It's FDR! It's JFK! No, it's Obama!
The Traveler Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/20/09 Section: Opinion
President Barack Obama has self-styled himself a modern Abraham Lincoln, a 21st century FDR, an echo of JFK. He's even linked himself with Jimmy Carter by mentioning "The New Foundation."
And, from the outset of Obama's presidential campaign through the first months of his presidency, journalists and other observers have been quick to draw comparisons between him and past presidential giants, as well.
The comparisons - on the surface, at least - make sense.
As others have pointed out, Obama, like Lincoln, is a lawyer from Illinois who rose to prominence in part because of a powerful and timely political speech. In 1857, at the Illinois state house, Lincoln proclaimed, "A house divided cannot stand." In 2004, at the Democratic National Convention, Obama declared, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America. There is a United States of America."
As Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkley said in a Jan. 17 article on CBS.com, "Lincoln and Obama (share) a love of words, a belief that rhetoric and oratory (can) change people's minds."
So it is with Obama and FDR, as well.
We like the way BBC reporter Kevin Connelly put it in a March 10 article: "FDR could write elegantly and speak compellingly. He utilized the new power of radio to sell policy directly to the people, just as Mr. Obama does through his televised speeches and through the Internet."
When it comes to Obama and JFK, do we even need to point out the similarities? Not only is Obama young and handsome, but not since Jackie has a First Lady been such a fashion icon. Those arms. Yada, yada, yada.
We question the efficacy of inviting comparisons to Jimmy Carter, but we assume Obama just hopes to endear himself to the public without calling into question his effectiveness as an executive. Whatever.
But, as Obama nears his 100th day in office, we want to know: who is he really?
Clearly, as the comparisons imply, Obama is a skilled rhetorician and a talented diplomat. Even when he speaks about a subject as dour as the economy, crowds chant, "Yes, we can," and when he speaks to European audiences (at least to judge by his first European tour), they go wild.
But, far from being the unifier he promised he was, Obama has proved himself to be predictably liberal and, like most politicians, an astonishingly big spender. An executive order to close Gitmo, a reversed ban on federal funding for aid agencies that perform abortions, the removal of conscience protections for health workers who refuse to issue contraception - there is very little of compromise in such decisions. And the only way he can enact his $3.6 trillion budget and remove the deficit is - well, no, he can't. Adhering to an ideology is not necessarily blameable, though - probably just a little embittering for conservatives who watched as their own leaders didn't.
In fact, it might be just that sort of commitment to a particular set of ideals that will ultimately justify comparisons to towering personalities like Lincoln and FDR. But that remains to be seen.
And, from the outset of Obama's presidential campaign through the first months of his presidency, journalists and other observers have been quick to draw comparisons between him and past presidential giants, as well.
The comparisons - on the surface, at least - make sense.
As others have pointed out, Obama, like Lincoln, is a lawyer from Illinois who rose to prominence in part because of a powerful and timely political speech. In 1857, at the Illinois state house, Lincoln proclaimed, "A house divided cannot stand." In 2004, at the Democratic National Convention, Obama declared, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America. There is a United States of America."
As Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkley said in a Jan. 17 article on CBS.com, "Lincoln and Obama (share) a love of words, a belief that rhetoric and oratory (can) change people's minds."
So it is with Obama and FDR, as well.
We like the way BBC reporter Kevin Connelly put it in a March 10 article: "FDR could write elegantly and speak compellingly. He utilized the new power of radio to sell policy directly to the people, just as Mr. Obama does through his televised speeches and through the Internet."
When it comes to Obama and JFK, do we even need to point out the similarities? Not only is Obama young and handsome, but not since Jackie has a First Lady been such a fashion icon. Those arms. Yada, yada, yada.
We question the efficacy of inviting comparisons to Jimmy Carter, but we assume Obama just hopes to endear himself to the public without calling into question his effectiveness as an executive. Whatever.
But, as Obama nears his 100th day in office, we want to know: who is he really?
Clearly, as the comparisons imply, Obama is a skilled rhetorician and a talented diplomat. Even when he speaks about a subject as dour as the economy, crowds chant, "Yes, we can," and when he speaks to European audiences (at least to judge by his first European tour), they go wild.
But, far from being the unifier he promised he was, Obama has proved himself to be predictably liberal and, like most politicians, an astonishingly big spender. An executive order to close Gitmo, a reversed ban on federal funding for aid agencies that perform abortions, the removal of conscience protections for health workers who refuse to issue contraception - there is very little of compromise in such decisions. And the only way he can enact his $3.6 trillion budget and remove the deficit is - well, no, he can't. Adhering to an ideology is not necessarily blameable, though - probably just a little embittering for conservatives who watched as their own leaders didn't.
In fact, it might be just that sort of commitment to a particular set of ideals that will ultimately justify comparisons to towering personalities like Lincoln and FDR. But that remains to be seen.
Be the first to comment on this story