When was the last time you stopped to really consider Obama's super-objective?
Forget three-dimensional chess. As brilliant as Obama may be, he's not a movie mastermind capable of righting all wrongs with a snap of his fingers. This is the real world, where batting .500 is excellent, and where the practical limitations of a presidency have never been more formidable.
Still, the barrage of conventional wisdom mounts steadily: Obama is naive, impotent, timid, and overwhelmed.
And "Yes We Can" was just an empty slogan.
And if the guy is so freaking brilliant, why the hell is he the only one who can't see that his fuzzy super-objective of transforming political culture is nothing but a quaint fairytale? Is he really so obtuse that he doesn't see all the snickering coming from the GOP who can't believe their wet dream of rolling him has come true? After two years of their constant lying and obstructing, Obama not only fails to get angry, he apologizes for his own lapses into incivility! WTF?
There is a profoundly important real-world narrative that seldom gets voiced. Because, even though he is its primary author, Obama cannot be the one to say it. He would be trounced as blaming and whiny. So he has to rely on others to pick up the slack. People like us.
He was recently ridiculed for adding a pedestrian caveat to "Yes We Can." "Yes we can... but it won't happen overnight." The truth is that this caveat was always present –- from the beginning of his campaign. As was the equally important, "I can't do it alone."
For a little context, take a peek at Newsweek’s "Is the Presidency Too Big a Job?" The article traces the ballooning responsibilities of the modern presidency. It also shows how the scope of an administration's duties is expanded exponentially by the 24-hour news cycle. So today's president doesn't simply have to attend to the fires of wars, economy, social justice, etc, he also has to attend to whatever fires the media decides to manufacture.
Obama can only defend himself mildly when "60 Minutes" (and others) critique his messaging. Smiling, he reminds us that he's actually been pretty busy with tangible emergencies and meaningful policy initiatives. As Newsweek describes:
On the spring day that Obama signed his health-care-reform law, for instance, he also had an economic briefing on unemployment, discussions about financial reform, a meeting at the Department of the Interior, a quick lunch, a meeting with senior advisers and then with Senate leaders on ratification of a new nuclear-nonproliferation treaty with Russia, and an Oval Office summit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on devising a model for Middle East peace. On cable TV, meanwhile, pundits offered nonstop analysis of the holes in the new reform package, while Sarah Palin renewed accusations of Obama’s "government takeover" of health care.
Several times he has gently reminded the media that they could help out -- if not with messaging per se, then, at least, to ensure that debates are based in real facts and relevant context.
Still, we love to give him grief for spending more of his time putting out fires than marketing his successes. We (and the media) fail miserably when we devote our airtime to his messaging problems instead of the very real substance that needs so desperately to be shared.
When Obama said he couldn’t do it alone, he meant it. He was not spouting an empty catch phrase. He knew that progress was only possible if all our institutions stepped up to the plate. Yes, the media, but also the courts, the Congress, and the military. And the pundits. And the bloggers in pajamas.
It's time to look in the mirror. It's far too easy to sit back and harp. We justify our complaints as "holding his feet to the fire." Yet we never stop to view our narrative in realistic, fair terms. We progressives pride ourselves on our ability to appreciate nuance. The world is not black and white, we like to say. Yet we unquestioningly embrace a simplistic narrative that says, in effect, "Obama's just not fighting hard enough" -- even though we know perfectly well from our own lives that our time and resources are finite, and that meeting our goals is a long, imperfect, process.
I am not arguing that Obama should never play hardball, or leverage partisanship (although I would argue that it's never as simple as many here like to believe). My point is to help explain why Obama is unwilling to abandon his goal of changing political culture.
We have all conspired to create a culture in which no president could succeed. We treat politics like it's a reality TV show. Hey, they volunteered, so they shouldn't complain when we ridicule them and trash them and transform them overnight from hero to villain. Obama recognizes that the only hope for overcoming our current cultural/political stagnation is if more and more societal sectors get their butts off the schadenfreudian sidelines and start shoveling. Yes, shoveling means voting and giving money and knocking on doors. But, most importantly, it means contributing to a new narrative. In this regard, we have failed miserably.
Why does Obama stick to his super-objective when it seems so hopeless?
Because he knows that nothing stands in the way of lasting progress more than the current hallucination we've all bought into -- where only appearances and marketing matter, and where we entertain ourselves with righteous screaming, and building up and then shooting down our public figures as if we were sitting in a Roman coliseum.
If we're honest, we have to admit that Obama has been a pretty good policy bureaucrat, furthering a progressive agenda that's been quite impressive, especially in light of all the shit he inherited. But this is secondary to the main reason we hired him.
We hired him for his vision.
Of course, not everyone who voted for him knew what he really meant by "change," but those of us who listened attentively knew this was the heart and soul of his desire to serve. He saw a window of opportunity –- a chance to apply his unique talents and perspective to the unique and urgent challenges of our day. He sticks to that vision, not because he's stubborn, but because he knows we simply must find a way to pull ourselves from the quicksand in which we're all sinking.
Yes, he's the vision guy. But forget 3-dimensional chess. Obama's leadership is not about doing it all himself. It is about asking all of us to chip in. He's not stubborn, he's patient. I believe he hopes that over the next six years it will slowly dawn on us that we're all responsible for the change we say we seek. That the media will gradually grow tired of narratives which privilege messaging over substance –- that the media will, indeed, return to substance and facts after making itself sick on its 24-hour-a-day junk-food diet of superficial appearances. That more and more members of Congress will start to recognize they are equal players, with far greater responsibilities than simply getting reelected. That interest groups, without abandoning their job of applying constant pressure, will admit that we live under a clunky democracy, where change often occurs only after a lengthy process involving multiple institutions such as the courts and the military –- institutions filled with conservative voices demanding to be heard.
I realize many critics here would say I'm naive if I believe any of this is possible. But that's just a symptom of how cynical we've all become. I'm not describing Shangri-La, but I am pointing to simpler times when we expected more from our institutions. Times have changed in the age of information, but that doesn't mean we can't respond to these changing times with rational, responsible agency.
Does Obama stick to his vision because it's easy? No. He sticks to it because he recognizes its urgency. Success is far from a done deal. It will rely upon more and more of us seeing why this stuff is so important –- instead of throwing up our hands in despair every time Obama doesn't behave the way we imagine we would if we wielded such power and responsibility.
Culture is nothing but a web of stories –- stories that impact material politics and real lives. We have unwittingly allowed Fox News et al to frame the stories, responding defensively and demanding that our leaders do the same. Obviously, lies must be refuted. But, while doing so, can we please not forget that we are the front line when it comes to reinforcing or rejecting narratives?
Our president needs us. And our country needs us. We have to brush ourselves off and remind everyone that "change" and "hope" need not merely be empty slogans. When we bemoan how "weak" Obama appears, we cede the narrative to our adversaries.
Sure it's no fun to suffer the humiliations of a Republican party convinced they've rolled our president. But revenge will taste sweet if and when history proves Obama to be among our greatest presidents. It's not a done deal, but if we all pitch in with the long, hard work of insisting on substantive narratives, our political culture can indeed be transformed.
Obama has actually been remarkably strong in sticking to his long-term vision. It is we who have crumbled under the pressure.