. What’s Wrong with Obama
(According to His Critics)
September 1,2014
The right wing attacks on President Obama’s character have focused on supposed deficits such as not being a U.S. citizen, not supporting “American exceptionalism”, and not being a Christian. Following his re-election the character attacks on President Obama have continued but have changed to focus on the presence of supposed dispositions in his character such as (1) being disengaged or detached in conducting the activities required by his office; (2) lacking understanding or leadership skills to successfully address foreign policy challenges; and (3) being unwilling to adhere to the Constitution. Attacks on Bill Clinton, alternatively, were levelled at various aspects of his behavior rather than his character. For example, Clinton faced criticism because of his land development investments (disproven), his rumored involvement in drug smuggling (no evidence), and his salacious behavior with women (transformed eventually into a lie about having had sex with Monica Lewinsky).
The more recent character attacks on Obama may seem somewhat more rational than the more hyperbolic charges that were the focus of earlier attacks, but they are just as inaccurate and diabolical. These lines of attack are designed to undermine his legitimacy by focusing on what they believe he is, rather than by any attack on what he has done.
Attacks on either Obama’s character deficits or dispositions require evidence - more profound evidence than that required to prove behavior. That is, evidence of a behavior requires an observation or documentation that the behavior has been performed. Evidence about character requires multiple acts of a behavior that have been freely performed and are unambiguously linked to the character disposition. If we hear someone say something that differs from generally accepted facts, then we may determine that the person has told a lie. Nonetheless, telling that lie is not sufficient to infer that the teller is a liar (a character disposition).
The evidence invoked to support the character attacks against Obama are based on single, highly constrained instances that are, at best, ambiguously linked to the character deficiencies they purport to prove. In fact, they are so lacking in substance, they raise the question of why these particular attacks are now being emphasized. After all, if evidence and rationality are set aside, then why not stick to charges that Obama is a Nazi socialist who was born in Africa to an American citizen who plotted the undermining of American culture.
For the right wing Republican base, charges like Nazi socialist and African anti-American might well suffice. However, for more centrist voters, revilements like these backfire because they are either so obviously racist or so illogical. Coded stereotypes have become the solution for appealing to the racialized sentiments of some of the Republican base without alienating more centrist voters From the first measurement of stereotypical thinking about blacks in the 1930s to more recent assessments, themes such as ignorant, stupid, lazy, happy-go-lucky, unreliable, aggressive, religious, and criminal have been used to describe African Americans. When these themes are interwoven into narratives about African Americans they resonate with centrist voters who may harbor some doubts about African Americans. Depending on their content, narratives may undermine faith in the efficacy of participation in the political system, especially by centrist or leftist voters and thus discourage their participation.
Disengagement (Or Laziness and Happy-Go-Luckiness)
The attacks claiming that President Obama is disengaged or detached from his duties are ostensibly based on his failure to work with and engage socially members of Congress, especially Republicans. Various pundits re-living previous times in American politics cite Roosevelt’s schmoozing; Truman’s poker games with members of both parties; and LBJ’s incessant telephone calls in their efforts to pass legislation as evidence of Obama’s disengagement. Obama’s supposed preference for attending dinner parties and brain storming sessions with intellectual leaders, political rallies, and fundraisers with wealthy donors is highlighted as an additional indication that the failure to indulge in retail politics is due to his dislike of politics, his introverted personality, or deliberate misconduct rather than other reasonable demands on his time such as spending time with his young kids and family.
As is usual for Presidents, some pundits find fault with the vacations that Obama and his family have taken. For example, Obama’s favorite vacation choice of Martha’s Vineyard is always greeted with comments about the worth of the property he rents! When much of his physical recreation was centered on the basketball court, there were relatively few comments made. Most surprising the criticisms of this President’s recreational activities have increased as he has turned from basketball and to golf. Not only has Obama been criticized for playing too much golf, but he has also been criticized for when he golfs (within minutes of a press conference on the terrorist killing of a journalist) and the people with whom he golfs (he usually golfs with personal friends and not with politicians like John Boehner). Of course, an unspoken part of the criticism may be on Obama’s choice of an uppity sport like golf.
September 1,2014
The right wing attacks on President Obama’s character have focused on supposed deficits such as not being a U.S. citizen, not supporting “American exceptionalism”, and not being a Christian. Following his re-election the character attacks on President Obama have continued but have changed to focus on the presence of supposed dispositions in his character such as (1) being disengaged or detached in conducting the activities required by his office; (2) lacking understanding or leadership skills to successfully address foreign policy challenges; and (3) being unwilling to adhere to the Constitution. Attacks on Bill Clinton, alternatively, were levelled at various aspects of his behavior rather than his character. For example, Clinton faced criticism because of his land development investments (disproven), his rumored involvement in drug smuggling (no evidence), and his salacious behavior with women (transformed eventually into a lie about having had sex with Monica Lewinsky).
The more recent character attacks on Obama may seem somewhat more rational than the more hyperbolic charges that were the focus of earlier attacks, but they are just as inaccurate and diabolical. These lines of attack are designed to undermine his legitimacy by focusing on what they believe he is, rather than by any attack on what he has done.
Attacks on either Obama’s character deficits or dispositions require evidence - more profound evidence than that required to prove behavior. That is, evidence of a behavior requires an observation or documentation that the behavior has been performed. Evidence about character requires multiple acts of a behavior that have been freely performed and are unambiguously linked to the character disposition. If we hear someone say something that differs from generally accepted facts, then we may determine that the person has told a lie. Nonetheless, telling that lie is not sufficient to infer that the teller is a liar (a character disposition).
The evidence invoked to support the character attacks against Obama are based on single, highly constrained instances that are, at best, ambiguously linked to the character deficiencies they purport to prove. In fact, they are so lacking in substance, they raise the question of why these particular attacks are now being emphasized. After all, if evidence and rationality are set aside, then why not stick to charges that Obama is a Nazi socialist who was born in Africa to an American citizen who plotted the undermining of American culture.
For the right wing Republican base, charges like Nazi socialist and African anti-American might well suffice. However, for more centrist voters, revilements like these backfire because they are either so obviously racist or so illogical. Coded stereotypes have become the solution for appealing to the racialized sentiments of some of the Republican base without alienating more centrist voters From the first measurement of stereotypical thinking about blacks in the 1930s to more recent assessments, themes such as ignorant, stupid, lazy, happy-go-lucky, unreliable, aggressive, religious, and criminal have been used to describe African Americans. When these themes are interwoven into narratives about African Americans they resonate with centrist voters who may harbor some doubts about African Americans. Depending on their content, narratives may undermine faith in the efficacy of participation in the political system, especially by centrist or leftist voters and thus discourage their participation.
Disengagement (Or Laziness and Happy-Go-Luckiness)
The attacks claiming that President Obama is disengaged or detached from his duties are ostensibly based on his failure to work with and engage socially members of Congress, especially Republicans. Various pundits re-living previous times in American politics cite Roosevelt’s schmoozing; Truman’s poker games with members of both parties; and LBJ’s incessant telephone calls in their efforts to pass legislation as evidence of Obama’s disengagement. Obama’s supposed preference for attending dinner parties and brain storming sessions with intellectual leaders, political rallies, and fundraisers with wealthy donors is highlighted as an additional indication that the failure to indulge in retail politics is due to his dislike of politics, his introverted personality, or deliberate misconduct rather than other reasonable demands on his time such as spending time with his young kids and family.
As is usual for Presidents, some pundits find fault with the vacations that Obama and his family have taken. For example, Obama’s favorite vacation choice of Martha’s Vineyard is always greeted with comments about the worth of the property he rents! When much of his physical recreation was centered on the basketball court, there were relatively few comments made. Most surprising the criticisms of this President’s recreational activities have increased as he has turned from basketball and to golf. Not only has Obama been criticized for playing too much golf, but he has also been criticized for when he golfs (within minutes of a press conference on the terrorist killing of a journalist) and the people with whom he golfs (he usually golfs with personal friends and not with politicians like John Boehner). Of course, an unspoken part of the criticism may be on Obama’s choice of an uppity sport like golf.
