The Next President Will Disappoint

D

deleted15807

Guest
Time for a reality check..............

The next president will disappoint you

Forget the promises; there's only so much a president can achieve.

By Andrew J. Bacevich

August 24, 2008

On inauguration day, a new U.S. president is a demigod, the embodiment of aspirations as vast as they are varied. Over the course of the years that follow, the president inevitably fails to fulfill those lofty hopes. So the cycle begins anew, and Americans look to the next occupant of the Oval Office to undo his predecessor's mistakes and usher in an era of lasting peace and sustained prosperity.

This time around, expectations are, if anything, loftier than usual. The youthful and charismatic Sen. Barack Obama casts himself as the standard-bearer of those keenest to fix Washington, redeem America and save the world. "Yes, we can," Obama's anthem proclaims, inviting supporters to complete the thought by inserting their own fondest desire. Yes, we can: bring peace to the Middle East; reverse global warming; win the global war on terrorism.

Yet Sen. John McCain's campaign has been hardly shy about fostering grandiose expectations. Speaking earlier this month, while most Americans were fretting about the cost of oil, McCain uncorked one of his patented straight-talking promises: "I'm going to lead our nation to energy independence." As far as McCain would have us believe, you can take that to the bank.

Will the next president actually bring about Big Change? Don't get your hopes up.

Regardless of who wins Nov. 4, we should temper our expectations of what George W. Bush's successor will accomplish, especially on foreign policy.

In reality, presidents don't make policy; administrations do. To judge by the cadre of advisors they've recruited, neither candidate holds much affinity for outside-the-box thinkers. Obama's "national security working group," for example, consists chiefly of Democratic war horses, including former secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher and former national security advisor Anthony Lake -- a group that is not young, not charismatic and not known for innovative thinking.

McCain's national security team features a strong neoconservative presence, including pundits such as Max Boot and Robert Kagan, along with hawkish Washington insiders such as Randy Scheunemann and James Woolsey. All figured prominently among advocates of invading Iraq; none has yet to repent. Agents of change? Not likely, unless having a go at Iran qualifies as creative thinking.

The very structure of American politics imposes its own constraints. For all the clout that presidents have accrued since World War II, their prerogatives remain limited. A President McCain will almost certainly face a Congress controlled by a Democratic and therefore obstreperous majority. A President Obama, even if his own party runs the Senate and House, won't enjoy all that much more latitude, especially when it comes to three areas in which the dead hand of the past weighs most heavily: defense policy, energy policy and the Arab-Israeli peace process. The military-industrial complex will inhibit efforts to curb the Pentagon's penchant for waste. Detroit and Big Oil will conspire to prolong the age of gas guzzling. And the Israel lobby will oppose attempts to chart a new course in the Middle East. If the past provides any indication, advocates of the status quo will mount a tenacious defense.

Then there is the growing gap between American power and the demands of exercising global leadership.

The limits of American power are most obviously apparent in the realm of military affairs. For McCain, Iraq remains the central front in the war on terrorism, and he'll stay as long as it takes to win. Obama's central front is Afghanistan, and he wants to bolster the U.S. commitment there. Their disagreement masks a more fundamental problem: The next commander in chief will inherit an intractable troop shortage. The United States today finds itself with too much war and too few warriors. That alone will constrain a president conducting two ongoing conflicts.

A looming crisis of debt and dependency will similarly tie the president's hands. Bluntly, the United States has for too long lived beyond its means. With Americans importing more than 60% of the oil they consume, the negative trade balance now about $800 billion annually, the federal deficit at record levels and the national debt approaching $10 trillion, the United States faces an urgent requirement to curb its profligate tendencies. Spending less (and saving more) implies settling for less. Yet among the campaign themes promoted by McCain and Obama alike, calls for national belt-tightening are muted.

Above all, there is this: The rest of the world doesn't take its marching orders from Washington and won't, no matter who happens to be president next year. Governments will respond to American advice, threats or blandishments precisely to the extent that doing so serves their interests, and no further. This alone sharply restricts what Bush's successor will be able to accomplish, whether dealing with allies such as Israel and Pakistan or with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

Will the tone and tenor of American diplomacy under either a President Obama or a President McCain differ from what we have seen over the last seven years? Yes, and probably in ways that most nations -- and many Americans -- will welcome. But no matter how much charisma or straight talk emanates from the White House, the world will remain stubbornly intractable.

In matters of substance, Big Change will remain elusive. The next president will leave his own imprint on U.S. policy. It just won't be nearly as distinctive or dramatic as the most enthusiastic Obama and McCain supporters have talked themselves into expecting.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Dont all presidents disappoint? No man can deliver Utopia. Maybe you should have tried a woman...

No human can deliever Utophia. It doesn't exist on this planet.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
Folks, let's be positive here.

Instead of obsessing about what our next POTUS cannot accomplish, let's rejoice in the knowledge that he will not possibly be able to un-accomplish as much as our current one.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Obama did his best to un-accomplish the war and pulled the troops out. Now, the people who wanted ground troops in the Middle East 11 years ago are doing it again today.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Good OP. Every President disappoints. Haven't seen a politician yet that lives up to the promises they make.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Obama did his best to un-accomplish the war and pulled the troops out. Now, the people who wanted ground troops in the Middle East 11 years ago are doing it again today.

They sure do. It's as if their spectacular failure has had no bearing whatsoever on their ability to still have influence. In private industry they would have been given more time 'to spend with the family' and never to be seen or heard again. But in the public sphere why they're born again. I blame the corrupt 'liberal media' for never ever calling them the liars and crooks they are.
 

tiggerpoo

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Posts
1,431
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
193
Location
Columbia, Missouri, US
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, President Obama hasn't disappointed me. On the contrary, I think he's great.
Sure he hasn't achieved all he said he would, but he was aiming very high.
Nothing wrong in having a dream. Actually we're supposed to have a dream.
But they don't always come true.
I give him and First Lady Michelle an A+
Yours

Tigger
 

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:What Reality Check!? You're posting something that was published six years ago! Please don't treat this as prophecy..Besides, Politics and politicians "Create Realities" depending on various variables depending on the situations and circumstances at any particular time and place! It's Politics as usual. ..Except this time, The President happened to be Black:wink:
Time for a reality check..............

The next president will disappoint you

Forget the promises; there's only so much a president can achieve.

By Andrew J. Bacevich

August 24, 2008

On inauguration day, a new U.S. president is a demigod, the embodiment of aspirations as vast as they are varied. Over the course of the years that follow, the president inevitably fails to fulfill those lofty hopes. So the cycle begins anew, and Americans look to the next occupant of the Oval Office to undo his predecessor's mistakes and usher in an era of lasting peace and sustained prosperity.

This time around, expectations are, if anything, loftier than usual. The youthful and charismatic Sen. Barack Obama casts himself as the standard-bearer of those keenest to fix Washington, redeem America and save the world. "Yes, we can," Obama's anthem proclaims, inviting supporters to complete the thought by inserting their own fondest desire. Yes, we can: bring peace to the Middle East; reverse global warming; win the global war on terrorism.

Yet Sen. John McCain's campaign has been hardly shy about fostering grandiose expectations. Speaking earlier this month, while most Americans were fretting about the cost of oil, McCain uncorked one of his patented straight-talking promises: "I'm going to lead our nation to energy independence." As far as McCain would have us believe, you can take that to the bank.

Will the next president actually bring about Big Change? Don't get your hopes up.

Regardless of who wins Nov. 4, we should temper our expectations of what George W. Bush's successor will accomplish, especially on foreign policy.

In reality, presidents don't make policy; administrations do. To judge by the cadre of advisors they've recruited, neither candidate holds much affinity for outside-the-box thinkers. Obama's "national security working group," for example, consists chiefly of Democratic war horses, including former secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher and former national security advisor Anthony Lake -- a group that is not young, not charismatic and not known for innovative thinking.

McCain's national security team features a strong neoconservative presence, including pundits such as Max Boot and Robert Kagan, along with hawkish Washington insiders such as Randy Scheunemann and James Woolsey. All figured prominently among advocates of invading Iraq; none has yet to repent. Agents of change? Not likely, unless having a go at Iran qualifies as creative thinking.

The very structure of American politics imposes its own constraints. For all the clout that presidents have accrued since World War II, their prerogatives remain limited. A President McCain will almost certainly face a Congress controlled by a Democratic and therefore obstreperous majority. A President Obama, even if his own party runs the Senate and House, won't enjoy all that much more latitude, especially when it comes to three areas in which the dead hand of the past weighs most heavily: defense policy, energy policy and the Arab-Israeli peace process. The military-industrial complex will inhibit efforts to curb the Pentagon's penchant for waste. Detroit and Big Oil will conspire to prolong the age of gas guzzling. And the Israel lobby will oppose attempts to chart a new course in the Middle East. If the past provides any indication, advocates of the status quo will mount a tenacious defense.

Then there is the growing gap between American power and the demands of exercising global leadership.

The limits of American power are most obviously apparent in the realm of military affairs. For McCain, Iraq remains the central front in the war on terrorism, and he'll stay as long as it takes to win. Obama's central front is Afghanistan, and he wants to bolster the U.S. commitment there. Their disagreement masks a more fundamental problem: The next commander in chief will inherit an intractable troop shortage. The United States today finds itself with too much war and too few warriors. That alone will constrain a president conducting two ongoing conflicts.

