Three years ago I found myself in an usual position before Obama’s election and do so again today, less than one year before his (hopefully) reelection. I was not on board with him and resented the attention he got from the press and would-be voters. I was not sold on him until the very end, probably his election night victory speech, he in Chicago and me downtown at the Westin Hotel on the phone with my father.
Then I was convinced, or more accurately, moved by the historic achievement of that night. Even as a biracial American with a white mother from Kansas, like him, I resisted his seeming anointment. I felt alone among my friends because I hadn’t drunk the Kool-Aid, hadn’t been convinced of his promises of hope and change, and needed much more than rhetoric in my presidential candidate. As happens sometimes in my life, I was swimming against the tide. He was so woefully inexperienced.
Again I’m swimming against the tide of popular opinion and conventional wisdom because most liberals, progressives, and/or democrats are furious with him for this offense or that, while I see him as doing a pretty damn good job, all things considered. Have we forgotten that three short years ago our economy almost collapsed, so that he wasn’t able to do the things he (naively) wanted? Are we unaware of the depths of right-wing cravenness and willingness to send us all into the crapper to see him lose, to break him? I wish people would grow up when it comes to politics and recognize the realities. I believe only with the benefit of hindsight can we know how good a president was. I also believe that Obama has finally learned what he didn’t know in the beginning, and could not know, despite the high hopes people had for him.
I believe he should not have been elected in 2008, but since he was and since he’s acquitted himself well in the face of a near economic collapse and a treasonous opposition party and cowardly members of his own, and since this is a crucial election in so many ways (I’m looking at you, Supreme Court), to abandon him now would be irresponsible. It would be cutting off our nose to spite our unhappy face. But if we think things are shitty now, just wait until a republican – any republican – is in office and reverses the good things accomplished in the previous four years and piles on to the damage that George Bush has done. Don’t do it. Don’t abandon the president now. You’ll be sorry. For once, listen to my good advice : )
Two respected journalists agree with me, or rather I agree with them for the past year: James Fallows and Ron Suskind. Suskind wrote “Confidence Men,” and Fallows the following article in this month’s “The Atlantic,” must-reads for all interested voters and especially those who feel too disappointed to vote for him again. When we pick presidents let's do more thinking and less feeling. Let's be practical. Politics has never run smoothly in this country, not in real time.
2 comments:
Okay, maybe now I can be accused of drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, but I would still disagree with that. :) Yesterday and today the president was accused is bungling badly the issue of requiring churches to provide contraception to women. The conventional wisdom is that he misread the public’s and churches’ reactions, and was caught flat-footed by it, but I see it exactly the other way.
I think Obama played the issue expertly, in a way that highlights yet again his willingness to compromise and frames this “culture war” issue as he wanted it: with the Catholic church’s objection to contraception being respected while ensuring that all women receive contraceptive coverage at no cost.
What’s the purpose of seeming to be caught unaware? He gets to demonstrate once again to a public with a short attention span his willingness to compromise, and ensures that women’s birth control needs are met. (The political benefits of that are obvious.) It also takes the issue off the table for republicans who want to run on nothing but culture-war issues -- because that’s all they have. (By the way, 98 percent of all Catholics report using birth control at some point in their lives),
Obama is often the smartest guy in the room. He and most anybody else of lesser intellect or insight could have foreseen the firestorm that resulted when he required religious orgs to provide contraception to women, and it predictably occurred. One of the things I admire most about Obama is his patience and willingness to endure criticism and even mockery and to handle it with grace and patience while waiting for events to play out as he knows they will, confident that when people find out the real deal, most of them will be pleased with the results. He’s done this so many times, it has become his style.
I’m surprised at the number of reporters, pundits, and commentators who say he handled this issue badly. My view is just the opposite. Here’s another view of mine: the best leaders govern in a world as one finds it, not as s/he hopes it is, and by reforming the system, makes it more as s/he wants and hopes it to be.
Let's talk about drones. I’ve been having the debate about drones lately. It’s a difficult one. Most everyone is quite certain in their opinion. I’ll share mine, but first a question to everyone who objects to our use of drones. If you agree that we need a military and if you agree that that military will sometimes take up arms and be deployed, would you prefer that we march our soldiers into harm’s way, your son or daughter or mine, or that we use the technology we have, which, by the way allows, us to be as precise?
If you expect a sanitized conflict where no innocent gets hurt or killed, and you always get precisely and only your man, you should probably wake up to the realities of life and foreign affairs and governance and conflict, not to mention human nature, because as you may have heard, war is Hell. Unfortunately, regrettably, on this planet there is still a need to defend one’s self, individually and collectively. And there is no war, big or small, where combatants and innocents don’t die. That’s why they call it Hell. And that’s why we should never initiate one blithely, under false pretenses as our last president did. If you want to pretend that magically the world tomorrow will be without war and that we don’t need soldiers or weapons or technology or intelligence or any of that, that’s certainly one view.
The American citizen who was killed by a drone, that everyone points to as proof of the immorality of drones -- he renounced the US and his citizenship, and declared war on us and announced his intention to kill every American he could. His death was not murder or an assassination. John Kennedy was assassinated. Abe Lincoln was assassinated; it was a killing. That’s what happens in war. You kill your enemy. His son’s death is tragic, but until proven otherwise can be considered unintentional collateral damage, but ask yourself what responsibility does he bear for putting his son in harm’s way?
Again, if you think the world can be without war, that’s a whole ‘nother topic but probably one I don’t have time for because I prefer to deal with the world as I find it, working to change it, but clear eyed and honest. If you have a choice of your son or daughter marching into Pakistan or sending a drone, I would hope you would pick the drone and admit to yourself that war is Hell, and to expect otherwise is a bit foolish. Great that you have that luxury, though! Because you’re not living in Homs, or how many other dangerous places around the world?
I want to hear your thoughts because this is a topic I have definite opinions about but don't believe I have all the answers to.
Post a Comment