Victor Davis Hanson notes President Barack Obama’s strong approval numbers, but believes the President will have to reconcile his own rhetoric, ambition and outright partisan lack of common sense – factors Hanson believe will start taking toll.
Hanson touches on everything from Chrysler, to tax cheats, to unions to national security, but here is how he sums it up.
Obama could have had a one-time stimulus, then vowed to balance the budget. He might have praised wind and solar as he asked the carbon industry to ‘get us through.’ He could have politely disagreed with Bush, but framing differences in the tragic notion of no good choices. He might have cooled the overseas apologies, savvy that other nations have more to apologize for than his own. Obama should have established zero-tolerance for tax avoidance at a time of record tax increases. He could have remonstrated with Wall Street, and sought to rein in excess without Europeanizing the financial sector. He could have proactively reformed entitlements with bipartisan support, rather than, as will happen, drastically address them in the 11th hour. But then to do all that would be to assume he never went to Trinity Church, knew no Rev. Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, etc., did not run mysterious campaigns that eliminated opponents before the elections, was not the most partisan Senator in Congress, and avoided rather crude social and racial stereotyping while campaigning. Most who read this will not agree, given the mesmerizing effect of the Obama charisma. But in time, unless there are radical changes, I think the nation will come to learn that such talent was not put in service to our collective welfare.
We shall see. The national media has thrown its weight behind him, I don’t see Carter-like coverage in the near future unless they feel complete portrayal (think of the movie “Used Cars”).
Bush, for the most part, was rather scandal free and did what he said with the firmness of Texas humility. Though Karl Rove was a master of triangulation (something Tea Partiers are coming to terms with as we speak), he generally gave his word and followed it. Despite the “Bush Lied, People Died” meme of the kook left, Bush was regarded well during his Presidency by Americans in general for at the least being a decent human being. Clinton was the cool kid for a while, that lasted all of one year before he had to be saved by Dick Morris and a dose of realpolitik that relied more on conservative talking points, a strong economy and welfare reform – not hardly utopian or even strong Democratic policy.
In the months ahead, voters will have to reconcile Obama’s Chicago politics with the man he followed. It won’t be a pretty comparison for Obama, who has generally shown disdain for truth, attacked private citizens or laughed at the thought of their demise (Wanda Sykes), used his race as a weapon against enemies, named the former Administration in an unprecedented fashion, bullied private enterprise or simply seems cold like a car salesman – fitting behavior for a President more willing to meet with dictators than the opposite political party. Unifier, I think not.
“Unifier, I think not.” Good. I don’t want him to unify. His definition of unify is “centralize”.
As for unity, it was the Dems who were divisive, as usual, they accuse Republicans of doing what they practice. Now they get their guy and all Kumbayah talk is long gone. President Bush squandered the good will after 9-11, President Bush split the country … truth was they split the country over politics the first moment they had an opening. Too bad there isn’t a press to keep the accountable.
As for Obama’s central planning, I was on a journalist board earlier when the talk turned to local school levies. Basically, people are sick of being plundered by local school districts, but the journalists see this as “teabagger like idiocy” over the importance of income tax funds, that was basically how it was referred to (nothing like playing to stereotypes). Made me think – how soon will the Centralizer-In-Chief unveil his education stimulus and buyout, free money for your school district’s soul. Can’t be too long, everyone else has been bought out at this point.
There was a piece in the National Review the other day that tried to explain Obama’s actions so far by examining Saul Alinsky’s views.
or Hitler…. Nice way to ignore the justness (or rather unjustness) of your ends Alinsky.
Accusing the enemy of using the same tactics you use is a Marxist hallmark.
Don’t like him; never have; never charmed by him; never moved by his speeches. And that was before he ran for Prez. And I wince when conservatives give him credit for being a good public speaker and a good politician. Even if it is true — he is, after all, C-i-C — I just don’t get it.
Or, more precisely, it’s never worked on me.
p.s. Someone at AceHQ mentioned Palin going after DearLeader on the subject of Notre Dame — anyone see it or know the link?
Can you believe I’ve never heard him orate? I rarely listen to any politician’s speeches—I prefer to read transcripts so I can skim through the nonsense.
I can get through an “Obama special” in no time.
Darling Rufus,
Thanks for proving my point!
From the Boston Herald:
As you can see, she’s more upset with Notre Dame than President Obama. I am, too.
We expect more from Notre Dame.
BHO did what he’s good at—living down to our expectations.