Leading vs Campaigning
The recent changes in the White House staff indicates just how far the Obama Administration is drifting. As in any delusional self aggrandizing display of ego, the administration and indeed the president is resorting to a strategy that served them well in the past. The problem is campaigning and leading are entirely different. The former is little more than a shell game. You can talk your way in and out of a problem. The latter requires action, and decisive action at that.
Obama was elected on a wave of hope and change. Hope that the foolish ways of the previous administration would be replaced with thoughtful action. Implicit in this hope was the desire that certain actions would be reversed. Most notable, that the foolish and unjustified war in Iraq would end and that a more intelligent and militarily sound approach in Afghanistan would be adopted. There was a mandate for change, a congress was elected as evidence of this deep desire for change and hope. What the electorate got was nothing short of pompous speeches and stupefying inaction. In short, more of the same.
Both on election night and inaugural day, there was ample evidence of a new spirit among Americans. Then, the status quo seeped in every corner and when the high of election ran its course, the country had little more than what it had. The gays got shafted though a simple act might have come in a day or two. Sure the curmudgeons would have argued that the military would soon disintegrate into chaos, but surely their warning would have proved as false as their position in short order. The health coverage could have had a single payer if the White House had fashioned a bill with some sense and sent it to the hill, rather than let the sausage makers have their opportunity to fashion something that no one could understand. Also, the Palinites, the no-nothings of our generation, would not have been able to develop arguments with no basis in reality. On the financial side, Obama instead of bringing in those who created the mess should have turned to others who had a keen eye on the scams being perpetuated on our economy – Volker comes to mind. And lastly the most fool hardy of all missteps, the let me forget what I said on the campaign trial blunders, was listening to the generals on Afghanistan, one who was both irreverent and a outed liar. The only thing that top that fool hardy move was appointing Petraus to the zone. All these acts are a sign that the little geniuses who ran the campaign had no idea what they were doing and the president was presiding over a monolith that he wanted to co-opt instead of lead.
And what does the president do now to correct the past, he brings in his campaign manager. Good show there, huh? More words and less decisive actions.
Change can only occur when decisive and dramatic action is taken. It is also apparent that change causes tension and some need to be dragged into the future. The electorate expressed its dismay and disappointment with the past two years. Starting the campaign two years before the election is a sign that the White House just doesn't get it. It is not the message that is wrong; it is the messenger who just doesn't get it. Compromise is only effective when two parties are ready to deal honestly with one another. Chaos Theory dictates that the most unreasonable person wins in the end. Bringing intelligence to the table with a bunch of no-nothings whose avowed purpose is to defeat you is just plain stupid. They have no respect for the man or the office. The sad irony is that the opportunity the president was given was squandered, and like a character in a Greek Tragedy he had only his hubris to blame.
