Caroline May’s column, “Barack Obama, Killing Machine?” points out the long and growing list of bad guys President Obama has ordered axed.
This creates a conundrum for partisan Republicans who must now decide on competing narratives about the president. Depending on whom you ask, Obama is either a typical “blame America first” liberal “wimp” (a harder argument to make since the killing of bin Laden) — or a hypocrite who criticized Bush’s policies for electoral reasons — before implementing them, himself.
Michael Barone recently noted this irony, writing that, “it’s fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president’s fans and fellow partisans.”
Words matter, as Obama said during the campaign, and sometimes tough talk and tough actions go together. Winston Churchill’s speeches helped provide the moral courage for Britain during World War II, and Ronald Reagan’s moral clarity about the “Evil Empire” alarmed the Russians — and provided comfort for Soviet dissidents.
On the other hand, leaders must sometimes say be coy, secretive, or even misleading to avoid telegraphing their moves to the enemy. And — let’s be honest — sometimes politicians say things they don’t really believe because they know their base will like it (if you’re a Republican, this may mean sounding like a hawk — if you’re a Democrat, it may mean talking like a dove). Taking a politician’s words at face value can often be a mistake.
Teddy Roosevelt liked the African proverb that one should “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Given the choice, I’d rather have a president who acts tough than one who just talks tough. Of course, talking tough and acting tough aren’t mutually exclusive, but neither is there necessarily a direct correlation.
The “hypocrite” narrative is arguably more comforting than the “wimp” narrative — but there is also a third option: The pragmatic narrative. Simply put, the American system forces politicians to do what they should have done in the first place.
American presidents are not dictators. Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created a system of checks and balances. Presidents cannot just do whatever they want — meaning a lot of the bad ideas they might otherwise implement get nixed (those on the losing side call this gridlock). What is more, politicians must stand for reelection — and even lame duck presidents usually care about the how public opinion might impact their legacy.
Our system tends to correct mistakes. Bill Clinton, you may recall, came into office pushing “Hillarycare,” but after losing Congress in 1994, the horrible liberal bogeyman declared, “the era of big government is over” and pledged to “end welfare as we know it.”
The killing of bin Laden is forcing people to take notice, but the daylight between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his actions once in office extends to his decision to keep GITMO open, increase our footprint in Afghanistan (whether or not you think that was prudent), and ultimately, deciding to try KSM in a military tribunal.
I’m not arguing that Obama’s decision to kill bin Laden was made for political purposes, but rather that the situation may never have presented itself had he governed the way he campaigned.