Similar to the physician's creed, "First, do no harm." Sounds good to me! I like it. It's modest. A president should definitely avoid doing stupid shit.
That would not have been my first principle. It may not have been a principle at all for me. Temper. I have a temper. Itchy trigger finger. "Better rubble than rabble." That was articulated here as my similarly pithy Guiding Light of foreign policy. Lot of people would have been killed under B.R.T.R. I don't think the American people would have been down with BRTR. Impeached my ass. UN resolutions. War crimes charges, maybe.
Obama's DDSS works for me now, the way I see America post-NSA. America has done a lot of stupid shit by foreign policy actions that are kissin' cousins to BRTR. After the NSA revelations, after Egypt, after Benghazi, I'm more modest about BRTR. DDSS has resulted in a weaker America abroad, less influence. I think that is good. I don't think that's what Obama wanted DDSS to do but that is what the Right has excoriated Obama for doing. I don't excoriate Obama for his overall foreign policy record. At this moment I cannot think of a foreign policy decision Obama has made that I, putting myself in his position (As I believe I should.), would not have made also. Going along with the Russians on Syria: I would have done the same. Ukraine: no boots on the ground, absolutely. Tentatively feeling out Iran: okay, try it. Sanctioning Russia: yep. Sort of leaving Israel and the Palestinians to figure things out themselves: I've thought for a long time we should pull back a bit there. So on the individual decisions Obama has made, I support him and admit they have turned out better than BRTR likely would have...Pivot to Asia, that's one, I disagree with that. Would not have done that. I don't know what that is about. Make divots not pivots.
But, "Don't do stupid shit" still would not have been my beacon. It's negative: "Don't." Don't tell me "don't," I'm the president of the Unites States! "Don't do." So, "don't act." "Don't act?" No, I think a president should probably act. What about the Hippocratic creed? "Do." "Do no harm," but do. That's positive, active. "Don't do stupid shit" is negative, passive. The two creeds are so similar though. Maybe now I'm being too lawyerly. Maybe there's only a distinction without a difference. Can we phrase the Obamic creed positively and actively? "First, do no stupid shit." "Do no stupid." You're telling me--I'm telling myself--I have to remind myself--not to be stupid? That stupid comes naturally to me and I have to guard against my instinct to be stupid? Now, that does seem to me different from the Hippocratic creed. The Hippocratic creed is power-conscious, it is not power-doubting. The Obamic creed is both: "Shit! I have all this power now. What do I do with it? I don't know, just don't do stupid shit, Barack!" That's too modest. That's too modest a First Principle for the President of the United States.
I have another pithy principle. This principle says, "Sometimes that power is greatest which is not exercised." That's modest. I think that fails the test of principle-hood though, if a command is a criterion for principle-hood. There's no "do" or "don't," it's more like something to think about. It's consistent with what Merkel said, that just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean you should do something. A dog has the power to lick his balls; in my opinion, that is a power better left unexcercised. That principle of mine also is power-conscious. It is also not power-doubting.
No, now that I think this through, there is a distinction with a difference between the Hippocratic
creed and the Obamic creed. Those are Obama's words, he chose that phraseology, his creed is
negative and it is passive, it is doubting. En passant, DDSS is a double entendre in American
informal speech: "Different Day, Same Shit." That refers to the drudgery of office work and
bureaucracy. I don't think that was a deliberate double entendre by Obama, it may have been subsonscious though. He seems jaded, disinterested; the work seems drudgery to him. However that may be, the Obamic creed provides Insight into Barack Obama's judgment on his own judgment. He doubts his own judgment in the exercise of power. A physician does not. (I do not.) Of all the things we can think here is a thought that has never been thought: "I faint at the sight of blood, my hands shake when I use a pair of scissors to cut a piece of paper, I think I'll be a brain surgeon!" The physician is power-conscious but not power-doubtful. He is confident that if he chooses to act he will do good. A president should have confidence, I think, in his judgment to exercise power. Confident that if he chooses, he will do good. A president should not, as it were, be writing on the bathroom mirror "Don't do stupid shit" as reminder each morning.
