Tweet
Los Angeles Times, CA
March 22 2009
Obama's promises, then and now
Is the president backsliding on his pledges, or is he just doing what
all president must, balancing politics and principle?
March 22, 2009
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama was very clear. The Armenian
genocide was not an "allegation" or a "personal opinion" or a "point
of view." It was, he said, a widely documented fact. He promised that
if he were elected, he would issue an official presidential
declaration that the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman
Turks constituted nothing less than genocide.
But President Obama isn't so sure. As he prepares for a visit to
Turkey next month, his aides have let it be known that the president
might have to defer the promised declaration, which Armenian Americans
had expected in time for the annual day of remembrance on April
24. The Obama administration has been eagerly soliciting the help of
the Turkish government on Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, and now,
according to the man who once promised to "speak truthfully about the
Armenian genocide," is not the moment to rub the Turks the wrong way.
What is one to make of that? Is Obama a hypocrite? A liar? Another
cynical over-promiser who will say whatever it takes to get elected
only to reverse himself after the votes are counted?
We think that's too strong. Every incoming president finds his goals
tempered by unforeseen political realities, his beliefs shaded by new
facts learned behind closed doors, his promises winnowed by the amount
of political capital required to carry them out -- as well as by the
fear of failure or misstep. In the real world, turning hope into
change is a big, difficult project. As Mario Cuomo once said: "You
campaign in poetry. You govern in prose."
To give him his due, Obama has already made good on certain key
promises. He's declared an end to coercive interrogations. He's lifted
the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He's
opened more government documents to public view. He's reiterated his
determination to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and end
the war in Iraq, although not as quickly as some had hoped.
Other promises, however, have fared less well. On the Armenian
genocide, for instance, principle crashed head-on into
realpolitik. It's undeniable that the U.S. needs Turkey's help and
goodwill; Turkey is the only Muslim country in NATO and a reliable
strategic partner in a dangerous, combustible region. Of course Obama
is being counseled not to antagonize the Turks; that's what his
predecessor was advised as well.
But as we've said before when other politicians have caved to Turkish
pressure, denying reality is not the solution. It's long past time for
a genocide declaration, and Obama should get to it quickly. If it
doesn't get done before April 24, it should be done soon after.
Another issue on which Obama seems to be backsliding involves the
"state secrets" privilege, the legal doctrine the Bush administration
overused and misapplied to have embarrassing cases thrown out of court
on grounds of national security. Before the election, Obama criticized
President Bush's repeated use of the privilege, but in a federal
courthouse in February, when offered the opportunity to change
positions and not invoke it in a case charging government torture, the
Obama administration demurred.
We understand that being president carries great responsibility, and
that when the director of Central Intelligence marches into the Oval
Office with a file full of top-secret information and tells you that
its disclosure could gravely damage the country, it's not so easy to
say no. But Obama must not renege on his promises to increase
transparency and to stop using the state secrets privilege to deny
critics their day in court.
Then there's the issue of signing statements. Those are the legal
documents that presidents sometimes append as they sign a bill to
express their disagreements with it or to call for it to be
implemented in a particular way. (Bush, for instance, issued a signing
statement in an effort to undermine a congressional ban on torture.)
As a candidate, Obama criticized Bush's overuse of such statements,
and once in office, on March 9, he ordered his administration to
reconsider each of the hundreds of Bush signing statements before
assuming them to be valid. Just two days later, he issued a signing
statement of his own in approving the $410-billion omnibus spending
bill. To critics, that called his intentions into question.
It was not actually a reversal. Obama had never promised to do away
with signing statements entirely, but merely said he would use them in
a more cautious and restrained manner. Still, our view is that signing
statements are almost always bad; if a president objects to a bill
presented to him, or believes parts of it are unconstitutional, he
should veto it. We're waiting to see what Obama does in the months
ahead.
Obama also has been accused of reversing himself on the subject of
detainees. While campaigning, he left many voters with the impression
that he disagreed with the Bush administration's position that enemy
combatants could be held indefinitely without trial. Yet this month,
the administration announced that although it would no longer use the
Bush-era phrase "enemy combatants," it still had a broad right to
detain those who officials believe have engaged in "substantial
support" of terrorism. Human rights groups were displeased.
Was it a flip-flop? Not exactly, though it certainly seems counter to
the spirit of Obama's pledges. For the detainees, the change will be
symbolic rather than substantive. But even in that semantic dispute,
there is evidence of progress. Obama's new approach has changed the
legal rationale underpinning the detentions: He bases them on the
authority given by Congress when it authorized the use of military
force after 9/11, rather than on Bush's expansive view of presidential
power under the Constitution. That's a relief, for what it's worth.
We admire President Obama. We endorsed him. We're glad he's undoing
some of the worst excesses of the Bush era. And given the problems
facing the country at the moment, we recognize that he may not be able
to accomplish everything he once promised.
But like all presidents, he will have to pick his battles. He must
learn when to be flexible and when to hold firm on principle. His
success will depend on how he makes those judgments, acknowledging
politics but adhering to values.
March 22 2009
Obama's promises, then and now
Is the president backsliding on his pledges, or is he just doing what
all president must, balancing politics and principle?
March 22, 2009
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama was very clear. The Armenian
genocide was not an "allegation" or a "personal opinion" or a "point
of view." It was, he said, a widely documented fact. He promised that
if he were elected, he would issue an official presidential
declaration that the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman
Turks constituted nothing less than genocide.
But President Obama isn't so sure. As he prepares for a visit to
Turkey next month, his aides have let it be known that the president
might have to defer the promised declaration, which Armenian Americans
had expected in time for the annual day of remembrance on April
24. The Obama administration has been eagerly soliciting the help of
the Turkish government on Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, and now,
according to the man who once promised to "speak truthfully about the
Armenian genocide," is not the moment to rub the Turks the wrong way.
What is one to make of that? Is Obama a hypocrite? A liar? Another
cynical over-promiser who will say whatever it takes to get elected
only to reverse himself after the votes are counted?
We think that's too strong. Every incoming president finds his goals
tempered by unforeseen political realities, his beliefs shaded by new
facts learned behind closed doors, his promises winnowed by the amount
of political capital required to carry them out -- as well as by the
fear of failure or misstep. In the real world, turning hope into
change is a big, difficult project. As Mario Cuomo once said: "You
campaign in poetry. You govern in prose."
To give him his due, Obama has already made good on certain key
promises. He's declared an end to coercive interrogations. He's lifted
the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He's
opened more government documents to public view. He's reiterated his
determination to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and end
the war in Iraq, although not as quickly as some had hoped.
Other promises, however, have fared less well. On the Armenian
genocide, for instance, principle crashed head-on into
realpolitik. It's undeniable that the U.S. needs Turkey's help and
goodwill; Turkey is the only Muslim country in NATO and a reliable
strategic partner in a dangerous, combustible region. Of course Obama
is being counseled not to antagonize the Turks; that's what his
predecessor was advised as well.
But as we've said before when other politicians have caved to Turkish
pressure, denying reality is not the solution. It's long past time for
a genocide declaration, and Obama should get to it quickly. If it
doesn't get done before April 24, it should be done soon after.
Another issue on which Obama seems to be backsliding involves the
"state secrets" privilege, the legal doctrine the Bush administration
overused and misapplied to have embarrassing cases thrown out of court
on grounds of national security. Before the election, Obama criticized
President Bush's repeated use of the privilege, but in a federal
courthouse in February, when offered the opportunity to change
positions and not invoke it in a case charging government torture, the
Obama administration demurred.
We understand that being president carries great responsibility, and
that when the director of Central Intelligence marches into the Oval
Office with a file full of top-secret information and tells you that
its disclosure could gravely damage the country, it's not so easy to
say no. But Obama must not renege on his promises to increase
transparency and to stop using the state secrets privilege to deny
critics their day in court.
Then there's the issue of signing statements. Those are the legal
documents that presidents sometimes append as they sign a bill to
express their disagreements with it or to call for it to be
implemented in a particular way. (Bush, for instance, issued a signing
statement in an effort to undermine a congressional ban on torture.)
As a candidate, Obama criticized Bush's overuse of such statements,
and once in office, on March 9, he ordered his administration to
reconsider each of the hundreds of Bush signing statements before
assuming them to be valid. Just two days later, he issued a signing
statement of his own in approving the $410-billion omnibus spending
bill. To critics, that called his intentions into question.
It was not actually a reversal. Obama had never promised to do away
with signing statements entirely, but merely said he would use them in
a more cautious and restrained manner. Still, our view is that signing
statements are almost always bad; if a president objects to a bill
presented to him, or believes parts of it are unconstitutional, he
should veto it. We're waiting to see what Obama does in the months
ahead.
Obama also has been accused of reversing himself on the subject of
detainees. While campaigning, he left many voters with the impression
that he disagreed with the Bush administration's position that enemy
combatants could be held indefinitely without trial. Yet this month,
the administration announced that although it would no longer use the
Bush-era phrase "enemy combatants," it still had a broad right to
detain those who officials believe have engaged in "substantial
support" of terrorism. Human rights groups were displeased.
Was it a flip-flop? Not exactly, though it certainly seems counter to
the spirit of Obama's pledges. For the detainees, the change will be
symbolic rather than substantive. But even in that semantic dispute,
there is evidence of progress. Obama's new approach has changed the
legal rationale underpinning the detentions: He bases them on the
authority given by Congress when it authorized the use of military
force after 9/11, rather than on Bush's expansive view of presidential
power under the Constitution. That's a relief, for what it's worth.
We admire President Obama. We endorsed him. We're glad he's undoing
some of the worst excesses of the Bush era. And given the problems
facing the country at the moment, we recognize that he may not be able
to accomplish everything he once promised.
But like all presidents, he will have to pick his battles. He must
learn when to be flexible and when to hold firm on principle. His
success will depend on how he makes those judgments, acknowledging
politics but adhering to values.