THE PRESIDENT'S LEADERSHIP.
No question about it.
The discussion about the turmoil in Wall Street and the economy in general lately, has brought out a slew of so called analysts to promulgate lengthy and almost daily advice to President Barack Obama to absorb and follow.
They would start from quoting history of fireside chats of Franklin D. Roosevelt "during the Depression and World War II" to "Rudy Giuliani on 9/11", and on and on they would go.
However, eventually, they were only driving at Obama's performance as being unacceptable in the course of the debt crisis. In fact, they were giving the impression that there was a lack of leadership in the country, and that they wanted to see the president reacting to each and every turn of events to show strong leadership.
Yet, the truth was that presidents did not show up on television every time that something went wrong and spoke about how they were handling the situation. The White House had personnel to handle most cases, and until there was a very high profile episode of a political disturbance, such as a major downturn in the economy or a war front disaster, there would be no need to call for the president's appearance in a public venue, like, mostly on television and seldom on the radio.
To go back and advise the president to act like in days past or gone by was stupid, because not all emergencies were the same, as each one must have a different approach to be handled. Reassurance to calm people's emotions could come in many forms, through news conferences and special broadcasts to let the general public know that what was happening at any particular time was being scrutinized to find a solution.
The analysts go on to say that the president needed more special advisers for consultations of all kinds. Yet, it was common knowledge that he already had such people giving him detailed advice on every subject; and the organization in the White House was in such a way that he was presented with daily classified reports for his review.
Therefore, to surround himself with the people as the analysts have mentioned in their articles would be completely superfluous, as in "too many cooks spoil the broth" analogy, when the Oval Office would have visitors going in and out on all kinds of specialties all day long.
The president's opponents have been harping on his leadership lately, as being weak; and that was what these analysts and news contributors have been picking on to make their comments or write their columns.
However, there was no question that President Obama has shown a marvelous sort of leadership during the debt talks, by calling meetings of Congressmen and women on both sides of the isle, besides his telephone calls to the leaderships in both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, for a compromise to be reached.
That could have averted the ultimate crisis, which has affected the financial markets around the world.
It was Congress that failed the nation, and in fact, the whole world, in failing to come together on raising the debt ceiling on time, and as a result causing all the commotion that came after.
So, when analysts were being critical of President Obama's leadership for the handling of the current economic debacle, they should also talk about what lawmakers did; particularly, the part the Republican Party members in the House played to drag the debt limit talks on for days on end, to permit the U.S. to lose its high credit rating for no good reason.
Under the circumstances, they were to blame for the present state of affairs, as far as the public was concerned. Very little blame has been attributed to President Obama; and if he continued to talk to the American people through his campaign for re-election, they would hear him. He would be working for those of us, who had no voice in the public arena; the poor, the old and the indigent.
It was obvious that the other side was working for the rich and the affluent; and therefore they must be exposed by the analysts, instead of pointing fingers at the leadership of the presidency.