These disenchanted liberals apparently wanted Obama -- upon taking office -- to have instantly transformed every campaign promise into law by the simple wave of a pen. Or maybe they would have preferred Obama to have walked out onto a White House balcony where, in a scene reminiscent of the musical "Evita," he would be greeted by adoring throngs waiting below, and on the spot, declare that all his ideas were now the law of the land.
But here's the problem. Barack Obama is not a king, he's the president of the United States. ...
Being president requires some degree of compromise due to the very nature of our government. That is the way it has been for more than 200 years. While President Obama may be far from perfect -- and, I, too, have been disappointed with some of his decisions -- I certainly prefer him to a king.
I've said this before — anyone who thought George W. Bush was autocratic as president shouldn't be angry that Obama isn't. We shouldn't mistake the president's failure to enact tenets of his vision with an unwillingness to do so; he is, after all, subject to checks and balances. Often ridiculous checks and balances these days, but that's how the system is set up. And it's set up that way precisely because no branch of the federal government is supposed to grow too powerful. Having our guy in office doesn't make autocracy OK — if nothing else, you're setting a precedent for the next president, who might not be so friendly.
The system also shows why a more ideologically "pure" president such as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would be a disaster — either they don't compromise and get nothing done, or they do compromise and betray everything they supposedly represent. Given that, it's actually sort of amazing that we have Obama in office, and that he's getting as much done as he has.
Obama is bad at being king, but we're also bad at being a monarchy.