In his day, Ronald Reagan was called "the teflon President" by his detractors, because they felt that criticisms never stuck to him, but somehow always slid off into oblivion. Well, we are now witnessing the birth of a new concept, that of "the SuperTeflon President", whose very existence repels all criticisms before they even come near him, and vaporizes them out of popular consciousness. It is a remarkable phenomenon.
The emergence of this new type of political coating began even before Barack Obama took office, during the transition period leading up to the inauguration. Two key slogans emblematized his campaign: Hope, and Change. He was going to bring Hope to the American people, and Change the way things are done in Washington. The voters clearly thought these were excellent ideas.
Change went by the wayside almost immediately. Virtually all of his appointees to key posts in the government and on the White House staff were Washington insiders, many of them old-timers, who seem to have little to recommend them in their new posts other than the fact of being insiders - people like Leon Panetta in charge of national security, and Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. New blood? Hardly. One might have expected some bright stars from outside Washington, people noted for their contributions in think tanks, NGOs, private charities, and other civic organizations. Talented people abound in these milieus, and many could have brought with them fresh approaches to old, intractable problems.
Hope was not long in following Change down the tube. Where President Franklin Roosevelt has gone down in history for his ebullient optimism in the time of the Great Depression ("We have nothing to fear but fear itself"), President Obama from the get-go has spoken of a deepening crisis, a looming catastrophe (if he doesn't get exactly what he wants), things will get much worse before they get better, it may take years for recovery, and on and on. Hardly messages to stir people out of their gloomy assessment of their future.
Obama was going to herald a new approach to ethics in government. (Apparently no one during the campaign questioned how a loyal and obedient member of the notorious Illinois/Chicago Democratic machine could promise something he had never experienced in his political life!) His early moves showed that this, too, was idle rhetoric, as appointee after appointee was shown to be lacking: this one being investigated for corruption (and withdrawing), several not having paid their taxes (some withdrawing, one - the Secretary of the Treasury, who administers the IRS, and who made a "little mistake" in not filing for several years - actually being confirmed). What about an Assistant Secretary of Defense who was a Raytheon lobbyist - how does that jibe with his pledge to eliminate lobbyists from his administration? And what of Obama's initial condemnation of the selection of his successor as senator from Illinois, then his expression of supporting, and now his embarrassment at finding that the candidate he supported turns out to have perjured himself before the Illinois Senate! So much for ethics.
Then there was his promise to completely reform this country's approach to foreign affairs, and improve our international relations. Consider, as an example, his approach to Afghanistan. That was to leap to the top of the agenda for fighting terror - he would reinforce our troops there and work to defeat the Taliban. But he could not find a moment, after taking office, to pick up the phone (which he used liberally to talk to foreign leaders) to place a courtesy call to President Karzai of Afghanistan, a leader who has stood by us as a staunch ally in the face of great personal danger, and who expressed his dismay at this snub in no uncertain terms to the American special envoy, Richard Holbrook. (The supposedly incompetent George Bush never lost an opportunity to show his respect for all foreign leaders.) Did no one mention to Obama the importance of courtesy in international affairs?
And what of our most steadfast ally in the Middle East, Israel, which is also a chief source of information for U.S. Intelligence in that region? Was Obama not aware that many, if not all, of the Moslem states surrounding Israel, and radical Islamic organizations sheltered by those states, are committed to abolishing it from the map, either immediately, or in the long run by imposing harsh "peace" terms on that state?
Was it really necessary for President Obama to grant his very first TV interview not to a domestic audience, not to a foreign audience of allied or friendly countries, but to an Arabic TV station, to assure them that America would no longer be a "bully" there? What did that mean, anyway? What is the troop surge he said he would implement in Afghanistan if not "bullying?"
Was it necessary for him to add in that interview that many of his relatives are Moslems - even as he and his followers bristled at any suggestion during the campaign that he had special ties to Islam?
Best of all is his solemn promise to eliminate "pork" from the budget, and veto any appropriation bill with pork in it. That went out the window at the very first opportunity, when the Democratic majority in the House and Senate saw that they were offered a pork bonanza in the giant "stimulus" bill that they pushed through, and immediately proceeded to load it to the hilt - in fact, to the tune of about 50 percent of the total - with giant slabs of the fattest pork conceivable. No threat of a veto here!
Where are the condemnations of all this mendaciousness? Nowhere. President Obama is made of SuperTeflon, a new political material that repels criticism, catches it before it is even contemplated, and leaves him still the shining hope for a bright future.
Amazing!
Daniel Greenberg of Sudbury is a writer and educator.
