Like everyone, I have watched with fascination the unfolding events in Egypt. The diligence, persistence and downright smarts of the residents of Cairo have been remarkable to behold. So has the leadership of the rebellion, a relative handful of young professionals with enough internet savvy to organize a huge insurrection under the noses of one of the world’s most brutal and efficient police states. It seems a little thing, perhaps, but almost from the first hours of the massing in Tahrir Square, the square was equipped with things like porta-poddies, refreshment stands, computer stations and even, believe it or not, separate refuse bins for recyclable and non-recyclable items.
Each of the first three major gatherings in Tahrir were preceded by disinformation released to the police and Mubarak’s thuggish security forces as to where the insurgents were heading, meaning in each case they were able to reach Tahrir without incident or violence.
As elated as I have been over what is happening in Egypt, I have been equally disheartened by what has been happening here. My disheartenment began with Hillary Clinton’s early announcement that Mubarak’s government was “stable” and needed to be allowed to sort things out. The “stability” of the Mubarak’s government has always been its severe and constant repression of its people, and historically, it has sorted things out by imprisoning, torturing and murdering those who opposed it. Clinton quite apparently putting the U.S. on Mubarak’s side was depressing.
Clinton’s awkward positioning was echoed by Vice-President Joe Biden’s pronouncement that Mubarak was an ally and “not a dictator.” Granted he has been an ally—and at times a very useful one—but how in God’s name does Biden define the word dictator if not by a description of Mubarak’s regime?
Worse than both however was President Barack Obama’s stumbling, status quo driven responses. The first statement to emanate from the White House essentially laid down a laundry list of the thing’s Mubarak’s government “must do” in response to the protesters. The list itself was reasonable enough (curtail internet restrictions, stop unlawful detentions, etc.), but was more significant for what it did not contain than what it did. What it didn’t contain was a single word that could have been construed as supportive of the people in Tahrir. What it didn’t contain was even a hint that the U.S. government agreed with the protesters that Mubarak must step down and a totally new government be formed.
Without doubt, a case could be made that unequivocal American support of deposing a sovereign government would have brought loud howls of protest about American meddling from Mubarak (indeed, he tried that anyway, to no avail) and possible from other governments as well. Leadership on important issues always creates antagonism somewhere.
An even stronger case can be made that Obama’s reticence bespoke volumes about America’s actual commitment to democracy, democratic ideals and human rights. Given the choice, this case would argue, between standing firm for those advocating a retrieval of their dignity and basic freedoms, and standing firm for an autocratic regime that for thirty years has denied its people those things, American opted for the latter.
Until of course it became apparent that the former had, against all odds, triumphed. Then, and only then, did the plight of Egypt’s people seem to move to the front of administration concerns. Trumpeting the victory America had no part in assisting, Obama said “The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.”
In point of fact, the people of Egypt had been speaking for several days, forming, apparently, an inconvenient cacophony over which Obama and his team were trying to orchestrate the establishment of some variation on the status quo. Their voices were heard, finally, by the man representing that status quo—Mubarak—but without, apparently, any real attempts at amplification from this country. That Egypt “will never be the same” is true. That whatever form that change involves was in no way aided or supported by the United States is also true. And that, to me, is sad.
It also points to something about Barack Obama that those of us who enthusiastically supported him in 2008 have become increasingly aware of but largely reluctant to actually say. The time has come I think to say it. We thought we were electing a leader in 2008. It turns out what we elected was a manager.
If you look back over the past two years, what Obama has consistently done instead of seizing opportunities to run in front of the curve and lead, is to lag just behind the curve and manage some partial and largely unsatisfying (to both sides) solution to each of them.
The financial crisis brought on by rapacious Wall Street firms screamed for a leader to step forward and say “Enough!” It is not a birthright of bankers and hedge fund managers and investment brokers to be billionaires. It is not Wall Street’s right to create financial instruments and engage in financial practices guaranteed to enrich itself in the short term while putting a guy counting on his 401(k) to see him through his senior years in obvious jeopardy. It screamed in other words for someone who would stand up and say commercial banks and investment banks must again be separated, the most heavily financed and fully staffed agency in Washington should be the Securities and Exchange Commision (or ideally, something better to replace it), and every Wall Street trader who knowingly engaged in fraudulent or unduly risky transactions should be faced with significant jail time. And that would be just a start.
Instead, Obama announced from the start that his Justice Department would seek not indictments and supported his Treasury Secretary (a Wall Streeter himself) in premising everything on the notion that banks should not be broken up and only token improvements in regulation were necessary. Obama then proceeded to rather overtly ignore the recommendations made by the task force he himself had created. The result was a financial reform bill that threw a few bones to consumers, most of them having to do with obnoxious credit card practices—important, and good to get rid of, but hardly at anything near the center of the problem-- but left almost everything about the financial system that was instrumental in bringing about the crisis essentially intact. Give Obama an A for managing the crisis, an F for leadership.
Health care reform is another area that screamed for leadership. We have the highest health care costs in the world, but fall quite securely into the middle of the pack in terms of health care results. There are in fact third world countries whose health care systems are more efficient than ours.
A leader would have looked at health care and said there are three basic areas that must be fixed. First, the system need to be changed from one that emphasizes treating symptoms to one that emphasizes preventing disease. Second, the obscene overpricing of prescription drugs must be ended. And finally, how medical treatment is paid for must be completely overhauled.
What we got instead was delegation to Congress of the responsibility for crafting what was clearly going to be complicated and controversial legislation. Obama called that an exercise in “bi-partisanship,” but did so in the face of Mitch McConnell’s almost first day announcement that Republican priority number one would be insuring that Obama was a one-term president.
Leaving aside the notion that bi-partisanship—while certainly a good management tool if it happens—would ever actually occur, asking as fractured an institution as the American congress to craft complicated legislation is roughly akin to asking a committee to create a horse. What one should expect is a camel.
What we got in the Affordable Care Act was essentially the same thing we got in the financial reform bill—a few swipes at low lying fruit, but absolutely nothing addressing the roots of the health care system problem. And what we didn't get from Obama was anything resembling aggressive leadership until the very end, by which point most everything systemically important had been dropped from the bill. Again, an A for management—we did get something—an F for leadership—it wasn’t nearly enough.
The list could go on—repealing tax cuts for the rich, Afghanistan, the environment, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (yes, it passed, but Nancy Pelosi had much more to do with that than Obama), unemployment, infrastructure—you get the point.
I, and I suspect most progressives, hope that the more somewhat more engaged and forceful President we saw during the lame duck session of Congress was the beginning of his evolution from manager to leader. His performance during the Egyptian crisis, however, was not a step in that direction.
What the progressives and independents who joyously elected Obama in 2008 would like to see is not the moves he has been making to become more “business friendly.” Business is doing quite well right now, thank you very much. Corporate profits are at all time highs, cash reserves are at nearly obscene levels, productivity is up, every tax loophole put in place for the last 30 years is still there, the stock market is booming. At the same time, over 9% of Americans are out of work, nearly half of those have been out of work for more than 6 months, our infrastructure is crumbling, Wall Street is doing exactly what it was doing prior to the crash, the cost of medical care is still climbing steadily, median incomes have remained stagnant or declined for a decade, the world continues to warm and we’re still fighting two wars the strategic value of which is hard to see.
Leadership—real leadership—on any one or two of those issues over the next two years would make it much easier for me to justify another Obama vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment