OBAMA - FROM BRITAIN, WITH SKEPTICISM

Posted at 8:10 a.m. ET

We've said here before that British journalists often provide the most interesting perspective on American politics.  Janet Daley is one of the best of the Brit writers, and she's concerned about Barack Obama.  Her worry?  That, while he speaks beautifully, he may not do much.  Here's her take, in London's Telegraph:

The question must be whether the symbolism of Obama's election as president will be matched by his substance in office. Any attempt to answer it must run on the available facts, the first and most important of which is double-edged: Mr Obama is extraordinarily articulate.

Agreed.  But...

So why do I think that there is anything dubious about Obama's gift for words? Because the miraculous effect of them cannot be a substitute for action. Make no mistake: words can accomplish lots of things in themselves, notably changing the minds of your opponents, persuading the recalcitrant to support your plan, resolving disputes between partisans. But what I sense in Obama's love for abstract concepts and diffuse rhetorical devices is not so much the use of language as a facilitator of action, but as a way of disguising lack of decision.

Others have noticed the same thing, but Daley explains it better than anyone.

At how many points do his beautifully constructed passages connect with concrete reality? His failure to define or elaborate the famous "change we can believe in" mantra has been much commented on, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt on that point – after all, political slogans are often basically meaningless – how clear were any of his substantive intentions from his campaign speeches?

In fact, his policy pronouncements since being elected have been notable for their startling lack of any abrupt shift from the Bush years.

Well, maybe we're lucky.

All of this leads some conservative commentators to conclude that at least on the two main emergencies, the Obama administration may be comfortingly familiar. Charles Krauthammer has called the phenomenon "continuity we can believe in."

But Daley's concerns are serious:

When you are confronting national emergencies on two fronts – foreign wars and domestic economic crisis – is there time to indulge in a lengthy seminar? Government is not a think tank.

Finally...

What is going to happen when a clutch of Obama advisers disagrees with another clutch? Or when the most senior of them rejects advice from the more junior? Will Mr Obama himself have the decisiveness and resolution to make a final ruling and act on it without hesitation? Or is he going to preside over a talking shop that ties his administration up in endless qualifications and subtexts, which the President will be able to present with all the subtlety and thoughtfulness of which he is capable – but which will in the end amount to fatal vacillation?

The point is well taken.  There are times when Obama reminds me of Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate for president, against Dwight Eisenhower, in the 1952 and 1956 elections.  Stevenson spoke beautifully, he was the darling of the intellectuals, but in point of fact he never said much.  No one remembers his ideas, most barely remember his name. 

We want the new president to succeed.  But Daley hits on something that has bothered the most thoughtful political observers - the fact that Obama has never actually done anything significant.  Now he must make the toughest decisions, and translate them into action.  Not everything can be explained away in an eloquent speech.  Sometimes you have to get it right and do it right.  And that is the worry about our soon-to-be 44th president.

January 19, 2009.