Dealing With The Clueless Leading The Clueless

Americans finally talk about the elephant in the room. Obama is infatuated with detachment and rhetoric. We called that one since 2007.

Still, what took Progressives and Liberals — now 6 years after the fact — so long?

Tout le monde now knowingly declare Obama’s signature trait when facing a manageable political situation is to do nothing. His political inaction empowers implausible Rightist narratives to coalesce and gain traction through sheer repetition. He transforms initially manageable circumstances into viable Rightist political narratives.

Benghazi. IRS. AP surveillance. And so on. Each have differing fact patterns and political consequences. Each also easily telegraphed a warhead for Rightist narratives. Pro-active political engagement would meet and combat those narratives. Perhaps Obama the cynic may not care, knowing these memes really will mature in the 2016 campaign.

Many felt shock seeing an aged Clinton masterfully demonstrate the joy of political combat this past season. Politics is about engagement. Triangulation and other sins aside, Clinton engaged and neutralized Rightist resurgence. The country he turned over in 2000 was far more stable and available for purposeful, constructive non-Rightist politics than in 1994. What will Obama bequeath us?

But it’s not all Obama’s fault, even if mainly so. The ‘Commentariat’ and permanent government are transactional. If diagnosis is easy, what to do about it?

That’s our challenge. We’ve all predicted the political incompetence. We may be galled that professional or self-promotionally visible Liberal voices come to party only now. But he still has 3 years to go.

Comments

  1. anxiousmodernman says

    I will hear Bob Woodward out, but the crime of Benghazi would be a crime of mismanagement. Not doing this or not doing that when so-and-so told you to do so. There can always be more security. The question is whether it was a reasonable level of security given the circumstances. That’s up for debate, but it’s a nuanced debate that most are not really qualified to participate in, right?

    The Administration probably screwed up and people died.

    Watergate was different. The Watergate was the Dem HQ on friggin’ Virginia Ave, NW, and not halfway around the world in Libya, for goodness sake.

    Obama’s Watergate isn’t Benghazi, but probably more along the lines of his AP monitoring scandal. That’s a bigger blip on my radar. And it fits the administration’s pattern.

  2. anxiousmodernman says

    I’m not a poli sci or PR strategist expert by any means, but here’s how I would win on the Benghazi messaging. Something like:

    It’s a tragedy, but our people, just like military folks, know what they’re signing up for. The only way to provide them total security is to do it Iraq-style: build a “green zone” city-within-a-city, a fortified embassy like the world has never seen. Do we REALLY want* to go down that path again? In the wake of this attack, I have beefed up security at blah blah, etc.

    Of course, some hawks do want to go down that path, but they’re in a minority. They must be. Surely reality has asserted itself by now. Most of this Benghazi mess is just noise.

    It’s really disgusting to me how Republicans can dare to use this as a political football. I honestly don’t know whether to be frightened at how craven that is, or optimistic that they’re so dense.

    Which of course speaks to your point at how lame Barack can be in this context. Does he not remember that his moment of ferocity in the debate with Romney – when he barked back at Romeny for using Benghazi as a political football – does he not remember that being a really solid emotional performance? My opinion, anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge