|
Is Tim Geithner another bad choice, like Rick Warren, that Barack Obama is simply incapable of recognizing, admitting and acting on? And is his unwillingness to recognize this a symptom of some much deeper problem with how he will govern? I fear it very well could be.
There was a headline at Huffington Post, it's gone now--I blinked and it went away--but it made a sharp impression before it was replaced with something far more benign. I forget the exact wording, but basically it was the Obama told 60-Minutes there was no way he was letting Geithner go. It came across like it was a point of honor with him. And I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that.
I don't know what story Huffpo was linking to, but BBC puts it like this:
Obama fends off Geithner doubters
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will not be allowed to resign amid criticism of his short term in office, President Barack Obama has said.
Mr Obama told CBS News he would turn down any offer by Mr Geithner to quit, and would tell him: "Sorry, buddy, you've still got the job."
I'm having a flashback right about now, to Barack Obama posting a diary at Daily Kos, telling all us dirty fucking hippies to lay off his buds in the Senate. That was the first instance when Obama used his popularity with the Democratic base to shield his personal friends from justly earned criticism--criticism that had nothing, necessarily, to do with them as private people, and everything to do with their public duties.
Then, there was his still-unexplained infatuation with Rick Warren....
|
| who clearly tried to sabotage him with the ludicrous "cone of silence" debate--not so much that he colluded with McCain, but simple that it was a stacked debate from start to finish, and everyone with a lick of sense knew that long in advance. If anything, that public betrayal only made Obama more determined to further elevate him at the inauguration, and simply dismissed the anguished objections of the GLBT community and its allies.
Now, here we go again. And the common denominator in all three of these cases is that Barack Obama doesn't seem the least bit amenable to reason. Oh, he has his very pleasant, very "reasonable" demeanor, fully intact. Any lingering doubts about why he admires Ronald Reagan should be long, long gone by now. But when it comes to actual reasons, as opposed to the appearance of being reasonable, there is, quite simply, no one home.
Put simply, Obama defends his friends. Ideas are utterly beside the point. If his friends have ideas that are abhorrent, or deeply injurious to his political supporters, or the American people at large, then tough toenails for his supporters and for the American people.
There are many aspects to this, IMHO, but one in particular seems to come to the fore right now--in all these cases, Obama seems to fixate on one reason for the path he chooses, which leads him to forge personal bonds, which then become the unquestionable foundation for everything else he does. The reasons he gives are not necessarily wrong from my perspective. But they are rather questionably calibrated, to say the least.
The Senate Democrats needed to hear some anger from the grassroots at the time that Obama defended them, however well-advised his words might have been in another situation. And all the reasons for reaching out to someone like Rick Warren only turn to ashes once one actually learns about him--his hypocrisy, his sanctimoniousness, the vast gap between the PR and the reality. Likewise, the rationale for someone like Geithner, someone who knows the territory like the back of his hand, is perfectly obvious. But the rationale for putting him in charge is not. He is an ideal advisor on the implementation side, after the main outlines of policy have been decided on.
What we can see in all three situations is that Obama has run away from those who form his natural constituency, he has found some new friends who, like most humans, have some endearing qualities, but also some rather disreputable political views, and he has turned it into a matter of principle that we must simply ignore the policy consequences of his new friendships.
This would be annoying, at best, if we were talking about high school politics here. But we're not. We're talking real world here. And in the real world, it really doesn't matter what these folks are like in their private lives. If they tell off-color jokes, or if they'd sooner die, it really just doesn't matter. What matters is if they are going to do the right thing in the way of public policy--and more basically, if they even have the slightly clue what that might be.
And somehow, the fact that we're no longer suffering under the worst President ever has drastically lowered our standards, so that we're willing to accept the leadership of a man who is genuinely inspiring, but who seems to have very low regard for whether policies actually work or make sense, and much more regard for whether everyone he wants to get along actually does get along. It's not that I expect his views to coincide with mine. I never expected that. But I did expect significantly better reasons from him when it came to explaining why he sees things as he does.
But, frankly, I see very little sign that he cares even a little bit about that. He cares about sticking with those he's chosen. Which, when you get down to it, sounds far too similar to GW Bush for my personal comfort. |
STATE BLOGS
