The devastation of the Gulf Coast and surrounding wetlands has our national and political discourse in a tailspin. President Obama’s Oval Office address last week failed to respond appropriately to the gravity of this disaster in the view of the Left and likely, the Right. We recently saw the incredulous apology from Republican Joe Barton (who also has pocketed $1,448,380 from oil companies) to BP in response to the White House’s pressure on BP to create a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate the people of the Gulf Coast (in which he immediately was forced to apologize for the apology.)

I can appreciate the content and sentiment from Rachel Maddow in her imaginary Oval Office address. I feel that too, however, I’m very cynical but pragmatic about how policy achievements get done; It’s simply not based in the reality where our reality-based politics live. Others in the blogosphere have noted this as well (see: Matt Yglesias’  Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.) And for that I turn it over to True/Slant’s (and PostBourgie) blogger Jamelle Bouie:

For what it’s worth, I think a few things are at play in this warped liberal view of the president (and really, it’s not just liberals, most Americans see the president as some sort of Dune-esque God Emperor): first, there’s simply no popular recognition that the president is a weak constitutional actor. Campaigns are long on presidential promises and short on the recognition that the president is really limited in what he or she can do. And once in office, the president is the most visible person in government, which leads people to assign the most agency to him, even when it’s unwarranted. Moreover, movies and television habitually present the president as the one person who controls everything in government. In most movies, when the president barks orders, they instantly become law. It’s no wonder that most people have an outsized view of presidential authority; most of their exposure comes from 24 and large, ornate presidential addresses.

I’d also add that the optics of President Bush may have changed liberals’ perception of what the president can do. At every turn, we either heard that President Bush was doing “X” thing, or claiming “X” power, and without the context of a unified Republican Congress or a pliant executive branch, it was easy to believe that Bush was accomplishing these things through sheer force of will, when he simply wasn’t. And after Bush, what many liberals really wanted was a “liberal Bush,” not realizing that Bush wasn’t nearly as successful as he was portrayed, and that the president isn’t nearly as powerful as they think.

It certainly wasn’t his best speech. However, in the face of this ongoing disaster, I think we’re learning the limits of oratory as we are understanding the limits of the man.

Related posts:

1. Today in Blackness or lack there of: GOP really needs some chocolate in their life.
2. Rand Paul would prefer “Civil Rights Act-Lite”
3. [MUSIC] “POWER” Kanye West ft. Dwele
4. Presidential Weekly Address – 7.25.09
5. TWiB Op-Ed: Sarah Palin – Eye Keeper on RUSSIA!