It is probably the worst insult that one Republican can hurl at another. To accuse a rival of being a clone of our current president is tantamount to asserting that he or she is anti-American. It implies that he or she will implement policies as destructive as those championed by Barack Obama. This is, in short, a low blow.
Nevertheless, at the risk of being unfair, I wish to indulge in exactly this charge. While I do not believe that Romney, or Perry, or even Pawlenty fits this bill, I am convinced that Michelle Bachmann does. There are too many parallels between who she is and how our president operates.
As others have commented, both Barack and Bachmann are impressive on the stump. Each can give a stem-winder of a speech that throws raw meat to the faithful. People cheer themselves hoarse in response to simplified exaggerations of the party line. Without stopping to consider the implications of what they are told, they catch a contagious emotion and run with it.
As has also been observed, Obama rode to the presidency on his ability to speak. However, as even Hillary Clinton pointed out, a speech is not a qualification for high office. Saying what people want to hear doesn’t demonstrate an aptitude for governing. Clearly for Barack, it was not.
Bachmann also touts her competence as a fighter. She claims to have a titanium spine so tough that she will never back down. Here she can be taken at her word. She has established her ability to stand up for principles despite heavy-duty criticism. But then so has Obama. He too is a fighter who has been able to survive adversity.
These things are good, but they are not what matter when selecting a president. For one thing, there is the small matter of honesty. As Barack has repeatedly confirmed, he is willing to say whatever he believes will garner votes. Truth value is of no concern to him. He will even contradict himself in mid-sentence.
But Bachmann has a similar penchant. She has been criticized for being too quick on the draw and therefore for saying things that are dead wrong. But the situation is much worse than this. Many of her misstatements are not merely accidents; they are calculated efforts to deceive.
One of the worst of these occurred in the Republican debate in Iowa. When pressed about her lack of administrative or legislative accomplishments, she turned on Pawlenty to eviscerate him. According to her, he had implemented “cap and trade” policies in Minnesota. In fact, he had only considered them—which is quite a difference.
Closely related to this is Bachmann’s fondness for bragging about imaginary achievements. Just like Obama, she takes credit for what others have done. Granted, this is a common political failing, but she is too quick in jumping to the head of the parade. Thus, to hear her tell it, she was not just the organizer of the tea party caucus in Congress, she invented the tea party itself.
One of the worst examples of this predilection, again during the Iowa debate, was insisting that her vote against raising the debt ceiling was vindicated by the facts. Anyone with any sense knows that it is far too early to evaluate the effects of the recent budgetary legislation, much less what would have happened had it not passed. Yet she is certain where certainty is impossible.
Lastly, one of my rules of thumb in evaluating politicians is whether they answer direct questions. When a query is capable of a straightforward response, but elicits a canned platitude, I grow skeptical. It leads me to the conclusion that the person has something to hide; that he or she knows a truthful answer would not be appreciated.
Obama evades direct questions all the time. So unfortunately does Bachmann. She knew that Pawlenty’s doubts about her achievements were justified. She therefore deflected his barb by going on the offense. This was understandable. The trouble was she did something similar when reporters asked about this later on.
What Bachmann did was to enumerate the many times she defended tea party positions. This confirmed her skills as a fighter, but it did nothing to validate her credentials as a potential chief executive. –So let’s be careful
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment