No, not really.
But in light of Obama’s recent troop increase, it doesn’t sound that implausible. Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. Forget what one thinks about the legitimacy of said war, just think instead what would have happened if Bush had done this. Everybody left of center would be up in arms (they were). Bush is hated by all of the world, Obama wins the Peace Prize. Such a fact proves, I think, how most people judge politicians not on their actual policy actions but merely on their personality and party platform.
Don’t believe me? Take this fact: Bush gave more aid in terms of money to Africa than any other President in American history. Throughout his two terms, did Republicans criticize him for all of this superfluous spending that was essentially international welfare? No. Did Democrats praise him for his efforts? No. Why? The only reason I can think of is that both sides already had made up their minds about Bush, no matter what he did. Republicans decided they’d trumpet him as a fiscal conservative – which he wasn’t – and Democrats would paint him as an unsympathetic prick.
I always find myself in an awkward position when I am defending Bush in any context. I really dislike(d) the guy’s policies. But the inconsistency of most of the population regarding his actions is laughable. Bush was more liberal than a lot of Democrats in terms of immigration, he increased federal spending on education an absurd amount, spent more on the arts than any other President, and except for tax cuts, wasn’t really a fiscal conservative. But most progressives, when asked for a synopsis of the man’s Presidency, will probably give a formulaic regurgitation showing a southern oil man who cares about nobody but the rich. Then you tell them about how he’s relatively liberal on immigration. Or how that social security privatization idea that sounds good them was pushed by, uh, him.
Bush should not get the Noble Peace Prize. Ever. But sometimes it’s important to judge Obama with the same critical lens that we viewed Bush through for 8 years.
Upset Patterns 
December 3, 2009 at 10:18 pm
agreed. I think obama has done and will do great things. but people are brushes his bad decisions off, while everyone would have criticized bush for anything he did.
and what about gm? reminds me of your post where no one can argue with stimulus: if it fails, well, then he didn’t give enough. if it succeeds for whatever reason, it’s because of the stimulus. well, no. I’ll never forgive his administration for giving that money to gm.
December 7, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Isn’t this the way a democratic republic works? You elect the officials you trust and then leave it up to them to make the decisions? I’ve put my faith in Obama and won’t question him again until it is time to put my vote in again. If he hasn’t done right he won’t get another vote.
Additionally, we don’t know the intell that Obama has received. I assume if he has changed his mind about his plan it is because he has good reason to. Because he has shown that he is willing to think through things. Unlike Bush who said in the debates with Kerry that he is a man that doesn’t back down from his mistakes and stands by them. Which makes about zero sense. Admitting you are wrong and adapting is a good thing.
I think Obama is on the right track, and I’ll wait to be proven otherwise. Just because he makes decisions I don’t agree with doesn’t mean it is time to start criticizing the work he is doing. I’d recommend reading any biography of Abraham Lincoln, who is generally regarded as one of the best presidents of all time. People were pretty frustrated with him for 3 years.
I’m not saying Bush did all bad, or Obama does all good, but you have to look at them as a whole. Time will tell if we will be criticizing Obama in 4 years. (though apparently the peon will be upset about the bailout. which yes I didn’t agree with).
But I am pretty sure Obama is smarter than most of us.
December 8, 2009 at 3:43 am
“I’ve put my faith in Obama and won’t question him again until it is time to put my vote in again.”
That’s kind of scary, actually. Sure, elections are a time to hold public officials responsible, but there’s no reason not to demand accountability from them all the time.
Sure, Obama may be a well-meaning, intelligent guy, but politicians have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted to govern well and make good policy decisions (it’s really hard to be a politician. You have to resist a lot of screwy incentives and operate in a messed up, corrupted system). If “Admitting you are wrong and adapting is a good thing”, as you say, then citizens should have an extra demanding duty to watch politicians closely and call them out when they’re wrong about something.
What exactly is there to lose by subjecting our elected officials to close scrutiny?
December 10, 2009 at 11:48 am
“I’ve put my faith in Obama and won’t question him again until it is time to put my vote in again”? Does that mean any time in between elections we shouldn’t criticize politicians? I agree that for some issues, we can’t completely judge politicians until the outcome is completely settled. But accountability still needs to occur.
I disagree with your assumption that Obama has possibly received some good intelligence. During the campaign, even during the primaries, Obama wanted to decrease troop presence in Iraq and beef up troop levels in Afghanistan. If he got some great new intel, he must have gotten it while Bush was still in office.
Putting blind trust in Obama, because he is smarter than all of us, is quite a disturbing notion. A lot of those idiot conservatives did that for Bush. Like you said, Bush followed his gut instincts and didn’t really adapt his opinions. Some people liked that about him (I didn’t, particularly). But if, on the same level, we are to assume that Obama is doing the right thing because he went to Harvard and is a good speaker and was a successful lawyer or something, I think we lose any value of public discourse.
