Dan Balz: Obama Signals Need for a Sharp Break From the Past

Most clearly, yesterday’s activities confirmed that Obama’s presidency will mark a sharp break from that of George W. Bush. The new president did not hesitate to highlight their differences. Obama spoke of a change of course in the Iraq war and of the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.” Those last words were aimed at the previous administration’s positions on civil liberties and harsh interrogation techniques. Most striking, given Bush’s unpopularity abroad, was Obama’s declaration to a world watching intently and eagerly that “we are ready to lead again.”

Still, perhaps mindful that during his campaign he faced doubts about his readiness to lead in a time of war, Obama was careful to balance his pledge to use diplomacy and cooperation in dealing with the rest of the world with steely words of resolve. To those out to harm the country, he said: “Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

The confluence of events and Obama’s politics suggest that his presidency could bring a more momentous shift — from an era of conservative governance to one in which Washington assumes a more central role in the life of the country.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, History, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama

7 comments on “Dan Balz: Obama Signals Need for a Sharp Break From the Past

  1. Tikvah says:

    Yesterday, Obama said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” …..
    And this is what scares me about the guy.
    T

  2. celtichorse says:

    What is not apparent is that Obama is more than an empty suit. Whose Howdy Doody is he? Will we have a say in the “government that works” before it’s too late, or will its true character be that of virtuous symbolism masking a design of iron?

  3. Jeffersonian says:

    [blockquote]Yesterday, Obama said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” …..
    And this is what scares me about the guy. [blockquote]

    Indeed, that statement is entirely devoid of moral content. The government of Cambodia worked ruthlessly well from 1975-1979, achieving all of its stated goals. I don’t think many under its aegis would applaud its manifest successes, however.

  4. Br. Michael says:

    Stalinist Russia worked well too. It got them thorugh the Great Patriotic War. And they even had a command economy.

  5. John Wilkins says:

    Let me get this straight: this is an empty suit, who is something like Howdy Doody, Stalin and Pol Pot.

    He does seem to have had a pretty busy day being an empty suit. Actually spoke to world leaders on the phone. Obeyed the constitution. Issued a pay freeze.

    I admit some sympathy with the first commenter. After the last eight years, I’m not sure what a working government looks like.

  6. Jeffersonian says:

    No one’s called him Stalin or Pol Pot, John. What we both pointed to were two governments that undeniably “worked,” yet undertook tasks that were in no way appropriate for government. While I don’t expect Obama to emulate Uncle Joe or Noam Chomsky’s pal, I do expect him to make a grab for large portions of the American economy, something no government has business doing.

  7. Branford says:

    Yes, I agree Obama is a change from Bush – Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas – unfortunately for this issue.