Monday, December 06, 2010

He's no Harry Truman

I didn’t like Harry Truman when he was President. I don’t know why exactly, maybe because my father didn’t like him. My father professed to being a democrat all his life but he didn’t like Truman. Even though my father was a democrat he was also pretty conservative, Truman might just have been a bit too liberal for him. Of course in the small mining town where we lived people did not like Missourians, perhaps that had something to do with it. I may have not liked Truman because my father didn’t like him, I was fairly young and didn’t pay much attention to things in those days. My father was little educated (fourth grade) and little read, I think that might have had something to do with it. Remember it was the time of McCarthyism, my Dad thought what McCarthy said must be true because he thought otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to say it. He may well have felt that Truman did nothing to silence McCarthy even though he was being attacked by him. I do remember disagreeing with my father on this particular issue (I was in college then and becoming more and more liberal).

In any case, over the years my impression of Truman has changed immeasurably. I knew, for example, that he had integrated the military, but I didn’t know for a long time that he did this in spite of enormous opposition on the part of almost everyone. He did it because, he said, it was right. I also came to admire him for firing Douglas MacArthur when he attempted to override civilian authority over the military and wanted to attack China. And Truman did speak out against McCarthy eventually. Of course he also authorized the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, a decision I thought was terribly wrong and unnecessary. I still think so in spite of the new evidence that claims he had little choice. But I guess you have to admire him for making such a horrendous decision, even if it was one of the most mistaken and unnecessary ones ever (the Bush/Cheney decision to attack Iraq was almost as bad). The little haberdasher from Missouri turned out to be a real leader whether one always agreed with him or not. Remember his sign, “the buck stops here. ” So, while I began by not liking him, I subsequently came to admire him for his leadership.

Unfortunately, I have had the exact opposite experience with President Obama. At first I believed he would have no chance to become President (he is Black, you know). When he ran such a wonderful campaign and had a chance to win I supported him. I believed he may have been precisely what our country needed and would, in fact, bring about important changes. I have supported him ever since although my support may have finally reached the limits of its endurance. I did not approve at all of his continuing the ridiculous and unnecessary “war” in Afghanisan, but I thought perhaps he knew something I did not and there might be good reasons for this (I think I was wrong about this). I have been appalled by his failure to investigate the blatant war crimes of Bush/Cheney et al., but, again, I could sort of understand that such an investigation might well tear the country apart and gave him the benefit of the doubt. When he caved in to Republican demands to include large tax cuts as part of the Stimulus Bill I did not approve, but once again, I thought perhaps he just had no other choice. He failed to close Guantanamo as he promised, and once again I assumed there were powerful forces working against him. When he claimed he wanted a public option for health care I was all for it, but when he again caved and didn’t even try for it, I was again disappointed. His latest shameful capitulation on the Bush tax cuts I think has finally made me realize he is not a real leader. Truman, with universal opinion against him, integrated the military. Obama, even with the American people behind him, failed to stick to his position and simply, as he has done repeatedly now, given in once again to the outrageous demands of the Republicans. I know, I know, he has another excuse, if he hadn’t compromised everyone’s taxes would rise. I don’t care, I think he should have stuck to his position even if it meant everyone’s taxes would increase. If he had done so, and if he had made it clear what the Republican blackmailers were doing, the tax situation could have been corrected soon enough. But like the Stimulus Bill and the public option, and DADT, he simply gives up before he even puts up a fight. This is not leadership, it’s politics, pure and simple. As the current saying goes, “he talks the talk,” but he doesn’t “walk the walk.” He says he is opposed to further tax cuts for the wealthy but is afraid he will lose politically if he truly fights for what he acknowledges is right. With the Presidency, the House and the Senate all controlled by Democrats he has allowed himself to be pushed around time after time by Republican demands that have nothing to do with what is right or in the public interest. I strongly suspect he was pushed into his Afghanistan adventure because he couldn’t stand up to the military. He has failed miserably to stand up to Netanyahu. I do not look forward to anything different from him. He will be, and probably should be, a one-term President – EXCEPT – is there anyone else around who will behave any differently? Probably not, as long as the oligarchy reigns. What is truly amazing about Obama is that he has continued to reach out time and time again to Republicans even though they have made it perfectly clear they will not cooperate with him on anything and have as their highest priority making him a one-term President. I’m not much for psychoanalytic theory, but perhaps Obama suffers from one of Freud’s pet defenses, “identification with the aggressor.”

No comments: