|
In the first place, it's always many years until all the facts are known. It's frankly unfair to grade someone until all the results are properly evaluated.
In the second place, it's much more of a pass/fail situation than a graded situation. Our votes essentially constitute a pass/fail system; if we think the President passes, we reelect him (or reelect his party to the White House). If we judge the President a failure, we turn him (or his party) out of power.
Third, we are dealing with people who make difficult decisions all the time. The media doesn't cover every action undertaken by a President or his administration. Since the media is trying to sell interest, they are motivated to treat as news only that which is controversial or outrageous. This means we the people are under-informed - automatically - about everything an administration does which would be seen by most of us as appropriate and wise, and saturated with commentary about anything done by an administration which might be construed as inappropriate or questionable. Hence, the grading curve is damn steep! If a President gets 90% of everything right, he's going to be condemned in the media for that 10% he's getting wrong.
Last, but not least, isn't government just a little bit more important than this? President Obama is doing his best. I don't agree with everything he has done, and of late I have grown particularly disappointed. If some other Democrat runs against him in 2012 I will have to think carefully about who will get my vote in the primary. But I do not doubt his character; he is trying his very best. Am I qualified to apply an entirely arbitrary grading system to him, despite not having all the facts, despite a media-for-profit system which automatically skews information to the sensational, despite the fact that it doesn't really matter anyway since voters can only apply a pass/fail?
I don't think so. Hence my non-participation in the poll. Sorry.
|