It was interesting contrasting this morning rant with Camille Paglia's usually honest, if not always accurate assessment of the the political milieu.
Leadership apparently means something very different to liberals than it does to conservatives, a fact that liberals are only too willing to exploit when it suits their purposes. When Bush failed to show leadership, he was properly castigated even by his ideological confederates. When Obama fails to show leadership (which apparently is every waking moment), his ideological confederates blame his subordinates.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Apparently, liberals really do prefer the French model of government, where the President confines himself to the symbolic acts of a head of state and any political safe activities he chooses. The rest he delegates to the Prime Minister (Nancy Pelosi?)
Just a couple of problems with this. The first is that regardless of how liberals would like Americans to perceive blame and credit, American tradition accords them almost solely to the President. This is of course due to the fact that Americans understand leadership to mean responsibility--a view reinforced every week in the narrative of both professional and amateur sports. Players who blame their teammates or "environmental factors" are condemned as cry-babies and losers.
The second, subsidiary reason is that the very people Paglia castigates aren't holdovers from the hated Bush administration, but Obama appointees. These are his people, and they inevitably reflect his values and judgment. If they are incompetent, arrogant and irresponsible, well its simply a reflection of the values of the Obama administration, and specifically the values of the President.
Its understandable that Obama supporters don't want to believe their eyes and ears, afterall, they elected Captain Kirk, not William Shatner. Nevertheless, the epic fail of this administration is painfully and embarrassingly obvious, and rhetorical efforts to spin only serve to create legions of new beclownments.
What's interesting to me is the pattern I'm seeing. After 9/11, Bush also had this reservoir of goodwill with the American people, so his critics, both conservative and liberal, focused on those surrounding him--Rove, Cheney, etc... Bush was getting "bad advice". Eventually though, Bush's 'good will' tank was on 'E' and the attacks refocused on him. That took years-- this situation is developing on a seemingly impossibly accelerated schedule.
Setting aside the politics, the reality of this administration is devastating. The British PM's office can't find senior American administration officials to talk to about the upcoming G20 summit.
Venting drive plasma, phasers off-line, shields failing. Its Kobiyashi Maru time.
UPDATE: From Small Dead Animals, a recollection by Carol Platt Liebau on Barack Obama's days as President of Harvard Law Review.
When he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.
A lot of the time he quote/unquote "worked from home", which was sort of a shorthand - and people would say it sort of wryly - shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn't around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.
He's the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he'd leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.
So, you know, you see that and you think, gosh, maybe that's the way the guy operates, hut then you figure ok, obviously he always had his eye on bigger and better things.
This explains a lot, doesn't it?
