Interesting words from Robert Reich......
One of the most disturbing aspects of the President's evolving fiasco in Syria is its stunning lack of strategy. The rationale for bombing Syria has moved at lightening speed from "teaching Assad a lesson" to "maintaining America's credibility" because, from the moment the President drew a line in the sand on Assad's use of chemical weapons, the White House seems to have had no contingency plan -- for what to do if Assad crossed the line, then for what to do if the White House couldn't persuade its major allies to back a military strike, and then for what to do if Congress wouldn't back the President. Nor does there appear to be any contingency plan for what to do if the U.S. bombs Syria and Assad uses poison gas again. Even if Russia provides a face-saving way out of all this, the affair has cost the President the most important resource of his office -- the appearance of having power.
A president's power is always dependent on the power other... political actors, at home and abroad, perceive him to have. So the basic rule for maintaining or enhancing presidential power is to test it publicly only when a president knows he'll win, or to risk it only when the stakes are so high he has no choice -- and, even then, carefully plan for what to do in the event of a loss. In this instance, the President appears to have dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole, and along the way put at risk a larger and larger amount of his power -- at a time when he is about to confront intransigent Republicans over the debt ceiling, the Affordable Care Act, continued funding for the government, an ever more draconian sequester, immigration reform, and everything else he wants to do over the next three and a quarter years of his presidency.
I campaigned for Obama in 2008 and in 2012 and still consider him one of the smartest people ever to occupy the Oval Office. But something has gone seriously wrong. Is it due to the insularity of his White House? His second-term, second-string staff? Fatigue? Or a re-emergence of the strange passivity we witnessed in the first debate with Romney? I don't know, but it frankly worries me.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the President's evolving fiasco in Syria is its stunning lack of strategy. The rationale for bombing Syria has moved at lightening speed from "teaching Assad a lesson" to "maintaining America's credibility" because, from the moment the President drew a line in the sand on Assad's use of chemical weapons, the White House seems to have had no contingency plan -- for what to do if Assad crossed the line, then for what to do if the White House couldn't persuade its major allies to back a military strike, and then for what to do if Congress wouldn't back the President. Nor does there appear to be any contingency plan for what to do if the U.S. bombs Syria and Assad uses poison gas again. Even if Russia provides a face-saving way out of all this, the affair has cost the President the most important resource of his office -- the appearance of having power.
A president's power is always dependent on the power other... political actors, at home and abroad, perceive him to have. So the basic rule for maintaining or enhancing presidential power is to test it publicly only when a president knows he'll win, or to risk it only when the stakes are so high he has no choice -- and, even then, carefully plan for what to do in the event of a loss. In this instance, the President appears to have dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole, and along the way put at risk a larger and larger amount of his power -- at a time when he is about to confront intransigent Republicans over the debt ceiling, the Affordable Care Act, continued funding for the government, an ever more draconian sequester, immigration reform, and everything else he wants to do over the next three and a quarter years of his presidency.
I campaigned for Obama in 2008 and in 2012 and still consider him one of the smartest people ever to occupy the Oval Office. But something has gone seriously wrong. Is it due to the insularity of his White House? His second-term, second-string staff? Fatigue? Or a re-emergence of the strange passivity we witnessed in the first debate with Romney? I don't know, but it frankly worries me.
A president's power is always dependent on the power other... political actors, at home and abroad, perceive him to have. So the basic rule for maintaining or enhancing presidential power is to test it publicly only when a president knows he'll win, or to risk it only when the stakes are so high he has no choice -- and, even then, carefully plan for what to do in the event of a loss. In this instance, the President appears to have dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole, and along the way put at risk a larger and larger amount of his power -- at a time when he is about to confront intransigent Republicans over the debt ceiling, the Affordable Care Act, continued funding for the government, an ever more draconian sequester, immigration reform, and everything else he wants to do over the next three and a quarter years of his presidency.
I campaigned for Obama in 2008 and in 2012 and still consider him one of the smartest people ever to occupy the Oval Office. But something has gone seriously wrong. Is it due to the insularity of his White House? His second-term, second-string staff? Fatigue? Or a re-emergence of the strange passivity we witnessed in the first debate with Romney? I don't know, but it frankly worries me.
No comments:
Post a Comment