You know what I think bothers me, at base, about "Don't do stupid shit"? If that's your principle, why do you want to be president? The best way to avoid doing stupid shit as a president is not to be a president! Barack Obama once said, when he was first running for president, "I didn't come to Washington to do school uniforms." A put down of President Clinton. Clinton's lack of ambition in affecting real Change. Clearly implicit in Obama's statement then is positive action. But it was phrased negatively. Obama didn't say what he was going to do, just that he woudn't do school uniforms. It was a positive-negative statement, an ambitious statement of unarticulated ambition. "Don't do stupid sit" is a very cautious, very modest message to have on the bathroom mirror. If not BRTR, how about something like "Carpe Diem." That's active, positive. I'm gonna seize something, the day seems a fairly innocuous thing to seize.
DDSS didn't stop NSA either. Spying on Merkel, on Rousseff, on our allies and non-enemies, those are foreign policy actions. Obama did them. NSA is the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history. DDSS was no match for NSA. DDSS is too passive, too doubting, in addition to being negative. But Obama didn't want to stop NSA for fear of doing stupid shit! I would have seized NSA by the throat and taken up a blunt cutting instrument and hacked it to pieces and I would not have been stupid! But hacking NSA to pieces would have violated the "don't" and the "do" of Obama's DDSS in addition to the "stupid" so that's 3 out of the 4 parts of DDSS. "Stupid" though admits to some play. One man's stupid is another man's Change. That was Obama's once, too. Hope and Change.
Change: I would have changed as president after NSA and I would have changed NSA. Not cutting NSA, not acting, "don'ting" and "don'ting doing" was stupid. So there's stupid in doing and stupid in DDSS. Stupid is as stupid does and stupid is as stupid doesn't do. Sometimes. DDSS doesn't prevent stupid. It may prevent success.
That would not have been my first principle. It may not have been a principle at all for me. Temper. I have a temper. Itchy trigger finger. "Better rubble than rabble." That was articulated here as my similarly pithy Guiding Light of foreign policy. Lot of people would have been killed under B.R.T.R. I don't think the American people would have been down with BRTR. Impeached my ass. UN resolutions. War crimes charges, maybe.
Obama's DDSS works for me now, the way I see America post-NSA. America has done a lot of stupid shit by foreign policy actions that are kissin' cousins to BRTR. After the NSA revelations, after Egypt, after Benghazi, I'm more modest about BRTR. DDSS has resulted in a weaker America abroad, less influence. I think that is good. I don't think that's what Obama wanted DDSS to do but that is what the Right has excoriated Obama for doing. I don't excoriate Obama for his overall foreign policy record. At this moment I cannot think of a foreign policy decision Obama has made that I, putting myself in his position (As I believe I should.), would not have made also. Going along with the Russians on Syria: I would have done the same. Ukraine: no boots on the ground, absolutely. Tentatively feeling out Iran: okay, try it. Sanctioning Russia: yep. Sort of leaving Israel and the Palestinians to figure things out themselves: I've thought for a long time we should pull back a bit there. So on the individual decisions Obama has made, I support him and admit they have turned out better than BRTR likely would have...Pivot to Asia, that's one, I disagree with that. Would not have done that. I don't know what that is about. Make divots not pivots.
But, "Don't do stupid shit" still would not have been my beacon. It's negative: "Don't." Don't tell me "don't," I'm the president of the Unites States! "Don't do." So, "don't act." "Don't act?" No, I think a president should probably act. What about the Hippocratic creed? "Do." "Do no harm," but do. That's positive, active. "Don't do stupid shit" is negative, passive. The two creeds are so similar though. Maybe now I'm being too lawyerly. Maybe there's only a distinction without a difference. Can we phrase the Obamic creed positively and actively? "First, do no stupid shit." "Do no stupid." You're telling me--I'm telling myself--I have to remind myself--not to be stupid? That stupid comes naturally to me and I have to guard against my instinct to be stupid? Now, that does seem to me different from the Hippocratic creed. The Hippocratic creed is power-conscious, it is not power-doubting. The Obamic creed is both: "Shit! I have all this power now. What do I do with it? I don't know, just don't do stupid shit, Barack!" That's too modest. That's too modest a First Principle for the President of the United States.
I have another pithy principle. This principle says, "Sometimes that power is greatest which is not exercised." That's modest. I think that fails the test of principle-hood though, if a command is a criterion for principle-hood. There's no "do" or "don't," it's more like something to think about. It's consistent with what Merkel said, that just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean you should do something. A dog has the power to lick his balls; in my opinion, that is a power better left unexcercised. That principle of mine also is power-conscious. It is also not power-doubting.
No, now that I think this through, there is a distinction with a difference between the Hippocratic
creed and the Obamic creed. Those are Obama's words, he chose that phraseology, his creed is
negative and it is passive, it is doubting. En passant, DDSS is a double entendre in American
informal speech: "Different Day, Same Shit." That refers to the drudgery of office work and
bureaucracy. I don't think that was a deliberate double entendre by Obama, it may have been subsonscious though. He seems jaded, disinterested; the work seems drudgery to him. However that may be, the Obamic creed provides Insight into Barack Obama's judgment on his own judgment. He doubts his own judgment in the exercise of power. A physician does not. (I do not.) Of all the things we can think here is a thought that has never been thought: "I faint at the sight of blood, my hands shake when I use a pair of scissors to cut a piece of paper, I think I'll be a brain surgeon!" The physician is power-conscious but not power-doubtful. He is confident that if he chooses to act he will do good. A president should have confidence, I think, in his judgment to exercise power. Confident that if he chooses, he will do good. A president should not, as it were, be writing on the bathroom mirror "Don't do stupid shit" as reminder each morning.
You know what I think bothers me, at base, about "Don't do stupid shit"? If that's your principle, why do you want to be president? The best way to avoid doing stupid shit as a president is not to be a president! Barack Obama once said, when he was first running for president, "I didn't come to Washington to do school uniforms." A put down of President Clinton. Clinton's lack of ambition in affecting real Change. Clearly implicit in Obama's statement then is positive action. But it was phrased negatively. Obama didn't say what he was going to do, just that he woudn't do school uniforms. It was a positive-negative statement, an ambitious statement of unarticulated ambition. "Don't do stupid sit" is a very cautious, very modest message to have on the bathroom mirror. If not BRTR, how about something like "Carpe Diem." That's active, positive. I'm gonna seize something, the day seems a fairly innocuous thing to seize.
DDSS didn't stop NSA either. Spying on Merkel, on Rousseff, on our allies and non-enemies, those are foreign policy actions. Obama did them. NSA is the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history. DDSS was no match for NSA. DDSS is too passive, too doubting, in addition to being negative. But Obama didn't want to stop NSA for fear of doing stupid shit! I would have seized NSA by the throat and taken up a blunt cutting instrument and hacked it to pieces and I would not have been stupid! But hacking NSA to pieces would have violated the "don't" and the "do" of Obama's DDSS in addition to the "stupid" so that's 3 out of the 4 parts of DDSS. "Stupid" though admits to some play. One man's stupid is another man's Change. That was Obama's once, too. Hope and Change.
Change: I would have changed as president after NSA and I would have changed NSA. Not cutting NSA, not acting, "don'ting" and "don'ting doing" was stupid. So there's stupid in doing and stupid in DDSS. Stupid is as stupid does and stupid is as stupid doesn't do. Sometimes. DDSS doesn't prevent stupid. It may prevent success.