Additionally, pundits claim that Obama is not concerned enough with how his activities may appear to the public, i.e., the optics. For example, Republicans were especially outraged that Obama refused to make trips to the U.S. border to visit facilities where children who had crossed the border to turn themselves in to authorities even though he attended fund raisers several hours away. Republican pundits argued that a visit would signal his interest in the problem and thus help to stem the tide of children fleeing from Central America to the U.S. These same pundits, however, did not seem to recognize the drug violence from which the children were fleeing or the role of the U.S. drug use in creating that violence. Had he gone to the border, they would likely have ridiculed him for having no solutions.
The inconvenient fact that Obama has taken fewer vacation days than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan is converted into a related issue: Obama does not really care about the “optics” of doing his job as President. Dana Milbank has argued that regardless of the number of days, Obama should be concerned about the optics and not give his political enemies ammunition And, of course, since other Presidents have cared about the optics, Obama’s lack of caring is evidence that he is not adequately performing his duties.
Some pundits have explained Obama’s supposed disengagement from his office by pointing out that for the last 4 years, he and his administration have not been able to push its legislative agenda through the Republican controlled House of Representatives and thus has simply disengaged from the Presidency. Other members of the Washington Pundit Corp have found equal fault with the intransigence of both Republicans and Democrats and explained Obama’s supposed disengagement on the frustration of attempting to legislate in the polarized political atmosphere. As Obama yielded again and again, to the angst of the Democratic base, a second theory emerged that Republicans and Democrats now lacked the personal relationships that were the hallmark of previous Congresses because too many members spent so little time in Washington, they were unable to develop friendship across party lines. With Robert Draper’s revelation that leading members of the Republican Party had met in the Caucus Room Capitol Hill restaurant on the night of Inaugauration 2009 to pledge total opposition to Obama, a third theory emerged. This latest theory, extolled by Morning Joe and Company held that members of Congress, including Democrats who praised and voted with him during his first 2 years, were so dismayed by Obama’s aloofness that, they would not work with him in the bipartisan fashion as they had with Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton.
Of course, this third theory failed to account for the vastly increased polarization of both parties, the increased demands that Democrats accede to the right wing agenda, and the threat of primary challenges for Republicans who veered from the right wing tone and agenda. Of course, old boy friendship and schmoozing did not stop Clinton’s impeachment, although it may have stopped conviction in the Senate, with no regard for the national welfare. In effect, the Republican Party has decided that it can win by using the equivalent of a 4 corner stall in basketball rather than moving the ball up and down the court. The Washington Pundit Corps has seemed totally unable or unwilling to recognize the possibility of strategic benefits for the Republican Party of inducing a legislative 4 corner stall. As the ball moves from player to player, the Washington Pundits grow restive and Democrats look for their opportunity to steal, disrupt, or foul. Buying Republicans drinks and inviting them to barbecues will not end their strategic impasse just as Coach Dean Smith, master of the stall, would not have lost a game just because the crowd wanted more action. Just as Republicans will stick to their strategy, Obama’s only strategy is raising money, issuing executive orders and perhaps exploring potential counter strategies with people outside of Washington who may have more innovative approaches to ending the stall.
Foreign Policy Ineptitude (Or Ignorance and Stupidity)
Besides disengagement in domestic affairs, Republicans have also aimed character attacks at what they call Obama’s foreign policy failures. For Republicans the epitome of Obama’s foreign policy is summed up in the phrase “leading from behind.” Originally, the phrase was used in a Ryan Lizza article about the Arab spring and Libya to describe Obama’s [foreign policy] doctrine based on the recognition that what U.S. military and economic power can accomplish in the 21st century is limited. Republicans cite the U.S. role in toppling Gaddafi’s regime in Libya without ensuring the succession of a functioning, stable, and U.S.-friendly government as an example of the failure of President Obama’s practice of leading from behind. They believe that Obama’s reliance on French and British military efforts and the Libyan self-governing efforts led to the recent political chaos.
