Barack Obama was something of a whirling dervish following his election to the presidency. His energy was palpable; his desire to “hit the ground running” once he actually became president was abundantly apparent.
Now, with barely two weeks under his belt in the nation’s highest office, his ambition is no less evident. Clearly, he wants to change the general directions that existed in both domestic and foreign policy under the Bush administration, and he wants to do it in a new spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship. He wants, in other words, to have what experience is quickly telling him he can’t have, to wit: the best of all possible worlds, wherein everyone sees the need to pursue his agenda and everyone wants to be part of his solutions.
To be sure, he is a man on a mission, and his sincerity and good motives cannot be questioned. But, even as he has acknowledged that he has much to do, he may also need, as these first weeks have shown, to accept that he has much to learn.
All new presidents experience the reality of learning curves. Whether they come to the job with a wealth of experience (as, for example, Bush 41 did) or come with precious little (as might have been said of Bill Clinton and Bush 43 and certainly is true of Obama), they immediately confront the unbelievable magnitude of their task.
Stated far too simply, that task is to control and direct the entire federal government, which, even from the most politically conservative perspective, means conducting foreign policy, managing economic and fiscal policy, and directing the work of tens of thousands of government employees, all while keeping the country safe and secure.
It is, as most Americans would readily acknowledge, a job intended only for those with the most supreme skill sets and with the most committed sense of duty.
And still, most presidents, especially in their first year, stumble badly.
It’s that learning curve that gets them.
And so it has been, already, for Obama, on at least two fronts, both of which he could only have foreseen if he’d had the job before, which is why a second term for a good president is desirable and why term limits for the presidency might not be.
But, getting back to President Obama, he’s been taking his lumps in two areas over these first weeks of his administration, and both are clearly learning-curve related.
The first area is presidential appointments. He’s been embarrassed at least three times already, all three embarrassments due to what Washington insiders would call insufficient vetting. Vetting is that process of combing through a potential nominee’s background to see if there might be anything in the individual’s past that suggests a bad fit for the job being considered.
Vetting has become something of a “process” over the years. It now requires staffs of attorneys and accountants who pour over all manner of material, starting with basic stuff like arrest and health records and proceeding to public actions, speeches, published documents and tax returns.
Tax returns are especially significant in the current climate in Washington because the economy is in the tank, and restoring it to good health is a, if not the, top priority of the new administration.
Thus it was a shock to learn that the announced nominees for two major cabinet positions (Treasury and Health and Human Services) had major issues about their tax returns.
Tim Geithner’s mistakes were deemed excusable only because they mostly concerned income received while he worked in an international organization (the International Monetary Fund). But as the individual who would be responsible for collecting taxes (the IRS does fall within the purview of the Treasury Department), it was a hard one to swallow.
Tom Daschle’s errors amounted to a whopping $128,000 in unpaid back taxes, placing an untenable burden on his nomination that led to his withdrawal this week.
Geithner probably withheld information in the vetting process that, if revealed, probably would have disqualified him from further consideration for the job for which he was selected.
The third embarrassment, the selection and sudden withdrawal from consideration of Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary, was also the result of inadequate vetting. Adding to the embarrassment has been Obama’s lengthy delay in filling this last cabinet post.
And so Mr. Obama has hopefully learned his first lesson: never assume you, as president, are being told everything you need to know, especially when the information directly affects a person’s possible position in your administration.
The second area where Obama has been getting an education is in his dealings with Congress. And, as if to prove he is an equal opportunity student, he’s getting lessons from both sides of the aisle.
The Republicans have accepted all of his graciousness (visits to their caucus, invites to cocktail and Super Bowl parties at the White House) while thumbing their nose at his call for bipartisan support of his stimulus bill.
And the House Democrats have taken advantage of their sudden dominance to load up that bill with all manner of funding for programs that are only related to a stimulus of the economy in the most liberal (pun intended) definition of that term. The bill they crafted, for example, certainly doesn’t emphasize those “shovel-ready” projects that Obama has said he wants funded.
Thus Obama is learning two lessons about the branch of government he just left: it has an aversion to bipartisanship, and it will pursue its own agenda irrespective of political party.
Obama may still need to study these lessons. He may understand that his battles with Congressional Republicans will be ongoing, but unless he puts the Congressional Democrats in their place (they, after all, are beholden to him for any legislation they want to get enacted), he’s going to have a very rough first year.
He can start with the flawed stimulus bill the House has produced. Without further ado, he should get that bill amended to reflect what he wants it to do.
Cocktail parties and caucus visits are nice, but sometimes you just have to crack the whip.
Ed, I have to say, I applaud you for not giving Obama a free pass on some things and do what some of my other liberal friends have done – which is annoint him as our Saviour. I, for one, found it ridiculous that his “coronation” cost around $150M of taxpayers dollars, nearly quadruple what Bush’s 2005 innaugaration cost, which is especially troubling given the current economic climate and the fact that taxpayer dollars could be put to better use. But that is in the past now and not really relavant to yor article.
From what I know of Geithner’s tax probems, from all accounts this was not an obvious error, and quite a few tax professionals might have missed this in preparing/reviewing the return. Nevertheless, I find it extremely troubling that the head of the IRS is given, what amounts to a free pass on this. I believe that a lot of credibility is lost with this nomination, and if there are individuals in this country that get assessed penalties and back taxes for “difficult to find taxes”, etc. I do not see how the IRS can assess penalties in these instances. Since our system of taxation relies on individuals to self-assess, it is based on the honor system for us to comply, and penalties are the I.R.S.’s stick to ensure compliance. To be sure, the tax law is complicated, but as we all know, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” However, in this case, it apparently is. It troubles me that the IRS will continue to assess penalties and not allow other individuals the Geithner defense. I acknowledge that he ended up coming clean, but you see my point….
