Running Man
What is best in politics? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentations of their women . . . I'm like a kid waiting for Christmas, wondering what's in those packages under the tree.
Not to count any unhatched chickens, but I'd like to gently remind all you Obamaniacs that the Democratic candidate is running on tax cuts, enlarging the military, expanding the invasion of Afghanistan, and sustaining the grip of private insurance companies on the nation's health care system. Our likely Secretary of the Treasury and economic policy czar is Larry Summers, who to the best of my knowledge has never worn love beads. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, may stay on for a bit. Obama is running as the competent Republican. No doubt, a competent Republican is better than an incompetent Republican, especially if he or she happens to be a Democrat.
In a liberal alternative universe, you would not be able to win an election on such a platform. We are not in that universe. Does that mean nothing good can be expected from a Democratic victory? Not at all. It's just that there are still miles to go on the road to peace and justice. (By the way, Noam Chomsky advises people in swing states to vote Obama, without illusions.)
We cannot fault Obama's political strategy, in light of where it has taken him. It's hard to imagine any other approach working, since the public still has a center-right view of public policy. The Republican Party might shatter into a thousand pieces this week, but it can reconstitute as long as minds remain unchanged on basic premises. Very much like Al Queda.
I'm optimistic. I think events and agitation drive politicians. Once the dust settles I'll have more to say about new possibilities. Until then, I'll be looking forward to the lamentations.
I don't get it. What's your point?
November 1, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say the point is well taken. It is refreshing to inject some realism into what tends to lean towards unrealistic expectations.
Rotwang is merely laying it out there (perhaps not for your benefit) for those who might have unrealistic expectations as to how "transformational" an Obama Presidency will be. All indications are that he will run a more competent version of the policies of G W Bush; as he has to given the circumstances.
When you take the helm form a drunken captain who has navigated the ship into tempestuous territory far from any shore, you really don't have the option to decide to take a cruise along the Caribbean. You pick up where the drunk left off and continue to man the ship of state from WHERE IT IS.
November 1, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY. I have no illusions myself. Obama is a centrist candidate, but also a brilliant and pragmatic one. I trust him.
Our economy lies in ruin, our foreign policy is non-existent, our military is worn out and overextended, our health care system just isn't, and our educational system ain't either. In short, we're in a fucking mess - and don't forget about the planet itself.
If Obama can just get the wheels back on our country, get us moving in the right direction, and build a sustainable, popular platform for the Dem Party to run on in the future, perhaps we will be able to grow into a real progressive candidate down the road.
Perhaps the GOP will be so marginalized that it will just die, and then some of us can form a new and viable Progressive Party. This leaves the Dem party to hold the middle against a new left wing party, and together they can effect a complete polarity shift in American politics to opposite end of the spectrum where we stand today.
In my mind this means we have to help the Republican Party die, and to do that we have to destroy them on the ground we hold today.
November 2, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is what used to be known as a liberal Republican. He has and most likely will continue to move the Democratic Party right.
McCain moves the Republican party left -- given that he retains the support of some 46% of the American public we are unlikely to see the demise of the Republicans any time soon unless the Democrats do a stellar job running the country.
I have no idea what Obama will do with the country. He has no record to speak of and most of what he has done is clearly in response to political imperatives. When the political imperatives collide with principle, he goes with the political imperative -- see FISA and public funding. His excuses for both are laughable. As a result I cannot count on Obama doing what he says he will do since he appears to feel in now way bound by his word.
Obama is a guy who was impressed by the neatness of military housing -- trivial but telling. He is also a guy who told the American public that we can solve our Al Qaeda problem if we can clean up the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. This is implausible in the extreme and unless executed with great skill likely to turn all of Pakistan over to Al Qaeda. On this score, McCain is a much better bet. We've fought once in Afghanistan and left without a stable solution and have had to go back. McCain's point is that we may be about to to do the same thing in Iraq.
With a Democratic Congress dedicated to holding McCain in check we are far more likely to have sane policies than with one rubber stamping whatever Obama wants next.
November 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot count on Obama doing what he says he will do since he appears to feel in now way bound by his word.
And you don't think Obama and his minions of advisers have not made the same calculations you make here at TPM?
Ruling is about sifting through all the various contingent options available and choosing that option which has the best chance of success in achieving the goal you want to achieve. Believing your analysis to be novel requires you to also believe that Obama and his advisers are idiots that have not looked at your scenario, which I doubt very much. The decisions that Obama will make (whether they comport with his campaign rhetoric or not is another matter of secondary importance as we can see from all other president's broken promises once the rubber hits the road) will be informed decisions not reckless ones such as the current administration wallows in.
November 2, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really like that analogy, but it's kind of stupid to argue about it.
Let's see:
Torture: Bush, yes. Obama, No.
War in Iraq: Bush, yes. Obama, No.
Economic Regulation: Bush, no. Obama, yes.
Right to Choose: Bush, no. Obama, yes.
Right wing judges: Bush, yes. Obama, no.
Health Care: Bush, you're on your own. Obama, a plan very similar to those of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
So, what's the evidence that Obama is running as the competent Republican? Is it just that he's offering tax cuts? Do we have to come out and yell, "We're raising your goddamn taxes, motherfuckers!" Do we have to do that to be Democrats? Do we have to do that to be liberals? To be progressives?
Rotwang's other evidence is disingenuous at best. Look what he wrote: "Expanding the invasion in Afghanistan." As if there is anyone in this country who thinks Afghanistan wasn't necessary. As if Obama weren't even talking about getting out of Iraq.
