A Line in the Sand Is Occasionally Useful
Both positions -- that Israel's sovereignty is absolute, and the U.S. must never appear to press Israel very hard, so that Israel might even be allowed to bomb Iran if it made the strongest case; and that the public option may just have to be dropped, and is indeed ultimately expendable, provided it can be held in reserve in the way spelled out by Emanuel -- both views (one must suppose) were "entertained" by the president in a manner so lacking in definition that his vice president and his chief of staff took him to have budged. Both believed they were authorized to convey a subtle change of stance. Then embarrassment struck on both fronts, and Obama backed off his backing off.
It has been said by many observers that Barack Obama is the only leader at present in the world who has some of the qualities of a world leader. And if urbanity, grace, and the ability to take long views are what we have in mind, it is clear why so many cherish the hope that this lofty estimate will turn out to be true. But principle is a different matter from style. Commitment is measured not by large intentions, but by specific tenacity; and this means at points a refusal of pliability whose meaning is impossible to mistake. Yet, on this question of political character, the evidence on Obama is mixed and its core oddly elusive. Can he be a world leader without being a leader of his cabinet or his country?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It strikes me that Obama's life experience has probably been that he's been able to get nearly everyone to like him. Now, he's in a situation where that's simply not possible. And to truly lead, he's going to have a lot of dangerously rabid people truly hate him.
I think he's got to be very bold, and use his skills as a gifted communicator and educator to explain to the American people why we must have significantly higher taxes for the wealthy in order to get the deficit under control. His health care plan will not be successful without this. When he made the pledge for universal health care, we were not in the cataclysmic situation that we are currently in. At that time, people saw health care as an urgent issue. Now, they're more frightened about the deficit.
I think that Obama has been cowed by both the Republicans and history. He needs to agressively counter assertions about socialism, health care, national security (he's actually done a good job with this one). He needs to realize that we are in a historically different place than with Clinton- it's different with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Americans are much more concerned now about the health care crisis, and he's got a legislative majority and popularity that Clinton didn't possess.
Finally, he got to be bold enough to to challenge the lobbyists, to lead his party on this issue, and to show the American people that he is doing so.
Why would the world want the USA to be its leader, even if Obama is president? We have lead the world from disaster to disaster for many years now, military, economic and moral.
The only explanation seems to be that a big stock pile of atomic bombs gives rights that can be supressed or taken away from other nations either by pressure or force - at least until the banks have finished robbing the world of its last pennies.
I would much prefer a president who, in cabinet meetings and in meetings with Congress, expresses his willingness to stay open and listen to all the options before he makes a final decision. That's far, far better than to arrive in those meetings an obvious certainty that you are right on everything and will always be right on everything (as a certain recent unnamed president was prone to doing). Let us suppose that Obama is committed to a public option, but would like people to get creative and suggest all sorts of possibilities. Then you might indeed express a willingness not necessarily to compromise, but at least to listen to creative solutions that you might then incorporate into the final plan. It doesn't mean that the final plan is going to use only that solution or eliminate other possible solutions.
Bravo, President Obama. Keep encouraging creativity, but don't forget us little people here at the bottom.
Exactly right. Nearly every intransigent President we've had has been a disaster for America: Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, and George W. Bush. Nor do we need quick, easy decisions about problems as complex as this country currently faces. Those preconceived solutions more often than not are the fantasies of incurable ideologues. We've just had an administration full of them and the results speak for themselves.
I don't think our new President is afraid on anyone. People that are insecure and afraid are more often loud and emotional as a mask to their lack of faith in themselves. (Hitler comes immediately to mind.) If a person feels the need to shout down and intimidate his adversaries with loudness, it's usually because he has no cogent argument to make. How anyone could take the bombast and emotional tirades of a Rush Limbaugh seriousy, for instance, is listening with his/her own biases and not with their heads.
Obama has accomplished more in 6 mos. than any previous Pres. Having said that, my primary reservation all along has been echoed by Bromwich and my reservations grow daily. Healthcare is THE test and it is a test for our entire system. It's becoming more clear to more people that a public option for healthcare is a litmus test for democracy. Either 72% of the American people get what they voted for and still demand or a handful of politicians continue to court the favor of the healthcare industrial complex and prove that our system is terminally ill. Either Obama strongly and clearly demands a real public option or one of his primary campaign promises is broken which seriously distracts from all his accomplishments.
"Obama has accomplished more in 6 mos. than any previous Pres.?" Please explain what he has done that has helped the nation in the last six months. In my opinion it would be a small list and would include the deeply underfunded and poorly appropriated stimulus package which has already proven its inadequacy. Then, balance that good with the harm he has done by tripling the Bush administration's bank bailout, while doing nothing to help mortgage holders who are going under. This failing economy has received little help and much harm from our President's first actions since taking office. Don't even get me started on his war policies. Not much change to believe in there, either.
