..
WOODWARD'S BACKWARD WAY
Bob Woodward, the legendary reporter has interjected himself into the presidential campaign by releasing a book on last year's debt ceiling negotiations between Congress and the Obama Administration. The book titled, "The Price of Politics" looks like a campaign ad for Mitt Romney, because Woodward's whole point is to attack President Barack Obama for lack of leadership and, to a lesser extent, John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Of course, the Romney campaign and its supporters are milking it for all it is worth, but not that they're getting much juice by the look of things.
It's hard not to conclude that Mr Woodward is stuck in the past. Though I do not think he is in the tank for the Republicans, he certainly would prefer that Obama loses, because in his opinion, he did not pass his leadership test, based on the exercise of some mythical presidential will. He seems to think the disagreement with Obama was just like Congressional disagreements with Reagan and Clinton. According to him, these were Presidents who worked their will on important matters of national business, but Obama has not.
Now, let's leave out the fact that the government was actually shut down twice in Clinton's political war with the Republican Congress, Woodward does not define what this presidential will is nor show that there was the possibility that the exercise of the will of one democratic president over the issue in question would have made any difference at the time, especially where the other party was simply invested in not dealing. The assumption that every personal or institutional disagreement can be resolved by presidential will is just that – an assumption.
Woodward, no doubt, is a fine story teller; but he comes across, at least in this book, as a poor analyst. It is his reportorial ability that gives him credibility, the ability for people to read his piece and piece together what happened without any party involved questioning his account. That much is evident here. However, when the narration is limited to two main characters acting in a vast political pool without a proper appreciation of contexts of actions, motives or statements, while passing judgment, what you get is flawed historicity.
Part of the problem is that in "The Price of Politics", there really is no story, because the debt ceiling negotiation is ordinarily a routine matter that should not have had the nation on tenterhooks. What elevated it to the status of such a huge issue was Republican brinkmanship championed by elements of the tea party and the extreme right in the conservative movement who saw this as an opportunity to push through their own selfish agenda. Their calculation was that a panicked President Obama would agree to anything they push to him to raise the federal debt ceiling.
These extremists are actually the story; they are the ones Woodward should have focused on, because they orchestrated the unnecessary standoff. If he'd done that, it would have given context and real balance to his account. But, instead, Woodward made them peripheral. He only introduced them almost at the end when they were blocking Boehner's attempt to pass his own bill. But, in truth, they had played Boehner's ventriloquists all along while he was negotiating with Obama. Thus, Woodward's excessive focus on Obama and Boehner made him lose sight of these elements who had effectively taken Boehner hostage at that point. Woodward's apolitical reportorial instincts captures those he considers to be the key individuals, but he made the mistake of assuming that the actions and utterances of these parties have little external influences outside the rooms or venues of negotiations.
Also, Woodward could not fully grasp nor appreciate the fact that there was an ideological battle in which serious political and governance principles were at stake. He did not understand that the ultimate objective need not be compromise or a "grand bargain", but rather a defendable substance and outcome that can make sense to the American people. Woodward was concerned with compromise, but Obama was concerned with the quality of compromise. He wanted something he can justify to the American people. If Woodward had followed Republican actions and attitudes from 2010, he would have noted how desperately hard-line the leadership had become and how they had made the hatred of Obama into a religion. In comparing this disagreement with the Congressional disagreements with Reagan and Clinton, Woodward ignores the deep prejudice of the Republicans dealing with him – something they've openly expressed. This is a party that cuts off top members for merely hugging Obama!
It was obvious that Boehner was merely going through the motions. He did not have the power to commit his side. He was running down the clock irresponsibly! This was the reason he couldn't pick up President Obama's calls nor return his calls. His excuse that the president was asking for more taxes does not wash, because a framework of agreement had already been agreed. All he had to do was to pick up the phone and say no to the extra taxes the president was asking for and insist on what was agreed earlier. But he couldn't because he realised that if the president then asked him to perform on what was agreed earlier, forgetting the additional tax proposal he was asking for, he wouldn't be able to deliver, because at that point, the extremists in his party who indeed were in charge had made clear to him that they weren't playing ball. Thus, he was caught between them (whom he dreads) and the president whom he has promised something. He opted for the schoolboy stunt of not picking up his phone and not returning the president's calls. Any surprise the president was livid?
Between golf games and sitting down in the Truman balcony, the President had actually gotten Boehner to understand what was at stake and the need for both to act patriotically. But Boehner knew he was part of a conspiracy to scupper any attempt at a deal. His job as part of that conspiracy was to string the president along and then dump him at the last minute and then blame him for the failure. Eric Cantor was detailed to shadow him to ensure that was exactly what he did. Boehner agonised over this for sometime, but in the end, he chose to remain part of the conspiracy against the president. Meanwhile, whatever the agreement reached before the president supposedly asked for more taxes, Woodward did not say neither did he tell us why they failed.
All Woodward saw in his linear mind was a normal political disagreement which could have been solved by presidential will. He erroneously assumed that Boehner and the Republicans were genuinely negotiating and seeking a solution when all they were invested in was sabotaging the president. He claims to blame both parties, but on what basis is he doing so, even as we see that most of the blame goes to the president? He gave no indication in his analysis how the presidential will would have broken down the wall.
In trying to strike a balance, Woodward lost objectivity. He blames Boehner for his inability to control Eric Cantor and the other Republicans, but then took the bigger cane to Obama curiously on the strength of judgments about him made by his opponents! Obama is arrogant, because Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan said so! He even afforded himself the opportunity to be dramatic in attempts to undermine Obama. Oh, it was clear nobody was running Washington in those 44 days that was the financial equivalent of the Cuban missiles crisis! Really? The apparently insufferable Obama even had to be muted by Nancy Pelosi while yakking away on the phone!
Woodward's problem is the same problem that so many of Obama's opponents have with him. He is not the smooching politician, because he understands the value of the mandate given to him and takes the job seriously. If politicians cannot sit down like adults to look at the issues for the benefit of those that elected them, if they first need to be cajoled, have their ego massaged or feted before they can do their job, Obama has no time for that. Those who are trying to describe him as an introvert think Americans are blind. Obama is capable of friendships and he does have great friendships with people and he can be the best diplomat when required. However, his problem with all those grumbling around the corridors of power is that he understands his public duty and keeps them clear of his private affairs. It's not a moral imperative; it's just a choice, a style. He refuses to compromise governing principles and his sacred duty to the American people for political or personal friendship. He takes his job as the tribune of the people very seriously and old Washington hands with their wink-wink ways just can't stand it. But that is the type of man America needs now – a man above the creepy politics of Washington, a man that cannot be bought by the rich and powerful, a man truly committed to the defence of the ordinary American and who would never act desperate while standing up for the best American values of courage, trust and decency. Obama understands that he is in the White House to represent the ordinary American and not some Washington or Wall Street tin gods. If the American people deem it fit to re-elect him and give him a Congress he can work with, his would be one of the greatest presidencies of modern times and America will be the better for it.
…
No comments:
Post a Comment