Some people - a lot of people, in fact, dubiously gifted with partial intelligence and minimal self-awareness - will simply never get the memo that they are not universal geniuses. It is just beyond their comprehension that reality, rather than the moral inferiority of every single person ever to set foot in the Oval Office, may be behind the difficulty and slow pace of political change in America. If I were President, they say to themselves, things would be different - and in that they are totally correct. Things would indeed be different: Much as a car would run differently if you replaced its cylinders with vibrating dildos. It wouldn't move forward, of course, but how it did move might be a briefly diverting change from its usual behavior. So allow me to be the first to honestly look at what would happen if I were asked to do Barack Obama's job.
The first thing that would happen is that I would refuse. Anyone who intends to be President of the United States had better either have the gravitas and agility of Julius Caesar, have forged (or inherited) intimate connections within a party hierarchy to ensure smooth implementation of policies, or else represent some moderate but still highly advanced combination of the two. I am no colossus to stir the souls of the masses, no politician with a strong web of political relationships, and no figure of personal, cultural, or other significance to unite factions even within my own party let alone nationally, nor could I become one within four years.
So, in the impossible event of my being called upon to assume the Presidency, I would happily decline - at least upon first impulse. Perhaps on consideration I would instead accept it only long enough to appoint a VP I wanted to see take my place, wait until the Senate confirmed him or her, and then resign with full pension (tehehe) a few minutes after the VP takes the oath of office.
But the upshot is the same: I am not a leader, except maybe in offering ideas and unconventional perspectives, and I do not delude myself that my intelligence, people skills, patience, and ability to conceal what I really think would be equal to working with or reforming national politics. Why so many others think they are, when clearly they are not, is (I suppose) just predictable narcissism and stupidity among people just smart enough to have complex thoughts, but not smart enough to know their own limitations.
Liberals have a tendency to say things like "Hey, if Bush could be President (sic), I couldn't do much worse!" Except one could, very easily. George W. Bush was not exactly a figurehead, but what existed of the man's mind and decisions were largely the creation of those around him, and they exercised their own discretion in the face of his petulant indifference. The Republican Party already had, and to some extent still has, a perpetual government that operates whether or not it is in office, and when a Republican is elected President (or seizes power in a coup) they simply change their nametags: The industry-funded "think tanks" become advisory panels, the staffs get taxpayer-funded budgets, the corporate lawyers become judges, and defeated, retired, or scandal-exiled politicians form the pool of top administrative appointments.
When George W. Bush entered the White House, the Republican Perpetual Government (aptly, RPG) was already fully-formed and ready to reassume the power it considered its inherent right. The President, in other words, is something of a "master of ceremonies" to the GOP rather than an actual position of effective leadership - something akin in function to the 18th-century British monarchy, and attended with about the same swooning sycophancy (at least when a Republican is in office). All of the appointees chosen purely on Bush's personal political connections - e.g., Alberto Gonzales - were expendable, whereas those imposed by the Inner Party (Cheney's people) were untouchable.
The point is that the atrocities of the Bush regime were not the initiatives of one man: It was a number of people engaging in an interlocking web of treasonous criminal enterprises, and any American not intimately involved in politics - and I mean the practice of politics, not just gabbing about it - would not enter the White House with anything like that kind of existing structure surrounding and supporting them.
So yes, it is unlikely that a well-intentioned person (regardless of that dubious saying about the "road to hell") would directly invoke worse catastrophes than an organized effort bent on dismantling the United States. But in most cases their indelicate attempts to change the situation would just cause paralysis, bureaucratic sabotage, and an incessant full-court press of negative media coverage - most of which could be complete fiction for all the public is aware - that they wouldn't be competent to combat. The interests involved would be more than happy to cause chaos and disrupt basic functions of government to destroy an irritant standing in their way, and that ruthlessness could easily be more destructive in total than the grandiose but vain plots of an imperial monarchy.
Ultimately, then, there is no guarantee that you or I could produce better results for this country as President than the criminal regime of George W. Bush, however superior we would be individually to a mentally impaired psychopath like him as leaders. True, there is just as much possibility for establishment figures of neutral or Democratic disposition coming to our rescue and forming their own pre-fab government around us, but that sort of defeats the purpose of the scenario - what I would do as President, and what would result from it. If you insisted on going your own way and flouting the advice of these people, they would simply abandon you and leave you alone to deal with the Republican Party, recalcitrant bureaucrats, and the business interests behind both: A recipe for presidential impotence.
