Saturday, September 4, 2010

WtF, Obama?

As a result of Ian Welsh's discussion of Obama's failings on Virtually Speaking (you can hear it here, and read the article it was based on here) and further discussions with an SL friend, I ended up wondering how it is that Obama can make excellent cabinet and judicial appointments like Stephen Chu and Sonia Sotomayor, and yet make such awful decisions on the economy, civil rights, and war and peace. I came to a couple of tentative conclusions. First, is that Obama is better at picking people than he is at understanding policy. At some level it is as if he thinks that the jaw-jaw of politics is more real than the tangible results in the lives of the public. Second, It seems that he cares more about the Supreme Court and the Department of Energy than he does about the economy, the military, and whether or not people who want jobs can get them, and what those jobs consist of. I have rather the impression that Obama is paying his best attention to things he cares the most about, and letting the Democratic Party's conservative leadership make the rest of the decisions.

I don't think this is a effective way to be President. It is much more typical of successful Senators. Whether or not November is going to be a disaster for the Democrats, as some polling says (for instance, here), it is a deeply unpopular and undemocratic way to govern.

2 comments:

Jay Ackroyd said...

Stuart Zechman (Zaurek in SL) have been discussing this question.

Much of the answer lies here, I believe

The Raven said...

Wow. Thank you for the reply, Jay. I agree generally with your link, but I think my observation that the Obama administration can't tell the different between politics and policy is pivotal. The Obama administration seems unable to recognize that Reaganism has failed, even though we are sitting in its ruins, and its failure may cost the Democrats the next election. It's the classic politician's mistake: believing that all problems can be talked away.

Well...I don't think we're going to change the administration's mind on the primacy of politics. But an electoral loss may be a powerful persuader.