« In the longer run, this isn't up to Obama or Boehner | Main | Oh Newt, how could you? »

January 15, 2013

Comments

In general, when I have heard people describe Obama as lucky, it is the context of saying he has no real skills. In the sense you use the word lucky, you are more accurate.

There are some things beyond the specific control of any one individual as they try to achieve specific goals. Luck does play a role. One could say that Bush was lucky 9/11 occured, else he would not have been able to fulfill his dream of invading Iraq.

Unfortunately for us and the world in general, he was not competent enough to do the job he wanted to do efficiently.

Obama's graetness, if you will, is his ability to take advantage of what luck has given him and even, to a great degree, utilize what luck has given him to expand his playing field. Luck has provided him with, as you put it and "escalatingly desperate and prodigiously stupid" opposition. What he has been able to do is increase the desperation which highlights the stupid.

Luck is important. Being able to take advantage of the opportunities luck provides is even more important, and the great ones have that skill.

japa21:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

While the stupidity of Obama's opponents might be a result of luck, their desperation often comes at the hands of a very skilled politician.

p m carpenter:

To have some validity, you might some day comment on one of PBO's failures as a result of him being unlucky and a success as a result of skill.

Agreed with japa21 - Obama's detractors usually call him "lucky" to find another explanation for this or that success or victory and to deny Obama any credit. Critics both left and right do this daily.

Great presidents are almost always "lucky," in a highly, painfully ironic way, because they are forced to deal with crisis situations and succeed in navigating them effectively. Bill Clinton was a responsible steward of the nation in foreign and domestic affairs, but did not have any severe crises to handle, which partly explains his middling ranking on the all-time lists. You could say the same for a number of others, of course. Crisis is the crucible in which greatness is usually forged.

(again, japa21 nailed it. GWBush had a window to be a great president via 9/11 and faceplanted so tragically badly the entire world shook)

Obama has been lucky in his adversaries in many instances. Alan Keyes, Mark Penn as otherwise-formidable foe Hillary's top strategist, Sarah Palin, Mittens, idiot Teabaggers, etc. He's also "lucky", if you can call it that, that he's had crises to deal with, and deal with them he has. Not perfectly enough to satisfy the lefties who need their unicorns NOW DAMMIT NOW, but well enough that he's on a path to a good-to-great legacy at present. And his "luck" in having crises to confront gets him nowhere without having copious smarts and skill with which to deal with them. We know what can happen when a "lucky" president blows it - that just happened.

I enjoy watching the Tea Party construct one Maginot Line after another; only to see Obama step over it; followed by the construction of the next Maginot Line.

1. Cave during 2010 lame duck session
2. Cave in 2011 debt ceiling stand-off
3. Get the hell beat out of you in 2012 election
4. Cave in 2012/3 Fiscal Cliff stand-off
5. Cave in 2013 debt ceiling stand-off
6. Hey, let's shut down the government and throw a party!!!

What's next ... a Zoolander walk-off?

As a lifelong fan of P G Wodehouse and his wonderful literary creation Jeeves, I have always been big on the psychology of the individual or even the organization. Luck? It is always with us or against us and I will not dispute its existence but I will also maintain that luck only gives you opportunities. It does not give you success. Now I think the president has been rather deft at exploiting the opportunities luck has given him.

Smart presidents are skilled at managing the stupidity of others.

Unlike many politicians, Obama tends to hold all his cards rather close to his chest-- so his motives or game plan (to everyone's frustration) isn't always apparent to supporters or opponents.

But based on his performance the past four years, I'm reasonably confident history will show him as successfully managing The Stupid.

As I commented a while ago, I'm looking forward to his memoirs. Should be an interesting read.

Most excellent analyses above; can only chime in to agree that luck without the skill to exploit it is meaningless.

Peter G,

As a fan of Wodehouse myself (thanks to my father's Jeeves addiction), I was wondering what you thought of Stehpen Fry and Hugh Laurie's portrayal in the televised version?

Well M, I have the entire collection on CD. And finer casting there never was..

PG,

Agreed. The very first episode was slightly rough going because you could see the actors were getting used to their roles.

But after that, they were spot on. I couldn't imagine anyone one else playing the roles. Hugh Laurie's smirk encapsulates the entire "aristocratic wastrel" character.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts and Archives



  • to P.M. Carpenter's Commentary




  • to P.M. Carpenter's Commentary