Sigh

by tristero

Most of the people I see regularly don’t follow politics that closely, especially these days now that we no longer have a sociopath and a drooling maniac in the two top posts in the executive branch (Which was which is your choice. Or combine the two). My friends think Obama is doing a good to excellent job. Sure they don’t like this decision, or that cave-in, but on the whole, they think highly of him.

And so, I often remind them of my particular pet peeve, that the torturers and murderers of the Bush/Cheney regime simply must be brought to justice, hauled into a court or – at the absolute very least – forced to reveal all to a truth and reconciliation commission. And that to his everlasting discredit, Obama shows negative inclination to do so.

From there, the conversation takes its usual course, with my friends excusing Obama and leaping to his defense, and me piling up the things he has done inexcusably wrong – Afghanistan, giving away the store at the start of healthcare reform, the waste of time and resources seeking grains of sanity in the GOP, the inattention and arrogance that led to the Scott Brown debacle, etc.

Which made it all the more startling to me when I found myself on the opposite side the other day. A smart, highly knowledgeable, highly accomplished friend lit into Obama and pulled no punches. Obama’s corrupt economic appointees, the consequent lack of any serious financial reform, the failure to take advantage of an historic moment to change the country. Obama was an incredible disappointment.

I couldn’t help but disagree but I don’t understand exactly why. Maybe it was simple ornery contrarianism, or maybe, having missed the first part of the discussion where he said that he was glad that the health bill passed, I felt that the very real, very obvious distinctions between Obama and Bush* were being minimized.

So I mentioned the fact that the Obama attitude towards science in general is very different than Bush’s and in the right direction, We agreed. I brought up the recent recess appointments, and I wrote my friend a note saying, in part, that I believed the historic opportunity everyone else thinks Obama had to implement deep changes in American governance right after his inauguration was an illusion. In fact, I said, the most plausible historic opportunity available on Election Day was the potential for an immediate, and heavily- armed/funded, rightwing revolt. (Obama seems to have delayed the full onset of that, thank whatever gods or avatars you care to invoke, but it’s arguable whether The Big Crazy can be avoided for much longer; certain loud voices on the right have made it abundantly clear that there will be blood, the sooner the better. Whether cooler heads exist anymore within the GOP to rein in these thugs is more the shadow of a wish than much of a hope ). I said I was glad that Obama refused to exploit his charisma back then, that it showed strength of character on his part, not a failure to lead. Charisma is not an unalloyed virtue; after all, highly charismatic leaders share at least one thing: they get people killed. Lots of them.

Off went my email and good, oh! it felt good. On a roll, I then found this article in Rolling Stone on the positive developments at the EPA. I started a new letter so I could send him the link. See, see? This is really good, yes? Sure, the article says she could be doing even a better job, but this is really serious change and Obama’s responsible! Obama’s doing a damn good job sometimes. Maybe it’s wrong to be so disappointed in the guy!

Then, just as I was just about press send, that’s when I heard the news about the offshore drilling turnaround.

Sigh.

Note to self: Next time you feel like enthusiastically defending someone who’s more moderate than liberal, go thou instead and consume mass quantities of the finest chocolate you can find within three miles of home. The urge will pass.

—

*Note to commenters: By all means, feel free to argue that there is no essential difference between Bush’s and Obama’s administration and politics. Just don’t ask me to discuss it with you. Not because I agree but because it would be at best as futile as explaining the sonic differences between the “grand piano” patch on a cheap Casio keyboard and a perfectly-tuned Bosendorfer to someone who was born without hearing.

Put another way, to argue that there is no essential difference between Obama and Bush is as ludicrous as arguing that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. And we all know how very astute and informed and clever an observation that was.