Today marks the end of March 2011, and 150 years ago this month, President Abraham Lincoln gave his first inaugural address in Washington DC.  In the midst of his transitioning to becoming our 16^th President, states in the South had already begun to secede from the Union.  Less than one month after taking the oath of office, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter, marking the beginning of the Civil War and what would become, arguably, the greatest American Presidency to date.

Lincoln’s Presidency was compared to that of our current President, Barack Obama, several times during the early days of the Obama administration.  Obama himself has perpetuated such comparisons.  Lincoln was to serve as a model for the Obama Presidency, and there were several similarities between Obama and Lincoln.  Both took over the Oval Office during times of crisis (although Obama’s crisis of the financial meltdown and extreme recession is not on a different level than Lincoln’s dilemma of a broken Union).  Both are the only two Presidents that came into office from the state of Illinois, representing their state as senators.  It is here, however, that the similarities seem to end.

Despite a Cabinet with lukewarm loyalty and drive, despite incompetent leadership in the Union armed forces, despite the death of a son and a depressed, heartbroken wife, Lincoln worked tirelessly to achieve the end of preserving the Union.  This goal was the paramount objective throughout his Presidency.  Even when the war became politically unpopular, Lincoln stayed the course.  Even while war riots broke out in northern cities, he stayed the course.  He even conceded publicly that he was going to lose the Election of 1864, although he eventually won.  That victory came from steadfast focus on the goal at hand and dedicated leadership, not from monitoring polls and sending mixed messages to the American people in order to avoid political minefields.  Despite all of this, we never had confusion on Lincoln’s priorities.

Contrast that with our current President.  Barack Obama has claimed he is going to have a laser-like focus on jobs, yet the evidence seems to point elsewhere.  The signature accomplishment of his administration to date, Obamacare, has been found to be detrimental to job growth, according to the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest organization representing business in this country.  What about Obama’s other beliefs?  He has stated that he is for a green economy; however, he stood idly by when the Senate declared cap-and-trade legislation dead.  He has said it is paramount to fix the deficit; however, his recent budget proposal does nothing to either address entitlement reform or significantly cut the $1.5T budget gap (according to his own party).  He has said that we must close Guantanamo Bay; however, he put no political muscle behind forcing Congress to fund activities necessary for such a closure.  His claim to fame when he announced his candidacy for Presidency in 2007 was his anti-war stance, but he has failed to end US troop presence in Iraq after 16 months in office and has upped the ante, not once, but twice in Afghanistan.  Obama has even been lukewarm with health care reform, his signature accomplishment to-date, as dozens of corporations, entities, and even states are being allowed to opt out of his new health care law.  All of this raises the question, what does Obama truly believe in?

To be clear, TOC is not stating agreement or disagreement with any stance that Obama has taken, but only requests that we all get a better picture on what stances Obama actually believes in.  TOC yearns for a leader that says what he does and does what he says . . . just like Lincoln.

Lately, there has been a bit of controversy surrounding the White House and the President.  While Japan, a close ally and economic partner, wrestled with the aftermath of a 9.0 earthquake, a devastating tsunami and a crippled nuclear facility, President Obama took a moment to fill out his brackets for the 2011 NCAA Men’s Championship.  While the US was preparing to carry out military operations by bombing strategic targets in Libya, as part of an international coalition of nations, President Obama hosted a representative from ESPN to walk him through his thought process of picking winners and losers for a series of 67 basketball games.  While our nation was crippled in a deadlock between the GOP and the President’s own Democratic party – passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution to keep our federal government operating in lieu of a fiscal budget for the current fiscal year, President Obama pondered over his Final Four picks.

