Perhaps we are like Samuel Beckett's characters Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting For Godot. These men wait for a man they admit to hardly knowing but nonetheless someone they expect to change their lives. They anticipate he will sort out their problems. Yet as they wait and wait, they decide that when he arrives he will do "nothing very definite." Still, they wait.
I waited last night for the confident Democratic President of the United States to appear on 60 Minutes but he never quite arrived. In fact, the president who did arrive said when asked by Steve Croft about his promise to change Washington:
"That's one of the dangers of assuming power. And you know, when you're campaigning, you, I think you're liberated to say things without thinking about, 'Okay, how am I gonna actually practically implement this.'"
What? Nah! He didn't say that, did he?
The man whom many of us awaited could have replied, with evident conviction: "We are changing Washington and we're going to change it more... " and then told us how.
Okay. I suppose that's water over the dam. And it is very difficult being president. He's also correct when he says it's difficult to get his ideas out there. But being on 60 Minutes is one of those important chances.
Croft later asked about Social Security and Medicare -- "things that the American people really think are important." In his response, the president actually referred to "entitlements," which the Republicans -- who love that word by the way -- are going to have to "confront in a serious way." Excuse me?
Why not say:
Republicans like to talk about earning what you get. That's exactly what people do every pay period when they contribute to Social Security. That's their money. They earned it. That's their nest egg and while I'm president nobody is going to steal it from them.
Or,
Let's be very clear. Diminishing social security in any way is income redistribution. Yes, that's what I said -- exactly what the Republicans say they hate. It's distributing hard-working Americans' income to the rich by way of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Perhaps you sat up a bit when the president was asked about those tax cuts for the wealthy. ("Here it comes. He'll drive it home now.") Then came:
Kroft: Are you ready to compromise on the Bush tax cuts?Obama: Well, I think we're gonna have to have a serious conversation about it. Here's an example where I'd like to think we could at least settle on those things we agree on.
"Have a serious conversation and settle?" Is Obama kidding? Is that his idea of a strong negotiation stance going in? Instead, how about:
"I'm not going to stand by while tens of millions of Americans whose lives are in disarray subsidize the plush lifestyles of the top one percent."
Or,
"If you take earned money from the hard working people struggling to get by and give it to the rich, what else can you call it but robbery?"
Or,
"I didn't get elected as president to give away the store to the big guy on the corner just because he thinks he's tough. That isn't going to happen."
Maybe you're thinking that he doesn't quite get it yet. And so we should wait. But how often does he have to be told?
When Croft said, "Everybody in Washington writes about your aloofness," the president accepted it as a fair argument. He could have said:
"Intense also looks a lot like aloof. And I'm intensely involved in what's best for the middle class and all Americans."
If an otherwise rational person keeps doing something over and over despite seeing that it doesn't work, what does that mean? It usually means they're doing exactly what they want to do, and that their primary goal isn't the stated one.
I hate to say that, but in my experience it's true. Having studied and coached leaders, it appears to me that President Obama is engaged in "strategic ambiguity." He thinks vagueness is giving him room to maneuver to the right, left, or center because that could be good for him in the long term.
Otherwise, why wouldn't he use his Harvard education, remove the advisers George Bush left on his doorstep when the last chair was removed, and overhaul the most crucial parts of the government in terms of the economy? Why doesn't he get moving on job stimulation? Why doesn't he speak to the Republicans in the forceful, action-backed language they understand?
Waiting may indeed be in vain unless and until we hear the president say like he means it: "Meet me in the Senate guys because we're going to go some tough rounds." In Republican speak that means, "Bring it on" 'cause with or without you, "We're going to "Git 'er done."
Dr. Reardon's new book is Comebacks at Work and she blogs at comebackatwork.com and bardscove.
The most we can hope for now is that he doesn't hand over the whole store to the Republicans. Obama may very well be a nice guy, a good friend, a great father, an above average husband, but great leader I'm afraid he is not.
I used to have a boss who was 100% for his staff, he was great; he fought for us through a major downsizing, and was known in the committee rooms as a bulldog with a very funny sense of humour. But did his populism win him support from other than his staff ? NO. The other schmoozers remained secure in their jobs while he got turfed. That's what Obama doesn't want to do, because he understands what it takes to stay within the inner circle.
What a waste of great talent.
I just hope he hasn't been threatened into full acquiescence to the corporate powers that increasingly seem to control everything.
Also, the GOP no's did not stop the stimulus, health care or financial regulatory reform or the auto bailout. What exactly did they stop that would have made a material difference on jobs?
My question is why the blame is being laid in the presidents lap. He signs legislation into law, he doesn't create it.
Not a comment on their polotics, but neither one was even on the ballot for their second election.
