wine flu has mobilized thousands of panicked individuals exhibiting flu-like symptoms to pour into our already overstretched medical system. It has dominated the media for the past week and a half. Yet despite the mass hysteria over the pandemics spread, it is a curiously “weak” strain of flu according to Scientific American, with a fatality rate well under the deadly acute viral rhinopharyngitis, better known as the common cold. Don’t we have better things to worry about? Like, perhaps, a more critical examination of our president, now going beyond his 100th day in office?

President Obama’s hundredth day didn’t suffer from a lack of coverage. Neither did the unfortunately named “teabagging” parties staged by organizations such as FreedomWorks and the Coalition for a Conservative Majority. What was lost in all of this media oversaturation was a real look at where we stand and what Obama’s administration is doing. Ironically, the over-the-top and over-sensationalized “tea parties” protesting a minimal rise in our taxes (which are still less than those faced by the middle class during the Reagan administration) masked the real issue behind Obama’s extraordinary measures. Because the issue was misdirected by the radical right’s ill-conceived efforts, we’ve failed to properly scrutinize the implications of Obama’s often dictatorial and moralistic declarations.

Let’s put aside our zealous conservative friends for the moment. It really is in large part due to their extremist, poorly supported, and incessant whining that the issues they caricature have not received the proper attention they deserve. When contrasted with the incredibly charismatic president, anyone who holds a view that even resembles those of the zealots end up becoming fringe and insane. I’ll run the risk of being fringe, and jump into this fray. I like Obama as a person and a president quite a bit—but in many ways, he is far less distant than I would like from our previous president.

For one, he is not the unifying figure we expected. No, I’m not talking about the Republicans’ ridiculous allegations that he is marginalizing and divisive. Taking an admittedly large, but (mostly) sensible spending bill and counter proposing a hard right bill that lowers taxes on the rich and cuts social services is not “compromise.” If the Democrats are ignoring such proposals, that’s the Republicans’ own fault. I am talking about everyone else and the clear bright lines that Obama draws with his rhetoric. For instance, I take issue with the notion that private investors are immoral, greedy, and unpatriotic for rejecting Obama’s demand that they throw money into sinking ships like Chrysler. Isn’t it the fund managers’ fiduciary duty by law to protect the investments of those who invest in the funds? I know it’s fun to attack “financial types” during this recession, but these private investors aren’t exactly Wall Street fat cats. Many of the funds that Obama condemns for not throwing money away are pension funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and mutual funds that hold the savings of everyday people: old people and your average American family—isn’t that exactly who we’re trying to save? The crowds that feed off Obama’s high-flying oratory certainly don’t understand this, but Obama definitely does. Instead of recognizing these subtleties, he simply stirs up the crowds for his benefit, creating a polarization of “us” versus “them.” Those who are with Obama are “moral.” Those against him are “greedy,” “exploitative,” and basically evil. Sound familiar? It’s irresponsible, and it’s not what we voted for when we were dazzled by his promises of a “new” brand of politics. We didn’t vote for the same type of politics in a prettier and more refined package.

Now, what about transparency? The Freedom of Information Act actually matters now. This administration clearly lays out its finances and its tax records (which is the only reason why the confirmation problems even emerged). The White House even has a Flickr page where one can see a CIA Top Secret file (even if it was inadvertent). But what about the files Obama doesn’t want us to see? Where Bush invoked executive privilege, Obama invokes State Secrecy Privilege. He’s used it to rebuff further scrutiny into his administration’s detention policies. He’s used it to shield his warrantless wiretapping program. He’s used it to eliminate patent challenges to major military contractors by preventing litigation. All of this sounds more like things we would have expected from Bush Jr. Except, of course, we actually cared when Bush did it. Obama is too smooth, too calm, and too slippery to be caught in that same trap.

After all, the Bush years were characterized by stonewalling, petulant declarations of executive privilege, and blatant lies. Obama’s administration is nowhere near that clumsy with information control. The Bush Administration officials were novices, despite all of the fame (or infamy) they gained from the secrets they held close to their chests. During their time at the podium of the White House Briefing Room, Bush’s many press secretaries collectively formed the signature style of clumsy evasion followed by lousy excuse followed by inarticulate dodge. Robert Gibbs—a different story entirely—can do with a nod, wink, and smile what Bush’s spokesmen could only dream of. Gibbs makes you think you learned something even when you haven’t. In addition, the fervent dedication of Obama’s eager young staffers perpetuates a blind faith in the administration and makes it almost a cardinal sin to betray the trust of their hero. And God help the one who crosses swords with Rahm Emanuel by even thinking about leaking something to the press. Obama’s administration is as smooth and professional as Bush’s was ham-fisted and painfully incompetent.

Finally, let’s examine the actual results. We had a conference to talk about reforming health care. We’ve started to reassess and reevaluate our military policy. We’ve got Secretary Geithner rolling out another scheme to rescue our financial systems on a pretty regular cycle. But what has really been done? It’s not that there haven’t been concrete advances, especially on foreign policy—the new strategy in Afghanistan being a good example of something that has improved. It’s just that with everything else, the smoke and mirrors obscure the fact that there was something that needed to be done. Yet Obama’s approval ratings remain sky high. He’s simply too good an orator, too charismatic a visionary for us to cast doubt on him, especially not “this soon.” Any failure to solve the problems we have just becomes another justification for granting more power to our beloved president. And the only major cultural voices denouncing him tend to be the misguided, not-so-popular far right, only lending Obama more credibility.

Let me be clear. I certainly do not wish for the return of George W. Bush. However, when the mythos of Bush’s administration is swept aside, it’s clear that his “clever” abuses of power were just as bungled as the rest of his presidency. Will Obama abuse the power he has amassed? Will atrocities be hidden behind the closed lips of his administration? I hope not, but power corrupts and Obama has a lot more of it than many of the presidents who have come before him. There is a reason we have restrictions on the executive branch—they are necessary whether or not we like our president. We can’t simply grant Obama all of this power and give him the free pass we were unwilling to grant Bush without at least some public protest. We’re obsessed by t
he swine flu. We’re entertained by the teabaggers. It’s almost as if we have nothing more significant to worry about besides these trivial and ridiculously insignificant matters. We’re missing the point. All of these issues make us panic and chatter, but at the risk of being called a heretic to the cause, we do have something to panic about and it’s not swine flu. It’s time to stop and pay attention. If we don’t, we risk waking up from this pleasant dream and into a true nightmare. I certainly hope that Obama is well intentioned, but no president should be able to get away with what he has within his first hundred days. Not Bush—and not Obama.