Several of the Middle Eastern leaders were there: the prime minister of Turkey, the king and queen of Jordan, and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.
Could this thread please not be whether or not the President should have gone to France, if that’s possible? We already had a pit thread about that. I mean, obviously, people are going to post whatever they want, but I didn’t post this to talk about individual actions of the President, or even of any one President, but to talk about the nature of the Presidency itself. This isn’t about any of the actions President Obama has taken; its about the way our view of the Presidency has changed over time.
I don’t care about Obama not coming to Paris (in fact I still wonder why other leaders showed up) but him going to SA disgusts me too. Realpolitik didn’t require attending the funerals. It’s not like SA policies wrt the USA would have changed if he hadn’t. I’ve a hard time understanding the point of such a trip.
(I didn’t know he went there, I didn’t watch the news because of family issues. For all I know every other leader might be there too).
Considering the actions of recent Republican presidents and politicians at outright insulting the French (remember “freedom fries”), Obama missing a symbolic gesture is a blip on the radar.
Clearly our access to the office holder has changed over time. With the advent of the Internet and social media, things may be shifting again. It used to be that telegrams and telephones to the White House or Capitol Hill. Now it’s email and online petitions.
I disagree with the notion that the office of the presidency is regarded as “imperial”, although there have been times when a given president chooses to exercise executive privilege, and the members of the opposing party cry foul. It happened when GW was in office and it’s happening now.
Certainly, there is no longer any special privilege afforded to the office of the presidency by the press (or not nearly to the degree it was 50 years ago). Consider the non-coverage of Kennedy’s affairs vs Clinton’s. FDR’s infirmities would certainly have been revealed if covered today.
So I suppose it depends on what the OP means by “accessible”. Can I walk up to the guy? No. Do I know more, far more, about him and every member of his family than I really ever wanted to? Yes. Could I, if sufficiently moved, start one of those lovely petitions on the White House site, or Emily’sList, or MoveOn, or all of them, and generally make a pain of myself until the chief of staff let the president know that Opus didn’t want people cutting dandelions in the meadow? Yep. In fact, I strongly suspect the President is too damn accessible from that point of view, and should spend less time meeting with hockey teams and girls scout troops. But life’s a balancing act, and he signed up for all of it. Twice. Chump.
Yes – he could have gotten away with being addressed as “Your Highness” or something, it was all new.
I read once that Thomas Jefferson personally answered every single letter he received while president.
He was probably the last or nearly the last POTUS who could possibly have done that.
N.B.: When the “Imperial Presidency” is spoken of, it does not usually mean the presidential inaccessibility and micromanaged daily life the OP speaks of – which, is, after all, simply inevitable for the leader of a nation of such size and wealth and importance, and who is at all times a target for assassination. Usually it means a thing perhaps inevitable, perhaps not – the gradual expansion of the scope of presidential functions, power, authority and autonomy.
To this day, the Governors of Virginia continue to be introduced as “His Excellency”. Presence or absence of actual excellence does not seem to be a factor.
The President not going to Paris bespeaks cowardice, both of Obama and America, and the failure of Obama to take an opportunity for some face-to-face diplomacy. America is built on the freedom of speech.
…which relates to the evolving concept and perception of the Presidency how, exactly?
Wow. FTR, I agree with the OP that the last several presidents may be too insulated from the populace for our own good; the whole free speech zone thing is the clearest example of this that I can see. But that said, this tempest in a teapot about Obama not going to Paris is moronic IMnsHO. I just bet that if he had gone the people criticizing him for not going would be criticizing him for politicizing a tragedy for his own personal gain.
The perception of the Presidency is the reality. As any salesman or PR flack will tell you. President Obama was afraid to go to Paris; America was afraid to send him there.
Afraid of what, exactly? He’s never been afraid to travel outside the country before.
What do you figure the side currently defending him would say?
A bold show of courage and solidarity with our European allies.
Oh, they would flop also. The naked partisanship in these types of debates is discouraging. I find the whole thing pretty moronic. There are plenty of serious and valid complaints about President Obama that we could and should talk about, this is not one of them IMHO.
Presidents are not so very insulated from the populace. They just have to pick their spots and not announce their appearances in advance. For example, Obama seems to make a habit of pop-in visits at restaurants, which strikes me as a good way to meet and greet Joe and Jane Citizen. I don’t detect any imperial airs in the video.
Taking part in a staged photo-op on a heavily-guarded empty street doesn’t strike me as a particularly bold show of courage and solidarity.
It’s interesting the OP mentioned Sorkin - to me the West Wing felt like a show about the Emperor’s household eunuchs. WIth a massive dose of liberal wish fulfillment thrown in.