Obama has now been President for over 70 days. The past administration's conspicuous ideological propensity has been replaced with a less ideological tone. It is a relief to see a new leadership team in Washington that doesn't think every problem can be solved with tax cuts. On the international front, Obama has successfully charmed Europe by showing he will listen to the viewpoints of other nations. So, it would be unfair to suggest Obama doesn't represent change from the prior administration. But for those who might have hoped for radical change, Obama has so far been disappointing. There is a lot to like about Obama like his keen intellect and his cool and reassuring demenaor, but a true Progressive would have plenty to quibble with regarding Obama's first 70 days.
Though Obama has dispensed with the term 'global war on terror', his actions could hardly be categorized as anti-war. Obama is apparently committed to escalating the military operations in Afghanistan after seven years of US military presence in the war-torn impoverished country. Inflicting more misery on Afghanistan is hard to justify and is counterproductive if eradicating terrorism is the goal. Military operations in Afghanistan do result in civilian casualties, which leads to more violence as the senseless deaths of innocents breed hatred. As for Iraq, there is much praise for Obama's plan to disengage from Iraq after six years of occupation, yet there are murmurs there will be a sizable residual force left in Iraq after our troops are supposed to leave. Although Obama has been lauded for instituting a less unilateral foreign policy than his predecessor, Obama's foreign policy isn't a radical shift from the Bush years. A cynic might conclude Obama is demonstrating an interest in largely continuing Bush's foreign policy priorities, but without the unseemly arrogance and overt aggressiveness observed during Bush's Presidency.
On the domestic front, Obama has acted swiftly to get a stimulus plan enacted to deal with deteriorating economic conditions. Obama's quick action to have government intervene to avert economic collapse contrasts sharply with Bush's stubborn adherence to laissez-faire doctrine. Though Obama's effort to get the stimulus plan enacted quickly is to be applauded, his economic team's plans to address the troubled financial industry lacks imagination and is too favorable to Wall Street. Americans are rightly indignant when they observe the federal governmen bending over backwards to help the same charlatans at greedy and reckless financial institutions that brought the world economy to the precipice of disaster. Though clearly left of Bush, Obama's largely centrist tendencies has drawn fire from the Right and the Left. An argument can be made that the current economic crisis suggests our economy needs a complete overhaul, yet Obama is implementing plans that won't fundamentally alter the overall structure of the economy. Despite murmurs from many leftist economists that the teetering big banks ought to be nationalized, Obama has chosen a rescue plan that shuns such advice and instead keeps delivering billions into the hands of some of the most morally-challenged corporate entities. It is doubtful the Bush administration would have handled the big banks rescue much differently than the plan Obama's financial team concocted. This is particularly disappointing after Obama's lofty electoral rhetoric in which he promised to implement change we can believe in.
Yes, Obama has brought change. His keen intellect and deliberative style constrasts sharply with his predecessor. The evident energy of the new administration is a marked improvement after the listless and aimless last two years of Bush's Presidency. Despite Obama's lofty campaign rhetoric, the change he has brought so far has been timid and not very innovative. So though change has come to Washington after Bush as was sorely needed, it is becoming increasingly clear corporate America has little to fear from Obama.
Comments