Obama will need to demonstrate more than charm and intelligence in the future if he hopes to be listed among the great presidents.
Obama ran as an empty slate. Progressives saw him as the next FDR. Moderates saw him as an even handed compromiser. Even some fiscal conservatives fooled themselves into believing he would reduce the deficit. Now tis tactic wil hurt him, as everyone simultaneously figures out that the narrative they filled in for How Obama would govern was more a reflection of what they wanted than what he was actually going to do. As a conservative I'll give Obama credit, he's a very smart politician. He will probably tack more to the right now, like Clinton did, to preserve his re-election hopes in 2012.
I hope the President reads this.
I'm starting to think he allows these statements to 'slip out' as a way to test public reaction. If people explode at the thought of removing the public option it not only helps him gauge how deeply Americans feel about the issue but also lets his opposition know the exact same thing-- potentially to his advantage.
agree. In the case of Emanuel's statements on health care, I think he wanted Rahm to appear bipartisan but more importantly wanted the pullback by Rahm to cause a backlash by advocates for the public option. Obama knows that he needs public pressure to get the public option. He needs the Senators on the fence to be compelled to support a "real" public option.
As for Biden's comments on Israel's sovereign right to bomb Iran, if they so determine, the administration is doing two things: first, he is stating the obvious that a sovereign country can defend itself; second, they want to show Israel a little respect to make it easier for Netanyahu to stop settlements in the West Bank, a condition precedent to progress in negotiations with the Palestinians but a breach of the Likud Party's position.
In essence, Obama is using these guys to throw out trial balloons and take positions he cannot take himself.
Dr. Bromwich, I agree with your posts more often than not, but in this case, I think your inference is somewhat superficial.
For eight years our country was governed by people with a limited capacity for critical analysis. Our culture is largely grounded in concrete thinking; it's averse to the fluidity of the abstract. Many of the comments on your post bear that out.
It's apparent many around Obama aren't accustomed to working with someone who seeks to understand inordinately complex issues from multiple perspectives. His disillusioned supporters don't get it either. Our country has been divided along partisan lines for years with the people at the extremes demanding their way or the highway.
That said, Obama would do well to clarify his approach to problem-solving so that misstatements can be avoided, and equally importantly, to quell some of the fretting of those who want their issues resolved right now, never mind the ramifications or complexity of those problems.
A bit of a patronizing comment, but I agree with the sentiment.
Mikeatle, you're right. There's nothing gained by alienating others.
count me as one of the disillusioned supporters. just today, Obama is supporting holding acquitted Gitmo detainees. this is NOT constitutional. he appears each day to follow the path of Bush, Clinton and the rest who put the US into disaster. His political capital is being spent.
Well-stated. Obama has demonstrated a preference for deciding issues on their merits rather than on ideology. I often disagree with his decisions but I applaud his capacity for refusing the cave in to the ideologues on the fringes. It's called leadership. Given its long absence, many may not know what to make of this.
Could it be that he agrees with Bush, the ideologue? If so, then Bush was a heck of a leader that Obama now emulates.
There's obviously no real principals involved when torture and abuse of detainees is still going on at Bagram air base, and 60 million is currently being spent to expand it.
There's no principals at work here, when 250,000 private contractors are still being employed by the Obama administration in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's no room for principals when the Pentagon's budget has increased from $481.4 billion in 2008 to $515.4 billion in 2009.
So much for liberals thinking Obama was against the aggressive kind of foreign policy that creates animosity, hatred around the world for the US and fosters new terrorists. Pakistan is being bombed by drones, innocent civilians are being killed, and the ramping-up of major operations in Afghanistan is destined to be America's new Vietnam.
It's nice to have a president that can speak eloquently, isn't an embarrassment to the country, and is progressive on some social issues, but Obama is a big disappointment to truly progressive liberals. He seems to be enjoying the spotlight and the accolades while achieving questionable, watered down bills claimed as policy victories as he delegates to advisers and policy makers who are intent on keeping business as usual in Washington and special interests satiated and well fed.
*principles*
You were reading my mind.....
As a Nation we can not afford a profit motive in health care. The Republican party has morphed into the Democratic party. Health care and pharmaceutical companies don't care who they give lobbying money to. They will buy any Government!
This isn't 'change' I can believe in. Obama talks the talk ..........
Before gallivanting around the world shouldn't he be putting his own house in order?
"gallivant
Critical points written well.
Proof of torture at Bagram since January 20, 2009? Do you have a link?
We have made more progress (the Pakistanis have actually) against the brutal Taliban and other jihadists since 9/11. Yes we have killed innocents and it is horrible, Do you think we should let the TAliban continue to brutally kill people who live in the Northwestern territories there.
I hope you're right, Mr. Bromwich.
