The president distrusts transparency. Unless he's ready to tell us the whole story, he prefers to say nothing at all.
Why else does he take forever to explain where he stands? Does he not know? Is he forever weighing the pros and cons? Does he have something to hide? Does he think options need to be kept constantly open? Is he the anti-decider?
He leaves us in the dark about the issues he's dealing with en route to a decision, the obstacles he perceives and the options that lie before him. What are we supposed to think? Why so quiet? Has he sold out? Is he waiting to see which way the wind blows? Who knows? Millions of suffering Americans perceive him to be indifferent - having the luxury of time while they lose their jobs, homes and confidence.
The Republicans have taken the president's protracted silences and his unwillingness to let us in on process, as opportunities to say a lot with little or no rebuttal from the other side. And it has worked for them. It worked for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. When you say nothing in response to opposition, after a while people fill in the blanks. They may think you're outmatched, not who you promised to be, or timid. This is why last week's televised meeting with Republicans unsettled the GOP. Voters saw a man actively being president - not rehearsing for the role.
You have to wonder if indeed President Obama has not found his center yet - his authentic self. In an era of sound bites, it's little wonder that we hardly know him. But we would know him better if he let us in on how he thinks instead of what he has or hasn't yet decided. It's been argued that he needs a narrative. That's not bad. An answer to "What's your story?" might move us closer to the authentic Obama.
More important, though, are a set of core values from which actions and true narratives emanate. "What matters most to you?" is the better question. And then how does what you struggle with and ultimately decide follow from those core values?
Frank Rich suggested this:
"Obama should turn up the heat on both the GOP's record of fiscal recklessness and its mad-dog obstructionism. He should stop paying lip service to the fantasy that his Congressional opposition has serious ideas to contribute to the cleanup. Better still, he should publicize exactly what those 'ideas' are."
Sounds like good advice. But why should the president follow it beyond just striking a base-appealing blow to the opposition? We need to know what values possessed by him support such actions or they're just more showmanship. Which is more important to President Obama, hands joined across the aisle or fighting for what he believes is right? When are both important and when should one be sacrificed in service of the other?
If you were asked to list and rank order five of the president's core values, could you do it with confidence?
At present, the president seems to value one-way collegial gestures more than the courage of his convictions. And that's not going very well, is it? We know he values civility, but at what cost? Honesty? Courage?
Who among us minds heated words now and then in the service of our values? But we do mind when everything we see and hear is contrived or seems to come out of the blue. If there's a trust deficit, it's because of this.
We often don't mind when leaders make mistakes, if we're apprised along the way of the process that led to them. It's the only way to differentiate between honest slip-ups, deviousness and ineptitude.
Left to our own devices, or worse, leaving it to highly vocal Republicans, we will surely fill in the blanks that President Obama so often neglects. He trusts his ability to set it all straight in the end. And that worked for him as a candidate. But he is the president now. People won't follow a leader whose actions they can't predict or explain. They simply won't rally to support a President whose values they cannot even identify.
Dr. Reardon also blogs at bardscove.
and thoughtful oppose to the shoot from the hip style
of the former President!
Many politicians would be well served to fully think out
what they are going to say instead of blurting out some
thing that makes us all wonder if the President has indeed
lost his mind!
Case in point Goerge W. Bush's detort to the terrorist
"bring it on".....that was not only embarrasing but an example
of what I speaking of, what he said was not only off-the-cuff
but very inappropriate!.....
We are lucky to have President Obama and if you are
uncomfortable with not being able to read his mind
that is probably a good thing!!!
Mr. Obama needs to send his Chicago groupies packing, a year of listening to them has not been helpful, to him, or the country. These are folks who work to get people 'elected', okay he's elected, now go home, your work here is done. He needs advisors who are experts in their respective fields not contribution bundlers and campaign analysts.
If he can ever stop running for re election, he can be a good, if not great, president.
actually stating--or I missed it--a persons beliefs "about" the
President. But do those beliefs actually reflect reality?
By that I simply mean that a person who is afraid of the dog
barking four houses down the street is exhibiting a belief, a
fear actually, "about" the dog four houses down the street. The
thought may go something like 'that dog should be put away,
by all that barking it must be mean spirited, it's dangerous'.
That is a "belief" about the dog.
