Lyndon Johnson once said of the paradox of the Presidency, "If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read "President Can't Swim."
Barack Obama was elected President in part because of his mantra of change. He campaigned saying Washington would be different under his leadership; consensus would replace the monolithic view of the Bush Presidency.
But the reality of perhaps the most complex job in the world gnaws away at the themes many Americans found appealing about Mr. Obama. Consider the conundrum of Afghanistan.
The President has to decide which course to choose. He can follow Gen. Stanley McChrystal's highly-publicized recommendation of committing up to 40,000 additional troops to a war that has already gone on for eight years. If Mr. Obama does, then Afghanistan becomes "his war" and he runs the risk of a protracted fight with more American casualties. Practically, it's unclear that this strategy will work while politically Mr. Obama could lose his liberal base.
The President could also decide to ignore McChrystal's advice, keep troop levels the same or even begin to remove American forces from Afghanistan. Then Mr. Obama risks having the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces declare victory, thus emboldening our enemies in their fight against the West. The President could be tagged with a legacy of letting the country slip back into the hands of dangerous radicals.
Or the President could take a middle strategy that gives him some political cover, but does not provide the means to win the fight. Henry Kissinger wrote in Newsweek of this approach: "If he compromises, he may fall between all stools--too little to make progress, too much to still controversy."
Last week's stunning announcement that the President had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize provided no help with his quandary. In fact, it made his predicament even more challenging. How can a President who just received a world prize for peace expand a war? On the other side, if the President chooses to withdraw from Afghanistan, his critics will accuse him of playing to the European pacifists
This weekend Saturday Night Live, one of America's cultural barometers, aired a skit with Fred Armisen, who plays Barack Obama, saying that he won the prize "for not being George Bush." The audience roared, perhaps because the best comedy is always rooted in the truth.
Winning the prize was not Mr. Obama's fault, but rather the fault of the Nobel committee which has sent a powerful message that intent carries the same value as action. It’s an embarrassment for a President who is struggling to match his rhetoric with measurable success. Just last week, SNL lampooned this President's lack of accomplishments.
The great challenge of the Presidency is that it's often about choosing the least worst option, particularly when it comes to military matters. And when choosing such a course, one finds it hard to build consensus. Leadership during challenging times is less about consensus and more about strength and commitment to a course of action.
Some on the right are salivating over the flesh that's been exposed in the first months of the Obama Presidency. The left awaits its payoff on the promise for "change," whatever that word happens to mean at the moment. Meanwhile, the great middle of America looks as it always has for steady leadership.
The Nobel Prize causes those in an accomplishment-based society--even those who want Mr. Obama to succeed for no other reason than the fact that he is the President--to wonder if his remarkable personal appeal will translate into decisions that are best for the country. The modern campaign for the Presidency is often simplified into a popularity contest, but once in office the President must make unpopular decisions.
The challenge of the Afghanistan decision awaits, as does Johnson's paradox of the Potomac.
