Rick Monteverde wrote:
There's so much in this, political, economic, legal & otherwise,
we'll need lots of time to see it all, have it all unravel and be
exposed. It's too many historical events too fast. These few days
will be analyzed in great detail over years to come, like one of
those deep space missions where the craft flashes past it's target
but the data takes years to fully lay out and analyze.
Well said.
Historical events often do pile on top of one another, one triggering
the next in a confusing sequence so that it becomes difficult to know
what caused what, or who reacted to who. You see this in accounts of
the Cuban missile crisis, for example, or at the beginning of FDR's
administration, when the banks were collapsing and the economy came
to a standstill on the very day of the inauguration.
No doubt this will have a profound effect on the election. Today,
Obama came out strongly in favor of the bailout. Considering how
strong public sentiment is running against it, this was an
extraordinary thing for him to do. It was either great leadership or
foolhardy. Only time will tell. I think he should have waited until
after the election. In fact, I think he should have waited until
after he won the election and was inaugurated. That is what FDR did
in similar circumstances. FDR ran on somewhat vague & contradictory
promises; he did nothing during the transition, leaving all the
problems in Hoover's hands; and then when he became president he
acted decisively.
On the other hand, FDR was acting decisively all the while as
governor of New York, from 1928 to 1932, so it was clear what sort of
person he was, what sort of policies he favored, and what he intended
to do. As an administrator, he was a known quantity. Obama is not, so
perhaps it is wise of him to demonstrate his ability to lead. At the
time Roosevelt was running for president, Walter Lippmann famously
wrote that Roosevelt was a "hollow, synthetic, a pleasant man who,
without any important qualifications, would very much like to be
President." It is surprising that anyone could so misjudge a
prominent public figure and the governor of the most populous state
in the union.
Whether you like FDR or hate him, no one after 1932 would ever call
him "synthetic" or "without important qualifications." He was by far
the most accomplished, skillful, naturally talented president in U.S.
history. He was dominated Congress and the nation, and was able to
enlist the will & support of the people to his purposes more than any
other president. He had incredible political skill, and the ability
to say and do just at the right thing at the opportune time.
If you favor FDR's policies then you will think the nation was
fortunate that he had such skill. And if you oppose them -- as many
people still do -- you will find that regrettable. But no one says he
was ineffective.
My gut feeling is that Obama is also highly effective, and he seems
to have a natural talent for leadership. I base this on his conduct
of the campaign; that is, the way he has organized people, raised
money and spent it effectively to overcome politically powerful
opponents. Based on what he wrote in his second book I agree with his
policies. You never know whether a person will actually follow
through on his policies, but I think he has good ideas, and guts.
Many chief executives have done just the opposite of what they
initially intended to do, notably Jefferson (who was opposed to
presidents acting by fiat yet who went ahead and purchased Louisiana
more or less by fiat), and G. W. Bush (who was opposed to nation-building).
In a sense, it is does not matter whether a leader follows a plan or
not. As long as the leader's instincts are good and he takes action,
he may do some good. US Grant said that the important thing for
general is to make up his mind and act quickly and decisively. Even a
mistake is better than no action, and you can always undo a mistake
and try another approach. Flexibility is vital. At Oglethorpe
University (which happens to be a few blocks from my house) in May
1932 during the campaign FDR said:
"The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country
demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take
a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another.
But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not
stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are
within easy reach."
http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932d.htm
FDR had incredible personal charisma. He could charm anyone into
doing anything, including countless Republicans. Churchill said that
meeting him for the first time was like opening up your first bottle
of champagne. Yet at the same time be opened up to no one. No one
really knew him. He alienated his own children. After FDR's death,
Eleanor Roosevelt described her relationship with him: "I think I
sometimes acted as a spur, even though the spurring was not always
wanted or welcome. I was one of those who served his purposes."
That's a rather cold thing for a wife to say. My sense is that Obama
shares this quality. He has said that a politician must be
"reptilian" to some degree: reserved, inhuman, beyond ordinary
emotions, fully trusting no one.
- Jed
