This morning I’m reading a lot about President Obama’s “incompetency”. The gist of it is that a majority of the American people do not believe that the president “can manage the government effectively” which strikes me as terribly unfair. He was not elected to be a manager.
I disagree vehemently with Erick Erickson of RedState’s contention that the president is not incompetent but malicious. My own view is that he’s just not interested.
Chris Cilizza muses on the issue:
Obama was elected in 2008 on a stated promise that he would restore competence to government. He pitched himself as the antidote to “Heck of a job, Brownie” and the Bush years, the person who would always put the most qualified candidate in every job in his Administration. That the basic functioning of government would never be in question.
Almost six years on from that election, however, Obama is faltering badly on the competence question and, in so doing, badly imperiling not only his ability to enact any sort of second term agenda but also Democrats’ chances this fall. A series of events — from the VA scandal to the ongoing border crisis to the situation in Ukraine to the NSA spying program — have badly undermined the idea that Obama can effectively manage the government.
That illustrates the complete unfairness of our electoral system. When you run as a reformer, people have the outlandish view that you intend to reform. When you run as a technocrat, people expect you to devote attention to the mechanics of policy and of the government. When you run as a post-partisan, people expect you to be, well, post-partisan.
President Obama has done many of the things on which he ran in 2008. He has gotten us out of Iraq; he has left us in Afghanistan; he has transformed America or, at least, a sixth of it.
Most of all he is not Bush. In that he has been tremendously successful. Not that it will be of much solace to Democrats come November.