Nice article here about the struggles of the Obama Administration and what some stories are spinning as ethics problems. I would like to refocus this discussion for a moment on what it means for other high-minded idealists.
We teach children that government is for the people and by the people and other cliches about the way that government works. In reality that is only how we say government works. The Obama Administration is going to be a shinning example of this for years to come. I'm not targeting Obama just using him as an example. When you campaign on idealistic endeavors you are signaling many things to your
constituency.
You may be attempting to identify yourself as an outsider or an agent of change but you will mostly likely just come off as naive. The cold, hard reality of government is such that change is difficult and sometimes impossible. The standards that you have set for yourself reflect that difficulty. The Obama Administration is faced with a conundrum. The idealistic goals of the Administration require many fresh faces on the Washington scene. Yet the Administration is very concerned about its effectiveness and its subsequent legacy thus they are concerned about having effective and experienced leaders at their disposal. These two goals are
incongruent and thus something has to give. To achieve the idealistic goals of the campaign the Obama Administration would have to inject considerable new blood into Washington, but we know from early appointments and the Cabinet picks that new blood is scarce.
Obama has taken the pragmatic steps and chosen to pursue experienced
albeit somewhat tainted appointments. Some of which have directly conflicted with campaign promises. I had previous warned Obama worshipers of impending disappointment.
Obama's actions make it clear that campaign promises and the rhetoric of change in Washington are far less consequential now that he is in power. Do not hoist your pitch forks too far into the air because you would be equally disappointed (or perhaps more) if he went the other direction.
As a nation, we would all be worse off if Obama took his pledges and promises seriously. If he had pursued less experienced and more ideological positions without regard for leadership or effectiveness then what hope could we have of economic recovery? If Obama had chosen radicals with less experience then the Administration would almost certainly be handling economic stimulus worse that what it is. There would be much less stimulus in the form of tax cuts and much more spent on
Pelosi type endeavors. Would you be happier or more enamoured with government if Obama kept his idealistic promises but our country sank into an avoidable depression that lasted 10-15 years? I think not. It is the asterisks or the exceptions that may make the public angry at Obama but they will be happier for what we can avoid.
This speaks volumes about what politicians should say and what we as Americans should expect. If we do not know how government really works why should we be disappointed when it does not work the way we expect? Knowing this, politicians can do themselves considerable favor by tempering expectations and limiting promises. Contemporary American government is not conducive to change or producing particular policy outcomes. We have a system that is
adversarial and
impedes itself at every corner. Our founders wanted it that way because they feared
unimpeded government.
Adversarial government combined with an expansive
bureaucracy makes high-minded idealism a fantasy that may do more harm than good to both the President and the American people.