The reality is, the dog is not running down your driveway with
the intent to attack you. The fear, the belief, is groundless.
The reality is, Pres. Obama isn't just Kathleen Reardon's
president. He is President to all of us, including Republicans.
The belief is "We often don't mind when leaders make mistakes..."
The reality is, we aren't told what mistakes she believes the leaders
have made.
Perhaps a clue-- "...at what cost? Honesty? Courage?" "deviousness
and ineptitude"? But then, we're back to beliefs "about" aren't we?
The surprise is that it is a 'professor' posing these questions,
someone who is apparently unable to abstract core values from
what a person says and does.
And it is from your own personal point of view that you
judge the President.
Ironically, the President too has a point of view. And
it is from that view that he tries, and I'm surprised that he
hasn't given up and walked off the job with a loud "f**k
all of yuse" in his wake, his very best to get those people
who can do something, to do something. It is such a
waste of an opportunity for them, but no one is holding
their feet to the fire. Just the President. Why is that?
In today's climate, no one would be satifactory as President.
Many people wrote to FDR during the Depression thanking him for standing up for the American people and giving them jobs and hope and dignity. FDR touched the lives of millions of Americans in a very deep and personal way. While the New Deal did not always work well and sometimes social justice was put off (the federal anti-lynching law) and economic justice was delayed (national health insurance), the American people always knew what Roosevelt stood for.
The American people elected and re-elected FDR for four terms. As the historian of the Great Depression T.H Watkins wrote in his The Great Depression: America in the 1930s:
"most Americans would swiftly grow accustomed to a new kind of intimacy between themselves, their government, and, especially, their president."
He went on to note that every time we elect a new president, we hope he is in some way FDR who deliver us from from "whatever economic, political, or moral quagmire in which it finds itself."
But, with Obama what he lacks more than anything is the courage to fight for one side. If he chose Main Street and fought all his battles on behalf of the middle class there would be no doubt. It is the lack of a vision, a coherent program, and fighting spirit that is sinking Obama.
I think he did have a vision, before he got started in presidency. But the trouble is that his "vision" keeps shifting with the winds. Republicans (and bludog Democrats) in Congress (the Senate especially) keep shifting the goalposts. So it gives people a distinct perception of floundering, or "fluid timidity", and in Washington, perception is reality.
1. Lying to liberal voters,
2. Compromising to Republicans for zero gain,
3. Selling out loyal aides at the first whiff of opposition,
4. Ignoring populist outrage, and
5. Squandering a supermajority.
These are the things that I have seen Obama do more than anything over the past year. He's also passionate about being terrible at leading the Democratic Party, but you asked for 5 and I ranked them in order.
EspressoAtNoon:
Senator Obama campaigned in 2007/2008 to create “public plan†as subset in healthcare legislation proposal. In the “Public Plan†is the “Public Exchange†where the private healthcare insurance companies are participants. Let me break it down in a fashion most people can relate.
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) sets plan to construct federal highways. In the contract to build federal highways, there is the contracting agency and contractor. FHA serves as the contracting agency while private construction companies are contractors. This is analogous to public plan in healthcare proposal by candidate Senator Obama.
“Public Option†is when the government is serving as both the contracting agency and the contractor. “Public Option†is like Medicare program or Veteran Administration. It is a single-payer system. Please make a note of the difference in the healthcare discourse between the “Public Option†and “Public Plan or Public Exchangeâ€.
EspressoAtNoon:
Please pay close attention to nuances, differentiations and discernments. Organizing for America (OFA) is a successor organization to “Obama for Americaâ€. Please review the history of OFA in the link below.
http://www.barackobama.com/learn/about_ofa.php
“Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering communities across the country to bring about our agenda of change.â€
Please, again, pay close attention to timeline. You provided a link that proved definitively, in your mind, that Senator Obama campaigned on “Public Optionâ€. Most of the examples they cited was after Obama was sworn-in as president. The examples are irrelevant to the discourse.
http://www.alterpolitics.com/politics/new-ad-shows-president-obamas-broken-health-care-promises-in-his-own-words/
Ruthless in pursuit of assisting the financial and military sector.
Pragmatist in realizing he must lie to do so.
In other words... he doesn't adhere to anything nor rule anything out.