Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
I agree with the principle that being politically 'competent' and 'respected' is going to be crucial to getting the job done. Although by so openly favouring a certain political view (the appointment of Jones, keeping Gates in charge of the Pentagon) seems far more like a tactical move, than it does a meritocratic one. All politics is tactical of course, but when that tactic seems one designed to allay fears from his critics within the Republican and centre-right ranks by sending out a message of 'business as usual', it does rather call into doubt the strength of Obama's commitment to so many of his pre-election promises.
|
I don't think the message is "business as usual", not at all. The message (the way I read it anyway) is that things will get done early and effectively. Jones, in spite of his Chevron board, was an early critic of the Iraq war. Perhaps for different reasons than say a peacenik would be, but still, he's against it.
After Obama won the primaries in the summer and started campaigning for the general election, I got an email from a friend in Belgium-- he studied here and he follows American politics. He said he was disappointed that Obama had pulled back from his more radical positions earlier in the campaign.
I answered by saying that this is a huge country that tends to be very conservative; you cannot win from the fringe-- it was logical he'd tack to the center. One thing is to mobilize MoveOn members, another is to gain the trust of independent voters.
The way I see it, and maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it is that Obama is going to be able to accomplish much more ruling from the center and creating a bipartisan coalition-- it's his style and it's always been his style to listen to all sides of the issue. He's never been an ideologue but a pragmatist.
I want health care. I want the war to end. I want green energy. I want a revived middle class with good paying jobs. I want America to become again an example for the rest of the world instead of a protofascist nation of torturers. If he accomplishes all this by making deals and compromises, I'm all for it. I love Voltaire's phrase that the better is the enemy of the good (often quoted as "the perfect is the enemy of the good"), and it applies here.
This country needs some***major repair***. It needs a collective push towards a better place, and nothing ever gets done here because of polarized partisanship and bickering and ridiculous "culture wars".
Obama is not going to squander his chances of accomplishing some really important things by taking a "down with the man" approach a la Suchfriends, or even like Jimmy Carter who surrounded himself only with people that were loyal to him. Sure Carter was a good man, but he's not remembered as the most effective President--even if he actually achieved good things and is very underrated.
So yeah, the ideologues are going to be disappointed with Obama. No question. He's not going to go into the left pole to polarize the right. He's for finding common ground with an aim to get results. This he has been proclaiming since his famous 2004 speech, and with this he's been consistent. I want to wait and see what he does before I'm disappointed-- but so far, I like his strategy and his unusual approach-- Not demanding the head of Lieberman on a plate? He surely is a bigger person than a lot of us.
So, the goals are "liberal", but the methods are non-radical, is what I see.
--
ps- don't forget that he's put melody barnes, a confirmed "progressive", in charge of domestic policy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/24/...-announcement/
it's not the arrival of socialism, but i'm looking forward to seeing more social protections for the poor, hungry, at-risk, etc., as well as a beefing up of the rachitic middle classes.