 |
MAY 4, 2011 |
 |
By Matthew Continetti |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
COLD OPEN |
 |
 |
I have a theory about the Obama presidency. The president is most successful when he behaves as the head of state rather than the head of government. Why? Because Americans want to like President Obama. They see him as a symbol of progress in race relations. They responded to his rhetoric of unity in 2008. The high point of Obama's term, until May 1, 2011, was his Inauguration Day. Back then Obama stood as the leader of the whole country. He rallied all Americans in a spirit of comity.
The moment did not last. For almost two and a half years, Obama has acted primarily not as the head of state but as the head of a (Democratic) government, the leader of the Democratic party, and the vanguard of a resurgent progressive movement. His main priority in office has been to build a "New Foundation" for the country that emphasizes equality over liberty and security over risk. The results: bailouts, an ineffective stimulus, an unpopular health care law, trillion-dollar-plus deficits, partisan warfare, depreciated currency, commodity inflation, and sinking approval ratings.
There have been moments, however, when the old Obama has reemerged, when the president has led not a political coalition but the entire nation. His Nobel lecture and his speech announcing the surge in Afghanistan were such occasions. His address at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson rampage killer was another. But each moment quickly passed. The old Obama returned. The ideological combat between the president and his opponents resumed.
Now, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, President Obama has another opportunity to lead by consensus instead of conflict. He displayed tremendous courage in ordering a risky operation to take out the al Qaeda mastermind. His speech announcing the killing was well done. The spontaneous celebrations in Washington and New York demonstrate the innate patriotism of the American people. Obama has a chance to truly become a national leader. Let's see if he seizes the day. |
 |
LOOKING BACK |
 |
 |
"With bin Laden dead, we will no doubt see again Americans slaughtered by Islamic holy warriors. But when we down him and take back the awe that is ours, we will have turned the tide. After that, we will just have to persevere and slowly burn the hope out of Islam's holy warriors. The painful integration of the Muslim and Western worlds, which has been relentlessly moving forward for more than 200 years, will then continue, God willing, with less bloodshed on both sides."
—Reuel Marc Gerecht, "Bin Laden, Beware," from our September 24, 2001, issue.
Remember you get full access to THE WEEKLY STANDARD archive when you subscribe. |
|
|
 |
|
 |
FROM THE DESKTOP |
 |
 |
Christopher Hitchens on bin Laden, Obama, and Pakistan Millennials are narcissistic and hostile, studies show Joseph Epstein's appreciation of the ancient Greek writer Xenophon TNR's Leon Wieseltier joined the crowd in Lafayette Square on Sunday A former Reagan speechwriter remembers his boss |
 |
QUOTE OF THE WEEK (SO FAR!) |
 |
 |
"Rising violence and the persistence of a Taliban safe haven in Pakistan have bred pessimism about the war [in Afghanistan] and created a mystique about the resilience of the insurgency. Violence has indeed continued to escalate—insurgents initiated an average of 19 attacks per day in 2007, almost 30 per day in 2008, and 52 per day from January to August of 2009—but the spike in violence is a predictable effect of sending more troops into battle; there are more targets for the insurgents to attack. What matters is not the scale of violence but the outcome of the battle. While ISAF has made impressive strides in its practice of unconventional warfare, the Taliban have not. The Taliban are not invincible superwarriors hardened by millennia of fighting and xenophobia; indeed, they are hardly even very competent insurgents compared to Nepal's Maoists, Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, or Colombia's FARC. They continue to espouse an unpopular extremist ideology and murder large numbers of fellow Pashtun Muslims. Meanwhile, Washington's rumored recent expansion of its drone strikes will erode their safe haven in Pakistan. The single greatest resource the United States now needs is not more troops but more time."
—National Defense University Professor Paul D. Miller, "Finish the Job," from the January 2011 / February 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs. |
 |
LOOKING AHEAD |
 |
 |
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U.S. Navy Seals is a momentous event. And you can be sure THE WEEKLY STANDARD will be filled to the brim with reporting, commentary, and analysis of the mission, the outcome, and the implications for America, the Greater Middle East, and the world. |
 |
PARTING SHOT |
 |
 |
One of the great dangers in politics is static thinking. The biggest mistake one can make is assuming that the future will be a straight-line projection from the present. Current affairs are more like the weather: present conditions will not last for long. And there's no telling what will come next.
The announcement that Navy Seals had killed bin Laden provides a telling example. At 10 p.m. on May 1, I heard a radio report that the president was going to speak to the country in half an hour. But the White House would not say what Obama was going to discuss.
Why, I wondered, would the president address the nation late on a Sunday night? Had we killed Qaddafi? That news, however, did not seem so pressing that it couldn't wait until Monday. Had we or the Israelis attacked Iran? Had India and Pakistan or North and South Korea gone to (perhaps nuclear) war? Was the president about to order the evacuation of a major city because of an impending WMD strike? This is a large and dangerous world.
When the actual news came that bin Laden had been killed, I was elated. But I also realized that, in the run up to the announcement, I had been trapped in static thinking. I was looking at the world through the prism of the moment. This country had not heard good news for so long, I hadn't been expecting any.
Another instance of static thinking is the idea that killing bin Laden guarantees President Obama's reelection. But will bin Laden's death lower the price of gasoline or close the budget deficit or lower the unemployment rate? I don't think so. Memories fade: President George H.W. Bush was considered unbeatable at the end of the first Gulf war. Capturing Saddam Hussein did not make the 2004 election a lock for George W. Bush. No, we don’t have any idea what the 2012 election will be decided on. And as much as Obama deserves credit for this wonderful victory in the war on terror, the death of bin Laden is not the key to a second term.
See you next week. And don't forget you can write me at editor@weeklystandard.com.
--Matthew Continetti
Share
P.S. To unsubscribe, click here. I promise not to take it personally. |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
MORE FROM THE WEEKLY STANDARD |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Online Store |
 |
Squeeze the head to the left to relieve stress. Yes you can! Only at our store. |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Subscribe Today |
 |
Get the magazine that The Economist has called "a wry observer of the American scene." |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Read probing editorials and unconventional analysis from political writers with a dose of political humor at weeklystandard.com. |
 |
 |
|