If you thought the reference to John Birch in an earlier post was gratuitous, then take a look at Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times. Rich gives a detailed account of the Koch family's involvement in the growth of the VRWC, from the John Birch Society to today's so-called "Tea Party."
At the end of his column, Rich notes that past Democratic leaders--F.D.R. and Kennedy, specifically--fought back with full force against right-wing demagogues like the Koch brothers and their fellow-travelers in the GOP and on Fox. He ends with this pithy observation: "And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself."
I agree. But WHY is that true? Why is Obama so absolutely unwilling to take these people on? Why does he increasingly act like someone who has decided to be president for only two years?
I tend to think that, for Presidents as well as the rest of us, biography is destiny. He rose to the White House as a conciliator, and not as leader. He learned how to work with people where they are, and not how to take them where they need to go. As a consequence, he tends to be more risk-adverse than someone in his position needs to be. He doesn't understand that the people of this country need a President who is willing to get out in front of not only the problems, but the positions that others have staked out on them. Ultimately, that his how you bring people together: not by giving each side half a loaf, but by showing us a different way to bake bread.
Okay, that's not one of my better metaphors. But, hopefully, you get the idea. Unless Obama can suddenly get a personality transplant, the audacity of hope is going to give way to the audacity of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
No comments:
Post a Comment