Originally Posted by yarmonymatoid
Durango, since you're one of the most experienced observers of politics on the Buzz, do you acknoledge that we have elected the most inexperienced President in history? Speaking of executive experience specifically.
Well, wouldn't one have to say that Washington was the most inexperienced President ?
Jack Kennedy might be similar (and I'm not one who thinks JFK was a great President). There have been others. But there doesn't seem to be much correlation between experience and effectiveness.
Traditionally, Governors make more effective Presidents (more two-termers were governors than anything else). Bush 2 was a governor, and the consensus is he was a pretty shitty president, whether you agree or disagree with consensuses...
I define the presidency as a job of executive management. You implement very little, but you strategize very much, and attempt to convert energy into momentum in pursuit of a strategy. Anyone can think of a strategy, and some pretty uneducated people have conquered the world (figuratively speaking) by having a good strategy.
I like Obama's education and temperament for creating an effective strategy and converting it to momentum toward goals that will make my nation a more prosperous place for its citezens. I could be wrong; it's happened before.
One of the things I tire of, though, is people saying Bush is dumb. He's really not dumb, and his ineloquence reveals nothing about his intelligence. I'm a decent enough writer, but I'm nowhere near as good speaking as I am writing (unless I train for a speech or such).
Bush's problem hasn't been a lack of intelligence, it has been intransigence. He has not been adept at recognizing when the momentum of his strategies was lost or moving negatively. His entire administration had a bunker-like mentality that saw admission of error as weakness - and that's what frustrates so many of us.
His is a presidency of many missed opportunities to do things effectively the first, and sadly, the second times.
In that sense, I believe Obama will be far more capable of switching strategies if one is proving itself ineffective.
The other thing I ponder with the wisdom of my now 40 years (ick) is what the world may look like in 20 or 40 more years after the decisions made in the last 5.
Among the possibilities that are probable enough that they ought to merit our consideration, I concede that there are a lot of negative probable outcomes of Bush policy in the mideast.
But I don't think a smart person would throw out the notion that what Bush has done in Iraq could prove to be transformational in a positive way. Iraq could prove to be a constructive model of a Muslim democracy in the same vein as Turkey.
I'm not saying that WILL happen; I don't know. But I know enough to say that stranger things have happened. And I don't see anything wrong with trying to be optimistic in this effed up world, either.