Thus far, I have been mostly happy with President Obama's administration. He has to be happy with his progress as well. He appears to have a long term strategy to put his agenda through Congress. He has yet to suffer a major legislative defeat. (Congress's refusal to appropriate funds to close Guantanamo was, as Ann Althouse has repeatedly argued, probably engineered by the administration as a way out of a hastily issued order). His stimulus bill passed early this year, and health care reform will come up for a vote by this fall. Early indications are that Republicans will not engage in a death match over Obama's soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court nominee.
So, Obama has those things going for him.
Where I have problems with Obama is that he is afraid to lead through bold and aggressive action. To take just one example in the national security arena, the reason the Democrats in Congress had to give him cover on backing out of the deadline to close Guantanamo Bay is because the right is kicking and screaming about having terrorists on American soil. The right argues that terrorists shouldn't be in United States prisons--exactly why this is a problem I don't quite understand--and some on the left are beginning to make the same point. Why Obama chooses not to counter the shrieking is beyond me. The right wing in this country has been decisively rejected in the past two elections, including in 2008 when they tried to portray Obama as a terrorist sympathizer. Obama, you will recall, won 365 electoral votes in that election. But he apparently still fears that portrayal. Thus, Guantanamo Bay will stay open until he can find a way to dial down the rhetoric. (Hint: The rhetoric isn't going anywhere).
Glenn Greenwald blogs extensively regarding Obama's Bush-era national security policies, much much more so than I feel like getting into right now. Head on over and start scrolling. It's really rather depressing.
For me, though, the biggest problem I have with Obama's political "skill" is his unwillingness to stand up for the rights of gay and lesbian Americans. Obama refuses to push to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and he refuses to comment on the gay marriage revolution 2009 is turning out to be.
You might have heard that Obama's defense department recently fired Dan Choi, an Arab linguist, because he publicly revealed his sexual orientation. Obama, rather than making it a point to get Congress to repeal the legislation -- or, gasp, issue an executive order effectively doing the same thing -- has decided to wait until some point in the unforeseeable future to make his move (if, indeed, he actually will be making a move). Marc Ambinder describes the likely course of action:
Obama will probably convene a commission -- not sure yet whether it'll be a blue ribbon dealy or a smaller task force -- that will, under the guise of studying the "problem," be tasked with coming up with ways to meaningfully and safely integrate open homosexuality with military service. No mistake here: the administration will not give this commission the option to decide that being gay is not compatible with service. But the idea is to build a consensus through all available means -- legally, through the courts, in public, through a concerted but non-hectoring public relations effort, in the military, by conveying the sense that Obama takes the objections to his view seriously -- and then, when such a consensus has arisen, work with Congress to change the policy.
This is a cowardly way to advocate for minority rights. This fact is particularly true when polls show that overturning the ban on gay and lesbians in the armed services isn't particularly controversial anymore. 56% of the country favor an outright repeal of the ban, and 7% are unsure.
Similarly, Obama refuses to acknowledge gay marriage victories this year in Iowa, Maine, Vermont and -- soon -- New Hampshire, let alone push for a greater acceptance of gay marriage. This to me is a less annoying political position to take since majorities still regularly poll in opposition to gay marriage (although the number of those in favor of gay marriage has soared in recent years, and has risen dramatically in 2009 alone).
But less annoying does not mean not annoying. Presidents are elected to lead. I understand that Obama has more than enough on his plate at this point in his administration. As he lectured John McCain during the presidential campaign, though, presidents must be able to do more than one thing at one time. If President Obama chose to come out in favor of gay marriage now, when he has enhanced political capital and maintains solid approval ratings (65% in today's Gallup tracking poll), he could put his imprimatur on the defining civil rights struggle of the 21st century. Obama could link his name to the success of the gay rights movement the way Martin Luther King or Lyndon Johnson are linked to the success of the African-American civil rights movement in the 1960's. In short, this is a history-making opportunity that Obama refuses to embrace.
I understand that Obama wishes to conserve his political capital for health care and the myriad other programs that he wishes to institute in this country. I think he also overestimates the potential negative impact his support for full equality would have. That said, the potential downside of taking action is probably higher than the potential downside of not taking action. As the title of this post indicates, Obama's unwillingness to take that extra step, to show the country that one can simultaneously respect religious autonomy yet still be an advocate for all people to be treated equally under the law, is the (marginally) safer choice. Refusing to take action probably makes him a good politician. But it sure doesn't make him brave.
This post could use some video...
ReplyDelete