Style and Substance in Barack Obama's White House

It's hard to tell how much of a politician is style, and how much is substance. With Barrack Obama, the style has been his biggest selling point thus far. But when we look at substance, it's not as easy to make a clear decision.

If we look at the AIG scandal, the particulars are less than encouraging. There's been a fair amount of bumbling around, trying to make it look like a) the executives are entitled to those ridiculous bonuses because, under our system of law, the contract is sacred; or b) there's really nothing the government can do about it. Their hands are tied.

In the current climate, it would be a nice thing if Obama could find a way to untie those hands and do the obvious thing; the thing that everybody except those executives know is right and should be done. That is to say, either deny them the money outright, or tax it at 100%. There is no moral justification for paying anybody a bonus for playing such a key role in destroying the economy. The only people who can get pleasure from such an action are the malcontents who can't wait for capitalism to collapse upon itself.

The big problem with that scenario, of course, is that the people on the bottom of the ladder-me and you-will get hurt, while those at the top will cash in, move out, and set up renegade capitalist republics in the Cayman Islands. This would be an unacceptable result. The president is the one man in this country who could take a firm stand on this issue, and, by so doing, begin the long process of transforming our nation from one obsessed with style to one that respects and values substance.

It's not easy, there are no shortcuts, but the president's own rhetoric keeps insisting that that's what has to be done.

So why doesn't he do it?

There is a facile answer to that question, that his power is limited.

Limits on presidential power are a good thing. I'm not asking for a return to government by executive fiat, but when the answer is obvious, and the sticking points are questions of style, the man of substance must act. Franklin Roosevelt acted by executive order many times in his administration, and most reasonable people would agree that his actions to create jobs and ensure the financial stability of banks as well as individuals were good, solid moves made with the best interests of everyone in mind.

By 1929, capitalism had run amok for generations. The robber barons had found the weak spots and taken advantage of them. Roosevelt's executive orders were chiefly aimed at shoring up those weaknesses.

By 2009, the capitalists have again found a number of weak spots, aided by both the Reagan and Bush administrations. The president's job, once again, is to shore up those weaknesses. If the congress can't decide on a course of action, it falls on the president to at least propose the kind of policies that will do so.

In short, what would prove to me that Barrack Obama is a man of substance would be the return of the notorious $165 million to the vaults it came from. Either by confiscation or by some other means, the money has to come back. It's not theirs, they definitely didn't earn it, and they're hurting every honest citizen by keeping it.

If Obama could also devise some method to put those rats in jail I'd be convinced that he's the man of substance we need.

In the meantime, his performance in office has to be judged a well-meaning failure. I'd like to make a more generous assessment, but I'm still waiting for the evidence that would allow that.

So, he gets points for style. He's a smooth talker and he says sensible things; things that reveal deep, critical, analysis. But until his actions catch up to that rhetoric, he doesn't deserve points for substance.

We're waiting....

Source: Cockburn, Alexander; The Anderson Valley Advertiser