A few days ago, in The Hill, Budowsky wrote about the gap between "the idea" of Obama and his actual accomplishments.
Many of Obama's adoring supporters see no gap. But Budowsky does. And he is right. And he is unflinching in his assessment.
"Voters may vote for an idea," Budowsky writes. "Prizes may be awarded for an idea. But war and peace, prosperity and joblessness, legislation and treaties, illness and health, are not decided by the idea of the candidate but the actions of the president who is elected."
Budowsky makes an observation that could so easily have been made about Jimmy Carter in the first — or maybe the second — year of his presidency:
"It is time to worry when 'Saturday Night Live' makes fun of the president for achieving so little. It is time for alarm when so many power players believe this president can be rolled. Even a Senate where Democrats have 60 votes shows an almost daily disrespect for the president."
Budowsky believes he has identified the cause.
"The reason so many power centers, at home and internationally, say no to the president is that they do not know his bottom line," Budowsky writes. "They believe he may shift with the winds. They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled."
And he makes an observation that shows an understanding of the presidency that transcends the times.
"The history of successful presidents is clear: They fight for major change. They battle complacency and resistance. They risk losing tactical battles for greater victories. They challenge and inspire supporters to fight great battles for great deeds and inspire fear in opponents who resist."
Think of any great president you admire. You will see many parallels between that president's record in office and Budowsky's words.
It is clear in the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, whose "team of rivals" approach Obama has tried to emulate. But comparing a 19th century presidency to a 21st century one can be awkward.
So Budowsky spells out a few 20th century examples. "Compare the way Johnson fought for Medicare with the way Obama equivocates on the public option. Compare Roosevelt's 100 days with the lack of financial reform under Obama. Compare Reagan pushing through huge economic policies early in his term with Obama delivering little more than a stimulus written by others."
Obama's supporters can continue to occupy the fantasy world in which they currently live. From now until Election Day 2010, they can protest, to their hearts' content, that all the bad economic news, the escalating jobless rate, the two foreign wars, is the fault of others — and not internal shortcomings.
But history suggests that voters will be unimpressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment