“We need a strong and forceful president.”

I hear this criticism of the president crop up again and again. Looking back over the several previous White House administrations–Republican and Democratic–the criticism appears almost gratuitous–something that is said (almost casually)  if you’re a Republican, and wish to keep your membership in the Republican party in good standing.

Bush One was criticized for not invading Iraq during Desert Storm, and deposing Saddam Hussien. Bill Clinton surrendered liberal values to appease a Republican congress, and mostly gave them what they wanted in order to appear “strong and forceful.” We know, too, that his presidency was hamstrung by a sex scandal, one that Republicans exploited all the way to an impeachment. George Bush showed his Texas cowboy strength and force by embroiling this nation in two wars, squandering a budget surplus and enacting tax cuts in a time of war–bold but foolish actions that precipitated the huge federal deficits that’s hounding the nation now.

I heard this criticism again when the congressional Supercommittee failed to reach consensus on a debt-reduction packet. It as though the president is expected to take each member of the committee behind the woodshed and give them a good thrashing until they relent and give him what he wants. I call this the papafication of the presidency–where the president, to be considered an effective leader, must find a way or ways to coerce the legislation that’s required from a fractious congress, or be considered weak and lacking force.

Without a willing congress, nothing gets done in Washington. What this president needed in order to be seen as “strong and forceful” was to know the dirt on each Republican in congress, and the will to expose it if each refused to give him what he wanted. Anything short of that, we have what we have now–stalemates, and obstructionism.

“The president is overwhelm. I don’t think he’s the man for the job.

“But He’s not leading the country on the path of socialist ruin as matter of policy and intention. And the danger of thinking so–that’s a very powerful way to mobilize followers and  raise money…but it also traps you. Because when you mobilize people to that extent, the leaders find themselves unable to lead.  And we saw that happen most dramatically this summer with the crisis over the debt ceiling, where suddenly Republicans who desperately wanted to make a deal, who understood the consequences, they were terrified, they wanted a deal and they couldn’t–because they had a wall of people behind them that would not allow them to step back.”

I agree that the “president is overwhelm.” With what Obama inherited from George Bush, it would have been a daunting task for any president to overcome, especially when Republicans in congress are more interested in helping the president “fail” than succeed, doing nothing to stem unemployment, or boosting the economy, in hopes that their inaction will help them achieve their end.

With patriotism like that, one thing is clear: We’re fighting the wrong “war on terror.” The terror with which this nation must contend is inflicted from the Right, and from within the hallowed halls of congress. The Republican Party has done more to damage this country than has Bin Laden and his  merry band of  jihadists. 

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is a response to this “terrorism,” and it’s ironic that the full weight of our nation’s police forces has been brought to bear to quash it.  It’s also telling that a large segment of this society is more supportive of the terrorism on the Right than is championing the efforts of OWS to bring this terrorism to an end.

Frum’s statement above clearly places the lack of leadership squarely at the feet of Republicans. Their entrenchment–which, by the way, is of their own making–may garner party support, but it also paralyzes their will, and capacity, to do more than that.