Quieting the Critics

Stephen Colbert, who is the epitome of a wise witty man reminiscent of Samuel Clemens in his political savvy, played the Obama clip again, the one where the President complains that one media outlet just won't cut him a break. Really? Just one? If the media were doing the job upon which this country is founded, ALL of the media would not be cutting him a break; rather, the media would be questioning, analyzing, making connections, probing not just what is said, but also what is not said by the new Commander-in-Chief. Obama should be assuring the public that the media is all over him, his appointments and his policies, keeping him not just honest in office, but doing the will of the people in the process.

Being President of the United States of America is not a high school popularity contest, like being elected ASB President: this is the highest office in the land, the one with all the power, prestige, and accountability to we, the American people -- even those who disagree with the person who takes the oath of office. When people are given a voice to speak freely, to ask questions, to seek answers, to offer alternatives, they have no need to demand one. A good leader listens; a poor leader fills in the silences, explains the inexplicable, justifies the actions, as well as the inactions, and attacks the critics who disagree with him/her for asking questions that the leader cannot (or will not) answer.

Is Judge Sotomayor the best candidate for the vacancy on the Supreme Court? Rather than refusing to debate the choice with the critics, tell them why she is based on her judicial record. It's a bonus that she's a female, that she's Hispanic, that she made an honest off-the-cuff remark several years ago in the comfort of a conversation with colleagues that makes a great sound bite, but does nothing to detract from a judicial record that justifies her appointment. Don't snipe at the snipers: playing the wah-wah-wah game only benefits the critics, not the presidency.

The President does not need anyone to like him, to accept whatever he says/does without comment: he needs to convince his most ardent opponent that his policies and practices are sound. If he cannot respond to his critics with credible answers from his heart and head, not the tele-prompter, then what he is doing needs to be re-evaluated. The best person to critique a plan is the person who is most likely to oppose it; if you cannot have that conversation, you are going to have to deal with the consequences in the media.

When people know that they are being heard, they don't need to get louder. When people ask a question and it's answered fully and well, they admire the person who knows what (s)he is doing and why. By being Presidential, you assure your credibility; by being petty, you create a whole lot of unnecessary stress for yourself and your administration. Don't invite the fawning sycophant into the White House: invite your most passionate opponent.

That's a show I would watch!