DISAPPOINTED? – NOT ME!

By Edwin Cooney

You don’t have to read very much or very long to learn how disappointed in President Barack Obama almost everyone seems to be.

As president, of course, he’s answerable for almost every problem, or perceived problem, we face beyond the very personal conflicts and disappointments that affect us in our daily lives.  To the degree that these conflicts and disappointments are brought on by economic, environmental and social conditions, he is to a large degree rightfully held responsible for them as well.  After all, criticism (even harsh criticism) goes with the territory. Additionally, according to much political commentary these days, he’s even responsible for how we feel about him. Wow! What a responsibility!

As one reads socio/political commentary today, it appears that Barack Obama is responsible for your disappointment, your anger, your prejudices, your reluctance, your fear, and your discomfort.  After all, if he enticed your vote and hasn’t performed to your satisfaction, he has earned your disappointment, hasn’t he?  If, on the other hand, you didn’t like him from the instant you first heard or saw his name and especially his physiognomy, his daily notoriety is a personal offense for which Barack Obama alone is both responsible and accountable!

Now, I gladly stipulate that it is perfectly patriotic to be disappointed in President Obama.  Liberal ideologues are especially disappointed that the 2010 healthcare package wasn’t “single payer”, that climate change legislation has been too slow, that the president’s stimulus package wasn’t big enough, and that he’s been too willing to keep the United States involved in foreign conflict.  That’s how liberals feel regardless of the wisdom or practicality of these goals and objectives.

Professor Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center of International Scholars insists that the core of the president’s problem is his character.  Miller says that he is neither partisan, populist nor revolutionary.  He is dispassionate, imprecise and, worst of all, disconnected.  Hence, insists Professor Miller, he is constantly at war with himself.  His tendency to see all sides of a question or issue and his willingness to compromise or conciliate make it unlikely that he will ever be regarded as a “transforming president.”

President Obama is especially vulnerable to ideological criticism due to the nature of his 2008 presidential campaign.  He promised significant changes in our domestic and international outlook if he were elected president.  “YES WE CAN,” was his 2008 battle cry and it brought to him the support of both moderate and liberal-oriented Americans.  It is of course these Americans who are most disappointed with the president’s performance.  His chronic GOP and Tea Party opposition delight in almost any Obama failure because, after all, their agenda is exclusively patriotic and exclusively moral.  They’ve suspended patriotism until one of their own is elected sometime in the distant future.

Getting back to the president’s liberal or progressive constituency, a generous portion of their disappointment toward the president has as much to do with their rigidity as it does with the president’s intentions or actions.  Liberals, like their conservative cousins, are primarily driven by dogmatic standards and ideals.  For idealists, even practicality (or if you prefer expediency) is dictated by dogmatism.  Ideals rather than objectivity too often dominate our reaction to events. 

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012, but not because I had a specific agenda (although I am generally far more sympathetic to the liberal or progressive agenda than I am to that of the conservatives).  My vote was for a less rigid ideology in national policy.  I’ve always liked the concept of thesis (meaning and idea) coupled with an antithesis (meaning an opposite idea) to create a synthesis: a new idea or concept.  To me, President Obama is a mixture of dynamism and reserve, enabling him to function “outside the box,” as they say.

As for presidential disappointments and shortcomings, a brief trip down History Lane will make the point:

When George Washington completed his stellar presidential performance, not one, but two political parties were formed to improve upon his legacy.

When Andrew Jackson completed his eight-year presidency, as successful as he was credited with being, he left us with three legacies, only one of which was positive: a broader and stronger democracy, a “trail of tears” (Indian tears, of course), and an economic depression.

President Abraham Lincoln quashed the rebellious South and emancipated the slaves, but he brought no sense of national unity or tranquility.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln stirred up more social unrest than probably any president before or since.

Woodrow Wilson was a successful progressive on domestic issues, but his insistence on his own moral superiority toward his political opponents destroyed the League of Nations thus paving the road to the Second World War.

It’s been observed that “FDR lifted a crippled nation to its feet from his wheelchair,” but the world he left behind him was needlessly fraught with nuclear terror.

Of course, neither Washington, Jackson, nor Lincoln campaigned for the presidency.  Hence, seldom is voter disappointment a part of how they are historically evaluated.  Wilson and FDR certainly campaigned, and FDR is forever remembered for breaking two promises.  In 1932, he promised to balance Herbert Hoover’s unbalanced budget.  In 1940, he promised to “...keep our boys out of foreign wars.”

As Barack Obama begins the second half of his second term, much of his constituency is disappointed due to his imperfections.  Very little socio/political commentary these days praises his name.  If it can be said that he’s brought much criticism onto himself, it is equally fair to observe that his critics have been neither restrained nor shy.

As I’ve often written in these weekly musings and asserted to family and countless friends, I don’t love anyone because they’re perfect.  I expect and even believe that most of us do our very best when we must. Certainly our presidents must do their best according to their education, social and professional experiences, and the intellectual and moral fiber of their being.  No, I’m not disappointed in President Obama, even as I gladly stipulate that there’s always room for improvement.

When I was in grammar school, two of my teachers used to admonish us that “if you can’t say anything good about someone, it’s best that you say nothing at all.”

Sadly or realistically, I’ve discovered that the world doesn’t work that way.  In fact, the world functions much as Theodore Roosevelt’s oldest daughter (who was known as “Princess Alice”) handled her business of evaluating public personages:

“If you can’t say anything good about anyone, come sit next to me.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY