Liberals debate Obama's performance

A critique of Obama's performance by Drew Westen, Emory psychology professor, author of The Political Brain, and a personal friend of mine, was given unprecedented prominence in last Sunday's New York Times. It occupied almost the entire front page of the "Sunday Review" section (editorials and op-eds), and continued inside, splashed across the top two-thirds of two other adjoining inside pages. I do not recall ever seeing an opinion piece given so much prestigious space.

Drew's thesis is that Obama has failed to be the strong leader that he could have been and that those who elected him expected him to be. He attributes it to Obama's misguided attempts to negotiate and compromise and his apparent inhibition of bold leadership in the face of strong opposition from the other side. (But he goes too far, in my opinion, in calling this a "character defect.") In addition, despite his rhetorical ability in some settings, Drew says that he has failed to present his message in an effective way, when it comes to getting legislation passed.

I agree with most of his points, but I think he goes too far in attributing it solely to Obama's shortcomings, even though I have moved more and more toward recognizing that he may not be the ideal leader for this time and this political climate with absolutely unmovable opponents. Perhaps a more aggressive leader and one who articulates a clear vision for the way ahead is what we need now.

It's well worth reading his article, "What Happened to Obama?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

But, even better than the article itself, was a 30 minute discussion on Charlie Rose's August 11 show. Guests were Drew Westen, Fareed Zakaria (editor of Time Magazine, who mostly defended Obama) and Jonathan Chait (editor of he New Republic, who is also critical of Obama, but less so than Drew).

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11836

There was no conservative voice here, no one trumpeting tax cuts for the rich. This was a dialogue between left-center and progressive voices, at least that's the way it seemed to me. But they thoroughly discussed all the issues that have made me so ambivalent about Obama's performance.

The argument mostly comes down to this: could Obama have done more and gotten better results (ie, been less quick to compromise, been bolder in pressing for votes in Congress, framing his message better for the public, as well as for key senators)? Or has he done the best he could with the Congress we gave him? The latter has been the position I have clung to until recently.

Zakaria, for example, pointed out some of Obama's amazing accomplishments (the stimulus, health care reform, etc.). Yes, the 2009 stimulus bill should have been much bigger. But in fact the one we did get squeaked by with only a 1 vote majority. He says that anyone who thinks a different way of framing the argument, or a bolder stand from Obama, could have gotten a stimulus twice as big through Congress is simply dealing in fantasy.

For anyone interested in this argument: this is 30 minutes of high level discussion by four very bright and informed individuals across the liberal-progressive spectrum. I highly recommend it.

Ralph