Mr. Obama: Don't wait on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

For Barack Obama, this is going to be one hell of a delicate balance.

On the one hand, as the Politico reported yesterday, he "is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies ... in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power."

I would argue abuse as opposed to an unseemly accumulation, since there's honest constitutional debate as to the inherent breadth of a commander in chief's power in times of war or national emergency or merely in the overall realm of national security. But let's not quibble over that for the moment. Fact is, he is expected to move -- "swiftly."

Now naturally he won't sign or reverse anything quickly enough for throngs of violently impatient progressive critics, but a start he shall make, and pretty darn soon. One principal reason he has offered -- "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution" -- may be a bit of a non sequitur (after all, Robert Bork was a constitutional law professor, too), but we get the general drift.

And, happily, Obama will be surrounding himself with like thinking. His presumed attorney general, Eric Holder, rebuked the Bush administration well before any scent of appointment was wafting in the political air -- "Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the 'War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe" -- and on down the line both he and Obama will have Dawn Johnsen heading up Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, which will soon be guided by this refreshing philosophy: "The assistant attorney general for OLC and other top Department of Justice officials must ... be prepared to resign in the extraordinary event the President persists in acting unlawfully or demands that OLC legitimize unlawful activity."

Hence what can be done to overturn through executive orders the worst of Bush's dictatorial leanings on a reasonably immediate basis will indeed be done.

On the other hand, there was this, recently, from the New York Times: "Confronted by the worst financial crisis in generations, President-elect Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are preparing to delay some of the promises he made on the campaign trail to avoid political distractions and focus on reversing the economic slide."

Among those campaign promises and governing delays: "renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, overhauling immigration laws, restricting carbon emissions, raising taxes on the wealthy and allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military."

By way of further explanation for the delays, the Times wrote that "Obama is determined to avoid the mistakes of the last Democratic transition 16 years ago when secondary issues and a rush for change undercut a new president from the start."

That, on Obama's part, is a profoundly sensible approach -- in general. Capitol Hill tends toward a one-track mind -- it cannot at once chew gum and write legislation; that's been an impossibility since 1933 -- and the economy, quite obviously, is the 800-pound gorilla.

Yet this isn't 1993. And Obama campaigned not as did Bill Clinton in 1992. In that political year, you'll recall, it was all about "the economy, stupid." Consequently improving the economy was pretty much all the electorate cared about once Clinton made it to the White House. They expected little else, and, perhaps, wanted little else.

Not so in 2008, and now of course 2009. Obama's campaign was about comprehensive change -- even seismic change and, in many cases, the sooner the better.

That, consequently, is what the electorate expects. Still, no one really expects Congress to simultaneously tackle the economy, Nafta, immigration and environmental laws.

By executive order, however, (and I believe I'm on solid legal ground here), Obama could indeed, at the stroke of a pen, allow "gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military." And he should include that order among his reversals of Bush's "controversial security policies."

Because this is a security issue -- one that has been medievally delayed for 16 ridiculous years -- and that's precisely how Obama can frame it. It simply dwells among the utterly absurd that a person's open sexual orientation should dictate whether he or she can grip a rifle or translate Arabic in uniform.

Furthermore, this -- not gay marriage -- is the issue on which Obama can call in his rather immense Rick Warren chit. The legal definition of marriage is a state issue, not a White House concern (other than, perhaps, one of "moral suasion"), but the proper fulfillment of Obama's national security obligations demands an end to the don't ask-don't tell nonsense that has interfered with those obligations for far too long. And Warren should be annointed to spread this Word among his tender flock.

I'll close with this, from the above Politico piece:

Robert Gibbs, the incoming White House press secretary, responded Friday to a question posted by "Thaddeus from Lansing, Mich.," on Mr. Obama's Web site, www.change.gov, asking if the president-elect would repeal "don’t ask, don’t tell." "Thaddeus," Mr. Gibbs answered, "you don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it’s yes." Thaddeus did not ask, and Mr. Gibbs did not tell, when that might happen.

How about Tuesday?