He has acted with relative clarity, decisiveness and boldness in his first ten or eleven days in office. At the same time, problems with those he has nominated to his cabinet, a less than uplifting inaugural address, his inability despite great efforts to fashion a bipartisan approach to a stimulus bill in the House and a lack of success thus far to do so in the Senate, and some quick deviations from his high minded anti-lobbyist rules within days of its promulgation, have joined to keep him from realizing an A or A- thus far. More later!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Senator Caroline Kennedy? Not My Choice
The media is reporting that Caroline Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy’s daughter, has expressed an interest in the U.S. Senate seat that Hillary Clinton will give up after her confirmation as Secretary of State. The New York Times reported on December 5, 2008 that her cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that he believed she was considering it, based upon conversations with her. And Governor David A. Paterson, who will have the authority to select Hillary’s replacement, reported that Caroline had called him on Wednesday, December 3, to discuss the matter. Today’s N.Y. Times (Dec 15) reports that she has decided to pursue the seat.
I do not believe Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the U.S. Senate. I do not believe she has the life experiences or has shown the temperament to assume such a high office and position of responsibility. I admit that I have not followed Caroline’s life, partly because I have had no interest in doing so and partly because Caroline has sought to live a very private life for many years. Surely that was her choice and I do not begrudge here having made it but to now wish to become a United States Senator is a stretch. Her brother seemed to have a real interest in politics and involved himself in the public arena. Sadly, he died in a plane crash before he was able to pursue elected public office. But Caroline Kennedy? Exactly why is she qualified? She apparently has been active in fundraising for the public school system in New York City and has engaged in other charitable undertakings but until she emerged as a supporter of Barack Obama her political life has been abysmally lacking.
I was in my late teens in college in the Boston area when Ted Kennedy first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1962 at age 30. As I recall, Kennedy, lacking any meaningful political experience, campaigned on the slogan “I can do more for Massachusetts,” clearly pitched toward the fact that his brother had recently become President. The opposition contended that, had Edward Moore Kennedy’s name merely been Edward Moore, no one would have given him the time of day as far as seeking a Senate seat.
Unfortunately, I feel similarly in my opposition to Caroline Kennedy as a Senator. Were her name simply Caroline Schlossberg, her married name, who would think she was qualified to emerge into public life as a U.S. Senator? Yes, she has been involved in some activities of a public character and she did write an editorial in support of Barack Obama and played some role on his vice-presidential selection committee. But I’m not aware that she has been actively involved in the political process in the past.
There may be those who say that, using the above standards, Hillary Clinton lacked the experience to run for U.S. Senate. But, I disagree. First, she ran for the position; she did not seek an appointment. Even Ted Kennedy ran for office in 1962. Second, Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House as First Lady and was actively involved in various political struggles, most notably medical care reform. Whether one respected her for those efforts or not, she was not a private person who kept her distance from the hue and cry of American politics. In that same vein, were Maria Shriver to seek an appointment to the U.S. Senate or some other high political office, I might not support her but it wouldn’t be for the reasons I oppose Caroline Kennedy’s appointment. I acknowledge that others have sought high elective office without an obvious “political” background. But most, including Ronald Reagan when he sought the position of California Governor, have been far more involved in American politics and the political process, if even as commentators, than is the case with Caroline.
I do not believe Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the U.S. Senate. I do not believe she has the life experiences or has shown the temperament to assume such a high office and position of responsibility. I admit that I have not followed Caroline’s life, partly because I have had no interest in doing so and partly because Caroline has sought to live a very private life for many years. Surely that was her choice and I do not begrudge here having made it but to now wish to become a United States Senator is a stretch. Her brother seemed to have a real interest in politics and involved himself in the public arena. Sadly, he died in a plane crash before he was able to pursue elected public office. But Caroline Kennedy? Exactly why is she qualified? She apparently has been active in fundraising for the public school system in New York City and has engaged in other charitable undertakings but until she emerged as a supporter of Barack Obama her political life has been abysmally lacking.
I was in my late teens in college in the Boston area when Ted Kennedy first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1962 at age 30. As I recall, Kennedy, lacking any meaningful political experience, campaigned on the slogan “I can do more for Massachusetts,” clearly pitched toward the fact that his brother had recently become President. The opposition contended that, had Edward Moore Kennedy’s name merely been Edward Moore, no one would have given him the time of day as far as seeking a Senate seat.
