Posted by
Patrick Henry on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:55:39 PM
Recently, Barack Obama has taken to comparing himself to past presidents believed
by some to epitomize greatness. He has likened himself and his presidency to Abraham
Lincoln, Hary Truman and Ronald Reagan, suggesting that his own policies are somehow
"channeling" them. If the comparisons are accurate, Obama stands in some truly
elite company.
But in the cold light of history, his claims seem overblown, to put it as kindly as
possible. Lincoln is beloved for freeing the slaves and preserving the union. Truman
was respected for his fighting spirit and for the hard decision to drop nuclear
weapons on Japan in wartime. Reagan was "the great communicator" known for
his prophetic demand, "tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev." All three were men of
internal stength and direct, successful action.
Lincoln presided over the civil war, the bitterness from which ultimately cost him
his own life. Americans slaughtered each other on his watch, but his enduring belief
in the equality of all men led him to pursue that ideal at his own peril. America paid
an awful price, but Lincoln preserved the union and freed the slaves. Obama, on
the other hand, has polarized the nation, fanning flames of enmity that know no
parallel in American history save the Civil War. His relentless redistributionism,
class and race warfare have engendered such anger in America that it is very
likely that the only thing saving him from Lincoln's fate is the fact that he is, after
all, America's "first black president," and the efficiency and dedication of the
United States Secret Service. His tanking poll numbers suggest that he is
anything but beloved, that he faces the bleak destiny of being a one-term president,
and that his policies will be revoked by the Supreme Court, an increasingly restive
congress and popular demand. It becomes clearer by the day that Americans in
general do not believe what Obama believes about America. So while Lincoln is
beloved, Obama will most likely be little more than a historical footnote.
Truman, the feisty little Democratic rooster was fond of saying, "the buck stops
here." It meant that he knew he was responsible for decisions that would benefit
and protect America. He played little, if any golf, took few vacations and was
generally right in the middle of whatever crisis was at hand. He was the
paradigm of responsibility. He also famously said, "If you can't stand the heat,
then get out of the kitchen." Obama's presidency, on the contrary, is characterized
by notable absences on duty. He was invisible until the final three weeks of the
recent debt-ceiling crisis, and proved himself an inept negotiator when, at last,
he showed up. Facing a growing storm of criticism, he has blamed a Japanese
tsunami. tornadoes in the American heartland, the opposing party and other
factors for his undeniable policy failures. He seems to have lost his appetite for
"the kitchen," while suggesting that the "buck stops" almost anywhere but on his
desk. Truman was noted for courage, Obama for deflection, not a favorable
hisorical comparison for the latter.
Reagan was known for his great ability to move and communicate with the
American electorate. Listening to some of his speeches, one is struck by the
simplicity, the clarity, the sincerity and the disdain for repeating the same tired
metaphors. Reagan was great, not because of the genius of his policies, but
because he made America believe. Barack Obama's speeches, by contrast,
seem empty, contentless, sloganized, condescending to the point of arrogance,
bitter and often punitive. None of these qualities contribute to either endearment
or enlightenment. As one political pundit said, "If you've heard one Obama
speech, you've heard 'em all." On at least three occasions during his first two
years in office, his communications team has complained that America does
not understand Obama and his true genius, that it was time for a re-load so he
could finally connect with the electorate. Sadly, facing a troubled re-election bid,
Obama has failed to make that connection, with even some in his own party
whispering that he has failed. Is Obama another Reagan? Hardly!
Obama's comparison of himself with great presidents reminds one sadly of a
"wannabe" baseball player who didn't make the cut talking about his similarities to
Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle while more objective obsevers
chuckle and say, "not even close." Greatness in presidents is never a matter of
favorable comparisons. It is based on decisive, productive and memorable
actions that win the admiration and loyalty of a nation. Until Obama shows
himself capable of such, he will always be an also ran.