trusting obama

For some time I’ve considered penning this post. For some time more I’ve shied away, knowing the mere mention may be strongly offensive to some. My desire, however, is never to offend nor avoid simply due to offending’s sake; my desire is to dialogue respectfully — and that means taking on the tough topics — even though increasingly often in our hyper-sensitive culture, many will be offended that the conversation ever existed. Such is inconsistent with the Intramuralist’s mantra The more we are willing to discuss the hard stuff — and proceed in a manner respectful of those with whom we disagree, recognizing that good people possess varied opinion — the more we can be educated, learn from one another, and grow.

Today’s topic: I don’t fully trust Pres. Obama.

It’s not that I believe Obama’s a bad person or evil or whatever other sensational adjective some may insist upon. It’s not that I’m an “Obama-hater,” “Bush-lover,” or any other manipulated moniker one may use to dismiss me and my opinion. I’m not. I don’t hate the President. I simply don’t fully trust him.

In a cyberspace conversation last week, I made the comment that I wasn’t certain we could trust the President to lead us through the Ebola situation well. A friend asked why not. “For many reasons,” I thought, but the bottom line? Obama’s “yes” hasn’t meant “yes,” and his “no” hasn’t meant “no.” In other words, his words and the reality of the situation often contradict one another.

Whether it was the plethora of Obamacare promises, claims of IRS non-corruption, foreign policy mischaracterizations, or the blaming of all things bad on someone else, my perception is that Pres. Obama’s words have often been confusing or even untrue. Have his statements been knowingly false? Great question (and undoubtedly one that partisans will pounce upon). My point is that Obama has consistently, in my opinion, misused his presidential platform rhetorically. He has repeated aspects and claims that sound good regardless of truth — appearing to control the dialogue, control his image, or control something… i.e. “In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores…” Two weeks later Ebola was here.

What I’ve learned through the Ebola outbreak is that I am not alone in this unfortunate perception…

NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd opened his Sunday show two weeks ago addressing the administration’s “trust deficit.” He mentioned multiple situations and Obama’s rhetorical response…

The NY Post’s Michael Goodwin ran the following Sunday, discussing how a single Ebola death has morphed into an unwarranted panic: “In rational and medical terms, they may be right. But their calculations omit another factor. It’s the X factor. In this case, X stands for trust. President Obama has spent six years squandering it, and the administration’s confusion, contradictions and mistakes on Ebola fit the pattern. This is how he rolls. Don’t worry, there’s no chance of an outbreak, they said. Then it was, Oops, we must rethink all procedures for handling cases. Then there was no worry about a ‘wide’ outbreak, yet quarantines for lots of people. The irrational fear of an alien pathogen is fueled by rational suspicion of an incompetent and dishonest government.”

Obama continues to rhetorically assert himself in ways where the perceived reality of the situation does not clearly substantiate his actual words, which causes the nation to lose trust in their leader. Therefore, Obama’s current trust problem (which I believe is also evident in his historically low approval numbers) is not due to partisan hatred. It’s due to Obama’s own words.

Let your “yes” mean “yes” and your “no” mean “no.” Don’t say things that aren’t true — regardless of motive — regardless of whether one shares your partisan persuasion. If a person is too concerned at controlling the narrative, he or she will unfortunately, eventually lose trust — even in an over-hyped crisis.  And trust is incredibly hard to reclaim.

Respectfully…

AR