I agree with your assessment of Obama essentially kicking the can down the road via placating sound bites ready for consumption by the masses. However, I'm curious what would lead one to expect any other response from a politician. Are there any examples where an empower has been told he has no clothes and then the emporer agrees and takes corrective actions?
Unfortunately, I suspect the average American prefers a leader who always gives confident, reassuring statements in response to any crisis. It helps reinforce the illusion that intelligent, honest, and benevolent actors are leading the nation in a healthy direction.
> However, I'm curious what would lead one to expect any other response from a politician.
I will give some examples of US presidents
who actually did some things.
This will take me into some very
contentious history: My goal isn't to
take sides in the history but just to
illustrate that some presidents actually
try to do things. For some of the
items in history, you may believe that the
presidents did well or poorly;
that difference does not concern me
here but only that they did do somethings
along with, secondarily, to observe that
we can differ on the quality of the results.
If we do differ on the quality of the results,
then we have to accept that presidents
who do things can risk failure;
one way to avoid both failure and success is not to do
anything.
As far as I can tell, no one knows what was in the
minds of W and Cheney at the start of Gulf War II --
not even still in the minds of W and Cheney.
But Gulf War II was a big effort and not just some
"placating sound bites", platitudes, cliches,
fantasy nonsense. I thought that the effort was
foolish, but it wasn't small.
So, for Gulf War II, were W and Cheney just
pushing out "placating sound bites"? No,
I don't think so. Basically I wish all they
had done was push out "placating sound bites".
Instead, I have to believe that they believed
that what they were doing was prudent, maybe
even necessary, to "protect and defend" the
US. And they had a point: At the time of
Gulf War II, doing nothing seemed to risk
a significant WMD attack on the US; I didn't
really believe there was much risk, but, right,
it was a small chance of a big loss and, thus,
difficult to evaluate.
Of
course, as we know now, what they did in
Gulf War II cost the US a lot in blood and
treasure. I'm sure there were some brilliant
military operations, some grand heroism,
and some astounding successes; there were
also some major screw ups.
Maybe long term, history will record that
the US dumping Saddam in Gulf War II
and putting in place a democracy, fragile,
a long way from perfect, was a grand turning
point in the Mideast, US and world security,
taming of radical Islam, and progress for world peace.
Hopefully. And I can believe that such
was some of what W and Cheney had in mind.
I doubt we achieved such success, but maybe.
So, Gulf War II was an example of political
leaders actually doing something, that they
believed in, that was risky, and that they
could get blamed for. I'd say they were
high on courage, sense of responsibility,
and patriotism but too low on simple,
basic, pragmatic smarts.
Else? For Saddam, I'd have put in place
one heck of an intelligence operation
so I knew what the heck he was/was not
doing. I'd turn as an intelligence
asset everyone of importance in the place short of
his cook and maybe also his cook. Then
I'd "Make him a offer he couldn't refuse:
'Behave or you and your family, children,
and grandchildren will all perish.'"
Or, for a small example, in Iraq US
General "Mad Dog" Mattis told some
Sheiks: "I come in peace. I didn't bring
artillery. But I plead with you, with
tears in my eyes, if you f&&k with me,
I'll kill all of you.".
I know; I know; international relations
are not supposed to do that. So, adjust
the message a little. But, net, I'd
have left the thug in power and saved US
blood and treasure. If the Iraqi people
didn't like their thug, then that was their
problem; the role of US policy was mostly
just to make sure he was not our problem.
Ike? He pushed the interstate highway system.
Reagan? The Soviets were terrified of Star
Wars (I doubt that they should have been),
and Reagan used it, along with Poland, etc.,
to help break up the
USSR.
LBJ? He was just determined, beyond belief,
to 'fight for freedom' in Viet Nam. He
allocated huge US blood and treasure. My
view is that the US is fully happy with Viet
Nam now (my Brother laser printer was made in
Viet Nam and is better than my old HP laser
printer), and my view is that the US could
have had essentially the same result
in 1947, 1956, ..., by doing essentially
nothing. Yes, Ho Chi Minh liked to appear
on parade reviewing stands in Moscow and
Peking -- nothing's perfect -- but actually
that meant next to nothing.
Net, lots of US presidents actually try to
do big things; mostly I don't like the
results; but they don't all just mouth
platitudes.
Even so one might be critical of it I think Obamas central accomplishment will be Obamacare. If this will be finally rolled out all other agenda points are going to become just smallprint in his legacy.
The US health care system can use
improvements, but the improvements
will not be easy to implement in practice,
and there is a risk of "doing harm".
If ObamaCare is a good design for
the US health care system or can
be morphed into such a design, then
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Senator
Kennedy staffers who wrote an early
version, etc. will deserve credit.
My
guess (from reading some of
an earlier bill)
is that as passed it was a
steaming pile of sewage, to mess up
the US health care system and kill people
and waste money,
but eventually
it may get turned into something good
as implemented in the Executive Branch.
I do fear the influence of
Dr. Karen Davis and her academic,
economic, health care systems research
nonsense -- I've been too close to such
nonsense.
There are major suggestions, e.g.,
from Barney Frank, that ObamaCare is
just a step to 'single payer' and,
with the power of the Commissioner,
really just nationalization of the
US health care industry, a huge
fraction of the US economy. I'm
very afraid of the consequences
in health care quality, cost,
and abuses of government power.
I know; I know; the US health care
system is a very long way from free
enterprise now. NIH pays for a
huge fraction of the medical research.
Likely, as elsewhere in Federal Government
research grants, the research supports
the 'research-teaching' hospitals that
do so much for patients, and poor patients,
training physicians, and doing medical
research. The FDA is right on top of
each new product. The CDC plays a
major role in US health care. The Hill
Burton hospitals admit anyone regardless
of ability to pay. Many hospitals
are funded by city taxes. Etc.
Improvement: Needed? Yes. Possible?
Maybe. Easy? No. A mess? Easy!
Yes, Obama has supported ObamaCare, but
actually he showed that he knows next
to nothing about the issue, e.g.,
during the summer of the big debate
made some uninformed
town hall statements and
got
slapped down hard by the US College
of Surgeons and then mostly just
shut up about the details.
I suspect that ObamaCare will be
put on a back burner, maybe
become just a subsidized insurance
plan, and otherwise junked, a little
after Obama leaves office.
When the press is combative, the press is docile if not subservient since he has entered the political spectrum. If it weren't for Putin's obvious lack of respect for President Obama Snowden would already have been shipped back
The press always likes something that sounds like a scandal and this presidency has been no exception. You are suffering from confirmation bias. The media is not 'liberal'.
Unfortunately, I suspect the average American prefers a leader who always gives confident, reassuring statements in response to any crisis. It helps reinforce the illusion that intelligent, honest, and benevolent actors are leading the nation in a healthy direction.