While some members of NATO may have been driven to intervene in Libya to aid the rebels in their efforts to depose Gaddafi, Obama’s decision to support NATO’s intervention was primarily to prevent a possible genocide. Obama, however, was determined to avoid the kind of nation-building involvement that had characterized U.S. involvement in Iraq. Public opinion clearly supported Obama’s aversion to nation-building and the long-term occupation of Iraq that it implied. Nonetheless, as Obama made clear in an interview with Thomas Friedman (August, 11, 2014), he now feels that there may have been measures that could have minimized the ensuing vacuum that followed Gaddafi’s overthrow. The cost of noninvolvement in nation-building was the civil war and chaos that followed Gaddafi’s overthrow.
Another instance cited by Republicans of an even more horrific example of leading from behind was the verbal red line drawn by Obama in answer to a journalist’s question about Assad’s use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Obama responded that Assad’s use of chemical weapons “would change his calculus. That would change my equation,” although widely interpreted as a promise to intervene militarily. . It is difficult to see what other answer Obama could have given to that question. Obama’s critics and too much of the “objective media”, reported that the President first threatened action against Assad if he used chemical weapons and then failed to take any action, although he did request Congress to authorize U.S. bombing of Syria.
After failing to obtain Congressional approval for bombing Syria, Vladimir Putin extricated the U.S. from this dilemma by negotiating an arrangement with Assad to destroy chemical weapons. Critics argue, that by arranging for Assad to destroy his chemical weapons with the assurance of United Nation inspectors, Putin’s international standing was elevated at the expense of the U.S. According to these critics, the consequence of this action was to embolden Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his attempted take-over of the Ukraine. These critics, however, conveniently ignore Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia—when George Bush was President. Moreover, as many Congressional leaders have been quick to assert, Putin is a megalomaniac who bordering on insanity because of his desire to re-establish the Soviet Union. These same politicians have failed to reach the rational conclusion that a megalomaniac may not be deterred by bellicose U.S. posturing.
For Obama’s Republican critics leading from behind was exposed for what they believe it really was: the failure to assert U.S. leadership of the world. It is certainly true that Obama said in answer to a journalist’s question that if it was proven Assad had used chemical weapons, the U.S. would have to act against Syria. Nonetheless, Obama should have conferred with U.S. allies first to gauge the depth of their reluctance to enforce the various international agreements against the use of chemical weapons. Moreover, without even waiting for a vote, it soon became clear that Congress was in no mood to agree to the tepid plan to “drop some bombs” on Syria Congress apparently would have much preferred Obama to act—without seeking their approval and certainly without public support. That he did not led to the charge of leading from behind.
Now Republican critics, supported by some Democrats like Hilary Clinton, are claiming that the explosive development of ISIS is due, in part, to Obama’s failure to provide sufficient aid to the moderates within the Free Syrian Army. Again these critics conveniently forget that the major cause of the emergence of ISIS was George Bush’s precipitous invasion of Iraq. Instead of placing the growth of ISIS within a proper context, these critics argue that the jihadists were able to gain strength within Syria and threaten Iraq and neighboring Middle Eastern states because the U.S. did not take action against them soon enough. The startling speed with which ISIS was able to defeat parts of the U.S. trained Iraqi army and capture Iraqi arms provided by the U.S. has surprised and frightened many observers. More importantly, the ferocity of the ISIS, their apocalyptic ideology, and recruitment of European and U.S. citizens pose “the most extreme threat we have ever faced.” The mixture of fear of ISIS, reluctance to become engaged in another ground war in Iraq [and Syria], and dread that the U.S. may have to introduce troops, have provided critics with a potent example of what is supposed to be Obama’s foreign policy ineptitude.
The inconvenient fact that Obama has taken fewer vacation days than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan is converted into a related issue: Obama does not really care about the “optics” of doing his job as President. Dana Milbank has argued that regardless of the number of days, Obama should be concerned about the optics and not give his political enemies ammunition And, of course, since other Presidents have cared about the optics, Obama’s lack of caring is evidence that he is not adequately performing his duties.
Some pundits have explained Obama’s supposed disengagement from his office by pointing out that for the last 4 years, he and his administration have not been able to push its legislative agenda through the Republican controlled House of Representatives and thus has simply disengaged from the Presidency. Other members of the Washington Pundit Corp have found equal fault with the intransigence of both Republicans and Democrats and explained Obama’s supposed disengagement on the frustration of attempting to legislate in the polarized political atmosphere. As Obama yielded again and again, to the angst of the Democratic base, a second theory emerged that Republicans and Democrats now lacked the personal relationships that were the hallmark of previous Congresses because too many members spent so little time in Washington, they were unable to develop friendship across party lines. With Robert Draper’s revelation that leading members of the Republican Party had met in the Caucus Room Capitol Hill restaurant on the night of Inaugauration 2009 to pledge total opposition to Obama, a third theory emerged. This latest theory, extolled by Morning Joe and Company held that members of Congress, including Democrats who praised and voted with him during his first 2 years, were so dismayed by Obama’s aloofness that, they would not work with him in the bipartisan fashion as they had with Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton.
Of course, this third theory failed to account for the vastly increased polarization of both parties, the increased demands that Democrats accede to the right wing agenda, and the threat of primary challenges for Republicans who veered from the right wing tone and agenda. Of course, old boy friendship and schmoozing did not stop Clinton’s impeachment, although it may have stopped conviction in the Senate, with no regard for the national welfare. In effect, the Republican Party has decided that it can win by using the equivalent of a 4 corner stall in basketball rather than moving the ball up and down the court. The Washington Pundit Corps has seemed totally unable or unwilling to recognize the possibility of strategic benefits for the Republican Party of inducing a legislative 4 corner stall. As the ball moves from player to player, the Washington Pundits grow restive and Democrats look for their opportunity to steal, disrupt, or foul. Buying Republicans drinks and inviting them to barbecues will not end their strategic impasse just as Coach Dean Smith, master of the stall, would not have lost a game just because the crowd wanted more action. Just as Republicans will stick to their strategy, Obama’s only strategy is raising money, issuing executive orders and perhaps exploring potential counter strategies with people outside of Washington who may have more innovative approaches to ending the stall.
Foreign Policy Ineptitude (Or Ignorance and Stupidity)
Besides disengagement in domestic affairs, Republicans have also aimed character attacks at what they call Obama’s foreign policy failures. For Republicans the epitome of Obama’s foreign policy is summed up in the phrase “leading from behind.” Originally, the phrase was used in a Ryan Lizza article about the Arab spring and Libya to describe Obama’s [foreign policy] doctrine based on the recognition that what U.S. military and economic power can accomplish in the 21st century is limited. Republicans cite the U.S. role in toppling Gaddafi’s regime in Libya without ensuring the succession of a functioning, stable, and U.S.-friendly government as an example of the failure of President Obama’s practice of leading from behind. They believe that Obama’s reliance on French and British military efforts and the Libyan self-governing efforts led to the recent political chaos.
While some members of NATO may have been driven to intervene in Libya to aid the rebels in their efforts to depose Gaddafi, Obama’s decision to support NATO’s intervention was primarily to prevent a possible genocide. Obama, however, was determined to avoid the kind of nation-building involvement that had characterized U.S. involvement in Iraq. Public opinion clearly supported Obama’s aversion to nation-building and the long-term occupation of Iraq that it implied. Nonetheless, as Obama made clear in an interview with Thomas Friedman (August, 11, 2014), he now feels that there may have been measures that could have minimized the ensuing vacuum that followed Gaddafi’s overthrow. The cost of noninvolvement in nation-building was the civil war and chaos that followed Gaddafi’s overthrow.
Another instance cited by Republicans of an even more horrific example of leading from behind was the verbal red line drawn by Obama in answer to a journalist’s question about Assad’s use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Obama responded that Assad’s use of chemical weapons “would change his calculus. That would change my equation,” although widely interpreted as a promise to intervene militarily. . It is difficult to see what other answer Obama could have given to that question. Obama’s critics and too much of the “objective media”, reported that the President first threatened action against Assad if he used chemical weapons and then failed to take any action, although he did request Congress to authorize U.S. bombing of Syria.
