A LINCOLN, NOT A FORD

Dear Readers,

Needless to say, it's been a rough few months for Barack Obama. In a nation obsessed with apps and American Idols, change must happen with the speed of thought, and with so many bottomless problems to deal with, it seems that people are quite willing to sacrifice sense on the altar of swiftness.

Ironically, it's the speed of the progress of the health care bill that seems to have bothered the nation the most. While the President seems to dither on W's war in Afghanistan, he gets slammed for the slowness of action in that problem, and at the same time gets pilloried for pushing too hard and too fast in the massive reform of our medical system. No matter how confident an incoming President may be, the truth is, you just can't win.

Most newly-elected Chief Executives - with the possible exception of FDR - have had rough first years. Even John F. Kennedy, with far less immediate crises to deal with, was viewed by some as not up to the job because of the Bay Of Pigs disaster and his less-than-successful first meeting with the USSR leadership. But JFK didn't have a legion of radio and TV Brownshirts publicly 'hoping he would fail' and even doubting his claim to be a natural-born US citizen. Critics back then grumbled but they didn't attempt to overthrow the new government.

A more apt comparison to Obama's rookie season could be made with the first year of Abraham Lincoln's presidency (not surprisingly, our president's favorite role-model), one in which the nation went to war with itself and Abe had to watch as his poorly-led army suffered defeat after defeat on the battlefield. Lincoln also had to put up with savage attacks on his motives, his character and even how he looked. He was often compared to a simian and some of his less-clever critics referred to him as 'Ape' Lincoln (...c'mon, Rush, I dare you...). But our 16th President kept his cool and instead of pandering to the mob literally baying for his blood, he remained himself, confident (outwardly, at least) that he would eventually find the solutions.

Obama has not only had to hear it from all the media chicken-hawks on how to conduct policy as regards to Afghanistan - but he's also had to stand some fairly inappropriate public comments from his Generals running the hopeless conflict. A lesser man would have ordered wholesale firings, but I think his commitment to rationalism remains firm. While it looks like feckless inaction to some, it looks like thoughtful resolve to me. Lincoln, in the early days of the Civil War bemoaned his lack of a winning General, one who would confront the enemy and fight instead of holding back for fear of losing. Today, it's the Generals who bemoan the lack of a decisive president who won't give them 500,000 more troops to waste in a lost cause. The last president who gave the generals all that they wanted was Lyndon B. Johnson (whom I seem to remember had a fantastic first year in office). So clearly, history, with all it's parallels, is not always the best example to gauge the present by. Last November, we voted for change, and we got it. We replaced a quick-acting, slow-thinking (often no-thinking) President with an intelligent, analytical and deliberate one. Isn't that change enough?