It has been a long standing observation that political careers inevitably end in failure. The politician however high he or she rises eventually finds themselves defeated at the ballot box, having lost the trust and support of the electorate, their party or both. Some aware of this impending result, resign or retire but the notion of having failed to succeed in all that they set out to achieve is somewhat ameliorated by what they have managed to change. However, how do you cope with this condition when you rise relatively quickly to the dizzy heights of the ultimate political office but then do not fundamentally change anything but instead just highlight the huge differences and difficulties that sits within your community?
I began considering this question well before the US mid term elections but have refined my thoughts having reflected on the recent results and the position that Obama now posits. This was a man who was charged with changing American society, or to be more accurate he was the person that was going to signpost and manage the societal changes that his nation-state was already going through as he took office. Domestically, the idea of what it is to be American is altering fundamentally as the changing demographic make up of the US induces subtle but substantial adjustments to religious, cultural, political and economic views within the nation-state. Internationally, the facility and ability of the US to stand alone as the pre-eminent power is waning - and will continue to do so - as the cost of this position becomes increasingly untenable (The financing of a military complex that is strategically and logistically prepared to fight two large conflicts simultaneously). These two challenges are huge and therefore, for one man to be given this role, which he willingly accepted, was from the outset ludicrous. Moreover, the enormity and hubristic nature of this task should have been clear to Obama, his party, his advisors and friends. This situation was damn clear to his adversaries since in the run up to the 2008 Presidential election, realising that Senator McCain did not stand 'a cat in hells' chance of winning especially after selecting Palin as his running mate, heaped expectation after expectation on the 'new wonder kid' of US politics - already the Republicans were preparing and looking to 2010 and the mid term elections to wrestle some political control away from Obama and his 'yes we can' team - the more you promise the greater chance of failure. As we now know this tactic worked as the House went red in 2010 and so to November 2014 when the Senate also decided to blush.
Well, social inequality caused by the grossly unequal distribution of wealth in the nation-state, the unhealthy and mendacious relationship between Wall St, Big Business and Congress plus the little matters of Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel were all impossibly topics for one man to tackle, especially when this person maybe an articulate and erudite analyst of situations and events, but he is not a domestic or international statesman - he is not a modern day Roosevelt (either TR or FDR). The difference is clear, an analyst takes his/her time to assess and sift the evidence, looks for consensus amongst his recommenders/doubters and not until this condition is agreed and cemented will he or she move. In contrast, a statesman is not only ignited my evidence but by insight- some call this vision or instinct - moreover, this type of political animal is not afraid of risk although mindful of it, and crucially, when required will move quickly, decisively, and if necessarily, unilaterally(independently) of others. In other words, an analyst is attracted by information and agreement, a statesman is motivated by an inner belief that his/her picture of what is needed is the way forward. That is why an outspoken conviction always seems more attractive if not more legitimate than a planned, carefully sculptured move. After all, hadn't Obama noticed that the people who did support and vote for him are human beings and conviction is an emotional extension of ones intellect, while the need to analysis suggests manufacture, artificial and therefore, paradoxically it is not so natural to trust.
Sadly, it is Obama's character that has let him down, he needed to step into the White House and move swiftly, deftly and confidently, hiding any understandable self doubts and match the outpouring of political emotion that got him into the Oval Office in the first place with a statesman's skills, but for all his initial powerful rhetoric he moved far too slowly and therefore, the reactionary forces of conservative America encircled their new executive trapping him in a sea of intransigence and torpor from which he has never escaped. Consequently, his handling of health seemed clumsy and careless while his approach to foreign affairs suggested a lack of understanding in the the mystical world of international relations. Therefore, Obama's legacy fairly or not, will just stay rooted to the obvious ethnic nature of his iconic Presidency and not as he had wished and his supporters had desperately desired as a President who defied the natural laws of 'political failure', leaving the White House having succeeded in changing the nature of the United States future.
KK
I began considering this question well before the US mid term elections but have refined my thoughts having reflected on the recent results and the position that Obama now posits. This was a man who was charged with changing American society, or to be more accurate he was the person that was going to signpost and manage the societal changes that his nation-state was already going through as he took office. Domestically, the idea of what it is to be American is altering fundamentally as the changing demographic make up of the US induces subtle but substantial adjustments to religious, cultural, political and economic views within the nation-state. Internationally, the facility and ability of the US to stand alone as the pre-eminent power is waning - and will continue to do so - as the cost of this position becomes increasingly untenable (The financing of a military complex that is strategically and logistically prepared to fight two large conflicts simultaneously). These two challenges are huge and therefore, for one man to be given this role, which he willingly accepted, was from the outset ludicrous. Moreover, the enormity and hubristic nature of this task should have been clear to Obama, his party, his advisors and friends. This situation was damn clear to his adversaries since in the run up to the 2008 Presidential election, realising that Senator McCain did not stand 'a cat in hells' chance of winning especially after selecting Palin as his running mate, heaped expectation after expectation on the 'new wonder kid' of US politics - already the Republicans were preparing and looking to 2010 and the mid term elections to wrestle some political control away from Obama and his 'yes we can' team - the more you promise the greater chance of failure. As we now know this tactic worked as the House went red in 2010 and so to November 2014 when the Senate also decided to blush.
Well, social inequality caused by the grossly unequal distribution of wealth in the nation-state, the unhealthy and mendacious relationship between Wall St, Big Business and Congress plus the little matters of Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel were all impossibly topics for one man to tackle, especially when this person maybe an articulate and erudite analyst of situations and events, but he is not a domestic or international statesman - he is not a modern day Roosevelt (either TR or FDR). The difference is clear, an analyst takes his/her time to assess and sift the evidence, looks for consensus amongst his recommenders/doubters and not until this condition is agreed and cemented will he or she move. In contrast, a statesman is not only ignited my evidence but by insight- some call this vision or instinct - moreover, this type of political animal is not afraid of risk although mindful of it, and crucially, when required will move quickly, decisively, and if necessarily, unilaterally(independently) of others. In other words, an analyst is attracted by information and agreement, a statesman is motivated by an inner belief that his/her picture of what is needed is the way forward. That is why an outspoken conviction always seems more attractive if not more legitimate than a planned, carefully sculptured move. After all, hadn't Obama noticed that the people who did support and vote for him are human beings and conviction is an emotional extension of ones intellect, while the need to analysis suggests manufacture, artificial and therefore, paradoxically it is not so natural to trust.
Sadly, it is Obama's character that has let him down, he needed to step into the White House and move swiftly, deftly and confidently, hiding any understandable self doubts and match the outpouring of political emotion that got him into the Oval Office in the first place with a statesman's skills, but for all his initial powerful rhetoric he moved far too slowly and therefore, the reactionary forces of conservative America encircled their new executive trapping him in a sea of intransigence and torpor from which he has never escaped. Consequently, his handling of health seemed clumsy and careless while his approach to foreign affairs suggested a lack of understanding in the the mystical world of international relations. Therefore, Obama's legacy fairly or not, will just stay rooted to the obvious ethnic nature of his iconic Presidency and not as he had wished and his supporters had desperately desired as a President who defied the natural laws of 'political failure', leaving the White House having succeeded in changing the nature of the United States future.
KK
RSS Feed
