Anyone with half a heart and a quarter of a brain supported the President during the election campaign. Even if we weren't necessarily comfortable disarming a weak opponent like McCain, there was a visceral sense of urgency born of the nascent national nightmare that is Sarah Palin.
Some of those in the disappointed camp wanted more done by now. But that was unrealistic. After all, simply rectifying the horror of the idiot Bush years would take nearly as many more. But it's the way the battle has been fought, rather than the wars won, that drain ardor from the Obama revolution. Why won't he toughen up? Why won't he do more? Or at least say more?
Well, two thoughts on this.
First, Rutgers historian David Greenberg reminds us that even the great Presidents aren't so great in their first year. The ticket to election...and the inevitable result...is consistent:
Candidates have no better path to victory than by inspiring us with dreams of a new political era, and presidents have no choice but to attempt 'too much'. In doing so, however, they can only disappoint us.
Indeed, if you look at the early months of Kennedy and FDR and Lincoln and Clinton--there is failure and misfortune for every one. Nothing is easy...and this is a job with a learning curve like no other. So, is time all that's needed? Will we eventually see the 'real Barack'...and at least partial fulfillment of hope?
Unfortunately, I believe not. Not unless a fundamental truism is acknowledged.
Mr. Obama makes no secret of his fondness for the 16th President; he was sworn into office on Lincoln's own Bible. And in tone, his presidency thus far virtually mimics the bipartisan words that Lincoln himself spoke on inauguration day:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right...let us strive...to bind up the nation's wounds—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
What is frequently lost in recounting is the fact that Lincoln spoke these words not during his first inauguration--facing Civil War and the potential destruction of America--but during his second, when nearly all the blood had been shed. As he stood on the steps of the Capitol in March of 1865, less than four months had passed since Sherman left Atlanta in smoldering ruins. A little peace seemed advisable.
What Mr. Obama seems to have missed is the necessity for victory first--no matter how bloody it may be. He is faced with an enemy who has no battle strategy, but a single tactic--complete and utter obstruction. An enemy which believes that despite losing an election, they have not lost the right to rule. Lies are their weapons. They are immune from hypocrisy: they shamelessly and uniformly oppose even what they themselves previously proposed--so long as the President has now come to agree with them. No attempt at negotiation has succeeded. Whatever Obama gives is not enough. They will always ask for more. And it will never be sufficient.
This is a cancer in the body politic, but Mr. Obama seems to refute the need for medicine, radiation or chemotherapy. He hopes to reason with cancer. But this disease is not open to negotiation. It needs to be defeated. Only then will rational dialogue return from people of good will--no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.
So, perhaps it is unfair to expect too much yet. But at the same time, it is not too soon to begin wondering if one disappointing year will turn into four. Peace talks only work with one side squarely facing defeat. And it is yet to be decided which side that is. So buck up, Mr. President. Find your Atlanta.
It's what Abe Lincoln did.
No comments:
Post a Comment