Seems to me that we’re going to have to get used to giving up on “clear-cut solutions” or “clear-cut” anything. For a start (this’ll come as a surprise to very few) we Americans are neither liberal nor conservative. These days Americans like to think of themselves as conservative while, in fact, even conservatives embrace much of liberalism. Many, in fact, like being easy on themselves while being pretty authoritarian towards everyone else. Women and minorities tend to be their enemies. In American, then, it’s about allowing choice for oneself while demanding constraints for others.
Let America be free! However, “hopefully” America will control, dominate, export its values (you choose your own words here) to all other nations, none of which knows how to govern as well as we do. No, not even the Swedes though the crazy left in America thinks Swedes may be smarter than we are at self-governance. But Americans — also for decades — have had policies ensuring libertarianism at home and dictatorship in other countries.
How do I know this about America? Well, there’s history, and then I check out The Hill now and then to stay up-to-date. Tip: if you can’t find outrageous reporting among the paid reporters, check out the comments!
So let’s check out what The Hill has on Obama today. They admit (claim?) that they can’t figure out who he is.
Is he the dyed-in-the-wool liberal that his biggest supporters and critics suggest? Or is he a pragmatic, even cynical, politician who cares more for his popularity than taking risks for his ideological goals or living up to his rhetoric? …The Hill
Guys, you’ve watched him being a senator for four years and a president for five and you haven’t figured it out yet? Seems to me he is, like most Americans (and even most politicians) a mixture of attitudes and opinions. He doesn’t (can’t and is supposed to) govern all by himself. A huge part of what he (or anyone) does is made up of compromise with reality. Reality abhors purity and clarity.
The Hill is uneasy with “conflicting interpretations” and wants simple, clear explanations and, Aw jeez, the Hill complains, “Obama has provided evidence to support conflicting interpretations…”
Obama came to power on the strength of his opposition to war in Iraq but is now poised to intervene in the civil war in Syria. …The Hill
Wasn’t The Hill complaining just yesterday that Obama seemed reluctant to intervene in Syria? Seems to me we have the first president in over three decades who really, really wants to avoid more American involvement in war and thinks once, twice, three times before pressing any buttons.
“President Obama has always been instinctively careful. And while he has progressive values, he’s pursued them in a careful and pragmatic way that has left his base feeling unenthusiastic [and] dispirited,” said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. ...The Hill
There are a lot of liberals who continue to believe that “careful and pragmatic” is exactly what’s needed, recognizing, as many of us do, that our ideals are goals, not strategies. Obama, perhaps the most mature and grounded person we’ve had in charge for a long time, knows the difference. There is a tiny hint that The Hill may understand that.
Observers say the either-or choice between Obama the ideologue and Obama the pragmatist is simplistic and misleading. They say he is both: His principles on domestic issues in particular are on the left, but he is willing to bend those principles to rack up achievements and burnish his legacy. ...The Hill
“Rack up” and “burnish”? That sounds more like something Oliver North and Dick Cheney were doing in the back rooms of the White House during successive Republican administrations. In fact, it sounds a lot like the torture Obama’s predecessor was ordering in Gitmo and secret CIA prisons.
Cross-posted from Prairie Weather