When I was growing up my county elected a sheriff who was a well-liked guy in the community, and being well-liked he even managed to get re-elected a second time. Maybe he took his job a little more seriously in the first term--or perhaps the grumbles just hadn't gotten loud enough by the time re-election rolled around to overcome what had been some pretty high popularity. But, sometime during the second term things reached a tipping point and it became common knowledge that we did not have a 24/7 sheriff. If you called anytime other than 8-5 Mon thru Fri, the sheriff would not respond. Some, refusing to believe it of the heretofore popular guy, blamed his wife, who, it was said, simply wouldn't allow him to do any sheriff-ing after regular business hours. But, whatever the case, the result was that afterhours and on the weekend (the very times when things usually go wrong if they're going to), we effectively had no county Sheriff.
Now some elected positions are so important that you expect them to be "on duty" 24/7, even if they aren't expected to be "at the office" except during regular business hours. They are still expected to pick up on those 3 a.m. phone calls. The majority of our county decided that the position of Sheriff was, in fact, one of those positions, and booted out the incumbent Sheriff in favor of someone else--who I believe still serves as elected sheriff of my home-county to this day, many years and elections later.
That's the memory I was prompted to recall today when I read this in the Washington Post:
The president’s schedule in the coming days is not likely to comfort his Democratic critics. Although a trip to Michigan on Thursday and a two-day bus tour through the economically battered — and politically important — Midwest will put him in touch with average voters, he will then go on vacation, with a week off in Martha’s Vineyard, a haven for the rich and famous.
Press secretary Jay Carney defended the getaway choice on Wednesday, telling reporters, “I don’t think Americans out there would begrudge that notion that the president would spend some time with his family.”
Actually, Mr. Carney, yes they would. Because when you are the president of the United States in a time of crisis, a 'vacation' is a luxury that the public cannot afford. The presidency is most assuredly one of those 24/7 positions, when 'time off' should be determined by the circumstances when they warrant it--not the calendar schedule. A real leader would realize this. It was true when George W. Bush sat on vacation in August before 9/11 while, as we later learned, all our terrorism analysts were seeing red, and it is true now.
And don't give me that "spend time with the family" bullshit. We Americans set up the presidency preparing for that reality: The public essentially lets the president work from home. He has an entire house built by the public from which he can live, work, and, yes, spend time with his family--all at the same time. Are not Sasha and Malia around him every night to kiss and tuck into bed? Is Michelle not there to massage his beaten-down shoulders when he needs it? That the president apparently believes any of this is completely tone-deaf and out-of-touch with the economic realities of the people of this country--many of whom get no or little paid vacation or are currently on 'permanent vacation' due to chronic joblessness.
The advantages inherent for the president stand in stark contrast to the sacrifice in "family time" faced by the regular workers of America. Their family time with their kids is limited by their work in ways that a president does not have to deal with:
*Jobs where their children are not capable of being present (think miners and other dangerous jobs), excluding time when the children are themselves in school.
*From work, a not-insignificant commute home.
*People who work offshore, truck drivers, seasonal workers, or in many other types of jobs are away from their families and children for weeks or even months at a time.
*People who have to work two jobs may hardly see their children during their waking hours because they have to spend all their free time at home sleeping so they can get up in time to go to work yet again.
I'm sure others could come up with many more ways that the poor and middle class sacrifice time with their families every day just to make sure their families have food to eat and a house to live in. Do you not think any of those people--not to mention the unemployed--begrudge the president some family time in Martha's Vineyard? Yes, Mr. President. They do. Because 1)you are in a 24/7 job, 2) the public gave you an entire Whitehouse so you could be president surrounded by your family, friends, and closest allies, and 3) if you were doing your job right, these Americans would have more time to spend with their own families. The public doesn't need the president telling them he needs time off in Martha's Vineyard when most of them would consider just a single weekend spent in the Whitehouse a 'vacation' of a lifetime, whether or not they got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. And what they need least of all is a sob story--and a patent lie--about how the president doesn't get to spend time with his family when the country is in an ongoing economic crisis.
Whether or not a useless congress is recalled or left on vacation, the president shouldn't be, especially when the country is in a freefall--not least in part as a result of Obama's own failures in leadership. To go on vacation at this time is tone-deaf and not befitting the presidency or the politics of our time. With this as the administration's outlook, all the tea leaves indicate that Mr. Obama's propensity to come off as out-of-touch and entirely behind-the-curve will continue for the foreseeable future.