After failing to obtain Congressional approval for bombing Syria, Vladimir Putin extricated the U.S. from this dilemma by negotiating an arrangement with Assad to destroy chemical weapons. Critics argue, that by arranging for Assad to destroy his chemical weapons with the assurance of United Nation inspectors, Putin’s international standing was elevated at the expense of the U.S. According to these critics, the consequence of this action was to embolden Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his attempted take-over of the Ukraine. These critics, however, conveniently ignore Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia—when George Bush was President. Moreover, as many Congressional leaders have been quick to assert, Putin is a megalomaniac who bordering on insanity because of his desire to re-establish the Soviet Union. These same politicians have failed to reach the rational conclusion that a megalomaniac may not be deterred by bellicose U.S. posturing.
For Obama’s Republican critics leading from behind was exposed for what they believe it really was: the failure to assert U.S. leadership of the world. It is certainly true that Obama said in answer to a journalist’s question that if it was proven Assad had used chemical weapons, the U.S. would have to act against Syria. Nonetheless, Obama should have conferred with U.S. allies first to gauge the depth of their reluctance to enforce the various international agreements against the use of chemical weapons. Moreover, without even waiting for a vote, it soon became clear that Congress was in no mood to agree to the tepid plan to “drop some bombs” on Syria Congress apparently would have much preferred Obama to act—without seeking their approval and certainly without public support. That he did not led to the charge of leading from behind.
Now Republican critics, supported by some Democrats like Hilary Clinton, are claiming that the explosive development of ISIS is due, in part, to Obama’s failure to provide sufficient aid to the moderates within the Free Syrian Army. Again these critics conveniently forget that the major cause of the emergence of ISIS was George Bush’s precipitous invasion of Iraq. Instead of placing the growth of ISIS within a proper context, these critics argue that the jihadists were able to gain strength within Syria and threaten Iraq and neighboring Middle Eastern states because the U.S. did not take action against them soon enough. The startling speed with which ISIS was able to defeat parts of the U.S. trained Iraqi army and capture Iraqi arms provided by the U.S. has surprised and frightened many observers. More importantly, the ferocity of the ISIS, their apocalyptic ideology, and recruitment of European and U.S. citizens pose “the most extreme threat we have ever faced.” The mixture of fear of ISIS, reluctance to become engaged in another ground war in Iraq [and Syria], and dread that the U.S. may have to introduce troops, have provided critics with a potent example of what is supposed to be Obama’s foreign policy ineptitude.
from New Eastern Outlook - June 13, 2014
Besides Hilary Clinton and the usual Republican critics, a bevy of underemployed foreign policy and national security experts claim that had the U.S. armed some moderate Free Syrian Army groups in 2012, then ISIS could have been defeated. (Hilary Clinton”s more nuanced approach seems to have called for identifying “promising moderates,” training them both militarily and ideologically, and then arming them.) Marc Lynch (August 15, 2014) points out some of the organizational constraints would have made arming moderate rebels nearly impossible. First, the organizational structure of rebel groups is fluid, with alliances and memberships changing almost daily. Second, the FSA was mostly an umbrella, operating outside of Syria and covering an array of groups over which it exercised little if any authority. Third, there was a large flow of funds from the Gulf going to jihadist groups. U.S. funding would compete with this funding and probably would have the effect of driving up the going price for support.
In the interview with Friedman, Obama notes that the idea of turning protesting tradesmen into seasoned fighters who could go head to head with seasoned jihadists and Assad’s army was fantasy. And, Zakaria (August 15, 2014) notes that repressive governing dictatorships tends to create extremist jihadists and drive out moderates. Finally, the assertion that arming moderate rebels could have defeated ISIS fails to consider the possible downsides of such an investment—if something did, in fact, go wrong. The most likely downside would have been prolonging the conflict in Syria with even more deaths than have occurred so far, and possibly an even more robust jihadist movement and a greater risk of destabilizing more countries in the region.
