Obama’s first weeks: who would have done better?
Here’s an apologia for Obama’s first three weeks, from Ruth Marcus.
Her final question:
So if you’re feeling jittery about Obama’s start, ask yourself this: Is there another president in recent memory who would have done better?
It’s an interesting hypothetical. My answer: any previous president in recent memory would have done at least as well, and most would have done better.
Bill Clinton had a similar rocky start, but the country was not in a similar crisis. His early appointees were plagued with undeclared nannies (remember Zoe Baird?) and controversial legal articles (remember Loni Guinier?). He drew ire for beginning his presidency with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” issue of gays in the military, and his big health insurance initiative (headed by wife Hillary) fell with a resounding thud.
But Clinton seemed to learn from his experiences; perhaps Obama will, too. However, he has less time to do so, because of the magnitude of the problems facing him.
Carter struggled with Congress the first year of his presidency and never quite took hold. Maybe he should be placed in the category of “at least as well” as Obama; no better.
But all the rest would have done better. Has any president in recent memory showed the same combination of careless vetting of appointees, plus letting Congress have its way with a bill so important and far-reaching as the current stimulus bill? Has any been so relentless in panic-inducing gloom (with the possible exception of Carter?). Reagan, for example, came to office in a time of economic turmoil, but managed to get his programs implemented while remaining upbeat.
Congress is a huge part of the problem. The American people don’t trust Congress, and rightly so. Its approval rating is in the cellar, and has been for quite some time. So why does Obama? And why did he delegate the writing of the bill to the dreadful (and dreadfully unpopular) Pelosi?
The answer, I believe is leadership. Obama doesn’t have it, despite his rhetoric. And it’s very important—even vital—in times of crisis.
Over three years ago I wrote a post on the subject of leadership, and I’m going to quote something I said back then:
A leader has to give off an aura of trustworthiness and strength, and I don’t know exactly how that’s done. Eloquence can certainly be part of it, although it can also deceive. And of course, words have to reflect more than the aura of strength and trustworthiness, it has to be the real deal. When you listen to a recording of Roosevelt actually speaking those famous words “The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself!” you can hear his own buoyant optimism come through loud and clear in his voice, and it lifts you up. Like a good parent (or leader), he comforts and reassures when it’s needed the most.
It may seem as though I’m repeating myself, since I’ve written a great deal lately about Obama’s pessimism. But more and more it seems to be the key factor in what’s going on right now. This lack of leadership—the inability to convey the idea that there’s a firm hand on the helm—is a goodly part of the reason the markets continue jittery, despite all the bailouts.
At some point, the training wheels are going to have to come off the tricycle.
I think I am most dismayed by his giving the most liberal elements in the House control of this spending bill. He should have asserted his ownership of this from early on and not allowed all the non stimulus junk in it. He is so gloom and doomy. He is making me anxious and discouraged about the future of my country.
Every time I get a rah rah email from the Obama organization ( I signed up early on just to see firsthand what the opposition was communicating), I hit “reply” and say how disillussioned and disappointed I am in Obama’s leadership. I know it’s a silly gesture but it makes me feel better.
What Ruth means is “be glad you don’t have Bush – we all know what a horror that was, huh?”
He has been terrible. He has got to do better.
I am not in a place where I can easily google a source for it but I seem to recall that GWB garnered liberal applause for his handling of the first hundred (truncated because of the Bush v Gore thing) days of his administration.
To say that Obama has “mishandled” his debut is to infer that he was capable of better. I am firm in the belief that he does not possess any more ability to discharge the office than I do.
If one is in search of a President that assumed office under difficult circumstances then one need go no further than Truman. Now that was tough, but the man was tougher.
Not so with Obama. .
Lately the best stock strategy is to short the market big every time Obama makes a major appearance.
Obama’s principle goal IS to pass all the “non-stimulus” legislation, under cover of riding to our rescue. Why on earth would he oppose it? This is a golden opportunity for the Lefties to socialize our nation. Period.
If it wrecks the capitalist system (boo! hiss!), so much the better, they believe.
I am not and never was a fan of Jimmy Carter.
I believe he was (at least up to the present) our worst president in the past 50 years or so, and even made a lousy ex-president when he stooped to taking jabs at republicans during their administrations.
However, every day leads me to believe that Carter is about to be dethroned from the title of “Worst President”.
I have to admit, I think even Carter did better in his first hundred days than Obama has managed.
Please, someone tell The One that the election is over and he can quit campaigning already!
It’s time for him to actually, you know, do something….
This is probably untrue about being in therapy, but definitely is true of making a speech and of making a sale: Who you are being is more important than what you are saying. In speeches and in selling: people sense and remember nonverbal communication as strong or stronger than verbal communication. People remember verbal – but they remember a limited amount of verbal. The nonverbal makes a big and lasting impression.
FDR and Reagan were being leaders who believed in the American people, who believed a bright future lay ahead. Irregardless of what they said, they led because of who they were being, through and through, to their cores.
How they were being reminded us of who we were and where we wanted to go. Sometimes we humans forget who we are and where we want to go. That’s when a leader is valuable.
From the article:
Expecting the Obama team to operate perfectly under these conditions is like expecting a first-year med student to perform surgery — before they’ve handed out the stethoscopes.
For better or for worse, that is what I expect of an incoming President. Remember all his bragging about “hitting the ground running”? Remember his assuming the “office of the President-Elect” within days after the election? Remember all the reports about how then-President Bush was giving “unprecedented support” to then-President-Elect Obama?
Please remember, also, that preparedness was a big issue in this camapign, what with Hillary’s “3AM” advertisement and such. For President Obama to be caught unprepared, not once but several times, is embarrassing at best.
He also campaigned on the issue of “transparency” — and is now trying to railroad through the largest spending bill in history, with no time to read it.
Yes, Neo, an apologia is what this is. President Obama may well go down in history as one of our great Presidents… but as of right now, looking at what he’s actually done, the signs all point in the other direction.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Least. Transparency. Ever.
Biggest. Socialist. Ever.
Worst. Start. Ever.
Anybody else got one?
Oh, bother,
Most. Arrogant. Ever.
Daniel in B. — Well said.
Now is not the time for Obama supporters to be making excuses that their leader is not prepared to govern the country from Day One.
The rest of us were screaming about Obama’s lack of executive experience, in fact lack of most any experience aside from campaigning, for the past year.
Most. Finger-wagging. Ever.
My 85-year-old mother spends her days watching MSM news, and as a result voted for Obama, as did my academic, socialist sisters.
Two weeks and six days into our new long national nightmare, my mother apologized to me and admitted I was right. Fat lot of good it does, but at least she said it. And that was before she learned about the rationed healthcare measures, under which she would have been “allowed to die” years ago.
She’s a repeat offender, having voted for Perot and thereby helping put Clinton in the White House. And yes, there are some cognitive issues there. Doesn’t mean some cold-hearted gummint employee should get to determine when it’s time to stop her care.
When you are campaigning,you blame the other guy.When you are Pres.you do not.(Twice we heard that he got left with this deficit)Stop whining.The presser showed me the smallness of this man.
He’s off to a great start!
He and the Dems have absolute control. What’s happening is what they want to happen. He’ll appoint 2 Supreme Court members his 1st term, and that will do it.
That we think it’s terrible, that stock market billions evaporate in a flash, that the 600-page Stimulus Bill (which no congresscritter has read in full) has totalitarian components, signifies nothing. National harm is what he wants. He is not comparable to Carter or Clinton in any way. He is not the Jackie Robinson of American politics, never intended to be.
Obama=Chavez, and we’re the new Venezuela.
gcotharn hit it. Obama does not believe in the American people. He sees victims and exploiters. I doubt that he has ever seen, much less appreciated, the run of the mill decency, helpfulness, and initiative that most people experience. He doesn’t trust us, so it’s hard to trust him.
My “recent” memory screams, Warren G. Harding
But I guess my understanding of “recent memory” may be a bit different from what she was asking.
Pessimism, spin and rushing critical issues past the loyal opposition are not leadership traits. The voting public was promised an entirely different product.
This Presidency is DOA.
Too much going on in the background to cover. Solicitor General nominee against the Solomon Amendment. Dropping of charges against the Cole Bomber. It’s galloping.
People of the Left tend toward pessimism because they focus on how to share the pie we have – equal outcomes – vs how to grow it.
I don’t agree with Obama on most issues, but I had an embedded optimism lurking in the back of my brain somewhere that, faced with the facts and the realty of power, he would make some good choices, show some leadership. In the last week, watching and listening to him I’ve got a bad feeling about him – that he’s deep down very disdainful of people with other points of view, and that he has a very narrow view of his role as president. I remember a YouTube video of him announcing he wouldn’t run for president, because in his own self assessment he wasn’t ready. I think he was right then. He’s way over his head, and that is going to become painfully obvious as his presidency starts to wear thin on growing numbers of people.
The press was all over President Bush for his pauses and occasional stammers / stutters while he was gathering his thoughts. They basically called him an idiot. In watching President Obama during his press conference and his appearances that are not scripted I have heard just as much pausing and stammering and more “you knows” than in a sixth grade remedial reading class. Haven’t heard a peep out of the press about it. It happened in the campaign too but it was glossed over or just ignored then as well.
I have this really sick feeling in my gut and I keep thinking of a Ray Bradbury title
“Something Wicked This Way Comes”
I agree that this presidency and this Congress are DOA. Obama has pretty much no leadership skills. You know, I have a greatly diminished view of Ivy League grads now, and prior to this it was pretty low to begin with. The people at Harvard and Columbia who gushed over this guy truly have impaired intellect and no morals.
Leadership is all about the qualities you find in people like Tom Brady in football or Gen. David Petraeus in the U.S. Army. Hell, my Basic Training drill sergeants at Fort Dix, NJ had tons of more leadership ability and skills than this long legged mack daddy has.
We are so totally f***d it scares me. Oh, and I can’t wait to see how he fares when it’s time to have a meet with Vladimir Putin. LMAO!!!
Poutiest. Teenager. Ever.
John. Wayniest. Not.
Least. Stamina. Ever.
BarackAntoinettiest. Thermostat. Ever.
Sec. of HHS: The people have no heat!
Barack Antoinette: Let them soak in hot tubs…
Rahm: The people need a leader! They have no direction!
Barack Antoinette: Let them use GPS…
As someone else quoted from the article:”Expecting the Obama team to operate perfectly under these conditions is like expecting a first-year med student to perform surgery – before they’ve handed out the stethoscopes.”
You know – isn’t that really the problem here? That we elected a first year med student that hasn’t seen the stethoscopes to perform major surgery? I know that wasn’t what that meant us to take from it, but I do not that was the analogy that his *supporter* came up with, not us.
the question has always been when will the train wreck happen (and to some extent how bad will it be). I had hoped it would occur before the election, but oh well (or rather McCain was a wreck too). He hasn’t done as bad as I thought he may and he may still well learn – but I do not have much hope. Indeed I hope when the wreck happens it is a full one as the country will marginalize him and the dems (and note, that isn’t saying I hope the economy fails, some terrorism attack, or any such thing – his rambling transparent power grabs along with the dems gaffes are *more* than enough for a major train wreck).
What for Obama included all these economy wizzards into his administration? Their silence is deafening. One could reasonably expect this team to prepare guidelines for anti-crisis measures. Instead, the task was given to House, known for its economic illiteracy. As for gloom and doom, this is a hallmark of progressives mindset. The only really optimistic people I knew all were profoundly religious and were not shy to openly declare their convictions.
The best quote I find in reactions to Obama’s sales spiel
“Lincoln wasn’t fast and clever; he was slow and honest, and he carved out a place in the pantheon for the ages. He also noted that “you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” He thus left his newest admirer at least two lessons for a successful presidency.”
The prior references to French royalty got me to thinking.
Are Ivy League colleges (and their ilk) the modern equivalent of the old royalty class in old Europe?
I mean, their titles were hereditary – but they saw themselves as the only ones capable of ruling the people and had a deeply ingrained distrust of the common man having any say in matters of importance.
You also had classes of people who were not royalty (such as the very wealthy), but who supported these monarchies and also believed that only royalty could be effective leaders and so the royalty stayed in power long after a properly working democracy or republic would have removed them from any position of authority.
The bluebloods themselves were completely out of touch with the circumstances of the vast majority of the population, and really were no more capable of leading nations than the average person. It’s just that they were seen – at least by themselves – as being more capable.
They had no clue, or care, as to how they were seen by the average Joe – so much so that they ended up creating circumstances wherein they literally lost their heads.
Are we seeing a modern equivalent to such arrogance now?
I’m not suggesting we take up our pitchforks and march on DC, but I am suggesting that the socialistic overreach going on right now in the opening weeks of this administration don’t bode well for the next 4 years, and such an overreach could result in a massive backlash the likes of which nobody in DC currently envisions as a possibility.
By not envisioning such a possibility, planning is not going to take place to respond to such a possibility, and this in itself makes the likelihood of an inappropriate overreaction on the part of either the people or the current ruling class all the more likely if things really do deteriorate.
If you consider how political positions are becoming hereditary, how some members of political families feel they are entitled to Senate seats for instance, and how the political class has become so disconnected from the reality of the average Joe’s life – is this the beginning of a total meltdown or will this nation be able to reinvigorate itself and return to the basic philosophical principals of individual freedom upon which this nation was founded?
I admit the thought process that got me to this question is based on more dire circumstances than I really think is the reality at the moment, but then again we have a president running around telling us the sky is falling so you can’t get much more dire than that short of a total collapse.
The political class is dominated by the Ivy Leaguers – or admirers of the Ivy Leaguers, yet they don’t seem to be doing any better job at leading the nation than average Joe’s of decades past would have done.
They also seem to be as out of touch with the common man as any old European royalty would ever have dared to be.
Scottie, there’s an excellent recent article in Commentary on that subject, and it has been a AVI site soapbox of mine – “Cultural Tribes” – for a few years.
Sorry, the Commentary article is “The Meaning of Sarah Palin.”
Pingback:The $13 a week stimulus - UPDATED | The Anchoress
Ahem. Does anybody remember the esteemed Rev. Wright. As far as the outside observer was able to gather, that man had the longest and most profound influence on the formation of young Mr. Obama. At least there is no one among his family, co-workers, teachers or acquaintances who has been brought forward to speak to the birth and maturation of the One. Is it any wonder that Obama as President cannot find his footing? To begin to govern you must have a solid place to stand; and, people other than racist, anti-American demagogues have to be standing there with you if you are to lead.
AVI, thanks! I’ll have to go look it up later today when I have more time to digest it.
After posting it, I noticed the same kinds of sentiments but from various other viewpoints posted elsewhere – so I’m convinced I’m not the only one, or even in a minority, on these kinds of thoughts.
Which is kind of worrisome in it’s own way, come to think about it…..
Scottie’s comment got me thinking. How is it that among the comments here George W. Bush (Yale grad, son of Pres. George H.W. Bush, grandson of Prescott Bush, given a company to run by dint of his name) or John McCain (third generation command level military, in the Senate for three decades) escape the charge of being part of the new aristocracy, while Obama, son of a Kenyan and a white single mother from Kansas, who managed to get into Harvard (I know, I know, all PC AA BS) IS supposedly part of this cabal of elitists?
I dare say John “I’m suspending my campaign to return to Washington to deal with the financial crisis” McCain would be unlikely to have his administration up and running, with all the key players confirmed, and an economic bailout/stimulus package capable of passage in Congress on his desk little more than three weeks into his term — let alone be making “Don’t worry. Be Happy.” speeches about what lies ahead.
