David Brooks is a little disappointed that President Obama doesn't make him feel giddy like a schoolboy on Christmas Eve:
His policies are often a balance as he tries to accommodate different points of view. He doesn’t generally issue edicts. In matters foreign and domestic, he seems to spend a lot of time coaxing people along. His governing style, in short, is biased toward complexity.
The reaction to my last post was a lot stronger than I expected, and as such, I think it's worth clarifying my thoughts a bit. Contra a few of the commenters, I am not asking progressives to uncritically accept whatever decision President Obama makes. But I am asking progressives to look at Obama's decision in the context of everything he's said and done, and then ask themselves whether it is fair to accuse him of betraying them. It's not, as I pointed out, because he didn't.
Americans have come to believe that spending government revenues on U.S. citizens here at home is usually a bad thing and should be viewed wth suspicion, but spending billions on vast social engineering projects overseas is the hallmark of patriotism and should never be questioned. This position makes no sense, but it is hard to think of a prominent U.S. leader who is making an explicit case for doing somewhat less abroad so that we can afford to build a better future here at home.