But let's say I'm harangued into becoming, and remaining President for a full term by a kitchen sink of goads appealing to duty - "you owe it to this country to try"; misapplied reason - "it's precisely your outside perspective that's needed"; pride - "how can you shrink like a coward from this responsibility when people have given their lives for this country"; fear - "if you don't accept this office, or if you do and then leave early, you'll be blamed for what follows"; and some measure of self-interest - "the salary is $400k with full lifetime benefits and unlimited travel." Say hello to President Troubadour.
My fellow Americans, what should President Troubadour do first? I'm sure you would have plenty of ideas, and quite a lot of you would eagerly anticipate all the radical changes that would be sure to follow. Hell, even I would probably delude myself at that point that I was on the verge of taking some tremendous step forward, when in fact I would just be standing at the foot of a 5,000-foot sheer cliff - my inauguration would just mean I'd been handed a pick and some rope and told "Go get 'em, tiger" by people who'd never so much as ascended a staircase.
Under stress, a person's true character will always emerge no matter how much self-control they're capable of, and I would be aware that sooner or later America would learn about some of my less pleasant qualities: I.e., I have no patience for stupidity. I'm not even capable of dealing with fundamentally stupid, incurious, un-reflecting people on a prolonged basis - after a heroic effort to be fair, tolerant, and educational with the willfully ignorant and mentally lazy, I would simply look across a table at them with my eyes wide and say "You are a fucking moron, and your presence in this room is making everyone else dumber. You could fuck up a game of tic-tac-toe. Please leave and promise me you will never have children." Once again, I am not a leader.
Anyway, knowing that I would eventually lose patience anyway, I would try to delay it by sticking as close as possible to my own sense of reason in pursuing reform. The most immediate priority, of course, is jobs; the most important over the long-term is the environment - this much, everyone who matters could agree on. Everyone who would say otherwise without a very well-argued explanation is too dumb for me to care what they think. So, knowing full well that these are the top priorities - jobs, and climate change - naturally my first act as President would be to fire almost everyone appointed by George W. Bush who was still lingering in the United States government that bastard had tried to destroy. Perhaps it would be in a calculatedly sadistic little ceremony where they all think they're getting an award, and I hand them instead a map to the local unemployment office.
Okay, maybe I'm not really that much of an idiot. But then again, maybe I am - could I resist the fun of such a Wagnerian act against people who had counted themselves untouchable? They and I both would eventually realize that most of them would get their jobs back as soon as a Republican was in the White House again, but I'm sure they would be out of their minds with fury for at least the remainder of the day, and I would have a spring in my step for a while.
Now that I think of it, probably not: I would be so terrified, I would think through every single word said on camera, every single action taken, and not even allow another member of the government or even my own official staff to be in my presence except at certain hours or in emergencies lest I say something stupid that gets out. I would take consultations with as broad a range of opinion as I could stomach, and end up pushing for a gargantuan economic stimulus package that contains no tax cuts, undoes the Reagan tax cuts for the top bracket, gut as much waste, fraud, and abuse as I could find - with little or no understanding of what is politically sacrosanct - and make America once again the single most advanced nation technologically and educationally over the coming decade, with a big margin to spare.
Oh, it would be bold - and I could be eloquent enough in arguing for it, although I'm not really the guy to go around the country like President Obama did taking the case for it directly to the people. No, I would make speeches to the camera from the Oval Office - speeches that I would write myself, albeit with the input of a professional who could tell me if I was sounding pompous or impatient with the stupidity of others. Teleprompter? Absolutely - I wouldn't have the time or the inclination to memorize speeches. Press conferences would have to be structured to avoid pissing me off with awesomely stupid or dishonest questions, but I would try to the best of my ability to answer honestly and comprehensively all questions submitted in writing by the WH Press Corps - something that would probably result in my unnecessarily alienating, offending, and embarrassing large swaths of the population before the first step had been taken on my legislation.
Maybe after the third, fourth, or fifth such incident of shooting my foot off in an attempt to be candid and assertive, I might finally listen to my Press Secretary and let him/her handle the vultures while I focus on responding to serious journalists - which, of course, would further alienate me from the bulk of the media, and cause me to be endlessly pilloried before I'd even done anything. Meanwhile, the teabagger movement x 10 would erupt upon learning what was in my legislation, showering Congress with fury and death threats that would cow a lot more of them than it inspired to defiance - which would mostly be unnecessary, since most of the bill would be DOA.
Still, the left-wing blogosphere would be on my side. Or would it? Would they be out there doing what they could to drum up support for the legislation, or would they be posting petty, snide, weasely little hatchet jobs against me as a "weak-kneed absentee President" who has "run into hiding from the controversy" because I'm not spending every minute of every day in a press conference on the subject? Something tells me it would be the latter, and that nothing I did could appease them for more than the blink of an eye - if even that. As the bill languished in Congress, they would say I'm not pushing for it aggressively enough, even if I had barely stopped short of threatening civil war if Congress failed to rescue the American people from a disaster caused by wealthy business interests who had received massive taxpayer support.
Of course, the more bellicose I became, the less interested Congress would be in listening to me, the more of a joke I would become in the general public, and the Left would act like dope fiends developing more and more of a tolerance for ever-increasing doses of angry rhetoric. Like FDR's famous phrase (though not in the spirit in which it was spoken), but unlike Lincoln and Obama, I would welcome the hatred of evil minds - I would revel in the rage of the right-winger, wallowing in the self-righteous vindication of being demonized by people whose only concern is their own power and privilege.
Frankly, I would enjoy hearing new death threats being issued against me, secure behind my cordon of elite bodyguards. But out in the country, shit could be hitting the fan: The body politic could be tearing itself apart, political violence occurring on a regular and increasing basis, and my calls for an end it to would fall on deaf ears and make me look weak to both my enemies and friends alike. "Why haven't you stopped it?" the Left would demand.
And when some left-wing morons responded to a long string of right-wing violence with a minor act of violence on their own part, the Right and the media would imply equivalence, I would state - quite correctly - that violence against opposing viewpoints is unacceptable from anyone, and the clip of my saying so would be replayed over and over in the left-wing blogosphere as evidence that I had "embraced the media's equivalence narrative," and "betrayed the Left to be terrorized with impunity." Perhaps I'd be pilloried as the right's "handmaiden." As the song goes, "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right." And everyone else would probably start to get the idea that I was to blame for the unrest - after all, both the Left and Right are calling me names, and it's my legislation that set it all off.
Maybe I'd end up dead myself, either from a Lone Nut's "tree-watering" or just from stress, or maybe I'd look impotent enough that the violence would die down when the teabaggers figured out that my agenda wasn't going anywhere. But that's just an extreme version of events. Perhaps the reaction is no more or less extreme than what President Obama faced, and I'm forced to go through the same arduous process of politicking in the Senate to drum up enough support to overcome an inevitable filibuster. The first thing that would be obvious is that my tax increases on the rich would not pass - perhaps not even in the House. They've been subject to decades of operant conditioning against tax increases of any but the stealthiest and most regressive variety, and remain terrified of the "tax and spend" label.
Let's say I'm utterly committed to seeing those tax increases through, despite the odds. I could argue from the "bully pulpit," looking for a while like a strong leader, and then more and more like an impotent blowhard as nothing comes of it and people get tired of hearing me talk. Perhaps I could "rally the people," which might seem impressive once - and then less and less impressive, until I've been reduced to a second-rate Ralph Nader, pounding his shoe on a table in front of audiences who have heard it all before. Or maybe not - maybe I'm a tremendously inspirational speaker, and the people get so worked up they March on Washington in massive numbers...and tear the place to shreds, looking for all the world like a mob whipped up by a tyrant.
I obviously have no intention of becoming a tyrant, for both moral and self-preservation reasons, so naturally I immediately denounce the violence and shut it down with whatever force is necessary - perhaps now appearing tyrannical to my own supporters. The calls for my resignation or impeachment in Congress would be swift and serious: The violence would have had its intended primary effect - terrifying legislators - but unfortunately, they would be more terrified of my ability to wield public anger than of the public itself, so they would be more likely to pass articles of impeachment than my legislation. And, of course, there would be voices on the left and in the middle saying, all too plausibly, that I had acted irresponsibly and that it was probably the best thing for America for me to resign for my role in "causing such division and destruction in our society."
That too is an extreme possibility. But let's say the crowd is peaceful and reasonable - i.e., bound to be utterly ignored by Congress. Maybe the next event is almost as big, but just as ignored - people would start to get tired of wasting their energy, knowing that nothing they say would mean anything. Then they would start in on the blame game again - I'm not doing enough, I'm not pushing hard enough, blah blah blah, the usual ego-salvaging gibberish of the impotent activist looking for a scapegoat. Maybe in an ill-advised moment of candor I would say, "Look, I've told you what the obstacle is. If you want better legislation, give me a better Senate." And that, of course, would be the end of my relationship with the left-wing blogosphere. The outrage would be palpable - "how dare he tell us to do something for our country other than telling him what to do for it! As if this were a team effort! Of all the nerve!"
But I wouldn't blame them, or the Senate, or anyone else - things just are as they are, and all you can do is work with them while trying to improve them over time. That doesn't mean, however, that my patience would be infinite: A lot of people who take it upon themselves to be the censors of other people's political virtue contribute nothing, sacrifice nothing, and are violently jealous of their position of impunity. They hold themselves aloft from any form of accountability, and scream in outrage at the top of their lungs at the first hint of being judged by their own standards.
Nothing infuriates me personally more than the narcissist - to me they are the lowest form of human life; people who have bottomless contempt for the character and motives of anyone they see as being an inconvenience to them, and an infinite capacity to excuse or even venerate their own failings. Confronted by such people, and by the egregiousness of their lies and propaganda, I would probably be totally honest with them and tell them what I think of them, what value I think they hold for the issues they claim to represent, and what level of contribution to the progress of the American republic I think they have made through their commentary. Even so, once again, I would not blame them for the failure of my administration - things are as they are. Those turds are as they are; I am as I am; Republicans are as they are; the Senate is as it is; and all you can hope to do is work with what nature provides, shaping and refashioning it over time while doing what you can at the moment - the same as any scientist or engineer does.
Even so, let's go for an optimistic scenario. If I were an extraordinarily quick study in politics, my style of politicking would converge toward - but never come anywhere close to - that of President Obama: I would learn the situation of the Senate, the web of political and economic interrelationships that guides it, and begin to engage Senators in a dialog that progressively moves toward the best possible position: Something that is certainly far short of where I would prefer to be, as is usually the case when trying to make real progress. Still, I am no Barack Obama, and the damage of my earlier follies would have been done, so I would be lucky to pass a bill that was anything more than pork and tax cuts - some of which might very well go to the rich, yet again. And there I would be, in a position to either vote for an atrocity, or veto it and accept total paralysis while the country collapsed around me.
Needless to say, by the time any subsequent battle rolled around, I would be a President in name only - little more than a speedbump to the advance of decay, entropy, and their political handmaidens on the right, despite having a clear vision of what would make America a better, more humane, more positively exciting, and more prosperous place. Though my personal politics are considerably more radical than could ever be practically implemented, I would be reduced to the level of a Bill Clinton without the leavening amiability - if I even bothered to stay in office, was not impeached, never caught a bullet, and managed to learn from my mistakes quickly enough to even achieve that much.
So, I would fail, were I the President of The United States - and I estimate myself a damn sight smarter and more competent than any of the colossal imbeciles posting "Obama r betrayin me" hit-pieces in the left-wing blogosphere. They would make mistakes I wouldn't even come close to making as President, and probably blame and hate the American people for it for the rest of their lives. They would whine out their days bitterly exclaiming on how ungrateful and ignorant this country is because they themselves are too dumb, lazy, and narcissistic to know how to work with human beings rather than abstract ideas they can warp however they like.
I don't believe these people would be able to name a Post Office as President, let alone do any of the things they cavalierly lambaste this President for not doing yet - at least until he does them, at which point they forget they ever said anything about it, responding (if at all) with a petulant attack on how "long" it took, even if it occurred in record time. Some of them rather surreally deny it's even happening, like some kind of strange experiment in auto-hypnosis to see if they can make the world turn inside-out according to their ideology. They have invested so much emotional energy in attacking their own advocate - either because they're perverse, or just frivolous - it's like they would have a mental breakdown if they admitted to themselves that he is the best of us, that his accomplishments are already numerous and profound, and that people like them will never be able to match him.
I've said this before, and I will say it again so long as I continue to see these bigoted nutjobs dishonoring what it means to be an involved citizen, a liberal, and a progressive: Barack Obama is the best of us. I hear the eternal voice of the democrat, the republican (small r), the statesman, the humanitarian, the scholar, and the philosopher in his words and his deeds, no less than in reading the Founders, Lincoln, FDR, and the ancient patriots and thinkers of Athens and Rome.
This is the American Presidency, people - and this is an American whose very growth as a person and development as a leader embodies the best of our nation's values, now occupying the Oval Office and putting the ship of state back on course. However bad the problems we face, if you're not happy to have this kind of leadership directed at solving them, then you're just not happy. Or credible. Or interesting. Or productive. Or, for that matter, right. Maybe some folks want everyone to fail because they themselves are Failure On Wheels, and seeing other people soaring while they've sat on their asses for decades content in futile victimhood just bruises the hell out of them. Too bad - you're not good enough, you're not smart enough, and doggonnit, nobody likes you. But I'm sure there's a place for you in some Third Party or other: Some political support group for the willfully ignorant, impossible to please, and terminally incapable of working with others. Meanwhile, we Democrats are going to be busy with an election.
Update: I apologize for the length. I've been reading the unabridged History of The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, and Gibbon's writing is extensive to say the least. Authors rub off on me. Trust me, I'm as annoyed as you are - my thoughts are occurring in the same meter in which I've written this.