Fitting the problem.
Barack Obama is a decidedly small-bore president. This is by no means a revelation to anyone. I voted for the guy in 2008 because the notion of a McCain presidency (and a Palin vice-presidency) scared the bejesus out of me, and rightfully so. (I remain convinced that denying him the presidency saved us about 14 wars.) I voted for him again in 2012 to deny the Republicans the joy of having all three branches of government. But that's about all I've gotten out of it. He's a very cautious man, a very conventional man, and not at all inclined to take bold steps.
Sure, he's Simon the Likeable. I think of it as the liberal equivalent of conservatives seeing W. Bush as someone they would like to have a beer with. Obama has an appealing persona to people like me, mostly because he's the first president in my lifetime that shares our experience. Of course, those considerations are an empty category, politically speaking. It doesn't matter at all whether or not I "like" this man I don't know. What matters is how he handles driving the enormous killing machine that is the American Presidency.
And from what I've seen, he's not much better than his immediate predecessors. It's that incrementalism - the big speech followed by the tiny half-step. Like this week, as Egypt's military crushed the Muslim Brotherhood protesters, Obama stepped up to the mic in Martha's Vineyard and duly intoned his concern, then canceled joint military exercises with the Egyptian generals. Kind of a puny response. For one thing, the Egyptian military is getting plenty of exercise now ... shooting and rounding up their own people ... with arms provided by us. That last part is the problem. If you want to have an impact on the generals' planning, pull back on the free guns. Don't just call off bombing the desert for the thirty-seventh time.
The presidency has a life of its own, it seems - some stuff stays the same no matter who occupies the oval office. One such item is our enduring relationship with the military in nations - like Egypt - with weak (or non-existent) civilian governments. So... how do we shift that? Any ideas?
luv u,
jp
Sure, he's Simon the Likeable. I think of it as the liberal equivalent of conservatives seeing W. Bush as someone they would like to have a beer with. Obama has an appealing persona to people like me, mostly because he's the first president in my lifetime that shares our experience. Of course, those considerations are an empty category, politically speaking. It doesn't matter at all whether or not I "like" this man I don't know. What matters is how he handles driving the enormous killing machine that is the American Presidency. And from what I've seen, he's not much better than his immediate predecessors. It's that incrementalism - the big speech followed by the tiny half-step. Like this week, as Egypt's military crushed the Muslim Brotherhood protesters, Obama stepped up to the mic in Martha's Vineyard and duly intoned his concern, then canceled joint military exercises with the Egyptian generals. Kind of a puny response. For one thing, the Egyptian military is getting plenty of exercise now ... shooting and rounding up their own people ... with arms provided by us. That last part is the problem. If you want to have an impact on the generals' planning, pull back on the free guns. Don't just call off bombing the desert for the thirty-seventh time.
The presidency has a life of its own, it seems - some stuff stays the same no matter who occupies the oval office. One such item is our enduring relationship with the military in nations - like Egypt - with weak (or non-existent) civilian governments. So... how do we shift that? Any ideas?
luv u,
jp
Comments