There are several successful models of leadership, and since the general opinion, Professor, seems to be that Obama can't lead, let me begin by say, you blog makes me wonder if you have ever seen true leadership. In my life I have seen people accomplish great things, improbable things. But rarely have I seen anyone with the mental toughness, the intestinal fortitude, to truly lead. Barak Obama has a vision for this country. A complex synergy of Health Care, Education, Energy, and economy that needs to all be in place to work. All of it. The reality of that plan, the most audacious I have every seen in the 30 years of watching politics, is that the goal is to help, not the rich and powerful, but the middle class and the working class of this country. He believes, rightly, that their welfare comes before his ego. Their success is more important than his cracking the whip. You must be forgiven for not recognize real leadership, it has been decades, almost a a half century since we have had any. I'll leave you with this. The Bush plan, required no help, no consensus. They got their authorization for war and went on a crusade. The easy thing about crusades, they are run by kings. Barak Obama's plan is to build a new bottom up economy that prepares all of its citizens for the 21st century, while concomitantly being humane, caring and empathetic.
J
The actions simply don't match the rhetoric.
Actually it does. He ran on getting health care reform in his first term. Then he revised that, after being elected, to his first year. It appears he may get that reform with a public option.
He ran on an energy bill with cap-and-trade. The House passed a flawed, but extremely historic bill which, once in law, will quiet the naysayers who don't realize that green energy is the key to economic recovery and jobs.
He already got billions for health care and energy in the stimulus already spending more on green energy incentives than any past President.
He ran on bringing the troops home from Iraq and increasing the troops in Afghanistan and closing Gitmo in a year. He is complying with a three-month increase in the time to get troops out of Iraq; a wise move considering how quick withdrawals have historically led to higher casualty rates among the withdrawing force.
He still needs to act on Don't Ask Don't Tell. I project that, if he gets health care and energy bills through, he will then have the political capital to take on DADT.
One of the cornerstones of effective leadership is effective communication. On that issue, the article is spot on. The President needs to fine tune his communications in order to squelch the problems outlined in the article.
it sure doesn't look like he's planning for the people.
health care is a moot point in a country with the highest cancer rate in the world due to pollutants, synthetic food, and obesity. he has done nothing to prevent wide scale foreclosures, which could be prevented by restructuring the interest rates. He has done nothing about rebuilding the manufacturing base. The budget is the highest deficit ever. We not only invaded Afganistan, but continue to toy with aggression in Iran.
I agree with Viper and trollslayer.
Beautifully articulated.
Crusades are great for bringing fast, dramatic results. They're not so good for democracy. And that's true whether their motivations are pure or not.
Watching Obama on the campaign trail and in office, I am consistently convinced that he does not govern based on his personal beliefs, but instead by a careful, thoughtful, complex process of hearing and understanding all sides to a problem and doing his best to judge the best course taking all of those into consideration. I don't think it was accidental or a rhetorical trick that he rarely used the world "I" in his campaign speeches -- I think he genuinely sees this as a weaving of "we."
Coming off of the cult of kings and grandiose statements and oversimplified visions of right and wrong, good and bad, ally and enemy, I think this feels confusing to people. We have learned to imagine the leader in this country as the general atop the fiery steed in front of his troops, covered in guts and glory, not the actual shrewd planner of the battle or forger of peace.
I think Barack Obama is fighting for a deeper sense of how a democracy can and should work than we've seen in a long time. And I think statements coming from his camp that seem to undermine his "authority" don't -- I think that they are at times tactics to test waters, individual voices working through multiple opinions, etc. Leaders don't have to be controllers.
How dare you imply that Obama lacks core values!
Well said. Barack Obama is a bridge builder.
Perhaps you need to watch politics with a longer lens. Johnson was elected in 1964 and found himself in similar circumstances: overwhelming popular support, majority in both houses (even if all Democrats were not all rowing the same boat, so to speak), and a supposed 'clean slate' to re-write government. And LBJ did indeed try to do that, with his War on Poverty, support for civil rights for all Americans, and the establishment of several new government programs to benefit the poor and middle class. Really, the only difference in the situations for LBJ and Obama was the economy, which was sparkling for LBJ and dogmeat for Obama. Unfortunately, Johnson wasn't honest with his economic planners about the combined costs of his social programs and the Vietnam War, the economy overheated and then tanked, and people quickly got sick of him to the point that he declined to seek a second elected term. The parallels are oddly compelling, almost as if we were living through a demonstration of 'those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it'.
He said what he needed to say to get into office and will do whatever he needs to do to stay in power. Consolidating power is the priority. Everything else is expendible.
You're mistaking this year for the year 2000.
I've been wondering about this in regards to Obama. To me it indicates a lack of self esteem on certain fundamental levels.
We've all known people who would LIKE to be a certain way and pretend to be that way and then, when shown they are not, we are angry with them. We think they are dishonest and they may be. But mostly, I think, they are afraid.
