Obama’s presidency proved instead to be a time of intense rancor and discord, worsening racial enmity, eroding trust in government, and a national public life marked by petty grievances, false promises, and endless recriminations. He leaves behind a polarized America, a Middle East in flames, an unstable international order, and a Republican-controlled Congress and incoming president who have staked their reputations on dismantling every signature achievement of his presidency.
The “pen-and-phone” strategy he announced in 2014, rejecting bipartisan compromise with Congress, was predicated on a Democratic successor who would preserve his executive decrees and regulations. Instead of building support for major initiatives, Obama governed under the assumption that Democrats had achieved a permanent majority.
Indeed, his entire approach to governance belied a conceit that the major questions of policy had been settled. From health care to climate change to financial regulation, the question was not whether the federal government should take action, but what the details should look like. As Obama said Tuesday night, “We can argue about how best to achieve these goals, but we can’t be complacent about the goals themselves.”
Obama was uninterested in debate, still less in persuasion. If you didn’t agree, you were on the wrong side of history. In this, Obama helped shape the dominant ethos of the Democratic Party, which was also the basis of Clinton’s campaign: we are on the winning side. The “deplorables” who support Trump, who aren’t on board with the progressive agenda, are “irredeemable.” Why bother reaching out to them? Why compromise, when victory is certain?
End of Excerpt
My interpretation of Mr Davidson’s article could be succinctly summed up by stating that Obama ruled as a dictator-want-to-be based on the premise that the democrats would be in total control for the foreseeable future. Why work within the framework of democracy when you can establish an emperor instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment