We're only thirty days into Obama's tenure as President, and the critics seem to be confused. On the one hand, the criticism of Obama has been focused on too few specifics and not enough action. On the other hand, some feel he is moving too fast and that the weekly and almost daily barrage of media appearances and speeches are confusing. This criticism comes during a time of crisis when we're all looking for the silver lining or some sign that we may actually get out of this mess, but just as importantly it comes as we are being introduced to how our new President will operate.
The comparisons to past Presidents is inevitable, but what is clear is that no President since FDR has faced a crisis of this magnitude during his first days in office, and Obama has the least amount of direct experience preparing him for the job since…Bush 43. When the smartest minds in the world have difficulty defining a path to fix our financial system, how productive is it for the media and talking heads to criticize Obama on a "lack of specifics"? I mean would anyone really accept a prescription to remedy our problems during the first couple of weeks of Obama's presidency? This criticism extended to Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner in much stronger terms as the market tanked based on the view that Geithner's comments to Congress lacked specifics. The biggest mistake would seem to be that Obama set up Geithner for failure by raising expectations, but once again, can you really blame Obama for either moving too fast or lacking in specifics at a granular level on the financial fix before his treasury secretary had even spoken to the country?
It seems to me that for all of Obama's relative lack of experience and obvious desire to be successful, he gets it. The critics and talking heads on CNBC should get it too, but they seem to think in 24 hour news cycles with an inability to think about the journey we have really just begun. Obama is setting the tone and we should not be surprised by what appears to be a contrast in speeds and expectation setting. Obama has been consistent in his belief that Washington is broken and that our problems will take considerable time to fix. He would be irresponsible to suggest anything less. On the other hand, he is moving at light speed to address all of the issues simultaneously. Aside from the political reasons for doing so, he is forcing change by driving the pace. Congress likes to talk but they have problems taking serious action quickly. The American People are also tired of what they see as a lack of leadership and action in Washington. Obama is action oriented and cautiously optimistic. Doesn't that make sense?
From my perspective, it makes perfect sense. Obama is attempting to shape the debate by setting expectations appropriately as to the magnitude of the problems while whipping up Washington to act. The critics shouldn't be confused. Obama is demonstrating how he will shape the debate. We should expect more of the same and it's highly unlikely that Obama will be tempted to play cheerleader. The markets will eventually understand this and the detachment from the 24 hour news cycle coming out of Washington and New York will help bring stability to the markets. We need a rational market, and Obama's psychology seems to be just right for the times from my perspective.
What do you think? Does Obama know what he is doing?
