I wonder sometimes about David Brooks, the New York Times editorialist. He seems to have a liberal within him struggling against the staunchly defended reasonable-conservative character he professes to be. Today, for example, his column was about "agency," which translates to autonomy in colloquial terms, and he cited the life of George Elliot, a literary figure of the nineteenth century who assumed a man's name though she was a heterosexual woman, perhaps because she was frustrated by her lack of feminine wiles and beauty and the resulting ennui of the men on whom she set her sights. Brooks characterized the rejection by one of her desired paramours as a liberating event that gave her agency, or the power and the desire to act without regard for the opinions of others, men in particular. It was her "to-hell-with-it" moment in vulgar terms, and from then on she wrote and did as she pleased, in complete control of her work and her life. As I read the piece, it occurred to me that Brooks was saying what I intended to say today about Barrack Obama, but The President was never mentioned. It makes me wonder if Brooks is that subtle that he left to others to extract from what he wrote a liberal notion which his conservative ego refused to acknowledge...at least publicly: that the Republican narcissism that McBoehnell is evincing has liberated President Obama, and that he will now be--paradoxically in the last two years, the lame duck years of his presidency--the real Barrack Obama. It is my opinion that such is exactly what will happen now, and that it is a shame that Mr. Obama didn't feel this sense of liberation the first time he experienced such a moment...in 2010.
For six years, Barrack Obama has been the Rodney King of American politics, admonishing us all to "just get along." Don't misunderstand that observation: it is not intended to diminish the character of Mr. King and Mr. Obama in their moments of supplication to a rampaging mass, which in both cases seem to me to have been noble. Obama's de facto admonition to cooperate politically, which was manifested in diffidence and conciliatory tone, is indeed analogous to King's effort to instill calm in a socially combusting moment, and was just as ineffective in mollifying the rampant forces at work to undermine his goal as was King's, but the intent was to be admired. However, the Republicans responded like the Sendakian "Wild Things," creating bumptious and fractious turmoil in our government just as frustrated rioters expressed themselves in Los Angeles after the acquittal of the policemen who committed the King beating. And the efforts of both King and Obama came to the same result: naught. But The President appears now to have come to the conclusion that he cannot accomplish the comity that he sought, and since electoral politics will never again be a factor in his presidency, or his life for that matter, he has abandoned the attempt to cultivate his adversaries and is not bent on pursuing the goals that he convinced us during his elections were right. The liberal Obama has been unleashed, and the smarter Republicans seem to know what they have wrought.
There is an argot that Washington politicians employ when they don't want to say what they are thinking, and Mitch McConnell hinted at it during his remarks about The President's stated intent to announce executive changes to immigration law imminently rather than giving Congress a chance to act. He said that the definition of a political gaff was when a politician accidentally told the truth, and he then scrupulously avoided doing so by paring down his opposition to President Obama's stated intent to a civil, acceptable signal. Instead of taking the Boehner approach of rattling his sword, McConnell noted that if the President acted by executive order, that is, unilaterally, his orders might only last for the remainder of his presidency. He didn't go on to say that he should wait until Congress had a chance to act, probably because he knows that the recalcitrant House of Representatives, led by Boehner, won't do so. In fact, minority leader Pelosi noted something that I have pointed out before: that if Boehner were sincere he could just call for a vote on the third, bi-partisan immigration reform bill sent to The House by The Senate over 400 days ago. Boehner never responded, but he never does...at least he never does honestly. And apparently, even Mitch McConnell knows that, and he has now obliquely admitted it, which has the ancillary effect of validating President Obama's apparent resolve. The President is right to act as he sees fit now, because if the lesson of the past six years hasn't sunk in yet, it never will, and the Obama years will amount to nothing, and that is the paradox I am talking about.
The Republicans have wasted six years of both Obama's time and all of ours trying to re-ascend to control of the legislature, and they hope to the presidency in 2016. Now they have accomplished the first half of their ambition, but they realize that to realize the second half, they have to retreat from their fist-shaking aggressive position and themselves practice what they have hypocritically preached to President Obama. With nothing more to lose, President Obama has been empowered by the recalcitrant opposition that thwarted him for the first six years because they have now overreached, and like Alice in Wonderland, they have gotten what they wished for and now have to deal with it. They are the proverbial dog who has caught the car he was chasing, and it may be that they will now recognize that they too have nothing to gain by continuing on their old course. Maybe now some good things will happen. I wonder if that's what David Brooks was saying too.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment