Immovable opposition to changes and supplementing US domestic policy by members of the Republic, not limited to principles and ideological differences but also even bound by childish and treasonous oaths that supplant duties to the democratic process and law, have resulted in untenable social reforms that came into force as defanged half-measures. Universal healthcare for America, transparency and fairness in lending-practices, jobs revitalization, education initiatives, equitable taxation, promotion of green-industry are all excellent ideas whose time has come, but impatience and impertinence are making social programmes into empty shells of bureaucracy and targets for criticism.
Like some king in exile, however, the prohibition on cooperation and meaningful compromise has created a strange and dangerous inverted arrangement where the only powers afforded to the president are those of foreign missions. Absent a venue to affect change at home, abroad emissaries attempt to terraform the world in a way most sympathetic to American interests, but pressing the adoption of international treaties is not a tool for pressing social reform domestically, and even the most high-minded efforts are being returned as something twisted and unrecognizable and possibly even more dangerous. America does not possess the largess for its ambassadors to move unchecked, and though there is no Republican opposition to Obama in the business of envoys, there are certainly competing interests. There have been the boomerang antics of the internet intellectual property protection, and though attempts for universal application have failed, the shape it took when it finally returned to the States was more opaque and rigid, the president denied even his voice in demanding more protections for privacy be put into place. 
The same goes with the proliferation of the US-style security and surveillance mentality, which has become the chief export of this honourary consul. The intent behind Battlefield Earth, expanding the definitions of war and rules of engagement, was for the defense of the Republic and was not meant to be a civic apparatus or a desperate wedge for enacting unpopular or previously rejected legislation, but perhaps when there is no other outlet, the domestic aspects of laws express themselves awkwardly in diplomatic circles. Obama has not turned to ombudsmen to unblock politics, but seemingly frustrated and unheeded in his political backyard, he is being portrayed eagerly as taking on loop-holes (punitive and selective) rather than what he is doing in fact by working in the slow and imperfect framework of creativity, democracy and dialogue.