Constitutional Overreach (Or Criminality)
The third area Republican critics use to illustrate Obama’s unsuitableness for the Presidency is his criminality in failing to adhere to the Constitution. Specifically, Obama’s critics accuse him of exceeding his executive authority in stopping the deportation and granting work permits for undocumented immigrants who were bought to the U.S. as children and delaying the implementation of certain parts of the ACA. These two charges, however, rest on two different foundations of the right wing establishment. Pundits and some of the more extreme legislators accuse the President of violating his Constitutional authority by stopping the deportations and issuing work permits. House Speaker John Boehner, on the other hand, after considerable deliberation, has limited his law suit filed against the President to violating that part of the ACA that Republicans have been vehemently opposed. Boehner explained the limitation of his law suit as a legal strategy to maximize chances of success. Mr. Boehner did not explain why adding another violation of the Constitution would decrease the chance of success.
In the interview with Friedman, Obama notes that the idea of turning protesting tradesmen into seasoned fighters who could go head to head with seasoned jihadists and Assad’s army was fantasy. And, Zakaria (August 15, 2014) notes that repressive governing dictatorships tends to create extremist jihadists and drive out moderates. Finally, the assertion that arming moderate rebels could have defeated ISIS fails to consider the possible downsides of such an investment—if something did, in fact, go wrong. The most likely downside would have been prolonging the conflict in Syria with even more deaths than have occurred so far, and possibly an even more robust jihadist movement and a greater risk of destabilizing more countries in the region.
Constitutional Overreach (Or Criminality)
The third area Republican critics use to illustrate Obama’s unsuitableness for the Presidency is his criminality in failing to adhere to the Constitution. Specifically, Obama’s critics accuse him of exceeding his executive authority in stopping the deportation and granting work permits for undocumented immigrants who were bought to the U.S. as children and delaying the implementation of certain parts of the ACA. These two charges, however, rest on two different foundations of the right wing establishment. Pundits and some of the more extreme legislators accuse the President of violating his Constitutional authority by stopping the deportations and issuing work permits. House Speaker John Boehner, on the other hand, after considerable deliberation, has limited his law suit filed against the President to violating that part of the ACA that Republicans have been vehemently opposed. Boehner explained the limitation of his law suit as a legal strategy to maximize chances of success. Mr. Boehner did not explain why adding another violation of the Constitution would decrease the chance of success.
While the negative effects of delaying parts of the ACA are somewhat hard to discern, the consequences of Obama’s failure to enforce the immigration laws are clear to Republicans. According to Republicans, his actions [and proposed actions] undermine the security of borders and thus permit criminals, terrorists, and the unhealthy to enter the U.S. Moreover, they argue that undocumented immigrants raise unemployment and delay the full recovery of the economy. The Republican focus on the possible consequences of President Obama’s executive orders to address the immigration, begs the question of whether he is acting within his Constitutional authority. Regardless of the consequences, President Obama has considerable authority to grant deportation relief. As Beutler (August 11, 2014) points out, the Constitution does give the President power, even though Republicans may want to limit this President’s use of that power.
The character deficiencies attributed to Barack Obama perfectly match these persistent stereotypes of blacks as lazy, happy-go-lucky, and unreliable. Some people make much of the fact that these stereotypes are contradictory—happy-go-lucky and aggressive—unreliable and criminal. Stereotypes, however, are used to justify the dislike of those to whom they apply, and thus, justification is abetted by selectively ignoring inconsistent facts. These stereotypical based character attacks undoubtedly resonate with some percentage of the Republican base voters who appreciate having their racial dislike of Obama reinforced. Other voters who are less swayed by their racial animus for Obama may still be affected. Voters seek explanations for how their President is behaving. Often, without knowing the details of the issues underlying the choices being made, they seek clues that can explain those choices. The use of stereotypes, subtly injected into the discussion, can offer one set of clues that voters can use to form their explanation of President Obama’s behavior.
Voters are not alone in seeking explanations for Obama’s behavior. So called objective or “liberal” pundits give Obama a dubious pass by saying that because the Republican House has closed down any opportunity for legislation, it is understandable that he has disengaged. Unfortunately, a pass that says the President is not performing his duties as he should is, in fact, an indictment, not a pass. And, Obama is not the only President for whom voters and pundits have sought explanations. This President is, however, the only President to whom the opposition has tried to attach negative racial stereotypes to help form the basis of those explanations.