This is not the Rethugs last chance, it's his, his last chance to demonstrate that he has the mettle in his spine to to stand up to the('tax cuts for the rich) congress. To stand... and fight for something, besides a television interview.
Suffices to say, Obama takes great comfort in un-anchored positioning and maneuvering...
Compromise has become his ideology - ironically his most rigid principle. The tactic has become his vision for governance. It dictates substance and dominates process from beginning to end, instead of emerging (as it MIGHT naturally) through conflict and confrontation FIRST.
Healthy conflict is what really pushes progress. Much like cognitive dissonance or the disruption, the confusion, and the unease that come with our own "thought wars", conflict deepens and broadens (often changes) our understanding of something. Arguably, sincere confrontation can be a requisite, if not the real source, of meaningful civility that lasts.
But as Obama both enters and exits policy debate in obedience to the principle of concession, the tactic, itself, is ultimately governing (in his absence), which really means that his policy opponents are in control as our de facto leaders.
By eschewing a war of principles, he sacrifices civility and progress.
Some of us are understandably frustrated by this harmful inclination to avoid conflict, while others have exploited it as predictably and as much as Obama compromises.
...and incivility wins.
Whoever has the President's ear needs to urge him to "compromise on compromise".
really?
what has ten years of "conflict" in Iraq and Afghanistan done to broaden your understanding of anything? what has two years of conflict over health care done to broaden your understanding? What has six months of electioneering conflict done to broaden your understanding?
if conflict is so healthy and enlightening, why are you looking at the sickest and most unaware era your society has ever experienced?
thesis, antithesis, SYNTHESIS. synthesis doesn't occur because of CONFLICT between thesis and antithesis. CONFLICT only perpetuates fractionalization and ... get this, now, an endless cycle of ... CONFLICT. only confluence between thesis and antithesis produce SYNTHESIS. that's the only way to move constructively forward. for eight years, you were all screaming that you've had enough fighting. then you elect a man who delivers what you asked for, and now, you're screaming because he's not fighting but cooperating as best he can with an opposition committed to a philosophy of total war, while still managing to maintain at least a fragile peace domestically and, most importantly, internationally.
you want conflict? careful what you wish for, you just might get it. and then when your country is a heap of rubble and ashes, you can blame the guy who tried to get people to get along instead of engaging in eternal, infernal conflict.
sometimes it's very hard to believe what i hear some people saying in all seriousness.
the economic system called capitalism is taking americans to third world status.
this is what americans voters have allowed their gov to do.
create and allow a health care system that makes mega profits off the sick and needy at the expense of millions of americans that are without health care.
create and allow the gov to maintain an industrial military complex that has wars for corp profits.
allow a sitting president to start an illegal war with no consequences such as being brought up for war crimes against humanity. http://pubrecord.org/world/5811/depleted-uranium-babies-afghanistan/
americans need to look no farther then a mirror to find the problem with our politicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&NR=1
we have become a corrupt society all the while talking about how great and compassionate we are.
the paradigm effect in america is that we want more of the same economic policies all the while they take us to third world status.
michael moore americans did not get it with your lastest movie about capitalism. it went right over most of their heads even tho you gave evidence of this injustice. how can this be??????
that nasty thing called the paradigm effect. now paradigms are needed for society to prevent constant chaos but they can be so restrictive. they prevent evidence from even entering our consciousness.
welcome to the new america right there with any latin american nation you want to pick.
If the 999 articles and authors critizing him, questioning his mannerisms, facial expressions, wording, policies and, yes, his color choices were reversed with the 111 articles making note of his accomplishments, his humanity, his grace, patience and poise...oh and his policies...hmmm....
I'd say there are plenty of folks could have stepped up more than they did.
Not looking like things are changing much here. But I hope I'm wrong.
I certainly don't support his reaction to the election which is to be even more receptive to the republicans.
Blame Obama First (BOF), that's all you have to do to get an article posted here. Progressives here think they got Obama elected, and he owes you something he didn't deliver. Wrong, he won by 10 million votes, there aren't that many of you. Dems are lucky to have Obama, there will likely not be another Dem President for a long time.
In the 40 years before Obama, two Dem Presidents served 12 years: Carter and Clinton, both from the Deep South, both conservatives. All the more Progressive candidates lost, McGovern was the most liberal and the biggest loser. America is trying to tell Progressives something: we are just not that into you.
People vote against, not for. The 10% who were helped by health reform can't make up for the 90% who gained nothing, and possibly lost. Americans are right-wing and selfish. Deny it and lose elections.
[1] That includes me, I am 60, uninsured in MA in violation of the so-called "mandate", which is really a tax penalty on the uninsured based on income over $17K, max penalty $1200 a year. Same with Fed bill: just tax code.
There is no more important issue.
Yet it remains invisible to the media.
And as long as it does so, the politicians will avoid confronting the awful reality that continues to stagnate our country.