The President’s job in 5 words or less
The NPR radio show “Market Place” did an interview with President Obama last week. As they do in such interviews he was asked to describe his job in 5 words or less. This is what President Obama stated:
My job is to: Keep the American people safe and to create a platform for hard working people to succeed.
OK, first it’s not 5 words though he did say he could have boiled it down to 5 words. Second, the first 5 words seem so trite. Third, the remaining words…well trite again. In fact, it reminded me of his interview by 60 Minutes in 2010. What struck me with that interview was:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: …And, you know, I can make some really good arguments defending the Democratic position, and there are gonna be some people who just don’t agree with me. And that’s okay. And then we’ve got to figure out a way to compromise.
In keeping with my posting from 2010, I add this latest of President Obama’s statements to the “All you need to know to Understand President Obama” list. That is what these statements are. They are his self perception. They are a window into who he is.
Both of these moments of windows into his self perception suggest to me that this is a man whose convictions are not what I would consider deep. To me, a person with deep convictions is a better leader. I’m not qualifying convictions here, just say’n that the deeper the better, the more effective in achieving results (again, not qualifying results). But today maybe due to our conditioned acclimation to image over substance, George Carlin’s “Stuff”, that perception matters…only, we find ourselves electing too many who do not have deep convictions. Is this not the substance behind a “flip flop”?
I have a simple thought and question regarding life: Life is intention, what is yours? One’s intentions are the results of convictions. The deeper the convictions, the easier it is to know said person. Honest or not, selfish or not, the deeper the more consistent and thus easier to know. But, if I or other’s can not know you, then how can you persuade as in: “…I can make some really good arguments defending the Democratic position…”
Thus, the president comes up with a trite sounding job description that is soooooooooooooo far short of what I believe the job is. We’re talking the top administrative position for all that government represents and does yet he has reduced it to protection and success for “hard working” people. Where are the words that suggest his deepest convictions? Hell, what about all the rest of the people?
So, let me start it off with my 5 words: Assure government services people. Or: Assure government reduces Life’s risks. No long term, deep thought was needed here. And, it should not have taken much for President Obama to have come up with something similar that is more inclusive than “protect and hard working people”.
Now, you post your 5 words. And remember, the news/entertainment system is already talking about the next president.
I heard this last night and I found myself wondering what else he was going to say though.
Did you want him to say “Leader of the free world?”
If you want a limited answer to his job, expect a trite answer
It would take him a long time to outline all the things his job entails, in addition to the obstruction he faves from the GOP
*faces
Daniel:
“Promote the General Welfare.”
While that statement is meant to mean not to favor special interests or classes of people, it can also mean keep the American people safe and creating a platform for hard working people to succeed. There is much to those three simple words.
Mr. Becker. This is a really interesting post when you consider Bruce Webb’s post of Ron Suskind’s 2004 article analyzing the Bush administration.
How about, “Enrich friends, destroy enemies”?
Run,
I would have accepted that as an answer. As you state, it covers all he said and more.
I guess my overall consensus is that President Obama is not standing as far back from life’s stage when answering such questions as I would like to see in a person holding such a position. Or, he is standing far back but his convictions are narrowing the field of view. What is the panoramic picture that he sees and has presented to us? How wide and deep does he see/think?
Remember this is a person who stated he “could” make good arguments supporting dem positions but hey… No convictions then, none now.
Did he recognize that he was being asked for a 5 word description that covers the vastness of the position/job of President of the US? Or is he a victim of the right’s consistent pounding to the nation their narrowly focused meme of government’s only about protection and Oh yeah, create jobs. To answer Axt113.
J. Goodwin, I would have puked if I had heard “leader of the free world”.
Are we a people able to recognize a person with broad convictions verse narrow and then go the next step to recognize the thoughts and thus policy that would extend from those convictions?
Little John,
I did have in mind the discussion going on under Bruce’s posts, though it was simply Obama’s response that triggered my blog today.
Without defending a pitiful answer to a pathetic question I would just observe that I’m not sure concision is a measure of conviction. If I’m trying to evaluate a person’s convictions especially one in a position of power I’m more inclined to evaluate their actions over words anyway. Which may be the point you are trying to make… His answer matched the lousy policy or lack of same.
I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether most forms of political participation don’t amount to effective fairly effective conviction filters anyway. What person of genuine conviction could engage its limitations and stay intact? Successfully I mean.
“I also think that, in terms of political analysis, the Democrats are more the problem than the Republicans today because the GOP is playing its assigned role in our political duopoly as the benefactors of Big Business, while the Democrats are betraying the populist role they are designed to fulfill. As the Democrats moved further and further Right, they effectively compelled the GOP to to stake out insane positions like denying AGW.
Voting LOTE simply rewards the Democrats for their betrayals. Better to suffer for a time by abandoning the Democrats — yes that means the GOP wins temporarily! — in order to either force the Democratic Party to reform, or to let it die and be replaced by a true populist party. Propping up the status quo guarantees disaster. Something fundamental must change.” wbgonne July 8, 2014 at 1:08 pm
More…..http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/links-7814.html
“Leader of the free world” is probably among the worst things he could have possibly said.