Then there's "enlarging the military." Again, Obama's suggesting an increase of some 90,000 troops. What's the problem here? We need soldiers. We need them because just having technology isn't enough a lot of the time.
I just don't buy this line that Obama is somehow really a Republican. What does that even mean? But even if we forget that it doesn't mean anything, could we please not start stabbing each other in the back before we've won anything.
And could we please, please not start imposing ideological tests? That's how the Repubs ended up where they are--they bought into a set of ideas that don't work and they don't have anything else.
So, again, I don't get it.
November 2, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reece, we don't disagree. (Republican/Democrat, blue team/red team...whatever). I'm just saying that the past 8 years have had stark consequences for us: it has made some options unavailable/unrealistic/dangerous for the moment. We need to stabilize this ship. We don't have the luxury to indulge in wishful thinking. We need his deeds to match the brilliance of his campaign.
November 2, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually there are plenty of people who think afghanistan wasn't necessary. particularly not in the way it was handled. full scale military invasion, toppling the taliban, attempted occupation.
fundamentally, combat troops are ill-suited to address the threats posed by non-state actors like al qaeda.
November 3, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Combat troops are ill-suited to deal with some non-state actors, but not non-state actors like Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a paramilitary organization that acts through violence. These are precisely the sorts of non-state actors that combat troops are good at handling, because you have to fight them as you would fight a state's standing army.
Moreover, the Taliban--the actual state in Afghanistan--was supporting al Qaeda at the time we invaded. So, yeah, that was the sort of thing we needed to do.
November 3, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's simply not true.
the threat posed by al qaeda is not as a "paramilitary" organization. the threat posed by al qaeda is as a so-called 'terrorist organization'. it wasn't al qaeda 'paramilitaries' who flew planes into the world trade center. these guys weren't dressed in fatigues, carrying kalashnikovs. they didn't storm the tarmac with military tactics to gain command and control of the aircraft.
and to clarify, by 'combat troops' i mean to make a distinction between regular infantry combat troops and special forces units. even if al qaeda were primarily a 'paramilitary' organization as you seem to imagine, regular infantry combat troops are not well-suited to countering the threat posed by paramilitaries. rather, that is the sort of thing special forces are designed to do. (and to be sure, the paramilitary posture al qaeda seems to have today is largely the result of our attempting to engage them conventionally, not the reason we chose to do so.)
and this notion that the taliban were 'supporting' bin laden and al qaeda is pure farce. the taliban had long been willing to turn over bin laden even before 9/11 but were only opposed to turning him over to the US and instead insisted on having him tried by a 'neutral' third party. we did not need to topple the taliban to get bin laden. toppling the regime and conducting a full-scale invasion only made it more difficult to bring him to justice (whatever that might look like). how this is not abundantly clear SEVEN YEARS ON, is simply dumbfounding.
the invasion of afghanistan was not part of a well-considered strategy, it was the result of tough guy bloodlust and arrogance. a raging need for vengeance, rather than a calculated effort to achieve concrete objectives.
November 3, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those of us not running for public office have no obligation to amputate our convictions to fit in with a campaign. The only use in doing so is shirking any duty to challenge the elected.
The issue at hand is how liberals/progressives/whatever will raise the costs to Obama for _governing_ as a Republican. Otherwise, any good start will stop short.
November 2, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is left enough. I'd agree.
November 1, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, ISN'T left enough
'kay, time for me to go...
Rotwang, you can count on this chicken. Whose eye is indeed, wide open.
November 1, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is running as the competent Republican. No doubt, a competent Republican is better than an incompetent Republican..."
"In a liberal alternative universe, you would not be able to win an election on such a platform."
Maybe not, but in my universe, the universe of most Democrats, Independents and politically progressive people, Obama is running as a competent leader - a uniter, who has the right vision, the right policies and the right set of skills to lead us in a new direction.
November 1, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You read my mind. My delight at the impending (knock wood) Republican crackup mingled with the sense of how far we have to go before a truly progressive politics develops in this country. But I too am optimistic. You start where you are and build from there, no? Not to mention that Obama looks to be the greatest political talent we've seen since Clinton, maybe Roosevelt.
November 1, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This fact alone is worth the price of admission to me - since he opposes the far right agenda of the GOP. We never will get this thing turned around without some serious talent at the top, and this guy definitely fills the bill.
The country is in crisis on so many fronts. As you and others have said here, we have to start from where we stand today.
November 2, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is running as the competent Republican.
Republicans don't raise taxes on the rich, and they don't thank their Grandmothers while giving televised speeches. Republicans eat Freedom Fries and laugh at jokes about the missing WMD. They have no conscience.
Perhaps most revealing, little Republicans don't share their PBJ with other kindergartners, they fiendishly throw the other kids PBJ onto the floor and drive the toy train over it.
November 1, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of those who have worked hard to see Obama elected becuase they want change so desperately are going to work just as hard to see Obama delivers. Of course we have picked up alot of momentum on our present crappy course. But Obama isn't alone, he has an energized citizenship, and hopefully a fucking huge mandate. I like your realism, but there will be much more to say after the current job is finished.
November 2, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Dorn, agreed. But, what kind of time frame are we hoping for here. I don't think O is going to be able to deliver anything approximating a truly progressive agenda in the (hopefully) 8 years he will have to govern.
It's taken the Right 30 long, long, long (sigh) long years to screw us up as bad as we are. W. was just the catastrophic climax to what they've been pushing toward for 3 decades.
Thankfully though, Obama doesn't have to deliver a truly liberal agenda to take us a universe from where we are today.
November 2, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All of those who have worked hard to see Obama elected becuase they want change so desperately are going to work just as hard to see Obama delivers."
I hope Obama supporters understand that they must also work to ensure the Congress delivers. If Obama voters go home and check out after the election, expecting any substantive change from Obama is pure fantasy.
Obama will not be able to deliver meaningful change without a massive, sustained public movement behind him and on the heels of every member in our Congress.
No one person or president could fight the status quo power structure of the United States and win. This task will require sustained participation by tens of millions.
November 2, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are the government. If we don't change and get involved, the government will not change.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
-Frederick Douglas
November 2, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
For reasons that should be obvious, I am obliged to comment on this post.
November 2, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with this analysis. I do not think Obama can be adequately understood in terms of particular issues, ideologies or particular policy stances. He presents himself as a person with no particular axe to grind who's willing to allow others to have their own opinions but will make up his own mind when the times comes.
Because he is a politician, that means it is likely that that he will make choices on what seems possible and does not conflict with his basic values, which seem to be to live and let live... and to lend a hand if you can.
I think his supporters and detractors should tell their representatives and senators what they think needs to be addressed by legislation and then implemented by the executive branch. Barack Obama has very strong organizing skills. If there is something to work with in the agendas of all the senators and representative, then he can help bring it to fruition.
If you don't want an imperial presidency then stop wanting the president to act as the emperor and making him do end runs around Congress. Put the pressure on Congress. Put their feet to fire. The legislature can work on several major issues at once and there are more than one issue. Don't make Obama have to "sell" everything to Congress via the media. Save a step. Sell your Congressperson. Obama will know what to do. As president, he can't legislate.
November 2, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Darktimes said:
"I think his supporters and detractors should tell their representatives and senators what they think needs to be addressed by legislation and then implemented by the executive branch."
"If you don't want an imperial presidency then stop wanting the president to act as the emperor and making him do end runs around Congress. Put the pressure on Congress. Put their feet to fire."
These points are so right and so critical. I really hope the electorate gets this. There are no "saviors" for a democracy in distress--other than the citizens.
November 2, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully,
None of us can predict what's coming. Obama has played his cards very close to his chest...the only "tells" are his advisor choices. And we don't even know how permanent those choices will turn out to be....
I was more certain of Clinton once he chose Rubin how the winds were blowing... But with Obama...? I just don't know. I do know he has a lot of people very worried that the good times for them are coming to an end..
http://baumanblog.sovereignsociety.com/2008/10/obama-victory-b.html
November 2, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know I still think it comes down to vote for a spoiled crank asshole navy brat kind of guy with his uber-only-bible-thumping-sidekick -- or -- vote for a guy that thinks, has energy, and consistently claims to want to work with both sides.
You have to vote for what the person will probably do when confronted with choices -- not what they say they will do, or want to do, or can do.
In the end, when confronted with things to be done, Obama will think about it and do a normal-person thing. McCain is not the kind of person to be his own man; he'll do what the Republicans have done.
It really is like that joke that's been making the rounds with the flight attendant... can I offer you the Chicken or the plate of shit with glass fragments.
I think we should go for the Chicken (every time).
November 2, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if that's good or no.
zing!
November 2, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are my manners, sign me up for avatar sensitivity training; next time I'll use Beef as the entree.
November 2, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Since John McCain says it is so, I plan to celebrate it that way.
Wednesday Morning I will alight from my bed, comb my hair and stand at quasi attention, and belt out the Socialist Version of The International -- and since I only know it in Danish -- In Danish.
November 2, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahah... Danish, really? Hell I'm surprised to meet someone who knows it at all.
November 2, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful example of how liberal shoot themselves in the foot. If you don't agree with me I will hold my breath until we both die. Obama has transcended your false dichotomy.
November 2, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he public wants more war, less health care, lousy schools, fewer jobs -- all that.
No wonder they pulled your doctorate!
November 2, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No the problem is not the public; they are way ahead of the curve here. The problem is the enormous sea change we will have to undergo. The bureaucracy, the institutions, the agencies, the entrenched right wing corrupt people that will need to be rooted out of the system, all this is what is going to prevent Obama to change things in any radical way anytime soon.
As I said above, you can't decided to take a cruise in Bahamian waters when you are struggling to keep the ship of state afloat in the "perfect storm" we are in, especially when you have turned it into a ship of fools.
November 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual Rotwang hits the nail on the head regarding what Obama is really all about. Also, as usual, Chomsky is right to advise people to vote for Obama (as Howard Zinn has also done).
But I take issue with the premise that the country remains center/right. That's not true. what is true is that most of the Democratic politicians in the country remain center/right. The people have moved further and further to the left.
Had white liberals/progressives not lined up behind Obama in large numbers early on believing he was a liberal he never would have won. But, a huge share of the progressives who had been caterwalling for the past 8 years about finally fighting the Republicans and nominating a "real" Democrat threw their alleged convictions to the wind in order to support "the first viable African American" President. Another large chunk of these people lined up behind "the first viable woman" President while also forgetting what they had been saying was essential for the next Democratic nominee for years.
Reverting to identity politics has made many of these people feel really good, but as Rotwang rightly implies, many of his followers don't really understand what this guy has proposed because they haven't really believed that he is as conservative as he has made clear that he is now for a long, long time. The worst of it is his idiotic pledge to increase military spending which is already insane and far beyond any level that would benefit the defense of our country as well as his efforts to keep the insurance companies rich by allowing them to keep their lucrative stranglehold on the Healthcare of the citizenry.
Progressives need to demand the following:
Major cuts in the defense budget (50% within 4 years)in order to pay for the programs for people that have been underfunded for years because of bloated, wasteful and dangerously obscene military spending. And please folks, don't try and say "entitlements" are our big budget problem. They are not when you look and see that "defense" aka WAR spending is well over $600 Billion annually. We spend more on "defense" than all the other nations on earth combined!
Adoption of a national health insurance plan that competes with the private insurance companies. We would see the health insurance company rates go down almost instantly if this happened.
A real effort to adopt environmental standards and policies (including major increases in support for mass transit nationally) that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin to reverse global warming.
Use the nearly $1 Trillion dollars recently passed for welfare for the richest and most corrupt Wall Street banks for providing direct relief to homeowners by way of adjusting their mortgage interest rates and the loan amounts they owe.
November 2, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But I take issue with the premise that the country remains center/right. That's not true. what is true is that most of the Democratic politicians in the country remain center/right."
Me too, Oleeb. Unfortunately, a majority of the electorate will not understand your point until they begin looking to the hard evidence when they draw conclusions about any representative: results.
If only the electorate would judge representatives in Congress and the Executive branch by taking a hard look at their own lives and asking basic questions. Has our health care substantially improved and is it on a better track? Is there any hard evidence that middle and working classes are stronger? Is our environment any cleaner? Are we are a more peaceful and respected nation?
If the electorate looked to evidence, and a President Obama delivered only shallow results for show, then he would be promptly be held accountable and out of a job in four years.
Things will only get worse if people continue to outsource their thinking rather than looking to evidence. Things will only get worse if people continue to believe what they want to believe and what the corporate media and any status quo reps in Congress want them to believe.
The (oversimplified) fact is that a generation or so ago, one parent could work, come home at a reasonable hour, take care of a family, have a pension and send their children to college. Now it is common that both parents must work, almost all the profits from their labor goes to CEO's and investors and none to the workers, there is no pension, they pay through the nose for health insurance but the insurance often doesn't pay when they get sick, the dollars they do make are worth much less and college costs have gone through the roof. That's what good old hard work leads to today for the average person.
The transfer of wealth from the workers to the banks, corporations and executives has been astronomical and is headed toward a new and different version of slavery. Unfortunately, a majority of citizens have stood by paralyzed and allowed their representatives in Congress to facilitate the whole thing.
November 2, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's a centrist.
So move the center, already.
Do you think he'd veto single-payer healthcare or most of the other things on your wish list if they came before him? No, not likely.
November 2, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think he is going to work hard to make anything remotely like those things happen? Not likely. And that's the real problem.
November 2, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to be very interesting around here during, and especially after, the first 100 days. Barring some major misfortune on Tuesday, those who were Obama's most vociferous defenders during the election are going to want to collect some rewards, I think. They're going to want to see some policies enacted. Oh, we'll rally around him again as 2012 approaches but first we're going to put the guy to work for four years.
Unless, that is, the Republicans attack him so viciously that it keeps Obama's supporters in campaign mode, basically playing the defense I remember from the latter Clinton years. Hopefully the Repubs will be in enough disarray that we can have at least some time to push Obama leftward.
November 2, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to need to spend the pre-Jan months lowering expectations. I do not agree he has a GOP agenda. He's promised health care, tuition for college, cradle kinder-care, a tax cut, and economic stimulus. Simple math tells you this agenda is impossible. He will be tied up with these economic problems for at least the first year. This thing is going to get ugly, folks. There are European nations besides Iceland that are lurching towards insolvency. With the kind of money we're going to have to spend to keep the economy on it's feet, there is not going to be any left for a major initiative.
November 2, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't be a better echo of the common wisdom butwhat evidence is there for this train of thought other than the common wisdom says so? Little, I think.
Examine the obscene military budget and you will find all the money you need and more for all kinds of programs and activities. Nothing extant in the world today justifies the obscenity of the US war budget. Combine that with making the rich pay their fair share of taxes and you have even more funds with which to address the real problems the nation faces.
November 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wrote a paragraph very similar to your first paragraph two days ago. It's funny we both thought the same thing. After I applied the movie quote to the election I started reading the Robert E. Howard books for the first time in 30 years. They're even better than I remembered (for what they are).
November 2, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said I was optimistic, meaning I expect progressive reforms because I think mobilization including Obama's organization, will allow him to go further than his campaign platform. After all, G. Bush acted as if he had a mandate after losing the national popular vote. I also said BHO was running as the competent Republican, not that he is a Republican.
Of course in terms of program there is a host of reasons to prefer BHO to JMC. And sure, 'Ima gonna raise your taxes' is not a politically plausible platform. But in a sensible, moderately liberal political universe, it would not be suicide to say we need to get the Gov into some important new initiatives, and to do that means more taxes. In the same vein, in a rational world it would not be political suicide to note that the defense budget is grossly inflated and it's past time to claw it back. Nor would it be impossible to suggest the U.S. is overcommitted in military terms around the world, and some contraction is worthwhile. Only under the regime of vast overreach do we need more troops. A better posture would require fewer, less overworked troops.
The inescapable fact is that for any plausible expansion of the public sector, taxes will have to increase for more than the fabled top eensy-weensy percent. Why?
There is still a huge job of getting out of Iraq. A lot of used up/destroyed military equipment has to be replaced. Afghanistan/Pakistan remain unresolved. Beginning to fix health care takes an up-front investment; hopefully savings come later. New infrastructure is not going to pay for itself, since much of the benefits come outside of the market.
I said I was optimistic. In 1932, FDR wasn't looking too progressive either.
November 2, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rotwang,
something I posted earlier and with a few added lines;
Here's a visual;
Nancy Pelosi sitting on the sidewalk, legs ajar, stockings torn up, one shoe missing, sporting a black eye, and both hands holding her head as a cloud of stars appear above, saying to herself; "What happened?"
This is what you will see if the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress and add the White House and continue on what I call the Trickle Down Government we've been getting from them since Clinton.
We've seen them vote for the war in Iraq, vote for FISA, jump on the bandwagon of the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act, kiss Greenspan's ass, keep quiet about offshore tax dodges, vote for NAFTA and forget the labor and enviornmental issues, and all in all kowtow to the cretins of Wall Street and the boys in the Corporate Boardrooms as a way of holding power. The Democratic Party has forgotten they were supposed to be the opposition party.
The political process has changed with the advent of the internet and the blogs. Democratic and Liberal blogs, with the help of a completely bankrupt conservative message, are overtaking conservative talk radio as the prime mover of the political system, and if we don't see a drastic change after Obama is elected, the visual I presented in the beginning of this post will become a reality.
A President Obama will have the opportunity to do something grand for this country by completely trashing the Reagan philosophy of governing, or, he can fail miserably by connecting too closely to the boys in the corporate board rooms and the denizens of Wall Street, something the present day Democratic leadership has done.
If Democrats don't drastically change things, they must be punished, and that includes a President Obama
November 2, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? You're seriously going to make me look up the word "as" so that we can construe your sentence? Ok, if that's your defense, we can do it.
So, if Obama is running as the competent Republican, then he is running in the manner of a competent Republican or in the role of the competent Republican. In any case, you are using the word "as" in order to compare Barack Obama's stated policy positions--which you cite as taxes, Afghanistan, the military, and healthcare--to those of a Republican. Even if you are not strictly saying that he is a Republican, you are saying that he is so very like a Republican.
Unless, of course, you have a different understanding of the word "as."
November 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
God save us from unsympathetic literalists.
Actually your #4 is closest -- "in the manner of" -- which combined with 'running as', as opposed to governing as, I think supports my inference.
Which you understood all along.
November 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're worried about unsympathetic literalists, but you're parsing your own words. It's clearly the unsympathetic part that bothers you. I'm sure you're happy with sympathetic literalists--after all they're the only people who would have understood your point that Obama is running as a Republican, but is not actually one. So, yes, I did understand what you were saying all along. I'm unsympathetic to your point, but as you can see, I'm no literalist.
November 2, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree "literalist" does not fit since his use of 'as' literally has the meaning he intended to give it.
November 2, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree "literalist" does not fit since his use of 'as' literally has the meaning he intended to give it.
November 2, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're parsing your own words.
And who would be more qualified to do so than Rotwang himself? May I add that he seems to be doing it far more skillfully than you are.
November 3, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the usage "he showed up at the Halloween party as The Devil". It does not imply that he is the devil, right?
November 2, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, Andrew, you are not using "as" in the same way that Rotwang is using it here.
November 3, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
from a 2003 poll:
an overwhelming 80 percent of those polled believe it is more important to maintain spending on popular domestic programs like education, health care and Social Security than it is to cut taxes. And by a 53- to 41-percent margin, Americans think it’s more important to keep down the federal deficit than it is to lower their taxes.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/polls/taxes2003/index.html
from a 2004 poll:
But while Bush retains the support of nearly six in 10 Americans, the public believes Democrats would do a better job on domestic issues, such as the economy, prescription drugs for the elderly, health insurance, Medicare, the budget deficit, immigration and taxes. And Bush has lost the advantage on education policy he once enjoyed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29858-2004Jan19.html
from a 2005 poll:
While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html
2006:
Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in the latest poll -- 62 percent -- said they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States, while 35 percent said they were satisfied. And 64 percent said things in the United States have gotten worse in the past five years, while 28 percent said things have improved.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/bush.poll/
2007:
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html
and 2008:
More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News now say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them.
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-voter-worries
November 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polling on domestic issues, in isolation, usually looks good. When you match it up with the need to finance spending (i.e., "Would you pay more taxes to expand Federal support for X") the margin goes down. The Times poll is atypical in this respect. In that context, one might ask why the sensitive Democratic antenae don't take better advantage.
That people prefer any Democrat to Bush, or that they aren't happy with the past four years, doesn't make them necessarily liberal.
Yeah, people are scared now -- no libertarians in foxholes. That might lead to a real, more durable realignment. I don't think we are there yet. But as I said, I am optimistic.
November 2, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
That question doesn't need to be asked. More taxes wouldn't be necessary if spending were re-directed, as most Americans desire, from wars and wasteful Pentagon spending to domestic needs and if there were wise management of domestic programs.
Democrats don't take advantage of this (duh!) because they are part of the problem. They too are corrupted by corporate influence.
In other words, DON'T BLAME THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, as seems to be the principal propensity of contributors to TPMCafe recently.
November 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that a redirection of defense dollars would finance a cornucopia of new domestic programs. But as I said, it's dangerous for a Democrat to propose an absolute cut in defense. In Virginia in this election, Obama has been defensive on charges he would reduce defense spending. In a previous presidential primary debate, in 2004, I think it was Dean who had to run away from any hint of a U.S. defense retrenchment, away from the idea of abandoning efforts to maintain global military dominance.
