In a recent article by Bernard Henri Levy, he spells out three so called “revolutions” that President Obama achieved that prove he has not been the craven and incompetent fool his detractors depict him as. These “revolutions” of course require the President’s reelection as a reward. However when looking at each of the three individually, revolution might be too strong of a term though I do think each of his reasons have merit in the case for reelection.
The first reason Mr.Levy alleges is the President’s healthcare reform. The author however concedes, that far from being a revolution, Mr. Obama had to sacrifice much of his vision to achieve it. The reform was not as broad or strong as it could’ve been. Mr. Levy is however certainly right that it will remembered as a strong achievement and significant reform, though this is all dependent on if it stands. Right now many are not satisfied with it and come election day, voters could easily unravel it. Still when you get down to it the President’s reform will certainly have a positive effect on this country and is certainly for those that agree with this notion a reason to vote for the President. Again though it is nearly strong enough or currently set in stone to be a revolution.
Next Mr. Levy claims that President Obama’s handling of the economy is also a revolution. Looking at the hard facts of how Mr. Levy and from everything I’ve seen, from other sources over the past several years, the President did not do anything to revolutionize the economic landscape. Rather everything Obama did was for the purpose of restoring the economy. There were true changes such as the President’s Wall Street regulations(which Mr. Levy fails to mention) but overall Obama’s handling of the economy at best suggests he was focused on repair rather than change. With that said the recovery that followed has been slow but is a recovery beyond a doubt happening and by some estimate will look even brighter in the near future. Again depending on one’s own opinion Obama’s economic handling is certainly a meritable reason if one holds that Obama got the economy going again during a very tough time.
In his last reason Mr. Levy claims that President Obama’s foreign policy record is also revolutionary and mentions a list of accomplishments, such as the withdrawal from Iraq and the death Osama Bin Laden among them. He also details a concession in Obama’s failure to close Gitmo. Admittedly President Obama has had strong accomplishments in this area though they are certainly not revolutionary but rather a sign of competency. Mr. Levy’s brief list does not detail or do justice to them though.
Now Mr. Levy is a actually a Frenchman and this article is translated from his native language leading me to suspect either the definition of revolution is very different for the French or he is greatly exaggerating President Obama’s accomplishments. With that said Mr. Levy’s reason’s are not invalid fundamentally and not wrong in my view either. President Obama as this article presents has a long string of successes and he is certainly deserving of reelection because of them. However these accomplishments do not depict as a revolutionary who changed the landscape of politics or America. President Obama is a great leader but he ultimately did not live up to the hype and Mr. Levy’s are uncompelling in this regard at best. No leader could’ve lived up to the hype Obama had though and failing to be the messiah that people deluded themselves into thinking he would be should not disqualify him for reelection. I ultimately find Mr. Levy’s claims that Obama was a “revolutionary” to be “malarky” but his reason’s for his reelection to be solid though in my personal opinion, they overall are not presented in a strong enough format and lack a feeling of coherency. This article, while it has good reasons, in the end come’s off as an unapologetic defense of Obama that lacks an overall coherent view of why he deserves to be reelected, much less prove that he is a hyper transformative leader.