Global Chaos

---

---

When I was a child, my parents told me many stories. I'm sure most of your parents were the same way.

Mostly, I think it was my mother who told me stories, but my father did from time to time. The story that I remember hearing from him most often was the one about Chicken Little — you know, the one about the chicken who was convinced the world was coming to an end and ran about proclaiming, "The sky is falling!"

I'm getting somewhat the same sensation these days.

Under Barack Obama, the United States' global reputation is leaning away from strength and closer to impotence. His supporters, like the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, insist that "it's virtually impossible to be a successful modern president," which is a handy and much–used excuse. I heard it from Jimmy Carter's supporters in 1980. I heard it from George H.W. Bush's supporters in 1992. Nothing new about it.

They probably said it about Herbert Hoover in 1932.

But that's a copout.

Each of those presidents was said to have failed. I know for certain that Carter's backers and Bush's backers insisted that the presidency had become too big a job for any mortal man. And each of those presidents was beaten by a man whom history regards as far more successful than the president he succeeded.

"Being president is the most powerful job in the world. At which you will almost certainly fail," Cillizza writes.

I disagree. It's an important job, and sometimes it requires a lot of work for what seems like minimal gain, if any gain can be seen at all. But this assumption that a president will "almost certainly fail" suggests that, well, if the guy we've got can't do it, no one can. Not so. Presidents are not infallible. Popes, kings and dictators are considered infallible. But America is not ruled by a pope, king or dictator.When a president's failings become too great to ignore, his apologists immediately begin to defend him for fighting the good fight — and excuse him for falling short — for no one can juggle the duties of the presidency, especially if his skin is black and he has to deal with all those racists.

Never mind that those racists elected him president twice.

Early in his presidency, I heard Obama's supporters boast that he was opening a new era in global relations. In that first year, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. For what? I asked. Nobel Prize recipients typically have accomplished something for which the Nobel Committee is rewarding them.

He got it for what he will do, one of my friends assured me. What will he do? I asked. My friend did not respond.

OK, well, I've got a pretty good idea now. Russia's on the move, and we do nothing to stop it. There are at least two things I never ever expected to see in my lifetime that, apparently, I shall, nevertheless, see. The first was the breakup of the old Soviet Union. Once that happened, I never thought I would see the Soviet Union reunited. But Vladimir Putin appears determined to do that, and Obama has no apparent intent to prevent it. That is thing #2.

And that seems likely to lead us to a third thing I never expected to see — Cold War II.

All hell is breaking loose in the Middle East (OK, all hell is always breaking loose in the Middle East, only it seems more dangerous, more menacing today). Tens of thousands of children are being permitted to cross the U.S.–Mexico border illegally, most not accompanied by adults — along with who knows how many other adults, all of whom are in violation of U.S. immigration law. Many may be criminals in their native countries.

America has no foreign policy to speak of. There appears to be a perception that there is a new law in America, an open–border policy. There is no such law, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that people think there is and seek to take advantage of it.

America has always been a compassionate country, but the current border crisis creates a no–win situation. There is validity to the argument from those who ask how the United States can, in good conscience, turn away children and send them back to possibly criminal and violent environments in central and South America.

I don't believe that anyone likes that idea. But as much as the United States might like to fling open its doors and be the sanctuary for all the oppressed peoples of the world, it simply cannot do so. America already admits more legal immigrants than any other country in the world — by far. It does not have the resources to support hundreds of thousands of new illegal immigrants (in addition to the millions who are already here), to provide food and shelter and health care for them all.

America might have had the resources if the Obama administration had focused from the start on resolving the economic crisis and putting America back to work, as it promised to do but did not do.

Well, that is a discussion for another time. The fact is that America does not have those resources now and must be careful with the relatively meager (by historical standards) resources it has, especially when the government is subsidizing health care policies for nonexistent applicants.

What is needed is a president who has diplomatic skills, who could talk to leaders of other countries about stepping up and helping with the immigrants who are currently flooding across our southern border — and will at least try to work with members of the opposing party.