As for management, the Feds don't actually manage much in the way of domestic programs. Mostly they mail checks to individuals, health care providers, and state and local governments. The big management challenge is in health care, but any management savings is likely to be plowed into picking up benefits for the uninsured and funding the overall increased demand for health care services.
Medicare for all ought to be easy for Dems to put out there, but apparently it isn't, unless you know more about public opinion than they do. Only Dems in safe seats suggest single-payer.
Like they say in boxing, to beat the champ you have to knock him out. You can't win on points. Similarly, to get into the progressive agenda over the opposition of elites, corporate money, etc., 51% isn't enough.
November 2, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Democrat has ever effectively debunked the "war on terror" but if they wanted to (they don't) it would be an easy thing to do.--- Are you willing to trade off health care for yourself and your loved ones on the slim chance that some wild-eyed Arab is going to ambush you on the way to work? Of course not. That's just a scare tactic dreamed up by the Washington corporate lobbyists to keep you sick and poor while they laugh all the way to the bank. Are you going to continue to be taken advantage of this way, or are you going to demand responsible representation in Washington?
Sending the fat cats packing from Washington would free up more dollars to replace the money stolen from the social security trust fund, it would also fully fund both medicare and No Child Left behind with money left over for college loans, job promotion and the rebuilding of America's failing infrastructure. Isn't that what you want for you and your family? Well, isn't it?
You know that the war in Iraq was a giant boondoggle sold to you with lies and false promises, and now the cry is for victory. There was victory five years ago! The rest of the time has been mainly for subsidies for the Washington fat cats and their friends. Things aren't much better in Afghanistan, that sinkhole of foreign armies. Enough is enough, already!
What they're trying to sell you is words, just words. Think about your family. Think about their ability to work and save money, and receive medical care when they need it, and get an education. Then put these thoughts up against the wild words of the politicians and lobbyists that want to use your taxes to fatten their wallets with fruitless foreign wars and expensive military hardware when no military threatens the United States.
They are words, only words. It's your family that counts.
November 2, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Democrat has ever effectively debunked the "war on terror" but if they wanted to (they don't) it would be an easy thing to do.--- Are you willing to trade off health care for yourself and your loved ones on the slim chance that some wild-eyed Arab is going to ambush you on the way to work? Of course not. That's just a scare tactic dreamed up by the Washington corporate lobbyists to keep you sick and poor while they laugh all the way to the bank. Are you going to continue to be taken advantage of this way, or are you going to demand responsible representation in Washington?
Sending the fat cats packing from Washington would free up more dollars to replace the money stolen from the social security trust fund, it would also fully fund both medicare and No Child Left behind with money left over for college loans, job promotion and the rebuilding of America's failing infrastructure. Isn't that what you want for you and your family? Well, isn't it?
You know that the war in Iraq was a giant boondoggle sold to you with lies and false promises, and now the cry is for victory. There was victory five years ago! The rest of the time has been mainly for subsidies for the Washington fat cats and their friends. Things aren't much better in Afghanistan, that sinkhole of foreign armies. Enough is enough, already!
What they're trying to sell you is words, just words. Think about your family. Think about their ability to work and save money, and receive medical care when they need it, and get an education. Then put these thoughts up against the wild words of the politicians and lobbyists that want to use your taxes to fatten their wallets with fruitless foreign wars and expensive military hardware when no military threatens the United States.
They are words, only words. It's your family that counts.
November 2, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rotwang,
You wrote:
"it's dangerous for a Democrat to propose an absolute cut in defense."
Yes, but this has been the excuse for not doing anything about the obscenity of the defense budget now for about 50 years. There is no Soviet Union threatening us. Terrorism is in no way on a part with the USSR. The Cold War is long gone, but the mentality and lust for easy money in the arms industry remains. We cannot remain cowards forever. It is time Democrats pointed out that we have no enemies and there are no threats or even potential threats that justify well in excess of $600 Billion annually.
The very idea of giving even more of our tax dollars to this wasteful, destructive and useless spending is enough to drive a sane man crazy. There is no longer any excuse for Democrats to hide behind the excuse that talking about cuts in the fattest and most wasteful part of the budget is "dangerous". Too fucking bad I say. Democrats need to grow a pair and do what is good for the nation instead of what is safest for themselves.
November 2, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"no libertarians in foxholes"
You're painting a one-dimensional portrait with a broad generalising ad hominem brush. Here, let me fix it for you: there are no real libertarians in foxholes, because we do not bury our heads in the sand, every time chicken little appears dancing to the apocalypso beat.
Unquestionably, libertarianism has been subverted; right-sided by conservatives, who arrogantly refuse to step-up to the plate of their ideology, and accept responsibility for the damage it has wrought. They were slothful Republicans, who stood quietly by while their party was perverted, and now flee, terroised when its inherent evil manifests itself. They are the outwankers in pre-election polling, that cause inflation in the libertarian numbers, but whose survey responses do not result in actual votes. The LP has become a brutal parody of libertarianism with this year's candidacy of Bob Barr. The LP's Party leadership is corrupted, and has prostrated itself at the filthy feet of new-right immoralizers, like Richard Viguerie. It has attempted to squelch all protestations, and even resorted to labeling the dissenters to their travesties as the "anarchist wing" of the LP, which resulted in their responses of slack-jawed imbecilic disbelief, when those targeted with the intended derogation, mirthfully embraced the label.
The GOP's Reagancomics and their faux free-marketeer ilk falsely portrays crony capitalism as being an expression of libertarianism. There is no liberty within a philosophy that elevates collectivist business entities to a place of primacy within society. It is not open and free market paradigms which caused the current financial crises, nor is it a lack of regulation. There is nothing open and free within legislated rights to non-transparency for corporate transactions or shields from being exposed to future potential liabilities naturally flowing from present-day business decisions.
My main opposition to the bail-out was that the state did not play free-market hardball. If the government is compelled to intervene into the market to promote the general welfare of society, then it should force these lousy gambling corporations to play in the major leagues. Before they receive any infusion of capital from the public treasury, they should fully and openly account for their held assets, taking the fair value stock price hit. Then, the government should receive warrants on a dollar for dollar exchange at that valuation for this charitable largess at the citizenry's expense. After the economy stabilises, and the markets have begun to tick upwards again, the government should with a steadily paced due diligence, begin to reprivatise these government held equities, assuring we the people receive a profitable return from our investment.
There is a full-spectrum of differing viewpoints within libertarian philosophy. There are also far too many poseurs who hide agendas under its mantle. Anyone who has honestly studied Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, should understand that there in no free market, or liberty, within a reality in where:
- liquid capital freely flows across international borders that restrict labour's movement.
- the state power is used to grant monopolies and corporate shields of immunity from liability
- exists the obscenity of collectivist business entities fully vested as a person in the courts of common law
- parasites, that add nothing to a product's worth, are allowed to skim from what an individual has a right to compensation in exchange for investment of lbaour in its manufacture.
This is a slouching devolution towards neo-feudalism, controlled by a corporate barony.November 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Nancy Pelosi sitting on the sidewalk...' I don't know what to make of that baffling mysoginistic sideswipe, so I'll step around it.
Anyway, back to the post. One reason, as a UK (and global) citizen, I am absolutely desperate for an Obama win, is the environment. We are on the brink of an ecological catastrophe, and Obama is running on an alternative energy platform that is vastly different from McCain/Palin.
To call Obama a moderate Republican is just lazy sloganising - no Republican administration would ever commit to such a radical, state-driven energy policy.
November 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
tmuk says:
What is baffling and misoginistic? I created a symbol of a politician, in this case the 'female' Speaker of the House, who doesn't perform and the consequences, being kicked out onto the sidewalk.
Well, maybe you had to be there, in the USA, I mean.
November 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
'legs ajar, stockings torn up'. A symbol of a politician? If you say so.
November 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
timuk,
um, all politicians aren't male. Now take the last word, and shoo!
November 2, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Misogynistic.
November 2, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. But I'd already hit the submit button.
November 2, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. But I'd already hit the submit button.
November 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. But I'd already hit the submit button.
November 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
I was just showing John the correct spelling. He got it wrong two different ways.
November 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emma,
yes, I screwed that spelling up.
November 2, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, what BHO is, is a politician. More precisely a Chicago politician. A nitwit above quoting polls in an effort to convince you that the country is really liberal, wants you to think the progressive agenda will reign. Hardly. Politics is the art of the possible, and anyone with illusions otherwise will swiftly be disillusioned.
Personally, I'm not too worried. I am relishing the thought of trading against people who say one thing, and do another, as a matter of principle.
November 2, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama himself is not the answer; what we should count on is that under an Obama administration political space will be opened. He might be centrist, but the can of worms he's about to open won't be. Given we're on the verge of the end of capitalism maybe now a new left will emerge with plans on remaking society!
November 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The inescapable fact is that for any plausible expansion of the public sector, taxes will have to increase for more than the fabled top eensy-weensy percent."
For years I accepted the knee jerk liberal position that it was fine and dandy to just pay in your Federal taxes. However, in the past few I've started to think that grassroots Republicans have a good point that it really isn't. We have no control over how the money is spent, and we are living in an *era* of shrinking earnings. Most people have been in this boat for many years already, along with the higher cost of necessities like housing and higher ed.
So, I think Obama's "Ima gonna raise your taxes" on the top eensy percentage that most benefits from our patronage politics is a good idea. In fact, I would make that steeply progressive and keep it there until the the median income increases--these people don't have money for more taxes. The truly wealthy will have to pay for Bush's war and Paulson's bailout. It's not trickling down anyway, so the government will have to capture it directly.
After that, tax hikes on the rest of a rightfully distrustful broader population should be quid pro quo. The government can tell them their bill is due when they can be assured their increased contribution is benefitting the public good. There's no reason to keep funding the kleptocracy.
We can call that Republican if you want. In my neck of the woods, the local Republicans just love the "pay for it if you use it" mentality.
November 2, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: also said BHO was running as the competent Republican, not that he is a Republican.
This only works if you include the whole history of the GOP, from Lincoln and emancipation (and the Homestead Act) through Roosevelt's trust-busting to Nixon's healthcare plan and the EPA. It certainly does not work at all if you look at the rightwing GOP we've had since Reagan.
November 2, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who condenses and then maps the entire set of possible political viewpoints onto a linear scalar is being unrealistic. Additionally, the vast majority of these political flatworlders are either playing games of dialectical dupery, or being dialectically duped. You must choose between being part of your party's rank, or defiled.
It should not come as a surprise when a former Law Professor from the University of Chicago turns out not to be a market intervention extremist. Nor should it be a surprise if the same former uchicago.edu Law Professor does not unilaterally remove all American military from Iraq overnight, and immediately walk away from Afghanistan, letting them descend once again into a barbarous sectarian regime, as did the Administration of GHW Bush after the fall of the Soviet.
As horrible, evil and immoral as the BusHell on Earth Foreign Policy has been, it was still The Nation's Official State Policy, and is laden with past obligations. Past Treaties made are still the Supreme Law of the Land, and agreements entered into under the Authority of the American government should be perceived as contracts which cannot honourably be broken without due process under the norms of International Law.
One of The Bush Presidency's nasty tendencies has been the slatternly abrogation of past lawful treaties without giving proper notice or showing good cause. This is how the ABM missile treaty was broken. Worse, it is how the Geneva Conventions were ignored, which led directly to inhumane treatment of humans detained under the American flag. Do you, now that the sceptre of power sits on the other-side of the table, suddenly want to be like The Legion of DubyaDim, supporters of a urinary president, omnipotent and existing without the restraints delineated in the sole document that legitimises his every act of office?
Obama's past tenured Professorship at the strongly libertarian leaning, yet not isolationist, pro-liberty University of Chicago, was a significant factor in my decision to support him. Those who now are penciling in their cotillion dance cards with their preferred Man Dates would be well-advised to remember that in contemporary American politics, it is those unaligned with party who propel the pendulum of political change.
Still, I do not expect the hair-pulling, garment rending harpy shrieks of lamentations to be preponderating from the left-side of the political bipolarity. This behaviour is a defining characteristic of the hammerheaded right. I expect a more subdued and nuanced response from liberal and lefties: limp-wristed hand-wringing whinyness, awash in abandonment angst. Cheer-up; finding solace in comprehending it is this quality, as opposed the the unremitting vehemence spewing from the other side, which offers indisputable evidence that within the distorted political model of planar dungeon, the cell block you have freely chosen to be imprison yourselves in is indisputably: the lamer of two evils.
November 2, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done.
November 2, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make the false assumption that the future lies in the hands SOLEY of these two machine-like organizational structures and that the individual president is merely a cog in this machine--and perhaps not a very special cog even. A cosmic Manichaeism with both sides doomed. You say if Obama does not tow the line of the limp-wristed ones, he will be --what---"excommunicated", “impeached”?
The situation is not as dire as you paint. So far Obama has shown himself to be careful, which is an improvement over “W the reckless”. I believe that with our encouragement Obama is not fated to disappoint. There is room for surprise in the universe we live in.
You are too cynical and fatalistic at that. You are a siren of despair, but you write lucidly and brilliantly I must admit.
November 2, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not infer that Obama would be a relatively insignificant cog in the machinations of the government. No newly elected President is a minor force in the government. I believe that Big Government Democrats will be disappointed by the Obama Administration. He will NOT be the second coming of FDR, which is good.
There is another pressing consideration that many Democrats who desire an great increase in government social services disregard. The Bush Administration and the GOP Gone Wild In D.C. 2002-2006 plundered the public treasury and burdened the future with their rampant fiscal irresponsibility. This trend towards greater deficit spending must be reversed, but it also must be a gradual process or it will storm across the economy. There should be less grand dreaming, and more practical planning within the Democratic Party about what is doable, and what is ill-advised. BusHell on earth cannot be undone in one day.
November 3, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not infer that Obama would be...
You mean imply. I infer what you imply.
Sorry to be the Grammar Police, but this is a pet peeve of mine and I probably pamper pet peeves painfully and pathetically.
November 3, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said that he would include Republicans in his cabinet. I hope the idea of bipartisan participation is not only a pragmatic move toward developing consensus but signals the beginning of a meritocracy.
One of the paradoxes of the eight years of Bush is that the executive branch has expanded its independence to do what it deems best while allowing the management of the many agencies of Federal government to be undermined in the name of deregulation or failing to shake pom poms for specific agendas.
From the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the removal of the State Department from the "post" war execution of the Iraq war, the punch bowl at the Department of the Interior, to the top officers of the EPA charged with marginalizing the efforts of career employees, the Bush administration has demonstrated a profound disregard for the need to jealously preserve the power of the Federal Government.
For the most part, the failure of Bush to be an executive has not received a lot of attention during the campaign because the rhetoric of the matter would trip up both candidates. But I will be greatly heartened if Obama starts work on this problem well before his first day in the saddle.
November 2, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said that he would include Republicans in his cabinet. I hope the idea of bipartisan participation is not only a pragmatic move toward developing consensus but signals the beginning of a meritocracy.
One of the paradoxes of the eight years of Bush is that the executive branch has expanded its independence to do what it deems best while allowing the management of the many agencies of Federal government to be undermined in the name of deregulation or failing to shake pom poms for specific agendas.
From the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the removal of the State Department from the "post" war execution of the Iraq war, the punch bowl at the Department of the Interior, to the top officers of the EPA charged with marginalizing the efforts of career employees, the Bush administration has demonstrated a profound disregard for the need to jealously preserve the power of the Federal Government.
For the most part, the failure of Bush to be an executive has not received a lot of attention during the campaign because the rhetoric of the matter would trip up both candidates. But I will be greatly heartened if Obama starts work on this problem well before his first day in the saddle.
November 2, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
These jerkwads aren't republicans, they're hooligans. Any principled republican of the pre-reagan era was ready to raise taxes on the rich when they thought it was necessary, and believed in grandmothers right next to apple pie. I think it's sad that the best we're hoping for right now is to bring back the social programs of the middle nixon administration, but at least it's a start.
November 2, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
but when you consider that no one under 40 has had a chance to vote for any republicans other than post-reagan republicans it's easy to understand the confusion...
November 3, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
His point is that after 40 years, we rejoice at the opportunity to elect a Democratic Nixon....
November 2, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a fantastic thread.
November 3, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink