All of This Came from Reading about the Difference Between Personalistic and Naturalistic History:

[idle thoughts]

Couple of weeks ago, I got sucked into one of those Facebook arguments that occasionally makes me consider deleting my Facebook profile (as though Zuckerberg were somehow to blame for a temporary failure in my ability to tolerate both conflicting beliefs and the willingness of others to believe "facts" that conveniently support their opinions).  My buddy was hitting back at the people who believe that Obama inherited Bush's mess, by presenting a bunch of "statistics" proving that Bush left the country just fine and Obama made the mess on his own.

My objection is not so much just that I believe my buddy is incorrect in his facts and in his argument in general.  It's this: how could Obama not have inherited Bush's mess?  Let's look at it from a forces of history perspective.  Obama inherited messes that G.W. Bush made out of situations that actually developed, at times hidden, throughout the Clinton, G.H.W. Bush and Reagan administrations.  And even that is only part of the chain of consequence; from another perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan were messes inherited from the CIA of the 1950's.  Or, hell, the restructuring of the Middle East at the end of World War I.  Or even, I don't know, the prophet Mohammed not picking a successor. (Have you ever wondered which single decision or lack thereof caused the most misery?  That one gets my vote sometimes.)

And that's me cherry-picking two messes out of the Presidential Mess-Pile.  These chains of consequence exist for every problem on the President's desk and a few problems that people believe are on the President's desk but are really on someone else's.  (People, didn't we all take basic civics in elementary school?  New Deal or no New Deal, realities of partisan politics notwithstanding, Congress has the power of the purse.  Just sayin'.)

When you think about history - the entirety of events and the contexts in which they occurred leading up to this moment, this now - are you thinking about the people?  Obama, Bush, Bin Laden, and Hussein? Kennedy and Khrushchev? Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin?  Or do you think about the worlds that produced those people, the irresistible forces that guided their actions in a very real way?  I'm trying to do both from now on.  It not only lowers my expectations of my chosen leaders to something perhaps more reasonable, it keeps me from panicking that we're one irresponsible leader away from ruin.  (We are, but the threshold of irresponsibility it would take is well beyond even what the American "voter" will tolerate.  I think.)

Of these Great People, these supposed shapers of their respective times, Tolstoy said: “Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in a historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.”  (No, I haven't read War and Peace - yet - but I do like the right quotation for the right occasion.)  This might actually not be overstating the case a little.

So, my buddy was wrong.  Bush did leave a mess for Obama to inherit.  But it's just as silly for me to blame Bush for the whole mess as it is for my buddy to blame Obama.  Or even, really, for either of us to blame the Office of the President of the United States, no matter who rides the Resolute Desk.

(Do I believe Bush was pretty close to that aforementioned threshold of irresponsibility?  Yup.  But that's a personal opinion.  He didn't actually lead us to ruin.)

The occupant of the Oval Office has one job, with many facets: to guide a runaway train over untended railways using spotty brakes.  (Yes, the runaway train of the U.S.A. is technically conducted by committee, but don't overcomplicate my metaphor.)  Unfortunately, that occupant also has to cooperate with other conductors facing the same task, to make sure their runaway trains don't collide and kill a ton of passengers.  We should stop being so surprised that occasionally, bad things happen that these conductors theoretically could have prevented/mitigated.  The conductor, in these situations, has a ton more power than a passenger - but still, not a whole lot of actual ability to order and oversee the train as he or she might see fit.  (For which, in some cases, I am eternally grateful.) 

I'm not saying that we as passengers shouldn't raise our voices when the conductor makes a decision to which we object.  That's the responsibility, not just the right, of an American citizen.  I'm just saying we should limit ourselves to what's useful.  On a runaway train, panicked outrage don't help much.  Constructive feedback based on calm critical thinking does.  And, y'know, it might be far less than useful to blame the conductor for a problem we can solve without needing his authority.  Or to blame him for problems that couldn't even be solved with his authority.

So, liberals, what are you blaming Bush for that might not be his fault?  Conservatives, what are you blaming Obama for that might not be his fault?  Where are we instead looking at the predetermined responses to irresistible forces?  I mean, isn't asking any one person to shepherd the economy sort of like asking the conductor to hop out and stop the train Superman-style?  (Okay, okay, I'm done with the train metaphor.)

(And where are we looking at both irresistible forces and people who have irresponsibly executed their offices?  Congress, we need to talk about your priorities...and it's a talk you're not going to like.  GOP, we need to talk about the Federalist Papers.  It's called enlightened self-interest.  You're forgetting the enlightened part, and it's kind of important.  If you want to set yourselves up as the only true guardians of our Founding Documents...read them.)

[/idle thoughts]