Email MeToday we witnessed the inauguration of Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the United States of America. We thus mark a continuing tradition of the peaceful handover of power from one leader to another, the ideal of a citizen government. It is not the beginning of a new age, for we know only in hindsight whether an age has ended or begun. Or, as some say, if it is the beginning of the Age of Obama, then it is a day for mourning the death of a great American ideal. A cult of personality belongs properly to one who would pacify those he oppresses, not one who governs in service to a citizenry of which he is a mere member. While we may all appreciate some of the peculiar talents and gifts a particular person may bring to the office of chief executive, it is the office to which we render our respect. After all, that is why we address the president as Mr. President and not as Your Highness.
Thus we begin a new administration with controversy over the relative greatness of a man, even before he has accomplished anything beyond a symbolic victory over a racism few even feel. It is time, then, to reflect not on Washington or Lincoln or Roosevelt or Reagan; it is time to reflect on the meaning of America, and what the office of the president really means.
There are several jobs apportioned by law to the Executive; among them are executing the Federal government’s laws, overseeing an enormous bureaucracy, and managing relations with foreign powers. In more recent years, the president has become responsible for presenting a set of administrative and legislative priorities for which he will often argue directly to the public and which he will negotiate with Congress. As Commander in Chief, the president also has final authority over all branches of the military and over the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. These roles bring particular challenges and difficulties with which every president has in some way struggled. In time we will see whether Obama’s talents both natural and learned will make his administration effective. Whether his policies will achieve their intended ends, a question that is very much open to debate, is a matter to be addressed elsewhere, however.
Over the last month, I have read in a leisurely fashion Peggy Noonan’s book,
When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan, and I was impressed by a number of observations she made. None of them are necessarily peculiar to Reagan, though they were things he got right. In many ways Reagan does present a model worthy of emulation in his style and method if not in substance.
The first is a correction of a popular complaint. During the Reagan years, there was much carping about how he was an “actor”. Actor he certainly was, and he was certainly acting a part. The political roles changed, however, when Bill Clinton was president. There, we were treated to Rush Limbaugh’s humorous commentary on how the rubber-faced president was capable of manufactured tears when cameras came in view. We saw it on TV at the Vince Foster funeral—laughing and joking he strolled along and then, when he caught sight of a camera crew, his head bowed and the tears flowed in the time it took him to take two steps forward. Conservatives complained as loudly then as liberals had when Reagan was husbanding his soaring popularity. But the truth of the matter is that the president really does act a part just as surely as he really performs a function. He does both, and to be an actor is no crime. The object is to make the stage performance and the actual functions coherent and truthful. It is appropriate to cultivate an image, but it should be a truthful image. The task is easy enough when times are good and press conferences cover questions of little importance. The test comes with the unexpected challenge. George W. Bush came to office pledging a “New Tone” that raised the hackles of conservatives who were none too eager for compromise with Democrats. Yet after the watershed of 9/11, when at the deepest depths of unpopularity while facing scathing criticism from opponents and allies alike, the unwillingness of Dubya to defend himself and his policies at once maddened his critics and proved that his New Tone was a commitment and not ‘merely an act’. Though Obama’s commitments will undoubtedly be different, he would do well to emulate Bush’s consistency in the face of unexpected crisis.
There was an episode of The Andy Griffith Show in which Aunt Bee runs for office. Her campaign slogan was “Whatever the people want, that’s what I’m for!” Predictably, her candidacy became a farce, and she eventually found herself agreeing with her competitor and recommending that people vote for him instead of herself. Her opponent had taken time to develop clear opinions concerning certain problems and their solutions, to argue reasonably for them. Every president must do the same or risk not being taken seriously. To date, Mr. Obama has, perhaps wisely, avoided sharply defined policy statements. But now that he enters office, he will have to decide on his priorities and guiding principles. What’s more, he will have to risk unpopularity in order to attempt some of the things he will undoubtedly believe necessary. Reagan didn’t let wide unpopularity of a policy stop him from promoting it, choosing instead to argue more often and more clearly and in more venues. Sometimes it worked and he got what he wanted; sometimes it didn’t. But it was the right thing to do. Bush learned this too: when faced with the choice of managed defeat at the advice of the Pentagon and his own chiefs of staff, Bush took the lead and pushed strenuously for the “Surge” in Iraq, a move that was hardly popular at the time but which has proven well-founded and successful. The hard decisions come unlooked-for, and a president must make them, like it or no. The manner and content of those decisions say more about his character than any other function in the office.
Reagan’s two terms in office gave him some difficulties that those of us outside the mechanisms of the bureaucracy often forget about. His staff experienced some turnover—old timers departed and a fresh string came onboard. It has been said of Reagan that he was a great delegator, and that is true; it also presented a problem of understanding. Early staffers knew that he wanted to be kept informed of ongoing details, but that he also delegated responsibility. Later staffers sometimes got the wrong impression and thought that he didn’t want to be bothered by details, and this cost his administration some of its effectiveness. Every president must delegate, but the bureaucracy which the president heads is over 2 million strong. It is impossible for a president to govern effectively by micromanaging. Thus the working relationship between a president and his immediate subordinates must be constructed with presence of mind, for mutual understanding is essential. Failure to achieve understanding will at best produce policy incoherence and a general unresponsiveness to the Chief Executive; at worst it will embarrass and humiliate him. Good governance starts with good management at the top levels.
Finally, what Reagan understood and which every president should bear in mind at all times is that the role of the president is to serve the interests of the United States of America. He is not primarily the servant of an ideology—be it “liberal” or “conservative” or environmental or religious, whatever those may mean—it is to a nation. The president is responsible for defending and protecting its very existence, its laws, its institutions, and yes, even the intangible things like The American Dream. Ultimately the presidency is about America, not about the president. We wish the president well because we wish America well; we hope for his success because we hope for America’s success.
Today we make history, but what kind of history we don’t yet know. Some good and some bad, and some that will be hard to define, no doubt. As Master Samwise so clearly saw upon the borders of Mordor in Tolkein’s beloved fantasy, the way with great tales is that someone reading years hence “may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don't know.” And when it comes right down to it, it would be wrong to want them to know. And so we find ourselves in a tale, a true one. And what they say about us years and years from now nobody knows. But if it’s a tale worth telling, we may be assured the adventure wasn’t one we sought out because “life was a bit dull” but because our path was “laid that way.” There will be many opportunities for tucking tail and turning back, so let us firmly determine to do what we believe is right at every turn, though we be uncertain of the outcome or of our place in it, and though we face discouragement and even despair.
We wish you well, Mr. President, though we will certainly disagree with you and oppose some of your policies even from day one. But we join in the celebration of the civic tradition of America that has brought us here and will, with God’s help, continue to bless our people for generations to come. We will be watching, Mr. Obama; may you serve America well.
