Fuzzy

George W. Bush made the phrase "fuzzy math" a buzzword during a presidential debate, but in the process he could have been highlighting a broader characteristic of partisan politics: the "fuzzy" implementation of "fuzzy" principles. Politicians and political parties have historically been rather more flexible in the implementation of their "core" values while trying to keep power than they are dedicated to them while trying to gain it. Afghanistan has become an illuminating example.

As president Obama has spent months in agonizing soul-searching over his strategy Vi's-a-Vi's the war there, he has pleased almost no one. In a minor scandal his commanding general's opinion took center stage under the Klieg lights of public scrutiny long before Mr. Obama had a chance to formulate his own position. However, the president has not done himself any favors by appearing to dither while soldiers die.

It turns out vision and perception can also be fuzzy. In my younger days there was a popular fad involving brightly colored images of seeming geometric nonsense, which, when stared at in another field of vision, revealed "hidden" three dimensional images out of the apparent chaos. These images are called stereograms, and as I recall were in turns really frustrating and really cool. Perhaps these images have a lesson to teach us about our current president. On their own the pictures were rather decorative and appealing without being objective imagery--not unlike other modern art. Hanging on a wall at the dentist's office they were bright and fun and interesting distractions. However, their true purpose lay hidden beneath. Only those with the will and skill to see the deeper purpose could unlock the real story they had to tell.

This seems a lot like the current president: a lot of appeal on the surface, but a lot of concentrated effort required to figure out what lies beneath. Unfortunately, by casting himself as a stereogram during the campaign he invited each voter to see the appealing, vibrant image they wanted to see. It continues to come as a shock to many voters that once they "stare" at the image long enough, its true character is revealed. In this sense, candidate Obama wasn't a "blank screen" but instead a dizzying, bright, compelling but confused screen. Mesmerized by the busy, colorful tableau, few took the time to carefully stare into a deeper, truer level. Had they done so, he would certainly have had a much tougher race on his hands.

And here's where the rub of the whole fuzzy affair emerges: the president appears likely to again escalate the war in Afghanistan. Just as the stereogram is a useful illustration of the president's path to office, Afghanistan is just one useful illustration of the consequences of that path: in this case, disillusioned Democrats and pleasantly surprised Republicans. He is supported by a majority of the public, but NOT by his liberal base. Unlike the other areas of public policy where principles blur, Democrats are proving frustratingly anti-war even in power, while Republicans are proving surprisingly focused on victory even under an opposition president. Had liberals listened during the campaign they would have heard a candidate talking about the importance of Afghanistan--but they didn't see that beneath the colorful surface they adored. That they are now shocked and dismayed by his escalation of the war is no more surprising than the shock of all those voters who thought Mr. Obama was a centrist, pragmatic, non-partisan. Perhaps we'll all learn to stare deeper. Or it could be that my logic is just a little fuzzy.

NOTE: It is possible to see the hidden image above (Hint: it is apropos to the current discussion)