London Times Column on Obama Bitterly Analyzed

Today's London Times carried a column by Gerald Baker entitled "Only a great president could cope with all this". I took issue with several statements:

- "Much - way too much - has already been written about Senator Obama's capabilities. The one thing we can say with certainty is this: if he can somehow navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years he will really have a claim to greatness."

In reading more than my fair share about the presidential candidates, I cannot recall ever thinking that I had read too much about their capabilities. I had read too much of vague accusations about character flaws, distortions of policy positions, wardrobe costs, flag pins, and that nefarious McCarthyite era bugaboo about whether you had ever dared to exercise your right of freedom of association. I halfway expected to hear, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member, or fellow-traveler, of (fill in your favorite fearsome organization). But too much about "capabilities"? I say, I wanted to read more!

If President Obama is able to only "... navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years... " his claim will be far less than "greatness." A claim to a modicum of success would certainly fit. Maybe even a claim to having been very good at his job in a time of multiple crises. But to achieve greatness, in only a four year span, will require that he persuade the Congress to make substantial specific strides in the areas of economic stabilization and reform, environmental initiatives, and tax reform. Add to that his personal tasks of repairing the USA's image abroad, and re-establishing trust with both our traditional allies, and listening to the views of those not yet our friends, but with whom a dialogue might just ease tensions and increase understanding. A daunting task indeed, but "greatness" is a description not easily achieved, nor should it be.

- "So Washington is agog with anticipation about the arrival of the new president. But Washington being what it is, the immediate focus of frenzied concern doesn't involve tax cuts or bailouts or sit-downs with foreign leaders. It is the critical decision that will bring euphoria to some and break the hearts of others: where the Obama daughters will go to school."

"I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington that rears children solely for the same reason they do everything else: to move upward in society. They would literally kill to get Nelson Jr into a particular school in the hope that it might be an entrée to some important contact. True happiness for many in this city is the possibility that little Meredith will play on the same soccer team as the daughter of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administrative Affairs, or if fortune is really smiling, some glamorous White House correspondent for one of the networks."

Baker begins his first paragraph with the sweeping generalization "So Washington is agog...", thereby insinuating that all its residents are "agog". In so doing, he implies that they are all basically social butterflies, flitting from party to social to debutant ball to enduring the heartbreaking angst over whether their children will get into the 'right' elementary school, oblivious to both the real world and the nation's business upon which they were either elected, or hired, to work.

Then he perhaps reconsidered his statement. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph: "I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington... " I can agree with that statement. Singling out certain members of a group not united by ideology for criticism, as individuals, is ethically and logically preferable to a blanket condemnation of the entire group. You may say that is 'political correctness'. If so, I hereby plead guilty. But back to these two Baker paragraphs, the second undercuts the first. Debate points have been lost for less.

-"The times and circumstances of (Obama's) election call not for a sharp ideological turn but for pragmatism. We trust you to do what works, was the message from the voters."

Wrong. The message from the voters was a strong majority in favor of ideological change, not pragmatism; hope and faith in a leader who will not provide more-of-the-same, but one who will address the mountain of problems left by Bush II from new perspectives, trying new approaches, not merely trusting him "... to do what works."

I must now acknowledge Baker's humor. In his description of the frenzy-to-be surrounding what school Obama's children, Sasha and Malia, will attend, he says that social climbing parents will:

"... flood the lucky academy next year with admission applications. The city's proudest lawyers will plead with administrative assistants for reconsideration. There will be attempts at bribery. There will be blood."

My favorite, though, is his portrayal of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:

"His managerial style is famous. He is to the courtesies of polite society what Sweeney Todd was to the short back and sides. He is known for using a familiar Anglo-Saxon expletive in conversation as a convenient all-purpose verbal utility vehicle: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, participle, gerund, whatever."

Wow, when was the last time you saw the word "gerund" used outside of a textbook? Is it even suitable for polite social intercourse? (oops).




Next Friday: Adam Smith and Karl Marx analyze the 2008 economy