Daschle’s mistakes are totally inexcusable. To owe over $120,000 in back taxes and expect to have any credibility as a leader is naive at best, arrogant at worst. How Obama could stand by him for so long is beyond me. At least for a time, he was sending the message that there is a different set of rules for the elite as compared to ordinary Americans. I must say, I was troubled that it took him so long to admit his mistake.
Bill Richardson saddens me. Although we don’t know many of the facts, it does appear that over $1B of New Mexico state contracts were a result of cronyism. I will withhold judgment until more facts come out, but it certaintly does not look like the Democrats are the reformist party that they are trying to projet they are.
As I am writing this, I realize this is highly critical of the current administration, and I am not hellbent on libeling them. I also will not do what a lot of my Democractic friends did, which is never give the President a chance. I firmly believe that judgment (good or bad) should not be made so early in a presidency, as once those initial thoughts perceptions are made, it is difficult for people to overcome them. Nevertheless, I think we all see firsthand that he is not the agent of change he is claiming to be, and his idealism is being met with a heavy dose of reality.
For instance, the Buy American provisions of his platform, which he so prominently championed during his campaign, are in the process of being reversed. Other countries are threatening to enact other similar protectionist policiies, which will plunge us deeper and deeper into recession. I pray that he has enough common sense to abandon this platform idea and realize the profound effect it will have on the global economy if every country were to provide preferential treatment to their domestic economy. We would be entering into the Greater Depression.
Finally, I will end by commenting on his approach to Gitmo. I read a story today about an interview Dick Cheney gave that said that protecting America is a tough business and at times, a business that is not popular with some Americans and defintely not with most parts of the world. I applaud Obama for shutting down Gitmo and trying to get past a black mark on our image. I also am not surprised that European countries do not want to share our burden of housing/jailing terrorists. They are a bunch of NAMBYs (not in my back yard). They are quick to criticize the US, yet do not want to be a part of the solution. Anyway, Dick Cheney’s comments really had a profound effect on me. He said that Obama is more interested in reading terrorists their rights instead of worrying about protecting American lives. Dick Cheney is convinced that when information is declassified, he and the Bush administration will be vindicated, and that Americans will see that because of the methods employed many more 9-11s were avoided. He maintains that on the campaign trail, Obama was quick to criticize Bush about some of his prior actions, and it was easy to do because he did not have access to some of the intelligence reports that Bush and Cheney had had access to. My only point in bringing this up is it will be interesting to see Obama’s course of action. Now that he is President and has more access to intelligence reports, will he back down from being “soft on terrorism” as his critics charge? My prediction is that he will. I believe that by the end of four years, with regard to this issue, you will see Obama closer in line to Bush’s policies than Obama’s own campaign platform issues. The reason being that if another 9-11 happens on Obama’s watch, he will be a one term President and the perception of him will be exactly what Dick Cheney said – that he is more interested in reading terrorists rights than protecting American lives (note I said that that would be the perception – not what he actually thinks).
All in all, I think that what you will see is a man entering this office was a dream, a President whose idealism was that of Lincoln, a man whose optimism was that of Reagan, but in the end will have to abandon those traits for the reality we live in.
Dear Ed,
Good commentary until you ragged on 43 for lacking hospitality. I remember well his inviting all the Dem leaders to the White House for a get acquainted, dinner, cocktails, jokes and comaradery. They left and crapped all over him. He still asked Ted Kennedy to write the abysmal Education Bill. Also the Clinton folks trashed the White House offices. Pretty is as pretty does. At least the new Prez admitted he screwed up, not like Clinton who was never at fault.
As for other appontments, my favorite is Paul Volcker (You may not be old enough to remember what I do – 74 tomorrow) . Paul Volcker is Chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. This is the same Paul Volcker, who as Fed Chairman under Jimmy Carter met the challenge of inflation by raising interest rates to double digit levels which started the demise of the automobile industry (retooling for smaller cars due to Carter’s phony energy crisis when Japanese competition was rising); forced women into the workplace with accompanying abortion on demand (read Proverbs 31:10-31 before you feminists snarl at me); made broad welfare programs seem necessary; destroyed the family, especially black families; and brought about the loss of local control over health, education and welfare. It took a few years, that’s how it started.
It is well known among totalitarians that to bring about societal change without violent conflict, just manipulate interest rates and taxes.
Volcker might be playing a new version of his phony high interest rates to control inflation with a new Ponzy scheme that puts the finishing touches on his quest for totalitarian rule, not only in the USA, but the whole world.
We could have followed the example (and still could) of the island of Guernsey after the Napoleonic wars when the Bank of England, which financed both sides of the conflict, and then refused funds to banks on Guernsey after the war. The people suffered and the resource rich island went into disrepair for lack of financing.
Guernsey created its own currency by spending it into existence to restore infrastructure.(not borrowing out of thin air only to pay interest on fiat money – who the hell has 3-5 trill to even loan? It has to be printed against interest bearing notes for us fools to pay usury on)
Since money circulates nine times in a free economy, the island recovered and prospered – until the Bank of England again took control of their money.
Given that we have the first outcome-based educated President and a Congress to boot, there is little or no understanding of what works or even the common sense to follow Constitutional rules. Pure fodder for the likes of Volcker!