And a rebuttal and all that. But there’s no need to talk about that right this second, really.
Still, I am starting to feel a little more ready to poke my nose back into a little more regular political reflection, at least openly through the blog. I’ve had a couple of posts back in January but most everything since then has been on the level of general comments over at Balloon Juice and a couple of other spots, or private conversations. That’s all I felt I had to contribute at the time, really — a further stepping away from the obsessive tracking and all that, partially so I could concentrate on work, partially because I felt I just needed a little space in my head on the subject.
I’m pretty sure I muttered something about this before, but if not — I think part of the reason why I was so pleased with the election in November was the sense that while there will always be surprises and potential mistakes, I got the sense that Obama was deliberative rather than impulsive, an important thing. It’s not that impulse is always bad, nor deliberateness always good — still, I’d rather have someone deliberative in the role of president, whether as tone-setter or as decision-maker.
It is of course important to note that so much of what we ‘see’ in the role of the person in the presidency is a very mere perception, shaped in a mass media setting (and Twitter and YouTube and all that ARE mass media, they just aren’t always given the term that is deserved). For me to claim that Obama is deliberate is false; rather, my sense is that he is, a combination of distanced observation and recognition of a cultivated image. In combination with a variety of stances and beliefs that resonated with me far beyond anything McCain and crew could offer, little surprise that I was content enough with his victory. The proof would ultimately be in the pudding.
And so far? Well there’s all sorts of metaphors and comparisons being offered out there, positive and negative and whatever, but personally I think just all boils down to this for me — he still seems incredibly deliberate after a month in the job, and he plays for a very long game. This thrills some, frightens others (the paranoid of course assume he’s out to destroy the country, but the paranoid always assume someone’s out to destroy the country, and I’m tired of their willful disconnection — not so much from reality as from hope, since they run solely on fear).
What playing for the long game means for me is this, though — thinking about overall goals, testing out ideas, refining processes, acknowledging mistakes, getting called out by both friends and enemies as a way to see those mistakes and to fix them, sometimes getting overtaken by events, sometimes being totally able to dictate them. Furthermore, it’s one thing to play a long game just to win for oneself — it’s another play to win to benefit all, even if one doesn’t reap the full benefits.
Now, some people, I’ve noticed, take the measure of these kind of comments and assume that somehow this means a certain worshipful faith in Obama, like he is an instant solution just by existing. Nonsense, of course — I can’t speak for others, but I’m not into kowtowing. I just want the dude to do the job he was elected to do, and to speak about it frankly and clearly. Generalities are fine enough in certain contexts, specifics will be needed at other points, and realizing that of course it’s not just him but all those who work for him, I expect those people to provide those specifics too.
And so the speech and the rebuttal? A deliberate president faced off against a dullard governor. Is it any wonder that right now — allowing for the fact that perfection is impossible — I’m pretty content?
Roll on, whatever is next. Not ‘bring it on’ — roll on. It will be dealt with deliberately, and we’ll be the better for it.