Obama Still Searching For His Groove

When I first heard President Obama was creating a "Chief Performance Officer" I thought to myself, now there's a forced idea. Another one of those titles to make it look like we're doing something - just like we see in a corporation.

A CPO? Ironic given the reputation CEO's have. I know, this is "different" because it comes from he who would bring us "change." But government mean so well, give 'em a chance will ya?

The purpose of the CPO, among other things, is to "rebuild confidence" among people. Slap me a V-8, I wonder how we managed for centuries without one.

It's just another pointless layer of bureaucracy if you ask me. Like the Department of Indian Affairs we have here in Canada or the endless streams of councils.

However, the department of the CPO is off to a rough start after another one of Obama's appointees was forced to resign due to tax issues. Nancy Killefer will never get her chance to instill confidence.

I have some ideas of my own but I never was editor at a big, fancy school. Mind you, I never thought much of school organizations given the wannabe boobs that ran them.

Anyway.

Here are some of my ideas and this can apply to Canada. Clearly Obama is not going far enough:

Chief Moral Officer
Chief Responsibility Officer
Chief Household Budget Officer
Chief Values Officer
Chief Competition Officer
Chief Equality Officer
Chief Fairness Officer
Chief Accountability Officer
Chief Security Officer
Chief Diet Officer
Chief Environmental Officer
Chief Self-Esteem Officer
Chief Education Officer
Chief Intellectual Officer
Chief Freedom Officer
Chief Military Officer

Since we're on the subject of President Obama.

I recognize this post is not for those still giddy over Obama's election. In fact, we already know how they will rationalize his tenure once he's done: if he fails it will all be Bush's fault since he and he alone ruined the United States of America. But I feel compelled to follow him closely since he and his supporters claimed to bring "change." For me, just him sitting his butt down is not enough change. "They" say he's smarter than Bush, well let's see his jump shot so to speak.

One thing that drove the left mad was Bush's expansion of government to crush civil liberties (an indiscretion performed by several Presidents or any leader for that matter. Incidentally, when Bush was doing it they were calling America a "theocracy." What will they call it when Obama pursues this?), is his support for Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA.) A bill which leftist magazine The Progressive argues, "...allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant."

They continue,

Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home. But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that."

Ouch. No I mean, ouch. I just burnt my finger on the stove. Where was I? Oh yes, ouch!

Anyway, can his support of FISA be connected to the genuineness of his signing to close Abu Ghraib?

Then there's the issue of trade and economics. His recent protectionist talk reeks of trade unilateralism. Indeed, if he eschews international trade agreements, how will liberal internationalists (let alone Canadian supporters of Obama) rationalize such a move. The stimulus package is a monstrosity that aims to shock the system back into place. It may suit the likes of Paul of Krugman who insanely supports it, but to me it sounds like a typical recipe overdone and overused. America is not the only one raising protectionist policies. The thinking is to fix locally before going global. Another way to put it, charity begins at home. We'll see what happens at the next G-20 meeting.

Any chance the U.S. and EU lower agricultural subsidies? I know, I know.

Obama is set to change the "tone" of American foreign policy, but really how different will it be from its predecessor? You'll see small differences. For instance, Bush asked Middle-East parties to come up with their own proposals and solutions, Obama favors a more involved role for the U.S. It's nowhere near where it should be relative to his stature and promise as a liberal politician.

Whoopee-doo.

No matter how you cut it, he's clearly an interventionist god - erm President. The more we move along the less it becomes evident of what distinguishes him from Bush - or even the neo-con agenda.

PS: Congratulations to The Progressive in the year of its 100th anniversary.