This piece about the influence of Obama’s inner circle of Chicago-based advisers is good. But like many articles on the subject, it somewhat misses the point. Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarrett, and Emanuel are not just random aides who have led Obama astray. They are not merely advisers; they are alter egos.
It is no accident that they are all fairly distasteful people, as well, as was mentor Rev. Wright. Although Obama is the attractive head man with the smooth style, do not forget that these four have not been randomly assigned to him: he has chosen them, and done so because they express exactly what he wants them to express.
These advisers are Obama’s true face. For the most part (the possible exception is Rahm Emanuel, who does not go back as far with Obama, although Rahm is a long-term friend of Axelrod’s) Obama cannot get rid himself of them because there is no one who can adequately replace them—no one he trusts and knows as well, and who knows him equally well (with the possible exception of his wife).
Here’s a longer and truly fascinating article on the subject from the Financial Times, loaded with insights into the inner workings of this inner circle:
In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington ”“ most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office ”“ each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people ”“ Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.
Note the fear that access will be denied. It’s real; remember the war on Fox? Note this as well [emphasis mine]:
The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.
All of these people are Chicago connections. All were closely allied personally with Obama and/or with his campaign almost from the start (except for Emanuel, who ultimately defected from the Clintons to endorse Obama; he was an adviser to Bill during his presidency). As a former House member, Emanuel is the only one of them with any national-level non-campaign political experience of his own.
The others are strictly local and/or strictly concerned with the perpetual campaign (Gibbs was allied with Obama’s 2004 campaign as well, Jarrett goes back to 1991 in close association with both Obamas, and Axelrod, the director of Obama’s presidential campaign, began his relationship with him in 1992). I believe it is unprecedented for a president to have so many campaign advisers this closely involved in governing—or what passes for governing these days.
Larry Podesta (one of the few who are secure enough to go on record in the Financial Times piece) says, ““It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.” So, Obama’s Cabinet is marginalized? One suspects they are there merely for window-dressing:
“Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.
It is either Gibbs or Axelrod who usually acts as the public spokesman—two of the most off-putting and least telegenic creatures ever. Is it any wonder then, that Obama the “great communicator” has failed to sell his program, with these two as his shills?
More:
Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”
That’s a variant of the “if only Stalin knew” argument. But it’s difficult to believe that Obama is unaware of what’s going on; to subscribe to that theory, one would have to consider Obama tone deaf to human interactions. That’s possible, of course. But it’s more likely that Emanuel serves his purposes; power and intimidation, even of allies, is part of the deal.
More about Rahm Emanuel’s delicate touch:
We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ”˜This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”
Note the continual statement of uncertainty about what the elusive Obama really thinks and really knows. As I stated earlier, I think Obama knows full well, although he may not appreciate the depth of people’s negative reactions. But it’s not as though prior to this particular gig, Rahm Emanuel was known for his kind and gentle way of treating people.
In truth, this is a pattern for Obama. Since the very beginning of Obama’s political career, he has always relied on thugs to carry out his dirty work (see this and this).
There’s more:
The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side…none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”
This explains a great deal. And it makes sense, too, in terms of Obama’s belief system: remember back during the campaign, when Obama talked about his trips as a young man to Pakistan and his time as a child in Indonesia, and asserted that these experiences gave him a leg up in foreign affairs over all those other supposed experts?. Now he is playing out that arrogance, to the detriment of us all.
An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process ”“ two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations ”“ without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”
Can’t understand it? The answer lies in one word: hubris.
As for the possibility of Obama’s changing this disastrous course of action:
“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”
I’m with Gergen on that one.