Mr. Obama; get a sampler made that says. "What other people think of me is NONE OF MY BUSINESS" and hang it over your working desk.
You've got what it takes, sir, just let that tiger RIP. This is no time to be "pragmatic" for America will fail if you take that direction.
Stand, and be true to yourself.
Good post.
That's so interesting, because I would characterize Barack Obama as someone who is as unconcerned about what other people think as any leader I've ever seen.
As I wrote in a post above, I think he is working beyond basic ego stuff and has stepped into a place where he genuinely believes that to hear and respect all sides to an argument has merit, and to govern responsibly is to at least acknowledge them all.
We have gotten so black and white in our perceptions in this country, so divided, and so divisive. I'm as guilty of it as anyone -- I often, to my shame, know the reaction I'm going to have about a political idea based on who floats it, rather than the idea itself. I look for the things that are hate worthy in conservative Republicans. (And I do believe there are genuinely hate worthy things about them, perhaps the biggest being their own propensity towards stoking hatred).
But we do have different ideas, and many of them may have merit. We've lived so long in a ideologically fundamentalist, mono-thought culture that we see willingness to acknowledge other opinions as weakness. That's tragic to me, and completely counter to what a democracy should be striving for. That's the tyranny of the majority, not a democracy.
I hope President Obama reads this. Very good.
So far, Obama has been acting like a world impresario, not a world leader. He is setting out broad themes (some sort of conciliation with Islam, now some sort of new relationship with Russia) without filling in any specifics. He is apparently trying to change moods as a prelude to trying to accomplish concrete things. However, as this article implies, no one, not even his closest staff are picking up on just what he means in trying even to change moods (i. e., generate a new environment) let alone what specifics he might have in mind, if any. So far, I can't get away from the not very flattering stereotype of the lawyer in trying to get any reading on Obama's behavior, mentality, and self-understanding. Like many lawyers, Obama thinks by saying something, he can accomplish anything. The real world isn't like that as most know. I'm also beginning to wonder about what, if any, values Obama has. He's beginning to look more and more to me like the consummate careerist, who now having reached a career pinnacle has no sense of direction. His only direction was to reach the career pinnacle, and now he is extemporizing in a fancy, but let's hope not a fanciful way.
All this in advance of a loss? And all of this from people who haven't led anyone anywhere before in their life. By my count Obama hasn't lost a fight yet, and all the whining from the cheap seats about his style is just that, whining. Why, because what Obama is doing is completely right. Because he is 5 -0 in major fights and is about to win Sotomayor, , Climate in the senate, Health Care in the senate, and about five other initiatives. That the recovery act included 100 billion in dept of ed money that no one gets to comment on so Arne Ducan is spending all of it on the worst 5000 schools. A huge massive wildly unprecedent win. Leadership.
What no one wants to admit that you don't like his policies. You want single payer health care? Well he was against it during the campaign. You wanted a brawler instead of a knife fighter, you could have taken Hilary, and accomplished nothing for he first two years.
Let me explain how to actual lead, actually accomplish anything. You avoid thinking you know everything. There are probably 50 permutations of health care that would work to varying degrees. Once you accept that, you start looking for two things, the one that works the best and the one you can pass. The two are rarely the same. Obama is running the show. Again how do I know, because since 2007 all he has done is win.
jcwtts1: COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER...L
Intelligent and savvy crew (Cabinet/A
Team Work=Sense of Purpose. PROBLEM? NO-PROBLEM, We got it, don't Worry=Trust.
This is how I see this Administration with OBAMA at the Helm.
Then, words of "dissatisfaction" from the Unconvinced crowd=Narrow mindednes / Single Vision=Failure to see the BIG PICTURE. Example: See post by "outbnow" at 7:33 a.m today.
See what I mean?
You've certainly read a lot into my post - what you call whining, I feel as perplexity and disappointment - I think Obama is a far, far better choice as president than any other conceivable candidate - he just can't pull himself out of the political mire the country is in (epitomized at the moment by the New York State legislature) - I doubt anyone could - I can't say whether I like his policies - I don't know that much what they might be - I don't like his policy (if that's what you'd call it) of cozying up to the banksters - what you describe or allude to in your reply is a bureaucrat
Well said.
I think to a large degree this article omits a very important and looming concern that Obama has about being hemmed in by a solid committment on two huge issues: Israel and Palestine which is essentially unresolvable now because both sides have incompatible and unnegotiable demands, and healthcare reform which is going to be very demanding economically, politically and socially.
I suspect that this reluctance on his part is not because he is wishy washy or lacks tenacity but unlike most of us his attention is demanded by the impending inevitability that one day, sooner or later, the US is going to try to sell some T-bills and no one is going to buy them. He will need all of his tenacity and perseverance then.
Blame whomever you want, won't make a difference when it comes.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