And we need a president who will forcefully tell the world that the United States does not have an open–border policy, that no country can afford to have an open–border policy in these perilous times. But we will do everything we possibly can for all immigrants who enter the country legally and want to become citizens.

Americans are generous people; they want to see everyone succeed, but they expect everyone to play by the same set of rules.

The perception of an open border has been achieved largely through word of mouth. When word begins to spread that people are not being allowed across the border, I believe the crisis will subside. Then, hopefully, a meaningful discussion about immigration policy can begin.

Like it or not, America is a global power that other countries look to for leadership. Without it, the world will descend into greater chaos.

Some presidents have the skills that are necessary to lead a great power through times like these; others do not. And when those who do not are granted power and make decisions that weaken the United States, those who would harm us are emboldened.

My father once told me that the great thing about America is that there has always been someone, the right man for the times, who steps forward and leads.

I hope that leader comes along soon.

On Transparency and 'Phony Scandals'

---

---

"My [a]dministration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in [g]overnment. ... Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their [g]overnment is doing."

Barack Obama
White House memorandum

---

Mark this date in red — Aug. 9, 2013.

That was the day Barack Obama held his most recent press conference — and I'm talking about the kind of press conference where the president actually takes questions from the press instead of ducking in to pontificate about some topic that really is beneath the attention of the president and then ducking out before anyone in the press corps has time to ask a question.

When I was growing up, presidents used press conferences (and primetime speeches) to keep the American public informed — especially during national crises. Presidents didn't always hold them any more often than Obama does, but they dealt with substantive topics, and they didn't allow reporters who were perceived as friendly to the administration to ask all or most of the questions.

But Obama, who was pledging to have a "transparent" presidency before he took the oath of office the first time, doesn't have press conferences very often. Oh, sure, he appears in joint press conferences with foreign leaders and other dignitaries with whom he dined and/or conferred in private — in fact, so far, that accounts for more than half of the press conferences he has held since becoming president.

And he does appear to favor those who don't ask him the tough, watchdog–type of questions over those who do, granting access to the lapdogs.

According to the American Presidency Project, Obama averages fewer than two press conferences per month — a pace that certainly would be lower if his first year in office had been like the last four.

As it is, his average is far lower than any president in the last quarter century — and it is lower than any Democratic president (other than Jimmy Carter) since World War I.

Given the turmoil in the Middle East and the fact that the administration had closed more than 20 diplomatic outposts in the region, I would classify this as a crisis — although I'm inclined to think that most days under Obama's watch have been crises.

Consequently, it would have been a good time to explain to the American people what was going on.

---

---

It was ironic, too, that Obama should hold his press conference on that particular day — and in that particular location, the East Room of the White House. Thirty–nine years earlier — to the day and in the same room — President Richard Nixon made his farewell address to the White House staff, then departed shortly before Vice President Gerald Ford took the oath of office.

But it isn't so much the frequency (or lack thereof) of Obama's press conferences that concerns me as it is the content.

And that, I must conclude, is not so much the president's fault as it is the journalists'. I'm willing to concede the possibility that, in private, Obama encourages reporters to ask him tougher questions, but I do not get the sense that that is the case. Instead, I get the feeling that Obama rewards friendly journalists with access and denies access to the less–friendly ones.

(Reminiscent of Nixon's famed enemies list.)

In last week's press conference, somebody in the White House press corps should have asked Obama to identify which of the scandals that have plagued the White House in 2013 are "phony" and why he believes that is so? I think it is a legitimate question, given how often Obama has referred to "phony scandals" (and elicited wildly approving cheers from his supporters) in his never–ending campaign for Obamacare.

But no one asked the question.

Obama is entitled to believe that a topic being discussed in public is "phony" — but I do not believe that he or any other president should be allowed to make such an allegation without being held accountable for it.

That, unfortunately, is what is being allowed to happen. Everything that Obama says, no matter how outrageous it may be, goes unquestioned by the press, and, as a journalist, I am embarrassed by what I see.

Now, Obama isn't the first president to make outrageous statements — nor will he be the last — so I can't really fault him for that. And he isn't the first — nor will he be the last — to make outrageous statements that have gone unchallenged so I can't really fault him for that, either.

Nor can I fault him for not asking the press to throw him some fastballs when he was having so much success driving the softballs they kept lobbing to him out of the park.

But I can and do fault the press for utterly failing to do its job.

Perception and Reality

---

---

There was a point in the storyline of The West Wing when one of the president's daughters was kidnapped by terrorists.

The president selflessly chose to invoke the 25th Amendment, temporarily relieving himself of his duties and elevating the speaker of the House, who belonged to the opposition party, to the role of acting president until the situation was resolved — thus sparing the nation the spectacle of a distraught father making decisions that should be made with the best interests of the country in mind.

The acting president took some hardline positions during the crisis, during which some Americans were killed, and he had to call their families to express his condolences and his appreciation for their sacrifices.

The president's secretary found him sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, and he asked her, "When do I get to the fun part of being president?" She asked him to clarify, and he said he was referring to riding on Air Force One and getting preferred tee times at the best golf courses.

(Later in that same episode was an exchange that I thought was profound. It may have no relevance to what I'm writing about today, but it's worth repeating.

(Anyway, the actual president — who had recused himself — was reflecting on his own actions that had led to the kidnapping of his daughter in retaliation. He quoted Martin Luther King, who said that violence was a "descending spiral" that contributed to a "deeper darkness."

("I'm a part of that darkness now," he said. "When did that happen?"

("Dr. King wasn't wrong," his chief of staff said. "He just didn't have your job.")

My guess is that a lot of people — including many of the people who seek the office — look at the presidency, and all they see is the glamorous side. They see the trips on Air Force One, the band playing "Hail to the Chief" when the president walks into a room, the First Family rubbing elbows with the rich and famous, the president getting preferential treatment at Hilton Head, etc.

They don't see the agonizing decisions that must be made, often in solitude. They don't experience the pressures of the office, pressures the Constitution places on only one person at a time.

Some presidents handle those pressures better than others. They are the ones who are typically rewarded with a second term.

Those who don't handle the pressures too well are denied a second term. And those who don't handle them in an appropriately constitutional manner may leave themselves open to impeachment. It's a matter of interpretation.

Those times of being tested come at different points — and for different reasons — in each president's tenure. But the random, chaotic nature of the world and its people makes it all but certain that a president — especially, it seems, in these times with an unprecedented global population making its demands on the planet and its resources — will face at least one test (if not more) of his/her leadership ability.

Frankly, it ought to be a given that a president can expect some choppy waters at some point. Since George Washington first took the oath of office 221 years ago on Friday, I can think of no four–year presidential term that has been serene and tranquil.

If you could ask him about it, I imagine Barack Obama would say that he feels he has been tested — almost continuously — since January 20 of last year, and that isn't entirely an exaggeration. Nor is it an unreasonable stance to take. He assumed office in the midst of the worst recession this country has faced since the end of World War II, and his dedicated supporters probably would argue that he has, so far, fulfilled his constitutional obligations (while, most would further argue, achieving a legislative victory that eluded other Democratic presidents).

All of that may be true. But here are a few more things that happen to be true:

• For openers, there is a massive oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.
  
  Experts are speaking of it as a potential, even probable, catastrophe. CNN quoted an environmentalist who warned that the effects of this oil slick may be felt for decades.
  
  It is being compared to Hurricane Katrina, which is an understandably sensitive comparison for the folks on the Gulf. And Obama, nearly two weeks after the explosion that triggered the situation, is finally in Louisiana to see the disaster up close.
  
  No doubt someone within his administration has warned him that the last thing he and his fellow Democrats need in an election year is a widespread impression that Obama's handling of this crisis resembles George W. Bush's mishandling of the hurricane.
  
  But how can one stop an oil spill? his defenders may ask. Fair point. And how can one stop a hurricane? See, that isn't the relevant debate, although there are sure to be those who will argue it. Obama can't stop the oil spill until he knows what caused it. Bush couldn't change the conditions that spawned the hurricane. Stopping the threat is not what this is about.
  
  The point is that both presidents had many days to anticipate a worst–case scenario and take whatever steps were deemed necessary to prepare for it yet neither one did.
  
  Until it was, in essence, too late.


• Meanwhile, there's been a terrorist scare in a place that is as sensitive to that as New Orleans is to the subject of hurricanes.
  
  In New York, federal agents are helping in the search for suspects who could be connected to an SUV that appears to have been designed to detonate, but failed to do so, in Times Square.
  
  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — who is probably somewhat sensitive to criticism after her handling of the attempted airplane bombing on Christmas Day — insists they are treating this as a "potential terrorist attack."
  
  I wonder how long it will be before many loyal Democrats in New York begin clamoring for Obama to visit the Big Apple and reassure skittish New Yorkers that their government is working for them.
  
  New York is a diehard Democratic state — but wasn't Massachusetts regarded as such, until Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat? And no one had to park a car bomb in Government Center to achieve that.


• Back in Washington, there are at least two issues that appear capable of generating some unpredictable momentum on their own.
  
  For one, there is that immigration law in Arizona. It's got immigration activists — both pro and con — all worked up. We even had a massive demonstration on that subject here in Dallas yesterday. It wasn't as big as some had predicted, but, in a state like Texas where roughly one–third of the residents are Hispanic, the potential is there for that powder keg to go off in a big way.
  
  Immediately, immigration may affect a few states disproportionately, but it's an issue that won't just go away. Ultimately, it affects all states, even though most are not located along our borders. A fair and equitable solution is required.
  
  For another, there is that issue of financial reform. I don't think significant declines in the unemployment rate are likely in the near future, and neither, it seems, do economic experts — or, for that matter, the folks in the administration. But the economic meltdown is fresh on voters' minds, and, while the incumbents in Washington may say that the indicators suggest the recession is over and the recovery is beginning, rank–and–file voters are justifiably skeptical. "These are the same indicators," they ask, "that failed to adequately warn us of what was coming back in 2007?"
  
  They want reassurance. Regulation in general may not be any more popular than it has ever been, but financial regulation is hip again, at least in some quarters. If Obama wants a bipartisan achievement to show the voters during the campaign in the fall, financial reform may be it. Republicans tend to have a knee–jerk reaction against regulation, but some of them might be persuaded to go along on financial regulation, provided it is done appropriately.
  
  Now, before an Obama defender comes back with an argument about how the recession began under Bush, let me say that I am aware of the timeline. But the perspectives of many voters will be shaped by what they see in 2010.
  
  Those voters had a pretty extensive to–do list for the folks who were elected in 2008. And if they think two years is too long to wait for meaningful financial reform — or anything else — to be enacted, that's going to be bad news for incumbents.
  
  If you need further proof of how ornery voters can get during midterm elections, may I refer you to Bill Clinton? Or, since Ronald Reagan is deceased, how about someone from his administration who is still living?

Well, there are several issues that could become important — at any time. It can seem, at times, that people want a president to be in several places at once.

And there are always going to be those who insist that their issue is more important than all the rest. I haven't even mentioned the unemployed — remember them? — who will be watching Friday's jobs report to see if last month's good news really was a sign that the recovery had begun.

If the numbers indicate that the economy is retreating, I sense some frustration that might be on the verge of boiling over. Arguing that all this started under Bush won't be enough to placate the unemployed then.

On the other hand, the news might be good. More jobs may have been added to the economy in April. But that can be a double–edged sword, raising false expectations. Suppose the economy shows tentative signs of life in the spring, then goes into a nosedive this summer and/or fall? What effect will that have on the morale of the displaced workers? And, perhaps more importantly from Obama's perspective, what effect will it have on their votes?

You see, most of what the Democrats and the Obama defenders have been offering, aside from a health care reform package that grows less popular by the day, are arguments that are best suited for a constitutional debate.

But most Americans, like Barney Fife in the attached video clip, know little about the Constitution.

For them, perception is reality.

And God help the politician(s) who fail(s) to give their issue adequate attention.