I submit that, viewed as a comprehensive pattern, the Obama administration has compromised the principles on which Mr. Obama gained election. For every presidency in the twentieth century, there was a clear fulfillment of expectations about the nature and conduct of public policy. There were no surprises. Conservatives (e.g., Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I) pursued the course of action embedded in party philosophy and the political careers of the incumbents. The same can be said for the remaining prsidents, although historians may disagree on the appropriate typologies for characterizing their positions. Nevertheless, whatever the labels, TR, Wilson, FDR, and those that followed, were--on close reading--running true to form, with Johnson (because of the Vietnam War) the possible exception. Reagan, especially, was Reagan. Bush II, however, broke the mold by promising a "compassionate conservatism," yet revealing in his actions a hard-edged belligerence in foreign affairs and a callousness on the domestic side affecting the poor, social programs, and the rule of law. Duplicity and public relations were in the saddle, an unfortunate precedent for what was to come.
We must not dismiss criticisms of President Obama on national security matters (themselves more broadly construed than ever, because of the damage the Bush administration has done to America's role in the world) as the work of leftists, the Left, progressives, or the assorted political terms currently in vogue in press accounts. Respect for the rule of law must NEVER be construed as an ideological issue. There is no Right or Left where the sanctity of law is concerned, for this respect defines the salience of a democratic society. Here Mr. Obama has been an abysmal failure. That, of course, is hard to see. He is smart, articulate, personable, and a success story only rivaled by that of Lincoln in American political history. All of this makes the departures from his own carefully wrought campaign that much more mind-numbing, disheartening, and, at bottom, seemingly unexplainable.
Torture is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel, morally, symbolically, and practically. Even without this issue, we have seen sufficient evidence of departures from his campaign promises and his life story to put every informed citizen on his or her watch. As Mr. Sanger points out, there is the retention of large military forces in Iraq and a major increase of troops to Afghanistan. These do not raise the question directly of rule of law (although on the individual level, abrogating promises made in the campaign does have a moral dimension), but the refusal to admit the commission of atrocities through aerial bombardment, as just happened, reveals unmistakably both weakness of character and contempt for international law as construed by civilized nations everywhere. The Times's coverage of the civilian casualties in western Afghanistan, especially the wanton destruction, scattered body parts, testimony of loved ones, and the photographs, leaves an indelible mark on one's moral consciousness--but not, apparently, on that of the president and the Pentagon spokespersons. Something is wrong here. Stonewalling on the photographs showing the alleged torture of detainees, and now the reinstatement of military commissions, are of the same whole cloth which produced absurd rationalizations for the bombing of civilians. Not to lose the thread, I refrain from going into Mr. Obama's banking policies, restrictions on lines for stem-cell research, ineffective regulation of derivatives (as per The Times editorial of yesterday), and, almost daily, retreats on earlier positions.
Torture, though, is not so easily laid aside. Its practice constitutes the antithesis of respect for the rule of law. Yet Mr. Obama dallies with, without sounding sensational, evil. Torture is the cancer which denies America's democratic character. If he cannot see that, he is unfit for the presidency. And deploring it, as he routinely does, is not sufficient. By refusing to investigate the practices and directives of his predecessor, he is now COMPLICIT in these acts, and indeed, through withholding information, is himself acting lawlessly. Sometimes the little details are most revealing, as when, yesterday, The Times reported that if a British court revealed the torture practiced on a detainee holding British citizenship, the United States would halt all further cooperation with British intelligence services. We seem bent on protecting our dirty secrets at whatever cost.
We must not dismiss criticisms of President Obama on national security matters (themselves more broadly construed than ever, because of the damage the Bush administration has done to America's role in the world) as the work of leftists, the Left, progressives, or the assorted political terms currently in vogue in press accounts. Respect for the rule of law must NEVER be construed as an ideological issue. There is no Right or Left where the sanctity of law is concerned, for this respect defines the salience of a democratic society. Here Mr. Obama has been an abysmal failure. That, of course, is hard to see. He is smart, articulate, personable, and a success story only rivaled by that of Lincoln in American political history. All of this makes the departures from his own carefully wrought campaign that much more mind-numbing, disheartening, and, at bottom, seemingly unexplainable.
Torture is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel, morally, symbolically, and practically. Even without this issue, we have seen sufficient evidence of departures from his campaign promises and his life story to put every informed citizen on his or her watch. As Mr. Sanger points out, there is the retention of large military forces in Iraq and a major increase of troops to Afghanistan. These do not raise the question directly of rule of law (although on the individual level, abrogating promises made in the campaign does have a moral dimension), but the refusal to admit the commission of atrocities through aerial bombardment, as just happened, reveals unmistakably both weakness of character and contempt for international law as construed by civilized nations everywhere. The Times's coverage of the civilian casualties in western Afghanistan, especially the wanton destruction, scattered body parts, testimony of loved ones, and the photographs, leaves an indelible mark on one's moral consciousness--but not, apparently, on that of the president and the Pentagon spokespersons. Something is wrong here. Stonewalling on the photographs showing the alleged torture of detainees, and now the reinstatement of military commissions, are of the same whole cloth which produced absurd rationalizations for the bombing of civilians. Not to lose the thread, I refrain from going into Mr. Obama's banking policies, restrictions on lines for stem-cell research, ineffective regulation of derivatives (as per The Times editorial of yesterday), and, almost daily, retreats on earlier positions.
Torture, though, is not so easily laid aside. Its practice constitutes the antithesis of respect for the rule of law. Yet Mr. Obama dallies with, without sounding sensational, evil. Torture is the cancer which denies America's democratic character. If he cannot see that, he is unfit for the presidency. And deploring it, as he routinely does, is not sufficient. By refusing to investigate the practices and directives of his predecessor, he is now COMPLICIT in these acts, and indeed, through withholding information, is himself acting lawlessly. Sometimes the little details are most revealing, as when, yesterday, The Times reported that if a British court revealed the torture practiced on a detainee holding British citizenship, the United States would halt all further cooperation with British intelligence services. We seem bent on protecting our dirty secrets at whatever cost.
If that is not a sufficient critcism of the man I voted for, then try on for size his appointment of one of the founders of the Wall St. duplicity crisis, namely Larry Summers, aka, woman are too dumb to learn or teach math or science. What a pompous ass he is, and Obama for kissing it. He should be sweeping the sidewalk like a former Lehman Bros. executive I saw today in Bedford, NY.
Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.
Comments