Trusting Obama to do the right thing isn't enough

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-12-09 09:01 AM
Original message

Trusting Obama to do the right thing isn't enough

Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 09:12 AM by bigtree

THERE are too many forces in government, and in the military leadership and establishment, to rely solely on Pres. Obama to mitigate and smooth-over every obstacle and obstruction to the power and authority of his office. Nor is it credible to expect that the good will and intention of his deputies, Cabinet, or subordinates is all that's required to overcome the institutionalized and deliberately ingrained flaws and faults in our government and our national policy.

That's why I think it's a mostly meaningless defense against criticisms of the president's stated and enacted policy to dismiss the complaints with a hearty vote of confidence and trust in whatever view one has of Mr. Obama's character and intention.

There are broad elements of policy which are influenced by politics to such an extent that good will and intention falls short of what's needed to break a stalemate or achieve the necessary amount of support for enactment. It is fine to have faith in the president's political approach, but, conversely, it is also proper to take a negative view of the politics the administration is employing to effect their stated goals. The tool of compromise which the president has emphasized isn't the only lever available or prudent for every effort. We can certainly, reasonably disagree on those exercises of politics and the president's wisdom or prudence in his method of persuasion or debate.

Also, it's become a common, companion defense of the president to remind critics that they got what the president promised. That may well be true, on the outlines of his pronouncements during the campaign, but there are so many nuances to working initiatives and policy through the legislative or executive process - and so many details to policy which couldn't be fully fleshed out in an election - that we've seen a divergence in the details on some issues away from expectations of some folks.

Criticism of those divergences, where folks perceive that policy is being enacted in a way which wasn't defined in the campaign (or was implied with greater or lesser emphasis in the political debate), is a perfectly natural consequence in our political system. The candidates (Obama included) make an effort in their campaigns to appeal to as broad a spectrum of views as possible. Is anyone suggesting that these candidates and their positions weren't regularly oversold and exaggerated (especially by the candidates themselves)?

It's proper and necessary to generate a large coalition of concerns to the ballot box behind a candidacy, and Pres. Obama has said all along that, as a result of the effort, he expects differences in support for the things he manages to accomplish.

The expression of those differences is what makes our political system run. Our national legislature is set up to accommodate either argument or compromise. There's little room for dictating policy in our Congress. Anything which advances has to be the product of some appeasement to the opposing party, no matter where it originated. The president sits at the end of that process and makes the choice whether to accept or reject the initiative or law before him. Then, Congress has another chance to disagree with the president, if they choose to.

I'm at a loss to see how folks can reasonably expect anyone who is informed enough about the political process, and informed about the initiative or policy they're concerned with, to place eternal confidence in the president to make all of the right choices and to have the ultimate wisdom and influence to cause the myriad of those concerns to prevail. It's just not honest to represent the host of concerns Americans have as a mere bundle of opposition to the president, personally, or, as a judgment folks are making about his competence or ability. They are just fighting for, and defending their views and initiatives against what they may see as unnecessary compromise or even outright exclusion from consideration.

There is very little mystery in our political system anymore. With the instantaneous sharing of information available, there is great institutional and experiential knowledge about the process and about the prospective political outcomes. It's entirely credible to have legitimate, but opposing, views on that political process and the legislation or initiatives which are being advanced.

It's also entirely credible to have informed and insightful (but, opposing) views on the prospects of the president in managing initiatives and policy to enactment, based on the approach taken and on the elements of what's being advanced.

There is another dynamic which should be respected when responding to criticisms of the dual-occupations. The president has the ability to set military policy on Iraq and Afghanistan in much any fashion he chooses, using the same autocratic exercise of our forces that Bush used to deploy our troops and hold them there. That assumed Executive power is as much a product of the negligence, indifference, and outright complicity of Congress as it is any overreach by the president.

It's not like the administration is going to put their military moves before the Congress for approval to have them jam-up in the political gridlock which infects all else in the Capitol. That reluctance to involve Congress in the decision-making on the occupations appeared earlier on when the promise to submit the Iraqi SOFA to Congress for 'approval' became a promise to submit it for 'review'.

That assumed authority by the president on the occupations could also be interpreted as an ability, or an opportunity, to move even further away from the militarism than he's proposed. It's entirely reasonable to have supported Mr. Obama during the campaign, and to be disappointed with how much of the militarism he has embraced or allowed to continue. It's been months since that campaign. The realities 'on the ground' in both Iraq and Afghanistan have changed - or, in the case of both, have stagnated; Iraq politically, and Afghanistan militarily. We are not limited in our opinion (nor, is Pres. Obama) to what we knew about those operations during the election.

Further, if you begin with the view that both military deployments are illegal, immoral, or inherently untenable, there is no 'middle ground' on ending them as the president is seeking to achieve. For those folks, the slogan 'give peace a chance' can't be substituted with 'give militarism a chance'. That's a view which I believe deserves a great deal of respect. I personally wouldn't subjugate that view to any effort or opinion to escalate the militarism in either Iraq or Afghanistan - at least, not without a reasonable expectation that the policy the president is leading with will ultimately achieve that end to the occupations.

So, the bottom-line of this rant is that our responsibility to vigilance in support of the issues and concerns which we care about, and which affect us most, doesn't end with our votes. Power almost never concedes willingly, and it will take constant and unrelenting advocacy and activism to advance those concerns through the political system into enactment or law. The criticisms are an integral and vital part of that process.