With only a partial, lack-luster term in the U.S. Senate and a brief career as a state legislator, Mr. Obama was one of the least-known nominees for the highest office in the land. What gave voters the idea that he was qualified for the job, let alone able to accomplish the transformational change he promised?
The answer should be clear. The voters, particularly the young and experienced, were taken in by the boyish enthusiasm, pop star-like qualities, speaking skills and upbeat message of hope and change. He appealed as well to journalists, minorities, union members, environmentalists, educators, academic elites, fans of world government and open borders and an assortment of social activists who saw in his candidacy an opportunity to implement long sought liberal goals while increasing the role and reach of government until it became more like the much-admired European social democracies.
For Republicans and independent conservatives, the presidential election campaign was the perfect storm. The economy was a mess, owing to the collapse of the real estate bubble. Voters were angry with the Bush Administration for failing to anticipate it. They succumbed to the natural tendency to clean house of the party in power. A media love affair with the photogenic and likable Mr. Obama helped. A lack-luster campaign by his aging, less-photogenic opponent sealed the deal. American elections are still, in some respects, popularity contests. As a result, we elected a virtual amateur who projected great hope and confidence but who was better qualified to be a public relations agent than a chief executive.
After one year in office, it is obvious now that he has no notion of how to effect transformational change in a complex, heterogeneous society like the United States. He promised to change the way Washington works but instead, finds himself a captive to the way it works. His domestic agenda is in shambles and his preoccupation with it has caused him to neglect external crises and priorities like the war on terrorism which he has downgraded to a law enforcement campaign and a nuclear-armed Iran, now a virtual fait accompli. Health care reform, his domestic obsession, collapsed under the weight of a ponderous, overreaching proposed overhaul that few wanted and fewer understood. Government intruded massively into the automobile and finance sectors. His stimulus packages increased the number of government jobs but did little to restore confidence in the private sector. One in ten Americans are out of work. Many more have taken pay cuts or have stopped looking. Millions live in fear of losing their jobs and homes. Debt has skyrocketed to levels that frighten Americans and cause them to worry about the future.
They have good reason to worry. There are three more years remaining in Mr. Obama’s term and in spite of election reverses that ended his party’s super majority in the Senate, he shows no indication of being willing to move to the moderate center of the political spectrum where most Americans reside. Although he challenges Republicans to come up with ideas, he looks on with apparent indifference as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid systematically exclude Republican input as they attempt to ram through whatever liberal legislation they can before voters give them the boot in November.
Former President Bill Clinton showed political dexterity in moving toward the political center after his party suffered election losses two years into his term. This president probably won’t. He would rather be the president who nationalized health acre than a two-term president who failed to bring any of the change he promised. He denies being an ideologue but his words betray him. They are the words of a progressive who truly believes in the urgency of the reforms he espouses whether we can afford them or not because “they are the right things to do.” This, to the typical progressive, transcends all reason, argument and cost consideration. He believes, moreover, that his election was a mandate to accomplish these things. Problem is, we can’t afford them all. Another problem is who gets to define what the right things to do are.
Americans generally resist that approach to governing, sometime after a brief experiment with it. They don’t, for good reason, trust government to define what’s best for them. They want debate and some measure of bipartisan consensus on the big things like, say, nationalization of an industry or one-fifth of the economy or incurring massive debt that will burden our children and grandchildren. Of concern to many Americans now is how much more harm the progressives will manage to inflict on the country in the name of progress before they are voted out of office.
Copyright 2010 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
