Presidential Power

Irascible Democrat: There’s something I’ve been dying to ask you, since your view of the current President has softened, while down-home vitriol at him seems to be ever-increasing. Plus, there was his Superman joke during the campaign. So what's your take on his presidency so far?

Superman: I’m a reporter, first and foremost, so I have to take umbrage a bit with your phrasing. There are people who are angry with the President, and some of them even have a point, but if you’re specifically bringing up the Tea Parties, or the people shouting at politicians who try to speak about health care or climate change- they’re in an obstructionist minority.

But again, some of them do have a point. A wide majority of people favor health care reform. When you ask them about any specific plan on any specific timeline, support drops to a little below half. I think the problem, particularly with health care, is that the public like their health circumstances today, and they're scared of things changing. But the reality is their circumstances are constantly changing, evolving. If current trends continue, without reform costs will continue to rise, and that will mean that some people will have to change to cheaper insurance, others will lose coverage entirely. So people want to freeze their insurance as it stands today- but that isn't really possible. The public is just scared, right now, which I think is largely the fault of that obstructionist minority I mentioned, but the administration hasn't effectively countered it, either.

ID: But overall, how do you rate the President?

S: I’m not going to give him a grade, or a thumbs up or down. But I’ll say one thing for the man and the administration he's built, that I think encompasses most of my feelings on the subject: he’s trying. Whatever your political feelings on what he’s attempting to do, whatever your favorite hobby horse, he’s attempting to do something about it. That was always the most damning charge against Bush, and Luthor after him, that they were terribly passive. They wanted to let the market sort things out, let someone else figure out a way to profit when things went wrong, rather than getting in with the resources at their disposal to help. And Obama, and the congressional leadership, they’re trying. They’re fighting the good fight.

Sometimes, with all the pies they have their hands in, things get necessarily back-burnered, but I think it’s unreasonable to think even a great president would be able to address every standing question in the nation at the same time.

Take Darfur. The League came out in a joint statement with President Bush's administration, declaring our belief that what was taking place in Darfur amounted to genocide. We also filed an amicus brief of our research efforts for the ICC. Now under international law, Bush was supposed to act to stop the genocide in Darfur once it was determined to be occurring. But Bush, and Luthor after him, seemed content with that, assuming someone else would deal with it effectively.

ID: Given your own non-interventionist approach, isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

S: The difference is slight, I'll grant you, but huge. First, the League is a collection of people from different nationalities, and are not signatories nor parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The CPPCG actually states in part that signatory nations have a responsibility to act against a genocide. Where the League lacks the mandate and the infrastructure, the U.S. does not. The U.S. under either Bush or Luthor could have assembled another coalition. Hell, the US could have devoted no resources whatsoever, and just called in Captain Atom, one of the few Captains in our circles who actually holds the rank legitimately- in the Air Force, specifically.

ID: Okay, so what's the difference then in current policy?

S: Admittedly, part of the change is that now there's a UN force in place, there's a warrant for genocide-related crimes out for [Sudanese President Omar al] Bashir from the ICC. But despite the fact that Darfur is at least in the process of making progress, he's still talking about it. And he's dispatched specific envoys tasked with aiding the situation. I think he could do more. I think, in private at least, he should mention Captain Atom, and the fact that one single air raid through the country could destroy upwards of 80% of the military infrastructure, and probably deliver Bashir into the waiting hands of the ICC. I think maybe Obama doesn't want to push that too hard, where he's using fear and threats as a proxy for diplomacy, and I think Darfur is one of those things that has been back-burnered in favor of pressing domestic concerns- but I think it's on his to-do list, whereas with Luthor and Bush I don't think it even registered as something they should think about acting on.

ID: Okay, what about GM?

S: I think, given the lousy set of circumstances, he’s done well enough. After all, it was the previous administration that first loaned GM billions of dollars. So when it came to choosing between letting that “investment” die- and letting all those jobs disappear- or sinking more capital into the company, I don’t think there was a good choice- so I think they tried to be practical.

ID: What about people upset about the lack of movement on “Don't ask, don't tell.”

S: I think it's still on the President's radar- it's just a difficult policy to replace with other things on the table. I think, also, he's a bit gunshy because of what happened to Clinton that originally led to the compromise that is “Don't ask.” I think it's again Obama choosing some priorities over others.

ID: Are you an apologist for the President?

S: I'm not an apologist for anyone, except occasionally myself- and even then, only when I feel I've genuinely erred. Besides which, these are your questions, which means either you were wanting me to fall the way I did, the other way, or, I suppose if you're that rare kind of genuinely curious reporter, then you were just interested in which way I eventually would fall.

ID: Okay, but if the next election were tomorrow, would you vote to reelect him?

S: I don't know- that depends on my options. If all the Republicans are offering is Palin, Romney, Huckabee, then I'd take anyone else with a pulse and a synapse or two- which would definitely include the President. If Al Gore decides to challenge as the father of a new independent party, running on a platform of genuine environmental revolution- things like mandating recyclable containers for all food products- then I don't know. I always really liked the title “man of tomorrow,” so if there were an election then, I hope I'd be looking towards the future, and who was going to get us to the best one possible.

We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Tuesday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.