Political Expediency; the Enemy of Transparency
Since Barack Obama entered the national consciousness roughly two years ago, his recipe for political success has been pretty unbeatable: Three parts sanctimony; 2 parts theater; and a pinch of substance.
You've seen it many times. Make some grandiose, feel-good, but sufficiently squishy proclamation; do it in front of Greek columns or other suitable item(s) of stagecraft; proceed to offer very little in the way of details or time frames; then ultimately reneg when following through becomes inconvenient. Of course, this would not work with most politicians, but when you've been anointed by the media, it's a winning formula. The question remains, will the general populace ultimately consider it manipulative?
Transparency has been an enduring theme of the Obama campaign/administration. It's been the subject of numerous grand eloquent speeches on how America is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The President says we all have a right to know what our government is doing—unlike what those evil Bush/Cheney people told us. You can almost hear the echoes of Justice Brandeis, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Remember way back when candidate Obama waxed rhapsodically on the wonders of public campaign financing, only to leave it at the altar when it became ever so apparent that he had a huge fund raising advantage over his opponent?
Well, since then, the hits just keep on comin'. And, why shouldn't they? He barely got a slap on the wrist for the campaign financing about face.
How about the classic, "No lobbyists will serve in my administration?" Guess his Chief Strategist, David Axelrod, doesn't count, nor do the many others—some of whom were granted special waivers, some of whom were not.
Then there was the five day public comment period for all pending legislation. Of the eleven or so bills he's signed so far, only six have been posted on the government's website, and none were there for five full days before being sent to Congress. The public is not alone. Congress has frequently only had hours to consider thousands of pages of provisions in very complex and expensive bills. Apparently it's better to ram these things through before annoying questions get asked.
Can't forget earmarks. What was it about going line by line to eradicate wasteful spending and eliminate earmarks? So much for 8,500 of them in the omnibus spending bill. Whoops.
Recall the D.C. school voucher program? In one of Obama's most inspired cabinet selections, he chose Arne Duncan as Education Secretary, a very well-respected school superintendent with a rich track record of reform and results. It was thought that Duncan might be able to propagate the successes of the flourishing D.C. voucher program to other troubled districts around the country. Evidently, results dramatically superior (e.g. students nearly two years ahead in reading and math) to the public school control group, at a lower cost per student, was not enough. In the end, Obama caved to a powerful constituent group, the NEA, and pulled funding from his budget. And, he did it without so much as an explanation to the nearly 2,000 D.C. kids left in the lurch. That would have shed to much light on the hypocrisy.
Recent days have not been lacking in examples, including a refusal to release new photos of alleged prisoner abuse. Funny, I remember how apoplectic the Left became over Abu Ghraib. They were hell-bent on making the photos public, no matter the consequences for our troops or the nation as a whole. Again, transparency is a lot more inconvenient when there are consequences.
What does it all mean? Is Obama noble in his intentions, but just naive and/or weak-willed? Does he really plan to do as he says, or has he simply mastered the art of political expedient communication? Does he merely reflect a reaction to what many perceive to have been an overly secretive Bush/Cheney administration? And, most importantly, will he and/or should he pay a price in the next election for not following through on so many commitments?
You've seen it many times. Make some grandiose, feel-good, but sufficiently squishy proclamation; do it in front of Greek columns or other suitable item(s) of stagecraft; proceed to offer very little in the way of details or time frames; then ultimately reneg when following through becomes inconvenient. Of course, this would not work with most politicians, but when you've been anointed by the media, it's a winning formula. The question remains, will the general populace ultimately consider it manipulative?
Transparency has been an enduring theme of the Obama campaign/administration. It's been the subject of numerous grand eloquent speeches on how America is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The President says we all have a right to know what our government is doing—unlike what those evil Bush/Cheney people told us. You can almost hear the echoes of Justice Brandeis, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Remember way back when candidate Obama waxed rhapsodically on the wonders of public campaign financing, only to leave it at the altar when it became ever so apparent that he had a huge fund raising advantage over his opponent?
Well, since then, the hits just keep on comin'. And, why shouldn't they? He barely got a slap on the wrist for the campaign financing about face.
How about the classic, "No lobbyists will serve in my administration?" Guess his Chief Strategist, David Axelrod, doesn't count, nor do the many others—some of whom were granted special waivers, some of whom were not.
Then there was the five day public comment period for all pending legislation. Of the eleven or so bills he's signed so far, only six have been posted on the government's website, and none were there for five full days before being sent to Congress. The public is not alone. Congress has frequently only had hours to consider thousands of pages of provisions in very complex and expensive bills. Apparently it's better to ram these things through before annoying questions get asked.
Can't forget earmarks. What was it about going line by line to eradicate wasteful spending and eliminate earmarks? So much for 8,500 of them in the omnibus spending bill. Whoops.
Recall the D.C. school voucher program? In one of Obama's most inspired cabinet selections, he chose Arne Duncan as Education Secretary, a very well-respected school superintendent with a rich track record of reform and results. It was thought that Duncan might be able to propagate the successes of the flourishing D.C. voucher program to other troubled districts around the country. Evidently, results dramatically superior (e.g. students nearly two years ahead in reading and math) to the public school control group, at a lower cost per student, was not enough. In the end, Obama caved to a powerful constituent group, the NEA, and pulled funding from his budget. And, he did it without so much as an explanation to the nearly 2,000 D.C. kids left in the lurch. That would have shed to much light on the hypocrisy.
Recent days have not been lacking in examples, including a refusal to release new photos of alleged prisoner abuse. Funny, I remember how apoplectic the Left became over Abu Ghraib. They were hell-bent on making the photos public, no matter the consequences for our troops or the nation as a whole. Again, transparency is a lot more inconvenient when there are consequences.
What does it all mean? Is Obama noble in his intentions, but just naive and/or weak-willed? Does he really plan to do as he says, or has he simply mastered the art of political expedient communication? Does he merely reflect a reaction to what many perceive to have been an overly secretive Bush/Cheney administration? And, most importantly, will he and/or should he pay a price in the next election for not following through on so many commitments?
Comments