How President Obama Governs

President Obama arriving at a news conference in 2012. His approach to some major issues has been called nuanced by admirers and passive by detractors. Doug Mills/The New York Times

In Second Term, Obama Is Seen As Using ‘Hidden Hand’ Approach -- New York Times

WASHINGTON — In the nearly two weeks since Egypt’s military seized power, President Obama has promoted a better federal bureaucracy, given a medal to George Lucas of “Star Wars” fame and had former President George Bush to the White House for lunch. What he has not done is publicly address the violent upheaval in Cairo.

That is not to say Mr. Obama is uninvolved. In the privacy of the West Wing, away from the cameras, he has made calls to leading figures in the Arab world and has met with advisers trying to influence the crisis. But his low public profile on issues like immigration, Syria and health care underscores a calculated presidential approach that admirers consider nuanced and detractors call passive.

While other presidents have put the bully in the bully pulpit, Mr. Obama uses his megaphone, and the power that comes with it, sparingly, speaking out when he decides his voice can shape the trajectory of an issue and staying silent when he thinks it might be counterproductive. In his first year, the president seemed to be everywhere, talking about everything. In his fifth year, he is choosing his opportunities — even if it appears he is not always in command of events.

Read more ....

My Comment: Finally .... finally .... finally .... the New York Times has figured out how President Obama governs. Regular readers of this blog know that I have been saying the same thing for years .... especially when it comes to how President Obama conducts foreign policy and national security. Case in point .... the NSA scandal. Publicly talk about privacy rights and the need to curtail surveillance laws .... privately .... do the exact opposite. Is this a smart approach .... politically it is. But this flight from responsibility will have long term consequences .... from the economy/social peace/relations with other countries/and national security .... a point that the New York Times still refuses to acknowledge.