The biggest criticizers of the President are, of course, right-wing conservatives.  The general statement made by such people is that the last thing the President should be doing is discussing his Presidential bracket during such crisis.  Democrats, in typical fashion, defend the President, saying that he is on top of these events and should not be expected to be “on alert” 24/7.  TOC would like to take the another road and suggest another question – should the President even be doing such, regardless of whether or not there are such catastrophes going on across the globe?  What makes this question more prevalent is the fact that it’s an obvious ploy for publicity for both parties:  ESPN wanting to bolster TV ratings by projecting Obama’s bracket performance on an hourly basis, and the White House wanting to continue to uphold Obama’s popularity by connecting him with a ultra-popular cultural icon, such as March Madness.    Independent of what is going on in our nation or across the globe, the White House should be a center of leadership, not cultural popularity, for the nation.  We are in dire need of direction, not patronizing publicity stunts, to ensure that a President that ran on nothing more than general populism remains popular in the run-up to the next election.

To support this contrast between the need for leadership and the receipt of publicity and voyages for popularity, consider the following series of events.  President Obama was and is MIA on the present budget deficit, which will be dwarfed by our future deficits if we do not curtail the entitlement spending that will be required going forward.  President Obama had no problems inserting himself into the Super Bowl discussion as soon as his native team, the Chicago Bears, won a chance to be in the big game.  President Obama was MIA for three days after Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab attempted to down an airliner over the skies of Detroit; however, he was definitely available to play politics just before the attempted attack.  He delayed his holiday vacation that same month in order to make phone calls to members of the US Senate to pass a healthcare bill that could not even stand on its own merits.  Indeed, this is the same healthcare bill that some Democrats are objecting being termed as “Obamacare” even though it is the signature accomplishment of this administration thus far (according to the American Spectator’s Philip Klein).  We can also reference Obama’s MIA status after the BP oil spill in the Gulf or his subdued, ultra-reserved approach to the Egyptian riots in 2011 and the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009.

In closing, TOC hopes that, over the next 22 months leading to Inauguration Day 2013, President Obama shifts and has a sense of direction in leadership in the issues that dominate the present day.  If so, we as a nation can look forward to a second term of a “turned-around” President Obama and a serious addressing of our problems.  If not, then we as a nation may decide to look elsewhere and inaugurate another leader on that day . . . then again, this all assumes that we as a nation approach the next election as just that, an election, and not another popularity contest.  If only . . . if only.

In February, President Obama held a news conference to discuss his budget proposal for FY2011 and the recent upheaval in Egypt.  During that press conference, April Ryan of American Urban Radio asked the President a question (according to the Chicago Sun-times) concerning the administration’s work to improve the lives of “The Least of These.”  It is clear that Ryan does not believe that the poor, particularly poor minorities, are “less” than other Americans.  In fact, TOC would like to commend Ryan for being an advocate for these disenfranchised groups.

TOC found Ryan’s choice of words interesting and thought-provoking.  Ryan is probably alluding to the Bible verse Matthew 25:40, “. . . Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.”  Here Jesus is saying that the way we treat the poor will be considered a reflection on how we respect God.  The key here is the word that is not used.  Jesus says “you” but not “your government.”  Herein lies the problem.

Liberals believe that government can solve all problems.  Conservatives believe that government can only empower.  Liberals see such people and see need.  Conservatives see such people and see potential.  For instance, Michael Reagan illustrates how the policies under Ronald Reagan, cut spending and empowered job growth, significantly reducing the unemployment rate in the black community.  In contrast, he shows how after two years, the unemployment rate for blacks has increased by 25%.  Obama, in contrast to Reagan, has increased taxes and established government as the provider – for example, expanding unemployment benefits to almost 3 years while passing an ineffective health care bill that damages the effectiveness of the business community (for example, the so-called 1099 provision, which even Barack Obama has admitted is an impediment to business, according to Reuters) to curb unemployment.

Perhaps it is time to start talking about how to make “the least of these” into “the most of these.”  We do not get there with an education system that is cost-ridden and dysfunctional.  We do not get there when we punish business and entrepreneurship in the interest of “spreading the wealth around.”  Maybe if the conversation shifted as such, we could truly find a way to get to “the most of these.”  Besides, it will also help us, as a country, be more fiscally responsible and someday heed another verse – Romans 13:8a, “Owe no man nothing but love.”