Unfortunately, I feel similarly in my opposition to Caroline Kennedy as a Senator. Were her name simply Caroline Schlossberg, her married name, who would think she was qualified to emerge into public life as a U.S. Senator? Yes, she has been involved in some activities of a public character and she did write an editorial in support of Barack Obama and played some role on his vice-presidential selection committee. But I’m not aware that she has been actively involved in the political process in the past.
There may be those who say that, using the above standards, Hillary Clinton lacked the experience to run for U.S. Senate. But, I disagree. First, she ran for the position; she did not seek an appointment. Even Ted Kennedy ran for office in 1962. Second, Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House as First Lady and was actively involved in various political struggles, most notably medical care reform. Whether one respected her for those efforts or not, she was not a private person who kept her distance from the hue and cry of American politics. In that same vein, were Maria Shriver to seek an appointment to the U.S. Senate or some other high political office, I might not support her but it wouldn’t be for the reasons I oppose Caroline Kennedy’s appointment. I acknowledge that others have sought high elective office without an obvious “political” background. But most, including Ronald Reagan when he sought the position of California Governor, have been far more involved in American politics and the political process, if even as commentators, than is the case with Caroline.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Congratulations, President-Elect Obama! Now Comes Governing‼
This has been an historic election. There can be no question about that. The election of our first African-American President is a profound event. Despite this country’s greatness, its highest office had remained until November 4, 2008, the exclusive province of white men. That has now changed forever and most Americans, even many who did not vote for Obama, feel a definite pride in our having selected Obama to hold the highest office in the land.
But, while not wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, let’s not think that this election changes everything. I’ve read the comments of many comparing this election to that of John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Kennedy, Reagan and now Obama have been described as transformational figures. It is true that Kennedy’s triumph, like Obama’s, represented the rise to political power of a new generation, a typically refreshing event even if scary to older voters. And Reagan’s triumph, like Obama’s, occurred during a period of great societal anxiety, reflected in 1980 by the Iran hostage nightmare and in 2008 by two ongoing wars and an economic meltdown, with a nation’s hope that the new president would heal America’s wounds.
Let us not, however, overstate the extent to which Kennedy or Reagan was a truly transformational figure. Kennedy was confronted by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, and turmoil in the area of civil rights that he did not live to address. Indeed, he hardly lived long enough as president to transform very much although the imagery of Camelot long survived his untimely death. And Reagan, while he has remained the darling of the Republican Party through the present, and did lift American spirits for a time, and held office during the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical empire for which his admirers give him supreme credit, also left a legacy of massive budget deficits, scandal, political and social divisiveness in the country, and the emergence of an international arena devoid of the relative stability of a bipolar world and increasingly characterized by regional instability and world terrorism.
And then there are the sentiments about Obama’s victory of the polemicist Michael Moore, who seems prepared to treat it almost as if it is the second coming. Moore wrote: “An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.”
But let us step back into reality. On a day on which many foreign leaders and common folk throughout the world celebrated Obama’s victory, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy a short range missile system on Russian territory bordering Poland and Lithuania. Afghan President Karzai, who had been rebuked by Obama during his world tour over his weak governance of Afghanistan, was perhaps responding in kind by mixing congratulations with a call for an end to American airstrikes that threatened civilian casualties in his country. And Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who aspires to become prime minister, warned that Obama’s stated readiness to talk with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness. Welcome to the world stage, President-elect Obama!
Meanwhile, the buzz in Washington, D.C. over possible presidential Cabinet appointments involves the names not of fresh faces but of many of the same old retreads. Apparently according to NBC News, among the names in the mix for secretary of state are those of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who is purportedly angling for the post, former diplomat Richard Holbrooke, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Georgia Democratic senator Sam Nunn. Purportedly, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker are among those being considered for the Treasury post.
Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be a cool, calm, astute politician, smartly sought to damp down expectations for his presidency during his acceptance speech on Tuesday night in Chicago. He said:
"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
"I promise you - we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. …
"What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."
Issues of immigration reform, health care, energy independence, the growing costs of Medicare and Social Security, let alone the current world wide economic collapse and growing national recession, the related housing crisis, global warming, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and homeland security, remain front and center. Not only are solutions to these issues not readily at hand, but there is no national consensus and there are deep political divisions on the nature of possible solutions to many of them.
One of my criticisms of Obama during the primary season, when I supported Hillary Clinton, was that he spoke majestically of unity, transcending red and blue state divisions, breaking political gridlock in Washington, D.C., and of bringing conflicting interests in American society together, but he offered few insights on how to accomplish those objectives. He will now have to focus on offering concrete solutions to many of these heretofore intractable problems and building successful coalitions to achieve them, as well as using the bully pulpit to attempt to forge a new national unity to the extent possible, while recognizing and accepting that a vibrant, strong, resilient America in which its people are able to enjoy freedom and equality is by its nature a pluralistic society comprising many competing and conflicting social networks and institutions and interest groups.