However, I’d like to get back tot he main topic. I agree with you, we can’t judge what Obama’s doing now with conclusive statements. A lot of things take time to see what happens when the dust settles. But that wasn’t my point. My point is that if we are to criticize Bush for something, we need to criticize any politician that does the same thing. If we are meant to not make judgements on Obama’s foreign policy yet, how can we judge the Iraq War or Bush’s other escapades yet? After all, if the Iraq War is successful (in some weird alternate universe), the world would be a hugely better place. The middle east would have democracy, liberalization of human rights, etc. But it doesn’t and it probably won’t.
For everything Obama does, think what your reaction would be if Bush did it, even if you trust Obama’s judgement that much.
December 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Yes, my statement was a bit extreme, and I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t hold our public officials accountable. We should. And discourse is good. No one lives in a bubble and the President does need to know the real world effects of his actions and how the citizens of his country feel about these effects.
Thank you for calling me on that.
However I think there is something to be said about giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Especially when that someone has shown they are willing to think through things and weigh different options. Not because of where they went to college, but from the things they have said and the things they have written. While putting blind faith into someone is never a good thing, neither is assuming that any decisions they are making are dumb or ill-informed. Especially when said person has not given you any reason to doubt the amount of thought behind or the motivation for a decision.
President Bush gave me reason to doubt. From backtracking on many different claims to his views on evolution, science and the environment, he showed that he was a more shoot from the hip sort of guy.
Now, I realize this isn’t a discussion about why Obama or Bush are great or aren’t. It is a discussion about treating politicians across parties the same without bias. But what I am trying to demonstrate is that at least from my perspective I can’t give Bush the same benefit of the doubt because he didn’t earn it. Yes, Obama is sending in more troops. Yes people criticized Bush for doing this (and whether he was rightly criticized is a-whole-nother discussion), but Bush sent troops into Iraq in the first place looking for weapons of mass destruction. People were critical of him because he had already failed them. Weapons of mass destruction my ass.
But I think more what you were addressing with your post, and I do think this is a problem, is that our current political system is treating the world as binary: Either something is good or something is not, either Obama is doing good or Obama is not, either Bush did good or Bush did not. I think this stems directly from what has become a two party system. You either vote for the republicans or the democrats.
However, the world isn’t black and white. But in a system where you make people choose one side or the other, how can you ask people not to choose one side or the other?
So, I guess one of the main points I am trying to make in response to your post is that actions taken by a president don’t exist in a vacuum. They are colored by the previous actions the president has taken. You can’t judge Bush and Obama the same on any given action because they have their entire history informing those judgements.
And to respond to your guys’ responses: My statement about putting my faith in Obama is not about blind faith, but informed faith. Thus far, while Obama has done many things that I’m not crazy about, he hasn’t yet shown to me that he is unworthy of this faith. So, instead of saying “Obama shouldn’t be sending these troops” I’m saying, “I’ll wait and see what happens.” So, I’m not saying I’ll have faith in him forever. But currently I do.
And unfortunately, I feel like the only way I really have a say in what Obama does is at the ballot box. And maybe I shouldn’t feel this way. But unfortunately, I do. I feel pretty insignificant. So, the next time I’ll get to say how I am feeling (in a way that has an effect) is in 2012. I can gripe all I want but it doesn’t really matter much until then.
December 14, 2009 at 11:59 am
Ok, thank you for the clarifications.
I agree somewhat that giving certain people benefit of the doubt and other not is justified. But this can be a slippery slope in my opinion, that often turns to blind faith. Or if not blind faith, undeserved support.
Obama might, on the surface, appear to have more legit reasons for his foreign policy decisions. Bush’s intelligence looks flawed and manipulated, and yeah, I agree, Obama generally seems like a more trustworthy person. But like you said, this was about treating all politicians with the same standard. If you don’t trust Bush for certain things, which is surely justified given the politician he was, are you willing to judge him for things he has already done? More money to Africa than any other President, pretty liberal on immigration, things like this – why aren’t progressives cheering him on for this? Is it because the bad he did outweighs the stuff they’d otherwise champion?
I don’t think so. I think most people decide whether they like a politician and then make it seem like everything they do is either really good or really bad. How can anybody defend Reagan’s invasion of Grenada or some of Clinton’s foreign policy decisions? Since Reagan is this hero of conservatism, he gets a free pass from the peanut gallery. Same for Clinton or Kennedy or FDR. FDR “saved” us from the Depression, so putting fully American people of Japanese descent into concentration/internment camps rarely gets mentioned.
This is where your “binary” world comes into play. People are so busy playing partisan politics that when it comes down to individual issues, they turn the other cheek is resort to foregone conclusions based on party.
One last thing: I think it is possible to have faith in a politician and support him/her while still being critical. Carson voted for Obama and, correct me if I’m wrong here Carson, you probably still would today. I think most people who voted for Obama have been disappointed to some degree, so criticism can be more cautious commentary than reneging any sort of support. Overall, Benii, your stance does seem much less ridiculous than when I first read it. But I think we can agree to disagree over the appropriate level of criticism we should give politicians at certain periods of time, over certain circumstances, etc.