Oban on Obama – a centrist speaks up

May 20, 2010 American Politics 4 Comments

By Oban

I easily understand a conservative rejecting many of the policy positions of Obama, and of the persons he appoints to significant offices. 
 
However, the whole birthing issue is no better than the grassy knoll  or the Twin Towers going down by US government action.
 
My impression, based on the two and a half years that we have had to observe him is that he is:
  1. intelligent
  2. by-and-large likeable
  3. non-dogmatic (witness the significant distance he went and was prepared to go further to get a bipartisan deal on health care)
  4. seems to make decisions at the appropriate level of detail
  5. recruits serious minded, intelligent and pragmatic persons around him
  6. seems to accept advice
  7. has an apparently stable marriage and family
  8. doesn’t seem to hold religious beliefs that are out of line for a President (normally uncommited believers in any creed).  I think the Wright business was typical of his pragmatism.  He couldn’t get elected to office in Chicago as a white blackman, so he took the easiest route to acceptance as a black by attending a culturally black church – a question of credentials.  Cynical or pragmatic – either one is among the attributes linked to most Presidents
I don’t think he has full mastery of foreign affairs, but then few US presidents do, and US foreign policy is dominated by domestic considerations.  In that regard Obama seems no less unsure than Reagan or Bush Jr. and is hard to argue that Clinton was always on the right square on foreign policy matters either, and Bush Sr. evacuated Somalia and failed to go to Baghdad. 
 
Iran poses threats to US interests but not the US.  The fact is that no one has an adequate plan to address the Iran nuclear issue.  No one knows what to target.  Wargaming has, I understand, led the military to advise that land operations against Iran are no sure thing, and may of course provoke dangerous reactions from neighbouring states, like Russia, which might use the opportunity of America being knee deep in Iran to destabilise former Soviet republics and Poland.
 
Wargaming has also affirmed that the Iranians can close the Gulf of Hormuz, and that negatively impacts Europe, Japan and China as well as the US. 
 
An American adventure in Iran could provoke all sorts of mayhem in Afghanistan, and the further destabilisation of Pakistan, and Hezbollah and Hamas are both armed and sitting on Israel’s borders..
 
Bush didn’t have a solution for Iran, nor had he a solution for Korea (which is even more nuts).
 
Talk of reaching agreement on sanctions is a tribute to Obama’s diplomacy – but is not the same thing as a non-nuclear Iran.
 
I agree that Obama may not be as supportive of Israel as might be desirable.  He is in a difficult position.  With both the Iraq-Iran area in contention, Afghanistan getting real consideration and resources, he may feel the need for some calm in Israel right now, and having further settlement announcements made when the VP is visiting to try to get negotiations going is not a gesture a responsible Israeli should contemplate.  There might have been some over reaction, but an indication of pique was totally appropriate, and it has so far all been at the symbolic level.  The arms and aid still land in Israel.
 
So, no, I think Obama is fully in the centrist Presidential tradition.  To maintain the support of his base, he has to position himself to the left of centre, but I see no signs of an ideologue or divergence from the awful centre of the American political spectrum. 
 
I am appalled by much of the political blackbrushing that has been evident around Obama, and think the rightest blogosphere and commentariocracy spews sedition if not treason.
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]