A looming crisis of debt and dependency will similarly tie the president's hands. Bluntly, the United States has for too long lived beyond its means. With Americans importing more than 60% of the oil they consume, the negative trade balance now about $800 billion annually, the federal deficit at record levels and the national debt approaching $10 trillion, the United States faces an urgent requirement to curb its profligate tendencies. Spending less (and saving more) implies settling for less. Yet among the campaign themes promoted by McCain and Obama alike, calls for national belt-tightening are muted.

Above all, there is this: The rest of the world doesn't take its marching orders from Washington and won't, no matter who happens to be president next year. Governments will respond to American advice, threats or blandishments precisely to the extent that doing so serves their interests, and no further. This alone sharply restricts what Bush's successor will be able to accomplish, whether dealing with allies such as Israel and Pakistan or with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

Will the tone and tenor of American diplomacy under either a President Obama or a President McCain differ from what we have seen over the last seven years? Yes, and probably in ways that most nations -- and many Americans -- will welcome. But no matter how much charisma or straight talk emanates from the White House, the world will remain stubbornly intractable.

In matters of substance, Big Change will remain elusive. The next president will leave his own imprint on U.S. policy. It just won't be nearly as distinctive or dramatic as the most enthusiastic Obama and McCain supporters have talked themselves into expecting.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
President Obama hasn't disappointed me. I told people back in 2008 that he was a mistake for us to elect, and it turns out I was right.
Even as he goes on and on about the grand job he is doing, poll after poll shows that the American people don't agree. The percentages are against him.

Thank our lucky stars that Hillary will take over in a few more years!
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
President Obama hasn't disappointed me. I told people back in 2008 that he was a mistake for us to elect, and it turns out I was right.
Even as he goes on and on about the grand job he is doing, poll after poll shows that the American people don't agree. The percentages are against him.

Thank our lucky stars that Hillary will take over in a few more years!

And Americans are stupid. How many voted for the Iraq War? Upwards of 80%? And re-elected Bush even after knowing how clueless he was. And Iraq the biggest debacle of the century that Hilary voted for and Obama was against. The war that continues to 'gift' the U.S. with its outcomes. Hillary pa-leaze!!
:eek:
 

DrewB323

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Posts
14
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
88
Location
Houston
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Obama was an aspirational and inspirational candidate for president to many people, although largely unqualified by most standards. We wanted and expected him to be a unifying leader, which is more than any other president has been able to accomplish in a very long time. In fact, I don't think he has very good leadership qualities. Under his presidency we reduced spending, and reduced our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also enacted the ACA, which will, in time, be transformational for the US healthcare system. Unfortunately, the ACA implementation had a drag on an already sluggish economy. He has advanced equal rights for Gays and Lesbians, moved to address undocumented citizens, and made education more accessible. He is certainly not apolitical, in fact, he only increased the partisan divides in our political system. In my estimation, he is neither a great president not a terrible president.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Obama was an aspirational and inspirational candidate for president to many people, although largely unqualified by most standards. We wanted and expected him to be a unifying leader, which is more than any other president has been able to accomplish in a very long time. In fact, I don't think he has very good leadership qualities. Under his presidency we reduced spending, and reduced our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also enacted the ACA, which will, in time, be transformational for the US healthcare system. Unfortunately, the ACA implementation had a drag on an already sluggish economy. He has advanced equal rights for Gays and Lesbians, moved to address undocumented citizens, and made education more accessible. He is certainly not apolitical, in fact, he only increased the partisan divides in our political system. In my estimation, he is neither a great president not a terrible president.

Well, President Obama hasn't disappointed me. On the contrary, I think he's great.
Sure he hasn't achieved all he said he would, but he was aiming very high.
Nothing wrong in having a dream. Actually we're supposed to have a dream.
But they don't always come true.
I give him and First Lady Michelle an A+
Yours

Tigger

He's turned around an economy from one of recession to recovering, albeit slower than what we'd hoped. The ACA, though far from perfect has allowed those who could not get or afford health coverage to attain it, and provided greater protections to those of us who did, he's reduced taxes on the middle class (thought no one seems to know it), and he's engineer the withdrawal from TWO wars initiated by his predecessor, even as SOME are now calling on him to start up a third, and as for his alleged divisiveness, well, that'd depend on whom you ask.

All in all not TOO shabby I think, considering the level of opposition and the documented conspiracy on the part of the GOP, to undermine his presidency.

But then, I guess one can find fault with anyone, if one tries, and I've come to the conclusion that Obama could NEVER have done a good enough job, for SOME.
 
Last edited: