Breaking Ranks with Bush and Obama. Bilal Ahmed, in the Souciant blog.
"Personally, my favorite is his apt description of the overactive eagerness to go to war that has defined the Obama years:..." This statement is indicative of Secretary Gates' interior political conflict. The eagerness for war during the Obama years has been nothing compared to that expressed so vividly by Bush/Cheney in the course of their years -- which was productive of not just one, but TWO discretionary wars. I can't help wonder is Gates was whispering this bit of wisdom about war as a last resort into Mr. Cheney's ear in the weeks leading up to the first administration of "shock and awe" to the people of Iraq. Somehow, I don't think so.
Yes, it's quite American, and not just constrained to Obama. It may also be here to stay.
I'm interested to know more about Gate's view of the Obama administration. I'm not surprised to learn that there are many similarities and parallels to the Bush administration in regards to war. I'm guessing that it's not just war where these similarities exist. Calling it the most centralized government since Nixon is also something I'm not surprised by. Furthermore, I'm not surprised that Obama was concerned with reelection from day one. My guess is that all presidents are concerned with reelection from day one, some more than others though. What I'm most frustrated by is that after obtaining a second term, it doesn't seem that Pres. Obama is terribly interested in doing anything courageous or anything that falls outside of the normalized script. Truly disappointing.
I can't help wondering what "outside the normalized script" you would have the Obama administration do that would have some chance of being passed by the legislative branch? Our "true disappointment," if not our serious alarm, should be reserved for the ineffectiveness of our entire system of government in this century.
The debate between big government and small goes on endlessly -- while nobody seems interested in achieving GOOD government at any scale.
The normalized script has become "we can't even try because of the GOP." Which is just weak governance. There was a time when party foes would meet regularly behind closed doors and actually hash things out. We are told that Obama has extended a couple of invitations and been snubbed. I don't think he has made an earnest effort. If he were to make weekly unrequited invitations, we would know who was putting the effort in and who wasn't. I think keeping the public apathetic is the status quo that all politicians maintain once elected. While campaigning they attempt to rattle the apathy just enough to get people to the polls.
Sorry, but I find your "we can't even try because..." to be very unsatisfactory. We can't even try WHAT, exactly? Perhaps a move to a specific would be helpful. What would you have the executive branch try (legislatively or otherwise) with respect to, say, closing Guantanamo Bay? Invite more Republican congresspersons to lunch? Play another round of golf with Speaker Boehner? Government by RSVP doesn't sound like much of a solution to a system failure to me. Which is not to say that public apathy, as you suggest, is not the root cause of the problem -- in which case, the young face a very bleak future indeed.
Yep, top on my list would be Guantanamo along with, repeal Bush tax cuts and any number of other promises that were made to me and millions of others in his FIRST bid for the job. You can mock the idea of a round of golf with Boehner, but if it were a regular occurrence, I guarantee you that there would be less gridlock. These are human beings and when you spend time with another person on a regular basis you develop a relationship which can be leveraged to action; action that fuels progress. It all starts with Government by RSVP as you call it. The one time I was excited about this presidency was when the administration arranged for both parties to be in the same room to hash out a health care bill. It didn't work out as hoped but I would love to see more of that. Laws and legislation happen as a result of compromises that occur belly to belly. That said, I am not terribly optimistic about our current system because the "normalized script" is what keeps you and your party in constant power. That said, I do think the Internet is going to provide increasingly efficient ways for citizens to steer the agenda and hold their elected officials accountable in real time. I see the system changing drastically in the not to distant future.We can't even try WHAT, exactly?
So we'd both like to see Guantanamo closed -- but still have no answer to WHAT we would have the executive branch in particular DO to make that happen. Same for repealing the Bush tax cuts. To the GOP, that cut would equate to a tax INCREASE, which of course is Satanic and a one-way ticket on the Hell Express. I don't think two more choruses of Kumbaya around the old campfire at a weekly White House weenie roast is going to do the trick there. I could, of course, be wrong. Please note that -I- don't have any ideas about what the executive branch should do either though -- short of staying engaged and not throwing in the towel. As for the system changing drastically in the not too distant future -- same question again: to WHAT, exactly? No shortage of dangerous possibilities in that direction! Better to try to resurrect constructive conservatism -- if it's not too late. And that, I think, is something rational American conservatives AND progressives can agree on.
It's very disappointing, especially considering how excited we all were in 2008.