On the eve of the Democratic convention, consider a contrarian idea: How Barack Obama is like President Bush.
Won't back down. The Iraq War is central to the political fortunes of both. Bush's presidency will be judged by it. Obama's early opposition to it was crucial in his defeat of Hillary Clinton. At key times, Bush and Obama stubbornly followed policies that could have ended in defeat.
After the success of the invasion, it became clear that the Bush administration had no clear post-invasion strategy. Bush ignored advice that the U.S. had too few troops in Iraq and implemented destructive plans such as disbanding Iraq's army. Only last year did Bush finally yield to the urging of people like Gen. David Petraeus and Sen. John McCain to launch the military surge.
Despite the surge's obvious success, Obama clings to the position that his original opposition to it was correct. What's more, during the darkest days of Iraq, Obama formulated a troop pullout plan that would have had American soldiers retreat from the battlefield and acknowledge defeat. His plan still calls for firm timetables for withdrawals, but recently he has suggested he'd let facts on the ground influence the pullout.
Arrogance. Bush is damned by his critics as a cowboy who pursues unilateral foreign policies that alienate the rest of the world. Obama is labeled by his critics as an out-of-touch elitist. They point to his condescending remarks that small-town America bitterly clings to its guns and God. His speech to 200,000 Germans in Berlin was seen as his acting like he was president without benefit of an election.
Claims of bipartisanship. Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He became one of the most polarizing politicians to hold the White House. Obama promises to put the bitter divisions of the past behind us and work across political lines. Yet, unlike Bill Clinton, the only successful Democratic presidential aspirant in the last quarter century and one who practiced centrist politics, Obama campaigns on a traditional liberal agenda. The record shows that, unlike McCain, Obama has never worked across the legislative aisle on an issue that could put him at any discomfort with his party.
Slow to respond. Nothing was so damaging to Bush's presidency as the federal government's belated response to the destruction Hurricane Katrina wreaked on New Orleans. Washington's bungling left everyone asking: If the government can't cope with a natural disaster, how could we be confident it could handle another terrorist attack?
Obama, not having held executive office, doesn't have a record of responding to crises. Yet, his performance on the campaign trail has raised questions about his being slow on the draw. During a Democratic presidential debate, Obama and Clinton were asked to respond to the scenario of a terrorist attack on two U.S. cities. Obama talked about an effective emergency response, good intelligence and better international relationships. He had to come back later with a better response after listening to Clinton give the right answer: retaliate. Recently, it took Obama three tries to catch up with McCain's accurate assessment of the Georgia-Russia crisis.
Inexperience. Bush came to the White House after just six years as governor of Texas. How big a factor that was in the failures of his presidency will be examined by historians for years. Obama spent eight years as a backbencher in the Illinois Legislature before his election to the U.S. Senate. By inauguration day, he will have served just under four years there. But as National Review Online noted, Obama had held his Washington post only two years and 12 days when he formed his presidential exploratory committee. He has spent the 18 months doing more campaigning than legislating.
Yes, many differences separate Obama and Bush, but as Americans pick their next president, they might want to consider the ways the Democrat seems similar to the one they've got now.
Comment at suntimes.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment