When reading a friend's simple Facebook status, I was inspired to ponder and write this long blog article.
In addition to a remarkable eloquence that draws you in with a sense of compelling non-elitism, President Obama's ability to combine idealistic values with a pragmatic emphasis is perhaps unmatched in the current political class. This second characteristic is significant, not least because frustrating tensions between idealism and pragmatism are nothing new. And such tensions have oft-frequently weighed down on past presidents, advocates/activists, and many others among both those seeking change and those seeking to perpetuate the status quo.
In the 1950's, Eisenhower as president sounded the horn on the increasing convergence of national security and economic interests in what he termed the "Military/Industrial Complex." Yet Eisenhower, in his experience as a general in WWII and later on as the second Cold War-based U.S. Commander-in-Chief,
must have realized the significance and implications that U.S.-Soviet competition for world influence would present to him, his Soviet counterparts, and each other's respective allies. From the very beginning of these newly-erupting tensions, these implications included armed conflict, and just as important: espionage, counter-intelligence, and covert ops. The CIA's and British Intelligence's involvement in the overthrow of an unfavored yet democratically-elected Mossadegh was just as significant in Iran and the Middle East as the place the Korean War held for the Korean Peninsula and Far East Asia during the same time period. It can be argued that both of these events have legacies that have shaped the contours and substance of their immediate targets lasting well into the present day. These two cases have similar objectives in common. Besides the stated fear of culturally losing Iran to the Eastern Bloc, there was also the very real anger at Mossadegh Government's move to nationalize the British-dominated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in a proclaimed act of economic and political self-determination. Meanwhile, the Korean War was the first test venue of flying jets and using them in aerial combats. And they were both, to varying degrees, proxy engagements between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Yet, these two cases have end up very differently: South Korea (the ally to be protected from an invading North) has generally prospered, with the exception of North Korea; while Iran has partly found, and partly contributed to, itself moving along a course where it remains internationally shunned. Neither the U.S. nor its principal Cold War allies are solely responsible for these outcomes; they have however played pivotal roles. Nor have the two cases been only the cases emerging from the pages of Cold War, but they are among the first to perhaps play out contradictions in a difficult and testing modern time period.
Jimmy Carter's presidency was seen as a breath of fresh air in the wake of Nixon's Watergate disaster and amid revelations of Nixon's paranoia-induced massive wiretapping and surveillance. [President Gerald Ford's efforts towards healing the nation and his public demeanor and stature as Washington outsider of sorts was certainly admirable to the public mood of the time, but that wasn't enough to salvage his position especially given Ford's decision to pardon his ex-President.] Furthermore, Carter's public electoral campaign and presidential emphasis on humanitarian values was so pronounced that his term has been noted as the "human rights presidency." Above all, the cornerstone of the shine of his presidency lay in success at helping to broker the first-ever peace process for the Middle East (Camp David Accords/Egypt-Israel Treaty). Despite these high points, Carter's single term ended with disaster abroad (i.e. the Iranian Hostage Crisis) and continuing debilitating inflation at home [the argued culprit here was especially the charge that he hadn't moved fast enough to deregulate the economy]. Former President Carter has been for expanding humanitarian work since his departure from national political office; and, though not without controversy (some of it needlessly hyped), he has seemingly managed to continue to set the bar high among members of subsequent political classes after him running into the present.
In the early 1990s President early Bill Clinton's and First Wife Hillary Clinton's efforts at health care--among other intiatives--re-energized the country with new found hope in social/economic issues in a way that is perhaps up until then unparalleled since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program. Yet Clinton was bogged down and frustrated by many elements, most notably a hostile Republican-controlled Congress. [Remember Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms?]. Further compounding his frustration lay in media seemingly more interested in his Oval Office intimacy than engaging him in his actual policy direction. While Reagan was known as the Great Communicator and Bush I as the man who saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (and by extension, the rest of Arabian Peninsula & the Arab World) from Saddam, Clinton was perhaps known as a Great Negotiator or Great Bridger (or, according to some displeased Liberals, the Great Compromiser) of sorts. He's the president who brought Don't Ask/Don't as a middle-road compromise between Liberals and Conservatives (even to the chagrin of a moderate Conservative in the military, future Sectary of State Colin Powell, who reportedly resigned from his then-Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff position in protest). Clinton's also the president who---recognizing the opportunities of interconnectivity and growth brought about by the incoming new wave of Globalization to sweep the world, once the Soviet Union became fully relegated to the annals of history---championed the international trade agreement mechanisms (NAFTA), embraced the WTO (which had been transformed from GATT), and did much to deregulate the financial industry to the concern of culturally and politically liberal allies.
Despite all of this apparent across-the-aisle outreach, he was still deeply challenged (especially domestically) by his Conservative detractors, and the well-known impeachment and media frenzy ensued.
I honestly don't know what to make of the much-disastrous eight years of the previous Bush II Administration in terms of analyzing the idealism-pragmatism tug of war. Maybe I am hesitant to do so because perhaps my understandings of idealism and pragmatism, and especially of idealism, are so drastically dissimilar to many Neoconservative views. Maybe it is also because I am confused by the stark gulf of contrasts between Neoconservative publicly uttered idealism and the realism of conditions (especially political, economic, and diplomatic) on the ground that the held idealism was supposed to smooth over.
Even Obama, despite his impressive command of words and his profound intelligence and grasp of political/socio-economic environments---and in spite of repeated efforts to reach across the aisle---has been frustrated time and time again by lack of cooperation (to put it mildly and diplomatically) from not only across the aisle but also from some leading members of his own party. Added to this is a new strange phenomenon he has been facing of anti-this and anti-that which has snagged many segments of American society---from Muslim/Arab Americans to Latino immigrants to health care expansion to the GLBT community---in a vicious dragnet and forced-out steam of hype, phobia, anger, hyperbole. And of course, the continuing serious problems in stabilizing and rebuilding the mess that has been characterizing post-9/11 Afghanistan, the still-somewhat-uncertainty of Iraq, the draining stalemate (to put it mildly) over Israel/Palestine, as well as continuing civil rights concerns (such as FBI approaches with Muslim/Arab Americans) and delay of fulfilling some campaign promises (such as taking the last steps/phases of closing down Gitmo) are way too much on a single person's plate. The resurgence of the Republican party (now reinvigorated by Tea Partiers) in last November's elections not only accentuates the importance of opportunities missed by Democrats, but also should highlight disturbing concerns and reservations about what turbulence may come---even among moderate and establishment Republicans who care to ponder. Opportunities were missed due to many, perhaps intertwining, reasons: lack of sufficient resolve among some crucial segments of the Democratic leadership; continual discord directed by many Republicans; and unchallenged hype/distortion created by some of their quarters; sluggish improvements in inherited economic and other conditions which possibly denied longer-term perspectives over proposed initiatives, among others.
What we see in all these examples is the great energy (but also great obstruction) in the idealism-pragmatism tug of war. What we also see is the inevitability of that tug of war, whose dynamics can molded into a working platform or be deliberately exacerbated by short-term or foolish selfishness of action. It is very hard (and politically suicidal, many in the Washington Beltway might conventionally add) to rise above the entrenched unwisdom of conventional systems of interactions and policy-making, not least because such dynamics and modes help to shape and solidify the rules of the game of setting the agenda, defining the issues, even creating the standards/criteria of analysis and evaluation---no matter who initiated unwisdom and lack of foresight. Which makes the need to avoid---or at least, minimize---the pushes and and pulls between (considerations regarding the "right thing to do" and "what could be presented and accepted as workable") all the more pronounced. Well-justified euphoria can be ripped apart by even the slightest doubt in the face of relatively-less-volatile circumstances, or by enormous sincere and heartfelt momentum that is generated only to not fully materialize in word and deed.
In less than two years, President Obama has proven to be the "man of the hour" and the "man of the moment" for his electrifying energy, his passionate courage, his sober conviction. But as hopeful as I have been swept to be, the euphoria could be temporary band-aid as much as it can be the signal of a new light to be lit. Of course, things could've been much worse; yet there is as much as, if not more, potential still unrealized. The complicated interactions, plights, drama, and dynamics of the problems, challenges, and the good luck and the misfortunes, etc are cannot be simplified to a specific game-winning shot in a sports video. Neither do real-life "shots" boil down to a relatively straightforward game-plan and counter-plan. Nor can the real-life "spectator crowd" simply settle for a few plays during game. I understand that things take time, dedicated effort, patience and perseverance. And wisdom at some point is bound to be acquired. But they also take constant pressuring and being receptive to pressure, mixed with a delicate balancing act between compromising on a given stance and insistence on a stance. All the while realizing that the wrong compromise can set one back years or undo a lot of what good has been done, just as much as the wrong insistence can block one for years from moving forward. Big and bolder constructive steps need to be taken, and bigger and bolder constructive support needs to be given.
