AlterNet: Is Obama's Problem That He Just Doesn't Want to Deal with Conflict?

[marmar]

Is Obama's Problem That He Just Doesn't Want to Deal with Conflict?

By Drew Westen, AlterNet. Posted December 23, 2009.

Somehow Obama has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010.



As the president's job performance numbers and ratings on his handling of virtually every domestic issue have fallen below 50 percent, the Democratic base has become demoralized, and Independents have gone from his source of strength to his Achilles Heel, it's time to reflect on why. The conventional wisdom from the White House is those "pesky leftists" -- those bloggers and Vermont Governors and Senators who keep wanting real health reform, real financial reform, immigration reform not preceded by a year or two of raids that leave children without parents, and all the other changes we were supposed to believe in.

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president's leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

The problem is not that his record is being distorted. It's that all three have more than a grain of truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky "leftists." I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarity.

Leadership, Obama Style

Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because if there's a conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/politics/144760/is_obama%27s_problem_that_he_just_doesn%27t_want_to_deal_with_conflict

[Demeter]

1. Obama's Problem Is that He Has a Young Family that He Loves

and therefore he is easy to coerce with threats upon their well being and future.

[Mimosa]

5. Then maybe he shouldn't have run for president?

Please. There's a whole country of hurting people who need health care and jobs. If Obama couldn't deliver maybe he should have let somebody who could.

I fought hard for Obama. He has not fought for my interests which are those of most working class Americans.

[Myrina]

6. Exactly!

:applause:

[MissDeeds]

7. Agree

It's amazing the extent people will go to in an effort to excuse his lack of leadership and decisive action.

[Demeter]

10. I Heartily Agree

This isn't arm wrestling. If Obama wasn't prepared to make the supreme sacrifice, he shouldn't have run, and he shouldn't send the troops into harm's way, either.

[yurbud]

16. sad but true

[Hestia]

11. You know, I almost wrote that very same thing - trot out the wife & kids for the photo

ops, but in essence, they are living in a gilded cage. I wondered where his line was, and I do believe this it - his family.

[emsimon33]

17. Then why did he bother to run for president.

The irony i that, if what you say is true, his waffling and indecision and pandering will not secure their well being or a bright future!

[old mark]

2. He wanted to be the Great Unifier. Sadly, the right and left really hate each other

and bipartisanship exists only in Obama's mind. The real winners are the big corporations, and the real losers are everyone else.

I really like the guy as a person, I think, but he should get angry at the right people and understand that he will probably not have the opportunities again that he had 3 months ago.

Sorry, Barry, but I'm your friend and I'm telling you the truth here.
Could have been so much better.

mark

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

8. You forgot to say

we only want a pony, FrenchieCat!

Sorry, can't agree with you here. It isn't selfish to expect reasonable health care reform and it isn't stupid to expect the president we all supported to speak up on behalf of the central necessary reform component, the robust public option. And make no mistake, the public option is the central component and that is why so many of us are miffed.

And who among us advocates padlocking the banks? We Do expect regulation that will protect us from the next greed bubble. Shouldn't we? We Do expect protection from credit card bandits. Why shouldn't we?

All this dissatisfaction with President Obama isn't because we are expecting too much, too soon. It just isn't.

[emsimon33]

18. Well said! I agree.

[nashville_brook]

9. wow -- what a steaming load of crap. no one thought any of the things you claim.

if this is what you truly believe, you need to take a break from politics for a while, b/c you've lost perspective.

[Hestia]

12. Did you actually read the article? Your questions/rant have absolutely

nothing do with the lack of a coherent message and lack of leadership. How is it selfish to expect a president to speak to us as adults instead of mumbling platitudes and actually fight for us? I don't expect a president to do everthing in his first year but throwing us to the wolves a la credit card "reform" and health insurance "reform" has shown to be actually very republican, which I didn't vote in the least. All he is doing at this point, for those (like me) who really care and stay politically active is to look at 3rd Parties in a very realistic tone. Maybe after all is said and done, that is a good thing, get us out of the rich/richer, either/or, diacotomy (sp?) that we are currently in.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. What are you talking about privileged progressives! Some of the posters

above and plenty of DUers, generally, sound like regular peope who are struggling to survive!

You and elleng, if my memory serves me, were/are Wes Clark fans. That tells us a good bit about where you are located on the 'privileged progressives' spectrum. If anyone is the problem, it's you who have the economic luxury of being in a position to be socialist despisers, if you so choose - which you, at least, appear to assert.

[elleng]

4. Obama's 'problem' is media AND PUBLIC, including US HERE,

say and think he's got a 'problem.' If any, its that he's a Dem.

WE have the problem if we don't recognize the perpetual burden of 'progs,' 'libs,' and 'Dems,' as being openminded, different from Reps. We consider all options, and then are willing to disagree and sometimes fight about them. AND THEN we ignore that Congress and Senate are places of compromise, and we don't see each and every compromise.

Our government, dysfunctional as it is, consists of 3 branches. Obama knows this.

[Hestia]

15. But look at who he is compromising with - actually capitulating to. Please don't

thing I've gone woo woo, but -- remember when Ashcroft robed "Justice" and the Dominionists went around DC and tried to tear down the egregores that our founding fathers placed in DC to protect Liberty? (You can't have that many Deists, Masons and learned men in one place at one time without thinking that they did this). And I am sure that Ashcroft was not the first (see The Family)

From wikipedia:

Egregore (also "egregor") is an occult concept representing a "thoughtform" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.

A thoughtform is built when two people come together and creates a third = the adage, greater than the sum of its parts. All relationships do with this, for ill and for good, and almost all people, while being unaware of what is happening, generally either feel it and it feels good, or run from groups because of the way they feel.

What we need to do is to rebuilt the egregores in DC. Really look around DC (I hope to get back soon - uncle was SS and we got to areas that were normally closed to general public) and "see" what is there and what was built - Protection(s) of Liberty and Justice. There are no coincidences.

The Twin Towers were an egregore (and look at how egregious that Wall St became after they fell) built by (this is what I have been told by elders) native american indians who wove protection into the structures as they were built. As they stood, life while not being absolutely wonderful for everyone, was okay. Since these egregores have been and are purposely being destroyed, then little by little we see what we stand for being destroyed.

I know not even 99% of this board read metaphysical philosophy, but our elders did, and they followed a lot of the concepts, which are not bad, and can actually be used for "good". I personally am for using any tool in the toolbox that will awaken those in DC/Wall St/whatever to...I am not sure how to complete this sentence. I feel like I will be talking for others who may not feel the say way I do.

[Vidar]

14. K&R.

[undeterred]

19. There's nothing worse than working for a manager

who is a conflict avoider. Sometimes I do think that is style of leadership is not suited to some parts of his job. To me he has always seemed like a professor than a statesman.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Yes. That would explain his truly extraordinary rudeness to Gordon Brown.

He could express his animus towards him publicly without fear of repercussions. A Tory toff, less so, maybe.