Missing, the bully pulpit
The subject of President Obama’s most recent address was immigration. The Times in an editorial about this speech had two things to say, two things that I might have said myself, and almost with the same words. Although I don’t always agree with the Times editorial positions in this case I did.
Two things, one, that the President’s speech “had the eloquence and clarity we have come to expect when he engages a wrenching national debate.” I agree, it did have that. Obama touched reasonably and accurately all the bases, neglecting neither the conservative nor liberal positions in the debate over immigration.
It’s true that we’ve come to expect great speeches from the President, perfect renderings of the subject at hand, —whether it be racism, moderate Islam, economic collapse, or any number of other critical national and world-wide issues —where nothing of note is overlooked.
Yet as the Times points out, and number two, my second point of agreement with the editorial writer:
“Mr. Obama’s call to action applies not just to Congress but to himself as well. He neatly defined the obstacles to a comprehensive bill….But Mr. Obama has presidential powers, and he should use them.”
That he should! Use the real power he has, not just to persuade us by his reasonableness, but to lead us by his action. Get up and out there and lead from the bully pulpit. Great speeches are just not enough. As for the speeches he might have remained in Chicago. He is in Washington where we expect more from him.
While speaking, because he has to go on speaking, he should be much more in contact with the particular problem he is addressing. In regard to the oil spill in the Gulf is he aware that the Coast Guard, the Feds, the locals, the staties, all the many others involved in the clean-up are not coordinating their efforts, with the result that much time and money is being wasted? If he is aware why isn’t he the coordinator?
In Afghanistan the principal problem, as in Vietnam before, is that we haven’t won over the people to our point of view of what’s best for them. For the most part they don’t even want us to be there.
Why isn’t the President confronting this problem head on? Either convincing us that we should stay, or getting us out and bringing to an end what seems more and more like a terrible sacrifice of blood and treasure in a cause no one believes in. Not an impossible task, but he evidently sees it that way and therefore avoids facing up to it.
And in regard to immigration debate before us why isn’t he out front, stressing the great importance, say, of getting behind potential entrepreneurs, many of whom have come here as students and have not remained because we have not made it easy for them to do so. He must know that these entrepreneurs have the power to grow the nation’s economy and thereby create jobs for the now millions of jobless.
And why isn’t he doing more for the children of illegal immigrants, those who have lived most of their lives in this country but who are not citizens? We need these children as much as they need us. Why does the President allow them to be threatened with deportation? Why doesn’t he become their spokesperson as they are in no small degree the future of the country?
And there is so much more he could be doing, that would promise more for the country’s future than building walls along the border and putting, as he says and repeats in his speech, more “boots on the border.”
How does he reconcile these “boots on the border or on the ground” with the words of Emma Lazarus that he cites in the conclusion of his talk, “Give me your tired, and your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to be free?”
It is no longer enough, if it ever were except as a university lecturer, or perhaps while campaigning for office, merely to display one’s full understanding of the issue.
The President ought to drop the mask of evenness, of reasonableness, of acceptance of all points of view, get “narrow,” get fiery and angry, and yes speak out but from a bully pulpit, and in doing so lead the people and the country to needed action, dragging us along if necessary, in order to get behind real changes that will insure our country’s future. Isn’t that the principal role of the President?
