Friday, August 19, 2011

How could that Obama gold turn to dross?

Peggy Noonan gets inside Obama's head about how frustrating it must be that he's constantly wrong even though he's smarter and better than everyone else.
He's got to be full of doubts at this point about what to do. His baseline political assumptions have proved incorrect, his calculations have turned out to be erroneous, his big decisions have turned to dust. He thought they'd love him for health care, that it was a down payment on greatness. But the left sees it as a sellout, the center as a vaguely threatening mess, the right as a rallying cry. He thought the stimulus would turn the economy around. It didn't. He thought there would be a natural bounce-back a year ago, with "Recovery Summer." There wasn't. He thought a toe-to-toe, eyeball-to-eyeball struggle over the debt ceiling would enhance his reputation. The public would see through to the dark heart of Republican hackery and come to recognize the higher wisdom of his approach. That didn't happen either.

Nothing worked! And nothing's going to work. He's the smartest guy in the room, but he's got the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to—well, unsatisfying outcomes.
So what's next? Well, clearly since he isn't to blame, it just must be the system.
The president shows all the signs of becoming a man who, around the time he unveils his new jobs proposal in September, is going to start musing in interviews about whether anyone can be a successful president now, what with the complexity of the problems and the forces immediately arrayed, in a politically polarized age, against any specific action. That was probably his inner rationale for not coming up with a specific debt-ceiling plan: Why give the inevitable forces a target? But his refusal to produce a plan became itself the target. Reverse Midas.
We've already seen liberals bemoaning how our system allows divided government. Thomas Friedman yearns for just a few days of Chinese autocracy. In his day Woodrow Wilson wished that we could have a parliamentary system instead of the unwieldy system that we do.

Yes, but darn it that is the system that the Founders created. Madison specifically wanted checks and balances so that policies would have to be balanced between different political ambitions. As he said so famously in Federalist No. 51,
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Yes, but why should we be stuck with this 18th century construct when we have the wonderful Barack Obama being frustrated in what he'd like to be doing?

3 comments:

equitus said...

Clearly, the founding father's never imagined a president as brilliant and insightful as Obama. That's the crux of the problem.

pumping-irony said...

The old maxim commanded "Lead, follow or get out of the way." We now have a president not capable of the first and not willing to do either of the other two.

Pat Patterson said...

What's odd is that the name cited by the Democrats as a historical reference is FDR. There was some improvement for the first 7 years then many of the fiscal and monetary policies caused a recession almost as bad except for '32. But most people still had faith in FDR never really getting below 50% at any time during his administration. But the difference must plainly be the result of his eloquence and the desperation of the people fearing that Landon and Wilkie would destroy whatever progress had been made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Franklin_D_Roosevelt.png