Conclusion
In some respects, President Obama faces a changed world. A world that some pundits and politicians refuse or are unable to face. Obama faces a Congress that is more highly polarized than at any time since the before the Civil War. Moreover, from living memory, many pundits and politicians go back to the last fifty or so years when the Congress experienced an unusually high level of homogeneity. Like Congress, the world has changed, especially the Middle East. The U.S. can no longer dictate or be assured that its military can achieve its wishes. This is not to say that the U.S. does not have a military many times stronger than any other in the world, but it is to say that there are more forces and people willing to contest the wishes of the U.S. in any way that they can for far longer than the U.S. has thus far been willing to engage.
In at least one respect, however, the world has not changed. Racial stereotyping remains a potent weapon that can be used against African Americans. Like all stereotyping, racial stereotyping is a short hand way of organizing thoughts and then saying what words lack the legitimacy and power to say about people. The power of racial stereotyping is that it can affect racists as well as those who are non-racists. Stereotyping is a way to explain other people when other information is lacking or too jumbled to provide a satisfactory explanation. The changes in the world that Obama faces and his need to reposition the U.S. in that world has created the perfect storm of misunderstanding that deluges Obama. Whether this storm clears up over the next two years will determine the future of the U.S. for certainly the next decade.
The character deficiencies attributed to Barack Obama perfectly match these persistent stereotypes of blacks as lazy, happy-go-lucky, and unreliable. Some people make much of the fact that these stereotypes are contradictory—happy-go-lucky and aggressive—unreliable and criminal. Stereotypes, however, are used to justify the dislike of those to whom they apply, and thus, justification is abetted by selectively ignoring inconsistent facts. These stereotypical based character attacks undoubtedly resonate with some percentage of the Republican base voters who appreciate having their racial dislike of Obama reinforced. Other voters who are less swayed by their racial animus for Obama may still be affected. Voters seek explanations for how their President is behaving. Often, without knowing the details of the issues underlying the choices being made, they seek clues that can explain those choices. The use of stereotypes, subtly injected into the discussion, can offer one set of clues that voters can use to form their explanation of President Obama’s behavior.
Voters are not alone in seeking explanations for Obama’s behavior. So called objective or “liberal” pundits give Obama a dubious pass by saying that because the Republican House has closed down any opportunity for legislation, it is understandable that he has disengaged. Unfortunately, a pass that says the President is not performing his duties as he should is, in fact, an indictment, not a pass. And, Obama is not the only President for whom voters and pundits have sought explanations. This President is, however, the only President to whom the opposition has tried to attach negative racial stereotypes to help form the basis of those explanations.
Conclusion
In some respects, President Obama faces a changed world. A world that some pundits and politicians refuse or are unable to face. Obama faces a Congress that is more highly polarized than at any time since the before the Civil War. Moreover, from living memory, many pundits and politicians go back to the last fifty or so years when the Congress experienced an unusually high level of homogeneity. Like Congress, the world has changed, especially the Middle East. The U.S. can no longer dictate or be assured that its military can achieve its wishes. This is not to say that the U.S. does not have a military many times stronger than any other in the world, but it is to say that there are more forces and people willing to contest the wishes of the U.S. in any way that they can for far longer than the U.S. has thus far been willing to engage.
In at least one respect, however, the world has not changed. Racial stereotyping remains a potent weapon that can be used against African Americans. Like all stereotyping, racial stereotyping is a short hand way of organizing thoughts and then saying what words lack the legitimacy and power to say about people. The power of racial stereotyping is that it can affect racists as well as those who are non-racists. Stereotyping is a way to explain other people when other information is lacking or too jumbled to provide a satisfactory explanation. The changes in the world that Obama faces and his need to reposition the U.S. in that world has created the perfect storm of misunderstanding that deluges Obama. Whether this storm clears up over the next two years will determine the future of the U.S. for certainly the next decade.