Obama Ratings High, But Caution Advised

There’s nothing wrong with circumspection. Caution is my default filter. Eight years of W. and Darth Cheney, war, a turbulent election, and an economic crisis have honed my processing and investigative skills. Of course, there are no Pulitzer or Dick-Tracy-private-eye awards on my horizon, but I can safely say I keep myself pretty well informed.

And so here, 36 days into an Obama presidency, why do I feel so gosh-darned wary of what is to come?

My scale tips in favor of Obama and his Administration’s handling of the economy. Yes, I believe the stimulus bill is insufficient and relies too heavily on tax cuts. I believe ailing big banks need to be nationalized, er, yesterday (and it looks like they just might be). I make no secret that I like what Krugman has to say. Nonetheless, I give Obama a 7 out of 10 for the tone he has set and the legislation passed in this short time. While many Americans might not agree with my leftist-socialist-pinko fantasies for a utopian society, they do agree with my assessment of Obama. According to a recent NYT-CBS poll:

• 63% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of his job as president and (57%) of the economy.
• 74% believe Obama and Congressional Democrats (45%) are reaching out to Republicans. (Only 31% feel Republicans are trying to work with Obama.)
• 91% believe the economy is either “fairly” or “very bad.”
• 77% feel optimistic about the next four years under Obama.
• 70% believe it will take at least two years “to make real progress on fixing the nation’s economy.”

Essentially, Obama has the good will, faith, and patience of Americans.

Yet, caution is in order.

Find out why after the jump.

While Obama’s handling of the economy arguably warrants praise, the Obama Administration’s promised efforts to distinguish itself from its predecessor on the foreign policy and legal fronts seem stuck in the realm of “the more things change ….” I am speaking specfically about the mixed signals the Administration has sent regarding little things like detainee rights and state secrets. Earlier this month, I wrote a post about an article in the Los Angeles Times that reported the Obama Administation was going to continue, if not expand, the Bush Administration’s extraordinary-rendition program, albeit without CIA black sites. The LAT article seemed flimsy, referring to a slew of unnamed sources, but if the LAT article lacked concretes, last Wednesday’s NYT article builds a whole dang sidewalk. Reporter Charlie Savage writes [Bold mine]:

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial.

….

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing.

….

Moreover, the nominee for C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, opened a loophole in Mr. Obama’s interrogation restrictions … [saying] that if the approved techniques were “not sufficient” to get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an imminent attack, [Panetta] would ask for “additional authority.” To be sure, Mr. Panetta emphasized that the president could not bypass antitorture statutes, as Bush lawyers claimed.

….

But Mr. Panetta also said the C.I.A. might continue its “extraordinary rendition” program, under which agents seize terrorism suspects and take them to other countries without extradition proceedings, in a more sweeping form than anticipated.

….

[U]nder Mr. Bush the program expanded and included transfers to third countries — some of which allegedly used torture — for interrogation, not trials.

Further, the return of Binyam Mohamed to Britain is telling. Beyond the questions of horrendous abuse at Guantanamo, if Mohamed really was a threat, apparently necessitating his seven-year imprisonment, why is he free in Britain, held only to a lifetime ban on ever returning to the United States?

I am not so naive to believe my country has not participated in ugly and illegal acts before Bush/Cheney, but we have a Constitution and a justice system that — I have faith — eventually exposes activities which undermine the essence of the American system of government and its national character. I am cautiously optimistic that Obama will put meat on the bones of his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, and I’ll give the President the benefit of the doubt on the “ticking time bomb” loophole. I can also imagine Mohamed’s release was only made possible by an Obama Administration. Admittedly the Administration is in a quandary: How can it quickly undo eight years of frenzied war-making powers without discrediting the office of president?

On the plus side, it looks like Congress is taking steps to stem the Obama Administration’s use of Bush’s bag o’ tricks. Perhaps these represent the nascent “crafting [of] a new, universal understanding of American democracy at war,” the beginning of “frank discussion in the public sphere, and a great deal of cooperation between all three branches of government,” grossly improbable 36 days ago.

But Obama ought not squander the largesse of the American public. “Wait and see” easily morphs into frustration and cynicism.