THE MOSQUE

We can all thank President Obama for elevating the Mosque (community center?) near Ground Zero in Manhattan to an issue of national importance. Putting aside the fact that the President addressed an issue beneath his office, why did he have to effectively take one side? Here's what he should've said:


                "It has come to my attention that an effort to build a mosque in lower Manhattan
                 has drawn criticism of many New Yorkers and family members of 9/11 victims.
                 There is a right to worship freely and build houses of worship for that 
                 purpose. However, I believe given the expressed concerns of the American public
                 on this subject that all concerned parties should accept New York Governor David 
                 Patterson's effort to mediate. I support such an effort to reach a compromise
                 that addresses the concerns of interested and effected parties."

A statement like this would have accomplished the following.


1.) The President would have neutrally acknowleded the respective positions of all parties.
2.) He would have added the weight of the Presidency behind David Patterson and increased his position in reaching an accord.
3.) He would have affected an outcome through negotiation without taking sides and sullying the office of President.
4. He would've forced the hand of all parties to come to the table because to do otherwise would have undermined the public positions of each party. 

But he didn't do that. The President cannot as a practical matter express himself on everything he deems of consequence. A President can move people without public expressions. The danger is that now what was a genuine outburst of emotion relevant to the proposed mosque's proximity to ground zero risks being subordinated by more extreme or opportunistic elements with less than savory objectives. 


President Obama's remarks, which were prepared as part of a speech reflect poor political skills, skills which are necessary to achieve desired results with minimal insult. This was compounded by the White House's bizarre statement on polls relating to his faith. I disagree with President Obama on most issues which is fine, but as an American I think it is reasonable to expect a higher level of political acumen as a means of abating contentious affairs. The President's comments reflect an ignorance of the power of the Presidency. Obama, as is true of all Presidents, must understand that sometimes one can achieve a principled end without taking a principled public stand. Is it so much to ask that highest elected politician in the land possess a remedial knowledge in the art of politics?