General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama is no ‘bystander’
Posted with permission.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/president-obama-no-bystander
President Obama is no bystander
11/12/14 10:20 AM
By Steve Benen
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) delivered a widely noticed speech in September 2011, condemning President Obama, not just on policy grounds, but specifically on the issue of leadership. We continue to wait and hope that our president will finally stop being a bystander in the Oval Office, the governor said. We hope that he will shake off the paralysis that has made it impossible for him to take on the really big things.
Much of the political media agreed and echoed the assessment. Pundits crying, Why wont Obama lead? became so common, a tired cliche was born. The president may have run as a young, ambitious leader, eager to change the world, but the Beltway was increasingly convinced: Obama is an overly cautious, overly cerebral president who would rather talk than act.
Two weeks ago, Dana Milbank went so far as to endorse Charles Krauthammers thesis of Obama as a passive bystander.
Since the second year of Obamas presidency, I have been lamenting the lack of strong leadership coming from the White House, describing Obama in June, 2010, as a hapless bystander as the crises cancel his agenda and weaken his presidency. Ive since described him over the years as oddly like a spectator and as President Passerby.
Lets put aside, for now, the fact that the bystander thesis completely contradicts the other common anti-Obama condemnation: hes a tyrannical dictator whose radical agenda is destroying the very fabric of America.
Instead, lets focus on why the bystander thesis appears to be outrageously wrong especially today.
Faced with an intensifying climate crisis, a hapless bystander, content to watch challenges pass him by, might have decided to do nothing. Maybe hed call for action in a State of the Union address or issue a white paper, but President Spectator would struggle to shake off the paralysis that makes it impossible to take on the really big things.
Except Obamas done the opposite, unveiling an ambitious domestic agenda, striking a deal with China that few thought possible, and challenging the rest of the world to follow his lead. Its an effort wrought with political and policy pitfalls, but Obamas doing it anyway because he sees this as an effort worth making.
As we discussed back in February, theres a group of pundits whove invested almost comical amounts of time urging Obama to lead more. Its never been entirely clear what, specifically, these pundits expect the president to do, especially in the face of unyielding and reflexive opposition from Congress, but the complaints have been constant for years.
As the argument goes, if only the president were willing to lead louder, harder, and bigger he could somehow advance his agenda through sheer force of will, institutional constraints be damned. And if Congress resists, its necessarily evidence that Obama is leading poorly after all, if only he were a more leading leader, Congress would follow his lead. The line of criticism became so tiresome and so common that Greg Sargent began mocking it with a convenient label: the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power.
What seems obvious now, however, is the need for these pundits to reconsider the thesis.
Obama saw a worsening climate crisis, so he decided to take the lead. Obama is tired of waiting for a hapless Congress to act on immigration, so hes leading here, too. Obama saw an Ebola threat, and hes leading a global effort to save lives. Obama sees an ISIS threat, so hes leading an international campaign to confront the militants.
The president showed leadership when disarming Syria of its chemical weapons. Hes showing leadership in trying to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. He showed leadership on the minimum wage, raising it for federal contractors while Congress sat on its hands. Hes showed leadership on health care, rescuing the auto industry, and advancing the cause of civil rights. [Update: several readers reminded me hes leading on net neutrality, too.]
The policymaking process is filled with choke points, but when the president has his eyes on a priority, he doesnt just throw up his arms in despair when one door closes; he looks for a new route to his destination.
Now, if Obamas critics want to question whether hes leading the country in the right direction, thats obviously grounds for a spirited debate each of the presidents decisions can and should be evaluated closely on the merits. Leadership is not an a priori good. Obama can take the lead on a given issue, but that doesnt necessarily mean hes right.
But if Obamas detractors would have Americans believe hes not leading at all, I havent the foggiest idea what theyre talking about.
mcar
(42,371 posts)So tired of this meme. Thanks babylonsister.
Cha
(297,513 posts)freshwest http://www.democraticunderground.com/110226701
And, yes it does piss them off!
mahalo babylonsistah!