“Is President Obama’s desire to seek compromise greater than his desire to seek change?”

Author: Carl Mitchell

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, both progressive and conservative pundits alike have been trying to lay even money on what will be its undoing. (Though with conservatives the speculation has been as much wishful thinking as it has been informed speculation.) Commentators who run the spectrum from conservative pundit and MSNBC contributor, Patrick J. Buchanan to co-founder and editor-in-chief of the ‘Huffington Post’ Arianna Huffington have both contributed to this conjecture. Huffington, in an 11/23/2009 HuffPo article titled, “Will the Unemployment Disaster be Obama’s Katrina.” has implied that lack of jobs could be Obama’s downfall. Buchanan, speculating that its potential demise could be the war in Afghanistan, writes talks about this in an article titled “Obama’s Vietnam”. Finally, who can forget the infamous statement made by Sen. Jim Demint R(SC), when during a

conference call to a conservative group he stated that their opposition to Obama’s healthcare reform efforts would be a chance to make the bill the president’s ‘Waterloo.’ (Thus likening a democratically elected president to a dictator and foreshadowing the Republican strategy of opposing Obama first; think about what it is they are opposing second.) Yet none of these action, not the war in Afghanistan or high unemployment or Healthcare reform are what I see as the biggest threat to Obama’s presidency – his blind desire to compromise is.

Let’s face it – much of life involves compromises; reaching consensus. There are the compromises sought and sometimes achieved in marriages, in the boardroom, the courtroom and in politics. True enough. But compromise assumes that both or all parties are compromising in good faith. The Republican party has not met this burden yet Obama still seeks to reach consensus with them. Obama has repeatedly shown his willingness to work as a centrist on nearly every issue that has confronted him since he was elected For example, he compromised on the size of the stimulus package for which he was criticized by conservatives. (This was particularly ironic since the Republicans were at the helm when the ship of state hit this iceberg.) Obama capitulated to conservative on the size of the stimulus package and settled for a scaled down version. In doing so he ignored the advice of progressive economists like Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman who argued that the stimulus should have been even larger. Obama negotiated a smaller package only to end up winning three republican votes.

Another example of Obama’s desire to seek compromise and be a centrist was the school speech “controversy’ over the past summer. Conservative parents became indignant with the idea that a US president, one with a remarkable story of achievement, would actually want to speak to school children. This was in spite of the fact that other presidents have done so in the past. The Right, in an ongoing effort to de-legitimize his presidency, used of the word “indoctrinate” a word they knew was associated with communism and “brainwashing.” Well Obama made the speech which extolled hard work, personal responsibility etc., and it was even praised by former first lady Laura Bush. Yet during the midst of the “controversy”, Obama had made another futile attempt to diffuse partisanship by sending out a text version of the speech prior to the event in order to appease his right-wing critics.

Lastly on the issue of Health Care reform Obama has shown a willingness to sacrifice the vital public option component in order to get one senator, Olympia Snowe R(ME), on board. Although Obama defended the idea of the public option in his address before the Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 9, he still did not commit to saying that its inclusion in the healthcare bill was make or break. He still clung to the fantasy of bi-partisanship even amidst the boorish shouts of “liar” from South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson.

Therefore, it must be concluded that Obama has somehow forgotten that compromise is not always possible or even desirable in every situation. Compromise is only possible when the party one is attempting consensus with is seeking a greater overall good and is willing to give up something in exchange. What Obama must remember is that Republicans are only interested in rebuilding their tattered party and regaining a majority in Congress or at least a sizeable enough of a minority to tie Obama‘s hands. From this position they can obstruct, delay, derail every initiative taken by the President. In this way they can begin to turn even Obama’s supporters against him. Nothing is more important than this to them – not the country not the welfare of its citizens, nothing.

The second thing he should remember is that one who is too willing to compromise gives the appearance of lacking a core set of beliefs and a desire to fight for them. Some principles are not to be abandoned. There are times when a person must dig his heals into the sand and say “no, on this point I will not yield.” The best route Republicans see back to power is to destroy Barack Obama – plain and simple. They have sought to do this thus far with lies and by exploiting his blind desire to seek compromise with them. They have sought to do this in collusion with their gun-hording, lie-spreading, birth-certificate forging. tea bagging and Guy Fawking allies.

Republicans are not interested in the millions of uninsured Americans or they would have passed Healthcare reform in the previous eight years and they would not have fought Medicare in the 60’s. Their criticisms of Obama vacillating on Afghanistan are rather hollow when they went along blindly with Bush‘s lie-predicated diversion of troops to Iraq. ) Finally, their criticism of Obama on the economy rings the most hollow of all since they supported the system of greed and lax regulations that got us into this current mess. Yet Obama still lauds bi-partisanship even though he won by a landslide. That means he has a mandate from the electorate. His brother Jeb Obama was not the governor of the state where the outcome was disputed. His election was not given to him by a conservative Supreme Court that prematurely stopped the vote re-count. It came about as a rejection of neo-con thinking that polluted America, alienated its allies and cost thousands of lives here and abroad. Obama needs to tell his critics that unless they have more on their agenda than destroying his presidency, then he actually will become the uncompromising person they claim he is now. If Obama continues on his present course then the party of “no” will finally have succeeded in finding a way to neutralize his presidency.

About the Author:

I am a native Missourian with a B.A. in English and minors in creative writing and Journalism. I attended the University of Missouri and edited have several newspapers and newsletters. I have worked in several fields but lately have worked in the legal field (not an attorney). My interest include, music, cooking, politics, books and movies. My site is www.myhumbleopinion.org

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – “Is President Obama’s desire to seek compromise greater than his desire to seek change?”