But throughout he has tried, as his partisan critics have complained, not to be a partisan president, to recall, as he put it in that recent press conference, that this is a diverse country, that is is time we had a president who does not repel or disparage or ignore those who voted against him or those who have grown to despise him.
This is particularly important since so many of his opponents are white and disproportionately affected by this long recession. Trying to get them to see him accurately through the haze of Fox propaganda and cultural panic is not easy. But he seems to understand that persistence and steadiness are better tools in this than grand statements, sudden moves or grandstanding attempts to please his own base. He really is trying to be what he promised: president of the red states as well as the blue states. And a president who gets shit done.
3 comments:
I think that it's total nonsense to compare this President to a Tory. However, I love the concept of "unbridled pragmatism." I think that's a terrific ideal and I wonder if that might be a more appropriate tag line for the "No Labels" movement?
If only "unbridled pragmatism" were a viable political strategy, given the state of our electorate, rather than simply a governing strategy confined to wishful thinking.
And frankly, the "No Labels" movement seems to be a means for moderates that have a shallow enough history of partisanship to get away with it to "anti-brand" themselves in preparation for a hostile climate in 2012, rather than a specific ideological concept of logic, reason and John Nash worship.
Again, I love the concept of "unbridled pragmatism" but I disagree with the idea that it would be nice if it were a viable political strategy. I think it's likely most appropriate as a governing strategy. I don't particularly want to vote for a candidate who says..."if you elect me, I will fight for nothing I believe but only what I think I can get done." It's arguable that's somewhat more realistic than the nonsensical grandstanding that passes for campaigning today, but I guess I want to be lied to.
As a litigator, I never approach a case with the idea that I'm going to get my client a settlement that neither side is happy with. (That's not entirely true.) Yet, it is widely understood that a good settlement is precisely that. But in order to get there and to walk out knowing you've fought in good faith and got your client the best deal you could get them, you have to go hard at it from the start. I think you get a lot shittier deal if you don't start from a fighting position.
Post a Comment