I argued in my last post that Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers is most plausibly explained by go along to get along approach to whatever crowd he is in with. Nobody around him in his Chicago circles objected to Bill Ayers, so neither did Barack. So far as anyone knows, Obama has never taken a stand contrary to the conventional wisdom on his side. This suggests a man with not a lot going on beneath the surface, which may actually be fine for most of the work of an ordinary presidency. If, however, something really serious happens, what inner resources will he draw upon?
Gracious and much appreciated reader, Gene, sends me this note in reply.
Professor I share your concerns about Obama's inner reserves. I think you correctly portrayed the significance of his Ayers and Wright relationships. I'm trying to put this in the context of past presidents I remember--going back to Eisenhower--did any exhibit an inner reserve that got them or this country through tough times. But every time I come up with what seems to be an example of or lack of inner strength--upon closer examination they we're just interested in political survival. (Nixon-Watergate, Clinton--Monica, Carter-Iranian hostages). If this is the test then Obama passes-he is a political survivor--Clinton and now McCain have learned not to underestimate him.
I certainly agree with Gene that Obama is a formidable politician, and his opposition should be careful not to underestimate him. But I think that cases of Presidents who act out of inner reserve rather than mere political expediency are not that hard to find. Oddly enough, I think that Jimmy Carter was acting out of principle when he sat there for a year while the Iranians occupied our embassy and held our people hostage. He knew it was costing him, but he really believed that patience and negotiation were the right thing. He did eventually cave in to political pressure, and authorize a military expedition that was ridiculously risky and ended in disaster. Carter's problem was not lack of courage or principle; it was that he had the wrong principles for dealing with Iran.
Ronald Reagan provides a better case. When he joined with Thatcher, Kohl, and Mitterrand, and put intermediate range nukes in Germany to counter Soviet INF already deployed, there was a tremendous campaign waged against the move by the European left. Reagan held firm (with a little encouragement from Thatcher: "don't go wobbly on me, Ronnie!"), and the result was the INF treaty and the destruction of a potentially destabilizing class of weapons.
A smaller example, but apropos, is Bush's leadership at the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan. I think it was a mistake not to send in massive ground forces, instead of doing what we did and fighting from the air. But that was the strategy, and at first it didn't seem to be working. Bush's cabinet went wobbly, and some of his top advisors talked of pulling out. Bush asked them: didn't you all think this was a good idea just a few days ago? Then let's give it a little time. That is sticking to your gunships, and it is a good example of leadership, whatever you think about the rest of George W.'s presidency.
Given what we know about McCain, there is every reason to think he has that kind of quality. Given what we know about Obama, there is no reason to think he has such qualities. Of course they may be there. But at this point, one can only have faith. That, or hope that nothing important will happen while Obama is President.
Recent Comments