Is Obama a weak president?

There’s a debate going on here, and here, and other places no doubt, about the worth of the Obama Administration. He hasn’t accomplished much of anything – mild credit card reform, bad health care and financial reform, and of course, the continuation of

foreign policy, running the wars, state secrets, Guantanamo, DADT, civil liberty abuses, spying, killing, renditions, etc., things that really piss off progressives, no matter who’s in power.

That’s from a comment at LITW.

What instantly comes to mind is a footnote in Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States in which he said that Harry Truman’s personal notes seemed to indicate that he thought Hiroshima was a military base. That would indicate that Truman did not decide to drop the bombs. Others did, and he was the conduit for the decision. Somebody buffaloed him.

Why is that that ordinary men of limited ability and vision, like the Bush’s and Ronald Reagan, seem to be able to “accomplish” so much, while erudite men of letters, like Clinton and Obama just don’t seem to measure up, in fact, seem to be working for the other camp? The men of lesser ability make massive changes, and the men of great ability just can’t seem to get a grip on things.

I have long thought that the presidency is merely a conduit for power, and that the occupant of the office merely imparts a flavor to the culture of DC. Different people are brought into office and the power structure does shift from one wealthy sector to another, but there is very little change in policy. And the wealthy sector still rules.

The problem I have is that I cannot describe the mechanism. It is too big. It is “the oligarchy”, the thousands of wealthy people who share common interests and frame of mind. But that sounds like a conspiracy, and it is not, anymore than the fact that Britain is run by an aristocracy that only reluctantly shares some power via parliamentary government is a “conspiracy.” It is just how power plays itself out.

Obama happens to be a weak man, but if he were a strong man of principle who intended to use the power of the office to act on those principles, he would not be president. The oligarchy would not allow it. Candidates for office are vetted over a long period, and those who might not be manageable and predictable are, by various means (usually by media indifference), rejected for high office.

And again, I am left to describe how “the oligarchs” stop candidates from getting votes. They do. Most people don’t think their own thoughts, and follow the leaders. The idea of voting for a Dennis Kucinich, say, is considered laughable. Why? He’s certainly smarter than John McCain, and certainly braver than Obama. But a pall is cast on undesirable candidates, and they rarely rise to the stature of “viable” in the eyes of the electorate.

What is the mechanism? I have seen it at work. John Edwards, even though running even in the polls, was never mentioned as a “front runner.” Later, his sexual peccadilloes were exposed. Howard Dean pulled off an upset in Iowa, and the “I have a scream” hit the airwaves, eliminating Howard Dean from consideration.

I see that it works, I see how it plays out. But I do not know anything about how the upper crust, the corporate CEO’s and wealthy families exert their influence to make these things play out as they do.

Eisenhower warned us about the “military-industrial complex”, a nice turn of phrase, and another word for “oligarchy.” But it was too big, even in 1960, for him to describe in a way that would allow us to grasp its depth and breadth and power.

I only know this: If your vision of the office of president is of a man in charge, then your vision is wrong. If you think that George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, cut taxes, set up a prison in Cuba and torture people, you’re wrong. If you think that LBJ decided to invade Vietnam and kill three million of them, you’re wrong. If you think that public opinion caused the government to pull out of Vietnam, think again. If you think that Obama decided to push in Afghanistan, you’re wrong. If you think that Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, you’re wrong.

The office has power, to be sure, but the power is not exerted by the man in office. The power is exerted through the man in office. Real power lies elsewhere.