As his popularity ratings have slipped to lower levels, President Obama has been portrayed more and more as a pragmatist. Those two factors reflect each other better than one might think at first glance.
If The President were interested primarily in being popular, he would undertake a path of activity which would not rile the emotions of people. He would avoid difficult decisions and do only those things which made people feel good. There is precedent for this kind of presidency, and I'm sure it has been pointed out to President Obama numerous times by nervous party leaders. It clearly is an easier way to go, and the results...on a short-time basis...can be affirming.
But that is not the course the President Obama has chosen. Consequently, the pragmatist label has emerged. He is someone who wants to "get things done." Pragmatically, it is clear that there is a small window for a President to act within. In this case, the window is defined by the ability to garner 60 Democratic votes in the Senate. Most political commentators indicate that the likelihood of there being that block of Democratic voters in the Senate after the 2010 elections is minimal.
As a result, there is a pragmatic rush to achieve specific platform issues while the possibility of passage still exists. There have been lots of critical comments directed toward President Obama for his timetables on Health Care legislation, for instance. Some depict this as a personal trait of impatience on his part. To the contrary, President Obama can be a very patient person...sometimes to a fault. But the legislative clock is ticking and if he wants Health Care reform to take place in his administration it has to be accomplished prior to the 2010 elections. That is a practical...pragmatic...act on his part.
The emotional quotient to be assessed in this pragmatic climate is the degree to which pragmatism about transformational legislation can be tolerated by the public. It requires a prioritization of his agenda...and clearly Health Care Reform is high on that list.
There was no question that economic stability ranked even higher on that agenda, and The President acted quickly and forcefully in bringing about huge financial support for a rapidly-failing economy. There is almost no debate among credible economists that the activity he undertook was necessary...vital...to preventing a repeat of the Great Depression. The larger elements of his economic plan...undertaken within days of his inauguration...seem to have been successful in preventing that disaster.
Some of the related issues, such as job creation, have been too slow in recovering, leading many to criticism about "big government" as the solution to our problems. I think that this is a process depending heavily upon industry's taking the same kind of bold steps toward recovery, risking at the same level as he has required the government to risk. So far, I haven't seen that activity emerging from an overly-cautious private sector. Evidently pragmatism is not as forth-coming when the money has to come directly from one's own corporate pockets.
I am confident that Health Care Reform of one kind or another will be enacted soon. It still is difficult to predict what its final form will look like. And it is clear that the government will continue to be fully engaged in working to bring about economic stability.
The question before President Obama is how far his pragmatic approach to governance can go. The shuffling of his agenda may require a very pragmatic response: regain the confidence of his Party and the American people. It would appear to me that it is time for some smaller, emotionally-satisfying successes by this Administration to which they can point in the 2012 elections. That, from my perspective, is a very pragmatic plan.
Photo Credit: blackvoices.com
No comments:
Post a Comment