Before you all waste too much time and energy responding, I don’t expect anything other than the same old crap from the crowd here. I continue to drop in now and again to monitor the sideshow, but rarely bother to comment any longer because the reflexive, echo chamber, bashing of any and all who depart from the Neo orthodoxy is just too boring.
Clive Crook in an article discussing economic blogs neatly encapsulates one of the more problematic side of blogging so perfectly demonstrated over here on Neo-neo’s site when he notes:
“On the web you best build an audience by organising a claque and stroking its prejudices. Extend elaborate courtesy to people you agree with and boorish contempt to those who do not get it. Celebrate exasperation and incivility as marks of intellectual authenticity — an attitude easier to tolerate in teenagers under hormonal stress than in professors at world-class universities.”
So, ignore this and go back to what you were doing kids, just remember tomorrow is a school day.
Chris White,
Exactly where did I state that the republicans did not also have a problem with this Ivy League mentality?
The examples I used were of democrats, but you likewise have a “royalty” issue with the Bushes, with Bush the Elder ( a term I have used before ), Bush the Younger ( also a term I have used before ), as well as Gov. Bush in Florida. If I’m not mistaken – all Ivy Leaguers.
What I did do was point out the similarities between an old failed European system of blue bloods and the current Ivy Leaguers moving in the same direction as the old monarchies.
The Ivy Leaguers seem to infest both parties.
A key difference between the republican problems with Ivy Leaguers and the democrat problem with Ivy Leaguers is that the republican view of the direction the nation should go is closer to current public acceptance due to the party’s friendliness towards capitalism as well as an adherence to a strong national defense, whereas the democrat view of the direction the nation should go is more towards socialism and centralized government control over as much of the economy as possible and acceptance of a more blatant international order – which regardless of socialistic tendencies in some areas of government this nation is not yet a socialist nation.
My point is that if the Ivy Leaguers and the democrats push enough of a socialist agenda in the US, there will be a backlash of some sort.
The democrats are in complete control of the government at the moment, and criticism of republicans is a useless gesture as they are not the ones in power – hence the reason for focusing on democrats.
I’m sure you’d rather we bashed republicans, and I’m just as sure those are the kinds of websites you spend far more time on – but it’s a waste of time as they are not in power!
At any rate, such a backlash could be relatively minor and just result in some congress critters losing their jobs, or it could be much more energetic if many of their plans are shoved through over objections of the people.
But let’s talk about you for a moment.
You make statements such as:
“I don’t expect anything other than the same old crap from the crowd here.”
Then you quote Crook:
“Extend elaborate courtesy to people you agree with and boorish contempt to those who do not get it.”
Who’s expressing “contempt” here other than you?
Earlier you stated:
“but rarely bother to comment any longer because the reflexive, echo chamber, bashing of any and all who depart from the Neo orthodoxy is just too boring.”
And end with:
“So, ignore this and go back to what you were doing kids, just remember tomorrow is a school day.”
Exactly who is looking down their nose at who, here?
Next time you want to critique something I’ve written, please take your blinders off and stop being so knee jerk defensive over your party of choice.
If you have a valid defense against what I’ve said, please provide it, otherwise you kind of come off as whiney.
Mr. Chris White,
With your hit and run attitude and your “Clive Crook” (interesting name by the way) comment you illustrate the intellectual arrogance others have been talking about. I don’t think anyone on this thread said that “everyone” from an Ivy League institution is incapable. I think the point being made by most is that an Ivy League degree doesn’t make one any more qualified than anyone else but that most of those who have one use it to imply just that.
I don’t remember anyone in the Bush campaigns or in the press “touting” that he had an Ivy League degree. In fact many used the fact he had one a tool to make more fun of him.
With McCain it was the fact he graduated fourth from the bottom in his class at Annapolis that was used to demean his mental acumen. Now with a brother who graduated from a service academy and a niece and nephew there currently (knowing how the curriculum is front loaded with math and science and what is considered a passing grade) I can tell you it is almost a certainty that someone with a degree from Annapolis – no matter what their class rank – is better equipped to deal with the problems of this country than someone who graduated at the top of his class in the Ivy League with an MBA or an LLB.
It’s true, Ivy Leaguers infest both parties – it’s an equal-opportunity deal. I have a few thoughts on the phenomenon, and can speak from personal experience.
I became a conservative during the second semester of my third year at Yale, in the required “Junior Seminar.” We were reading Jonathan Schell’s The Fate of the Earth, and our professor enthused about the abolishment of national sovereignty as the cure for all ills. (It turned out that she was actually the Mayor of Crazy Town, but it got me thinking…)
Anyway, this post is not about PC thought control, but about the types of people who graduate from the Ivies. It turns out that it’s “push” and “go” that gets you into the Ivies – the willingness to get the great internships, play three sports and edit the school paper, plus doing science research at the local university, getting private tutoring for the SATs and going all-out to excel. Even so, today very few of even the best-prepared and most impressive students ever get in, there just aren’t enough places. Back in my day, it was enough to be smart and interesting, a good writer, and a legacy…my dad was in the class of ’58. Last year our own brilliant son applied (both parents are legacies) and he didn’t get in. He’s now at the University of Chicago studying economics and Arabic, God bless him!
It’s that same “push” and “go” and drive for recognition that sends the Ivy Leaguers to the halls of power. It’s a great canvas for their energies – and it doesn’t matter on what side of the aisle you sit.
Having studied at Yale I can tell you that the only thing that really sets it apart from other fine institutions is its history and name. The teachers aren’t necessarily better (witness the Mayor of Crazy Town) and while the students are certainly smart and motivated, so are a lot of students at a lot of other really fantastic schools which don’t happen to be as old, as hallowed, as ivy-covered, or as well-known.
Bottom line? Those Elis (and Harvards, and all the rest) put on their trousers (or their pantyhose) one leg at a time, just like everyone else.
Ya know, it occurs to me there are many men in our history who ranked middlin to low at places such as West Point, yet went on to excellent accomplishments in their lives.
I’d agree with dane that even graduating from West Point probably denotes a higher level of accomplishment than a similar graduate from an Ivy League school.
Because he’s the spokesmodel for them, obviously. Which is why Ayers selected Him, and groomed Him as best he could. And why Ted Kennedy & Co., Hollywood, and academia all plumped for Him.
The major draw of a Harvard, at least, is not the education, but the connections. As pointed out previously, a chemistry degree from Harvard isn’t accredited by the American Chemical Society – it’s too weak. Harvard turns out CEOs of chemical companies, not chemists. Their undergraduates know just enough to know when to grunt at cocktail parties, but that’s it. The reason? It frees up time for the faculty to pursue their research, which brings in prestige and research money to the university. There’s lots of high-minded talk about Harvard, but when they’re serious (as in dealing with money), the missives come from the “Harvard Corporation.” Tells you all you need to know.
The point about connections is that you need to cultivate patronage to enjoy them. That is to say, the identity of your patrons are is all important. Patrons extend support for their own reasons. If you don’t serve the purposes of the patrons, you will never be adopted or promoted at all.
If you depend on connections, you can never be independent of the social demands and political goals of your patrons. If you betray either, you will be cast into outer darkness.
If you are dependent on this network for economic and social advancement, you will find it very hard to voice dissent. You will suppress dissenting thoughts. You will react with bewilderment and/or rage to people who challenge the orthodoxies that regulate the network. After all, it is your social standing and rice bowl that are at risk.
I think this is the story of the New Class.
Sorry, gargled above: s/b
“That is to say, the identity of your patrons is all important.”
I think I was saying the same thing as you!
Chris White wrote, “is just too boring.”
Yes, learning economics 101 is boring. But it is behooves you. 🙂
Absolutely spot on!
Pingback:The Anchoress — A First Things Blog