| HappySqurriel said: More than anything else, the BP oil spill seems to have impacted Barack Obama so negatively because it demonstrated how tone-deaf he is to the American public. This is just another sign of this inability to see how the American public would react. |
What disappoints me personally the most (though I am not even in the slightest bit surprised) is that he is now reacting now in a way which he knows full well is the opposite of helpful to the situation. The American public want him to be angry, so he's now being angry. This is despite the fact that he knows being angry and yelling at BP isn't going to make things go any better, BP is already doing everything they can to fix the spill.
The American public would probably react by seizing BP's assets. At least thats an idea I have heard bandied around quite a lot recently. That would really fuck the situation up though because; A) It would slow down fixing the problem a lot as a working BP is the only thing that's going to stop the leak. B) Fuck over American shareholders who actually I think own more of BP than the British do.
Basically Obama started by dealing with this crisis with a rational calm approach, then on demand he started acting angry and dealing in insults and threats. It just goes to show, politics and acting are pretty much the same as career choices.
Personally I like my politicians to have their own personalities and ideologies that they will stick to rather than being puppets of public opinion. (And please don't try and make this sound like I don't support democracy, I think politicians should be elected based on their ideologies and personalities, I just don't think they should change them whenever the winds of opinion shift.)
I don't think a crisis like this should show how the American public would react, it should show how the American president and leader would react, and then he should be judged in the next election based on that reaction.