I’m very excited by Obama’s victory and am elated to have had the opportunity to vote for him for President. Let us, however, balance our excitement and optimism with a strong dose of reality in recognizing that change is an ongoing process, not all change is beneficial, altering the status quo is usually far more difficult than preserving it, and that President-elect Barack Obama, while enormously gifted, is not a magician but a political leader who no doubt shares many of the same human limitations that affect us all.
But, while not wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, let’s not think that this election changes everything. I’ve read the comments of many comparing this election to that of John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Kennedy, Reagan and now Obama have been described as transformational figures. It is true that Kennedy’s triumph, like Obama’s, represented the rise to political power of a new generation, a typically refreshing event even if scary to older voters. And Reagan’s triumph, like Obama’s, occurred during a period of great societal anxiety, reflected in 1980 by the Iran hostage nightmare and in 2008 by two ongoing wars and an economic meltdown, with a nation’s hope that the new president would heal America’s wounds.
Let us not, however, overstate the extent to which Kennedy or Reagan was a truly transformational figure. Kennedy was confronted by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, and turmoil in the area of civil rights that he did not live to address. Indeed, he hardly lived long enough as president to transform very much although the imagery of Camelot long survived his untimely death. And Reagan, while he has remained the darling of the Republican Party through the present, and did lift American spirits for a time, and held office during the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical empire for which his admirers give him supreme credit, also left a legacy of massive budget deficits, scandal, political and social divisiveness in the country, and the emergence of an international arena devoid of the relative stability of a bipolar world and increasingly characterized by regional instability and world terrorism.
And then there are the sentiments about Obama’s victory of the polemicist Michael Moore, who seems prepared to treat it almost as if it is the second coming. Moore wrote: “An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.”
But let us step back into reality. On a day on which many foreign leaders and common folk throughout the world celebrated Obama’s victory, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy a short range missile system on Russian territory bordering Poland and Lithuania. Afghan President Karzai, who had been rebuked by Obama during his world tour over his weak governance of Afghanistan, was perhaps responding in kind by mixing congratulations with a call for an end to American airstrikes that threatened civilian casualties in his country. And Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who aspires to become prime minister, warned that Obama’s stated readiness to talk with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness. Welcome to the world stage, President-elect Obama!
Meanwhile, the buzz in Washington, D.C. over possible presidential Cabinet appointments involves the names not of fresh faces but of many of the same old retreads. Apparently according to NBC News, among the names in the mix for secretary of state are those of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who is purportedly angling for the post, former diplomat Richard Holbrooke, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Georgia Democratic senator Sam Nunn. Purportedly, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker are among those being considered for the Treasury post.
Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be a cool, calm, astute politician, smartly sought to damp down expectations for his presidency during his acceptance speech on Tuesday night in Chicago. He said:
"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
"I promise you - we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. …
"What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."
Issues of immigration reform, health care, energy independence, the growing costs of Medicare and Social Security, let alone the current world wide economic collapse and growing national recession, the related housing crisis, global warming, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and homeland security, remain front and center. Not only are solutions to these issues not readily at hand, but there is no national consensus and there are deep political divisions on the nature of possible solutions to many of them.
One of my criticisms of Obama during the primary season, when I supported Hillary Clinton, was that he spoke majestically of unity, transcending red and blue state divisions, breaking political gridlock in Washington, D.C., and of bringing conflicting interests in American society together, but he offered few insights on how to accomplish those objectives. He will now have to focus on offering concrete solutions to many of these heretofore intractable problems and building successful coalitions to achieve them, as well as using the bully pulpit to attempt to forge a new national unity to the extent possible, while recognizing and accepting that a vibrant, strong, resilient America in which its people are able to enjoy freedom and equality is by its nature a pluralistic society comprising many competing and conflicting social networks and institutions and interest groups.
I’m very excited by Obama’s victory and am elated to have had the opportunity to vote for him for President. Let us, however, balance our excitement and optimism with a strong dose of reality in recognizing that change is an ongoing process, not all change is beneficial, altering the status quo is usually far more difficult than preserving it, and that President-elect Barack Obama, while enormously gifted, is not a magician but a political leader who no doubt shares many of the same human limitations that affect us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)