Same as it Ever Was, Same as it Ever was ...
These Are the Days of Obama’s Trepidation.
There’s a common theme to the current decisions, or non-decisions, by President Obama.
The wave of unrest sweeping the Middle East holds great promise and great risk for American interests. But setting up a coherent policy to try to steer the unleashed passions in the Arab world and North Africa is hard work with little political reward and enormous potential for high-profile failure. Instead, on the rare occasions that Obama discusses this, he sticks to broad generalities: avoid violence, reflect the people, include all voices. Condolences to the families of those killed and injured. “We’re preparing a range of options.”
The end of Qaddafi’s reign would appear to be beneficial to U.S. interests, but the mad dictator will not go quietly; our ability to influence events is limited and Obama clearly does not want U.S. military forces sucked into another conflict in the Middle East. Instead, Hillary Clinton is sent to Geneva to do . . . . something, apparently.
When the clash in Madison, Wis., began, Obama was quick to weigh in, declaring that he thought the governor’s proposals amounted to “an assault on unions“; within a few days, the White House was insisting that reports of its close coordination with Wisconsin unions and Democrats were overstated and overblown.
The deficit this year is expected to be $1.5 trillion and could go higher; Obama offers only a spending freeze and a budget that even some of his biggest fans are declaring “a profile incowardice.”
Obama spent a great deal of time touting a deficit-control-and-reduction commission and then ignored all of its suggestions.
His spokesman insists that he is still “grappling” with the issue of gay marriage; his administration will not defend the constitutionality of gay marriage, but Obama will not come out and say he believes that gay marriage constitutes a right protected under the Constitution.
The common theme here is President Obama’s trepidation. His critics on the right mocked him for constantly voting “present” before his inauguration. Why does a man vote “present,” barring some legitimate reason like a financial conflict of interest? Because he fears the consequences of voting “yes” or “no.”
Votes, like all decisions, define a person. Obama’s appeal throughout his career has been his ability to resemble a blank slate and let others project their preferences onto him. He stated this explicitly in The Audacity of Hope: “I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” To decide is to define; to define is to disappoint someone, somewhere. Thus, he sticks to his instinct, to not decide.
At some point, that stops working for a man, and it appears we’ve reached this point. On all of the issues raised above, every path includes risk, public disapproval, hard work, and potential failure. He chooses to not choose — and ends up disappointing just about everyone.
Posts
