American Missive

Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
— G. W. Bush, President of the United States of America, Sep. 11, 2001

LONG BEACH— Stubbornness has come up again. I’ve noticed this lately in the Presidential race. So I started thinking about this trait, what it means, why is it loved one minute and despised the next. And just how exactly has this trait been called upon recently?

Americans tend to vote for and rally behind a strong leader. This is no secret to anyone. I was curious as to the historical beginnings of America’s desire for the strong leader so I started searching. A strong leader is one who can make the choices no one wants to make and then take the scorn and ridicule that will inevitably follow for that choice. A strong leader would need to follow through with the plan to the end. He’d need to be able to brace for the storm and continue to march no matter how bad the conditions get. The chance at victory is what matters. The determination to get there is the spirit that wins. This country was founded on these ideals. Indeed our leaders were born out of them.

December 1776 was a desperate time for George Washington and the American Revolution. The ragtag Continental Army was encamped along the Pennsylvania shore of the Delaware River exhausted, demoralized and uncertain of its future.

The troubles had begun the previous August when British and Hessian troops invaded Long Island routing the colonial forces, forcing a desperate escape to the island of Manhattan. The British followed up their victory with an attack on Manhattan that compelled the Americans to again retreat, this time across the Hudson River to New Jersey.

The British followed in hot pursuit, chasing the Americans through New Jersey and by December had forced the Continental Army to abandon the state and cross the Delaware into Pennsylvania. With New Jersey in their firm control and Rhode Island successfully occupied, the British were confident that the Revolution had been crushed. The Continental Army appeared to be merely an annoyance soon to be swatted into oblivion like a bothersome bee at a picnic.

To compound Washington’s problems, the enlistments of the majority of the militias under his command were due to expire at the end of the month and the troops return to their homes. Washington had to do something and quickly.

His decision was to attack the British. The target was the Hessian-held town of Trenton just across the Delaware River.

During the night of December 25, 1776, Washington led his troops across the ice-swollen Delaware about 9 miles north of Trenton. The weather was horrendous and the river treacherous. Raging winds combined with snow, sleet and rain to produce almost impossible conditions. To add to the difficulties, a significant number of Washington’s force marched through the snow without shoes.
— “Washington Crosses the Delaware, 1776″, EyeWitness to History, (2004).

President Bush promised to fight with resolve and not back down. In the following 7 years since the attacks on the United States of America the President has fallen from the highest levels to the lowest levels in general popularity. Viewing it through the press, it wasn’t an inspiring fall. But down he went with a stubbornness to maintain the course no matter the conditions facing him. And the general public disagreed with him more and more and more. Yet they’d vote for him anyway.

Even if voters are not comfortable with Bush’s conduct of the war on terrorism or his decision to invade Iraq, they give him good marks for consistency.
— “Pin ‘stubborn’ tail on Bush”, Ben Goddard, The Hill, Sep. 9, 2004

It wasn’t merely limited to the general public to stick this tag of unmovable stubbornness, a trait ironically associated with a donkey, onto the Republican President.

“I just don’t believe that this president, with this vice president whispering in his ear every moment, is oriented to change,” said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Bush’s first term. “And even if he were, I don’t believe his administration is capable of implementing change.”
— “Stubborn or Stalwart, Bush Is Loath to Budge”, Peter Blake, Washington Post, Dec 12, 2006

Is there a difference between Bush Stubbornness and Obama Stubbornness? In the case of Obama in July of 2008 a McCain aid associated the label with Obama’s Iraq policies. Sam Stein of The Huffington Post had an entry on it earlier this year. He cited some McCain aids for making the comparison. It was an interesting proposition by the McCain Aid but the more I read the less I’m seeing it in this respect.

So far the impression of stubbornness Obama is displaying has been stained by arrogance. It appears that these two qualities will remain in the White House for the next four years. At least with Obama these qualities will be accompanied by a slick tongue and a sharp dresser. But this is inevitable. Any strong leader will enter the office and make a choice and stick by it. And his detractors will call him names when he does. A serious debate returns to the issues. A serious politician keeps lobbing distractions. Or simply regurgitating whatever it takes to win.

Take for instance the Mississippi Senate Race. A Democrat is running a strong challenge to a Republican in a strongly Republican state. He’s running as a Democrat who has no party allegiance. Not exactly a strong sign of Party unity, yet his campaign attempts to rail against the Republicans, making a national race out of it which would imply a need for strong Party unity. NPR gave a report on the race at a County fair. Musgove, the Democratic challenger, was quoted rallying the crowd:

Musgrove strikes right at those economic concerns, boldly echoing Ronald Reagan. “Are you better off now than you were a few years ago?” he asks as the crowd cries, “No!”
—“Miss. Senate Race Duked Out at County Fair”, Debbie Elliot, NPR, Aug 6, 2008

A few years ago Democrats took over congress. They did so by arguing for a balance in power against a stubborn, arrogant White House coupled with Republican corruptness. One party should not have all the power it was said. This argument continues stubbornly and arrogantly today but, if Obama wins, one Party will be in power and it will be lead by a man who is already developing a reputation of stubbornness and arrogance.