I think it’s fair to say that the farther away our government is from its people, the more political it becomes. And by “political” I mean “less useful.” At the federal level, politics appears more like a sport than anything else. You have two teams – the Republicans and the Democrats – fighting for ball control much like players on a soccer field. Goals are scored when one team passes legislation over the objections of the other team and games are won and lost every two years in the House of Representatives, every four years in the Executive, and every six years in the Senate by the spectators’ votes. Political pundits and newscasters are much like sports announcers – analyzing and critiquing the level of play, declaring (oftentimes prematurely) winners and losers, and constantly assessing whether players are engaging in “fair play,” whether a foul is really a foul, and whether goals should be allowed or not. Even the referee isn’t above reproach. And when one party controls the ball (i.e., has more folks in the House or Senate, or sits in the Presidency), the other party is judged for how well it plays defense.
Even the players themselves can’t help but chime in on their successes during the game. On Friday (2.25.11), in response to the Republicans’ proposal for averting a government shut-down, Senator Schumer, sounding much like a child bully on a playground, was quoted as saying: “This shows that they were afraid of a shutdown. They are moving in our direction.”
Unlike a soccer game – which, when played skillfully, can be beautiful to watch – politics, when played like a soccer game, loses its purpose.
President Obama – to his credit – railed against this form of governing during his campaign. He promised to bring purpose to the art of governing and, in doing so, he inspired millions of Americans who voted for him. After all, while we may be Democrats or Republicans, we were, above all, Americans, he said.
Since his election, President Obama has simply failed to lead. His Administration has been cautious, unclear in purpose, and timid, if not outright reluctant, to lead the debate of ideas by failing to push creative and substantive legislation that addresses the challenges we face as a country. Take, for instance, the health care debacle. While it’s certainly not the Executive’s job to draft and propose legislation, the President should have led his party in the legislative process. He didn’t, and outsourced that leadership to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed. Or, for a more recent example of the President’s paralysis, take the budget proposed by the Administration, which, in response to justifiable criticism that it has not addressed entitlement spending, the President said: “This is not a matter of ‘you go first’ or “I go first.’ This is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go and then ultimately everybody getting into that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over.” Huh?
What has become clear over the past two and a half years – and why President Obama should not be re-elected – is that he is scared to lead. And his fear has, in turn, undermined the power of his Presidency, which is only as effective as its leader is skilled. Mr. Obama has mistakenly allowed his objection to the way politics is played to define his role as President. By refusing to play the political game with the intent to change the way the game is played, he has become a self-styled referee, and a partial one at best. He has, quite effectively, marginalized himself.
We didn’t elect President Obama to be a referee. We don’t want him running up and down the field of play, blowing his whistle every time John Boehner fouls John Kerry. We didn’t elect him to issue red and yellow cards, and keep score. We elected him to lead, which requires him to put on the Democrats’ uniform (he did, after all, run as a Democrat) and, like any star soccer play, seek to elevate the game and transcend the playing field.
And specifically, we elected him over John McCain in 2008 because he promised to remove the goal posts at both ends of field, and lead his team into the Republican’s territory not with the purpose of attacking them, but rather to show them that they no longer needed to play defense. The purpose of politics, said Mr. Obama, was not to beat the other side but rather to engage the other side because, above all, our nationality and our nation’s interests were more important than our party affiliation.
Unfortunately, President Obama has spent the past two and a half years with a whistle in his mouth calling fouls on the Republicans and occasionally on the Democrats. Unfortunately, our President doesn’t know how to lead. (His resume doesn’t suggest he ever knew how so we cannot necessarily fault him.) To the extent Mr. Obama’s goal was to be everything his immediate predecessor was not, he has certainly succeeded. He is no Decider-in-Chief. He’s more a pontificator and ponderer than anything else. And while he ponders, the game goes on, and nothing changes.