Obama’s Lost Hope

Published in Siglo XXI
(Mexico) on 27 August 2010
by Michael Gerson (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Talisa Anderson. Edited by Julia Uyttewaal.
The most destructive breach for President Obama is not the inexpressive advantage of the Republican Party in the ballot boxes, nor even the unpopularity of his work, which has largely surpassed his previous popularity; instead, it is the breach between aspirations and reality.

The controversy of [the building of] the mosque in Manhattan illustrates the problem in a compact way. First we saw Obama’s resonant principles; next came a politically inspired readjustment; later the explanation of the uncoordinated cabinet; much later a shameful silence, since it is difficult to clarify the clarification of a clarification. Then there was the president’s lamentable declaration of “I refuse to go backwards.”*

It was more than a slip-up. Since the discharge of Shirley Sherrod due to Fox News’ obsession with the story, as well as dealing with the critiques made against the “professional left,” the Obama administration seems implicated in a daily act of hypocrisy. It [the Obama administration] attacks the forcefulness and virulence of rigorous critics while simultaneously engaging in the very conduct for which it is criticized. In the process, the Obama administration often gives the image of being reactive, of being overwhelmed and of lacking principles.

This breach between ideals and practice is becoming the defining narrative of the administration. Obama promised in time, for example, to put an end to the “divisive fights in the dining hall in Washington.”* Apparently there is an exception for beverages. In his new campaign speech, he says: “We’re slipping and sliding and sweating, and the other side, the Republicans, they’re standing with their Slurpees watching us.” In Seattle, the President of the United States gestured as if he were drinking a Slurpee to mock his detractors. Obama’s partisan rhetoric is soppy, skimpy and graceless. During the campaign, he jokes and complains. Not dazzling.

But it is clear: the rhetoric encloses the message. After leaving behind the dreams of Franklin Roosevelt to make room for 9.5 percent unemployment, the president has arrived at an alleyway without an ideological exit. His natural political tendency would be to spend even more on stimuli, which today is a political impossibility. So the only thing left to do is attack the Republicans. It is a natural political tendency, but it leaves Obama at the same level as any other political partisan on the tightrope.

The grounds for tension are accumulating. The candidate that promised to surpass partisan differences approved his agenda in a constant parade of referendums exceeded by disciplined party strikes and legislative maneuvers on the verge of intimidation. The candidate who intended to overcome partisan divisions is perceived in a recent opinion poll by Democracy Corps as “too leftist” by 57 percent of probable voters. The candidate who said that he was going to “fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington”* has seen the distrust of the public opinion grow in the administration at levels as high as before the French Revolution.

For some, this is simply a confirmation of the pre-existing vision of politics that no man is admired by those that know him well. But a nation of connoisseurs will lose its talent for grand endeavors. In a way it should be a source of sadness that Obama, for many, has transformed into a source of cynicism.

All politicians fall — but not from such great heights.

* EDITOR'S NOTE: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.


La esperanza perdida de Barack Obama

La retórica partidista de Obama logra ser sensiblera, mezquina y sin gracia. En campaña, se burla y se queja. No encandila.

La brecha más destructiva para el Presidente Obama no es la ventaja republicana inexpresiva en las urnas de las legislativas, ni siquiera una impopularidad de su labor que ha superado a la popularidad (es la brecha entre aspiraciones y realidad).

La polémica de la mezquita de Manhattan ilustra el problema de forma comprimida. Primero vimos al Obama de los principios resonantes. Después vino un reajuste interesado políticamente. Luego la explicación de un gabinete descoordinado. Más tarde un silencio vergonzoso, puesto que es difícil aclarar la aclaración de una aclaración. Luego la lamentable declaración del “niego echarme atrás” por parte del Presidente.

Fue más que un traspié. Desde el despido de Shirley Sherrod a la obsesión con Fox News, pasando por las críticas vertidas contra la “izquierda profesional”, la administración Obama se ve involucrada en un acto diario de hipocresía. Ataca la contundencia y la virulencia de los rigores de la actualidad al tiempo que es totalmente cautiva de su ritmo. En el proceso, a menudo da imagen de ser reactiva, estar desbordada y falta de principios.

Esta brecha entre ideales y práctica se está convirtiendo en la narrativa definitoria de la administración. Obama prometió en tiempos, por ejemplo, poner fin a las “divisivas peleas de comedor en Washington”. Al parecer hay una excepción en los refrescos. En su nuevo discurso de campaña, dice: “Resbalamos y nos deslizamos y sudamos la gota gorda, y al otro extremo, los republicanos están allí de pie mirándonos con sus Fresisuis”. En Seattle, el Presidente de Estados Unidos hacía como que se bebía un Fresisuis para burlarse de sus detractores. La retórica partidista de Obama logra ser sensiblera, mezquina y sin gracia. En campaña, se burla y se queja. No encandila.

Pero esto está claro: la retórica encaja al mensaje. Después de haber dejado atrás los sueños de Franklin Roosevelt para dar lugar a un paro del 9.5%, el mandatario ha llegado a un callejón sin salida ideológico. Su tendencia política natural sería aún más gasto en estímulos, hoy una imposibilidad política. De forma que sólo le queda atacar a los republicanos. Es una tendencia política natural. Pero deja a Obama a la misma altura de cualquier otro político partidista en la cuerda floja.

Los motivos de tensión se acumulan. El candidato que se comprometió a superar diferencias partidistas aprobó su agenda en un desfile constante de votaciones superadas a golpe de disciplina de partido y maniobras legislativas al borde de la intimidación. El candidato que pretendía superar divisiones partidistas es percibido en una encuesta reciente de Democracy Corps como “demasiado izquierdista” por el 57% de los electores probables. El candidato que dijo que iba a “cambiar de forma fundamental la forma en que funciona Washington” ha visto crecer la desconfianza de la opinión pública en la administración hasta niveles pre-Revolución Francesa.

Para algunos, esto es simplemente la confirmación de su visión preexistente de la política que ningún hombre es admirado entre los que le conocen bien. Pero una nación de conocedores perderá su talento para los grandes propósitos. De forma que debería ser fuente de tristeza que Obama, para muchos, se haya transformado en fuente de cinismo.

Todos los políticos caen -- pero no desde tan alto.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Cuba: The Middle East Is on Fire

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

Canada: Elbows Down on the Digital Services Tax

Australia: What US Intelligence and Leaks Tell Us about ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’

Topics

Germany: Trump’s Opportunity in Iran

Canada: Elbows Down on the Digital Services Tax

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump vs the Fed: Rocky Times Ahead

Cuba: The Middle East Is on Fire

Australia: Could Donald Trump’s Power Struggle with Federal Reserve Create Next Financial Crisis?

Taiwan: After US Bombs Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump’s Credibility in Doubt

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

Related Articles

Cuba: Summit between Wars and Other Disruptions

Germany: LA Protests: Why Are So Many Mexican Flags Flying in the US?

Mexico: US Pushes for Submission

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Afghanistan: Defeat? Strategic Withdrawal? Maneuver?