For the moment let me revisit the criteria that I suggested a successful president might have.
As much as I am critical of the processes of government in the US, especially over the last years, there is a strong democratic tradition from the beginning in the New England town hall meetings, and before that the church meetings. (Even if, as Cromwell had insisted that God was rational, truth might be delivered by any person. Others believe, I am not alone in this conception – phew! – in the evolution of consciousness, which as full human beings we have a particular responsibility.)
I suppose I should not ignore the ravishes of capitalism, slavery and the dispossession of the native American people from the picture. In Australia and New Zealand, we have a similar history, mercifully without slavery, despite the unpromising beginning as a penal settlement and the incidence of “blackbirding”. Progress does happen in human affairs, and often it beneficiaries are blind to those responsible for their good fortune.
The great man theory of history would attribute all good (and bad) flowing from the holders of political power. As the person on the top of the structures and processes, the president has to possess to frame the overview and set the direction, not as a decider, but more as a convener and adjudicator. He is not a superman but a human being, yet a capable human being. My criteria were: conscientiousness, constructive competence (the distinction has to be made with destructive competence, as we have witnessed), civilized intelligence, and compassion.
In regard to last criteria, it is interesting to reflect on Juan Cole’s comments on what Obama said in relation to Palestine:
When he finally spoke on the Gaza War, Obama strongly took Israel’s side, but he did express at least a little interest in the conditions under which Gazans live; he asked for an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza:
‘ “Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats,” he said.
“For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.”
He added, however, that, “Just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.
“I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water and basic medical care, and who’ve faced suffocating poverty for far too long.
“We must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime” and with the international community and the Palestinian Authority participating.’
The last couple sentences are worth the price of admission. Considering the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians, caring at least a little about them as human beings. It is not enough by any means, but at least it is pointing in the right direction.
Of course, I do not describe recent events as a war, but as a massacre. Does anybody believe that anytime soon the Israelis will welcome a geographically “congruent” Palestinian State with an army, air force and navy, or failing that set up an integrated state of Palestinians and Israels with guarantees for minority rights, which would include Christians?
I would be interested if you thought these criteria were insufficient, or inadequate, but I know that is almost a futile aspiration.
Postscript:
The intelligent reader might be familiar with these things, but not me, so I suggest to anybody else that they follow up the links suggested in Wikipedia.
ELSEWHERE:
Scott Horton, at Harpers, reports that Hilary Clinton was greeted with enthusiasm at Foggy Bottom. Any leader must recognize as a condition the quality of the people around them. A good leader gives respect. Clinton apparently said:
This is going to be a challenging time, and it will require 21st-century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I’m gonna be asking a lot of you, I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can, I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate, and the kind of dialogue that will make us better.
Although not as successful as Obama, Clinton too learnt something on the primary campaign trail.
Not very intriguing, but a possibility that Bush will be missed by the mostly clueless, corporate media. It is a studied, deliberative stupidity, a contra-distinction to a deliberative democracy. At War in Context, Paul Woodward comments on an article in The Financial Times, and raises a question:
Anyone who’s been paying attention for long enough knows that one of the primary causes of the war on Gaza was Israel’s unwillingness to lift the siege. Hamas wasn’t firing Qassams at Sderot in the hope of destroying Israel; its aim was to get a crippling economic embargo lifted. So when Obama calls for the borders to open “to allow the flow of aid and commerce” he is posing to challenge to Israel. This really should be headline news for every major American newspaper. But it isn’t. This suggests that, at least when it comes to Israel-related issues, Obama is going to face an unprecedented task: how does an American president effectively use the bully pulpit in front of a press corps that willfully ignores what he’s saying?