By MICHAEL BARONE
A year ago, I was privileged to be one of several guests at a dinner with President- elect Obama. One thing that struck me and others, aside from his courtesy and fluency, was his air of self-confidence. The man who had risen in just four years from state senator to president of the United States seemed sure he could master the job.
I wonder if he is as sure now. It seems to me that two assumptions that Obama carried into the White House -- assumptions that were shared by many who hadn't voted for him -- have proved to be unfounded.
The first is that economic distress would lead more Americans to favor big-government policies. The second is that Obama's personal characteristics and his repudiation of many of his predecessor's policies would change the minds of America's critics and enemies.
Any doubts that these assumptions were mistaken were dispelled at Christmastime. On Christmas Eve, the Senate passed a huge health-care bill that according to every public opinion poll is opposed by most Americans. And on Christmas Day, Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab came close to destroying an airliner nearing Detroit.
The unpopularity of the stimulus package, cap-and-trade legislation and the various health-care bills probably surprised the congressional Democratic leaders who put them together and the president who, with surprising passivity, indicated he would sign them. After all, weren't these ways to spread the wealth to ordinary people, as Obama put it to Joe the Plumber?
But through most of our history, Americans have preferred policies that enable and help them to amass wealth rather than those that purport to transfer someone else's wealth to them. The biggest outpouring of political sentiment this year came from those who thronged to "tea parties" and denounced increases in the national debt as stirringly as did the first Democratic president, Andrew Jackson, who actually paid it all off.
On foreign policy, Obama imagined that confessing past American sins, announcing the closing of Guantanamo and abandoning enhanced interrogation techniques would make Islamist terrorists think better of America. He thought he could induce the leaders of enemy nations to change their ways by referring respectfully to regimes like Iran's and downplaying all talk of human rights abuses.
It turns out that just as the financial crisis and recession didn't much change Americans' fundamental attitudes on the balance between government and markets, so emollient talk and confessions of past American sins didn't much change the behavior of those who consider America a sworn enemy. The mullahs still want their nuclear bomb.
US officials could stop talking about a "War on Terror" and speak instead of "man-caused disasters." But that didn't disarm the Islamist terrorist who shot up the recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., or the Muslim psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood or the pampered Nigerian who tried to bring down Northwest flight 253 over Detroit.
Obama did manage to abandon his statement that the Detroit bomber was an "isolated extremist" and admit that he was in touch with al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. Yet the administration quickly sent him into the civilian-justice system, where he predictably clammed up.
We've all experienced the cognitive dissonance that comes when it turns out that the world doesn't work the way we assumed it would. It's hard to give up your assumptions and easier to believe that unexpected events were an aberration from norm that would quickly snap back to what we expected.
Midcourse corrections in these circumstances are often awkward and difficult to execute, the more so when all eyes are on you and any change in direction is the subject of universal comment and adverse criticism.
Getting elected president of the United States must be an enormously confidence-building experience: So many people wanted the job, and you got it. Being president can be more chastening when events don't turn out as you anticipated.
The great presidents -- Lincoln, FDR -- faced events no one expected and in response changed policies and priorities without ever, so far as we know, losing their nerve. Lesser presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, did so as well. Will Barack Obama?
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The great presidents -- Lincoln, FDR -- faced events no one expected and in response changed policies and priorities without ever, so far as we know, losing their nerve. Lesser presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, did so as well. Will Barack Obama?"
Not in a million years,
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/10/2010 0:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The hyper-partisan forces that conspired to put Obambi in power, the media, ACORN and others of it's ilk, Soros, Hollywood, the academic elites....all did so for what he could do, not who he was. Now that the nation has finally awakened to what an amazing bait-and-switch scam they were sold, and that this narcissistic-jackass isn't actually capable of doing the job, they are trotting out the same script that they used to get here.....demonise Bush and the "tea-baggers". Little do they know that what is left of the actual American people, not the imports and others who are here to loot, steal or enjoy the fruits of my labor, are truly and seriously PISSED. Not just annoyed or inconvenienced, but PISSED wiith the theft and looting of the country.
Time to rediscover who we are, and who we are not. Time to refute the PC BS, the failed theories of socialism, and re-assert American exceptionalism. Further, time to stop helping the rest of the f*cking world and focus on flushing out the homefront. In this process, some eggs are gonna get craked I'm afraid, some figurative and some, literal.
#4
Remember when you didnt have to lock your doors? I can.
There is no God, right? Ever shaved with a straight razor? Then you know how to handle one.
You understand a straight razor.
And they dont make any noise. You just love these people with the names like Mukti Mohammed Talib and Bismillah Akbar bin Soodi? Nice people. And that guy from California with the earring on the Left side? And the woman in the PTA who so admires that wonderful man down in Venezuela?
And the reaaaly cute boy named Dwayne who wants to get you to sign his petition?
You can sit behind them in the dark Theatre...and its all about "sharing" isnt it?
You look at that Poster of Obama giving us all a chin up slightly half profile and you REALLY want to see Disneyland. Yeah.
Remember smiling and being polite is always essential.
And dress appropriately.
#6
Subtlety is not your strong suit Angleton. You need to watch what you say, unless you want feds knocking at your door.
You may take issue with Angleton's subtlety but you cannot argue with what he is actually saying. I remember the time he is talking about. Now I see what has been done to my country and I am angry.
A lot of Americans are now seeing it, it is hard to miss. The anger will not be contained for much longer. The anger is spread across the spectrum, Americans from every walk and profession are angry. This is going to end badly for the Left, I see no way to prevent it.
The only way to mitigate the rot and corruption is to cut it out, ruthlessly.
#7
Gotta hand it to Mr. Barone; He took many paragraphs to say what the average guy in the street can say in mush fewer words: The President is out of his league and needs to resign. The Oval Office, its not just for playtime.
Kenneth Anderson at the Volokh Conspiracy has a great piece on why the War on Terror should be framed by the US in terms of a traditional right to self-defense. Definitely recommended.
#2
Yes, Bambi isn't the strong leader we need right now. But when we finally do get a leader who understands both the issues and the stakes, it will be important to frame the issue properly. The 'War on Terror' is nothing more than the US asserting its traditional right to defend itself from non-state actors. We always have, we always will, and anyone who doesn't like it better not get in our way. And no more of this 'Waging Law' nonsense.
That's the gist of Prof. Anderson's essay.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2010 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Good nutshell Doc. Historically, our basis for this as the USA goes back to the Barbary coast and the heroics of Stephen Decatur and others of that era.
#5
The'War on Terror' is nothing more than the US asserting its traditional right to defend itself from non-state actors
Ironically, this is more or less the way the French political class treats any threats, from any quarter, to the hegemony of the French state. Next time you're passing through Orly or Charles De Gaulle, count the number of machine gun-toting, german shepherd-leading badass French paras patrolling the concourse.
Also spend a little time reading up on France's anti-terror magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere and his "high pressure weather system" against suspected islamist jihadists:
http://tinyurl.com/o74kz
France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on preemptive arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering networkFrench anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys.
Many of the anti-terror laws and policies in France date to 1986, when the country was grappling with Palestinian and European extremist groups. Since then, the government has modified and expanded those laws several times, gradually giving authorities expanded powers to deport and detain people... At times, French authorities have pursued terrorism cases outside their borders, taking over investigations from countries unwilling or unable to arrest suspects on their own.
Last year, Christian Ganczarski, a German national and alleged al Qaeda operative, arrived in Saudi Arabia for a religious pilgrimage to Mecca. ...Saudi officials prepared to deport Ganczarski back to Germany, but when German officials indicated they lacked the evidence to arrest him, Saudi authorities arranged a detour, putting him on a flight with a connection through Paris. When Ganczarski arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport on June 2, 2003, he was detained for questioning by French police.
Seventeen months later Ganczarski remains in a French jail, under investigation for alleged conspiracy in the Tunisian attack. French investigators have claimed jurisdiction in the case because French nationals were among the casualties in the Tunisia attack.
Also last year, French counterterrorism officials tipped off the Australian government that a visiting French tourist, Willie Brigitte, was allegedly part of a terrorist cell in Sydney that was planning attacks during rugby World Cup events there. Lacking direct evidence of their own, Australian officials deported Brigitte to France in October 2003, where he was arrested. He also remains in jail, where he is subject to regular interrogations.
The French anti-terrorism judge overseeing both cases is Bruguiere, an investigating magistrate who under French law is granted great prosecutorial powers, including the ability to sign search warrants, order wiretaps and interrogate suspects.
Over the past decade, Bruguiere has ordered the arrests of more than 500 people on suspicion of "conspiracy in relation to terrorism," a broad charge that gives him leeway to lock up suspects while he carries out investigations. "There is no equivalent anywhere else in Europe. This provision is very, very efficient for judicial rule in tackling terrorist support networks," Bruguiere said in an interview. .
#4
ION > CHINA COVERTLY PREPARES TO ENTER AFGHANISTAN TO PROTECT ITS ECONOMIC INVESTMENTS. ORIGINAL USE OF ANTI-TERROR AND GENERAL SECURITY PLA POLICE TROOPS-ADVISORS. DESIRE BY CHINA TO REMOVE "GLOBAL TERRORIST FORCES" FROM CHINA [via Afghan = AFPAK]AND PREVENT LINKAGE WID INTERNAL SEPARATIST FORCES.
* SAME > BANKRUPT USA WILL BE HARD-PRESSED TO GEOPOL DEFEAT CHINA-JAPAN ECONOMIC ALLIANCE.
* SAME > KOREAN WAR SECRET: THE SOVIET UNION WAS PREPARED TO MILITARILY ABANDON NORTH KOREA TO PREVENT/AVOID DIRECT WAR AGZ THE USA. SOVIET LEADER JOSEF STALIN DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE USAF-CLAIMED "ACCIDENTAL AIR BOMBING" 10/8/1950 OF SOVIET RUSSIA'S VLADIVOSTOK AIR BASE WAS AN ACCIDENT.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
