Trust Obama's Vision
"Change comes from me....That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing." -- President-Elect Obama
I keep hearing from friends who are unhappy about the overall feel of Barack Obama's Cabinet and White House staff choices. Too conservative. Too Clintonesque. Too typical Washington.
I understand that. I'm not crazy about all his choices (especially on the domestic side).
But, so far, I have no reason to believe that his instincts are anything but superior to my own, my friends, or the pundits in the blogosphere. Of course, I supported his candidacy even before Iowa. I supported it even before he decided to run so my confidence in him is no big surprise.
But it's more than that. His decisions have been almost unfailingly right ever since he began his campaign. Obviously, the very fact that a one-term African-American senator got himself elected President demonstrates rather sound judgement.
I also believe he, and nobody else, will call the shots in the Obama administration. FDR, the greatest President of the 20th century, also assembled a rather traditional set of advisers. The "New Deal" was essentially in his head. To this day, we don't know what FDR's overall philosophy was or even if it had one. (We know infinitely more about Obama's worldview, which he details in his books and speeches). But we do know that FDR was open to advice from a wide-range of sources (Eleanor even brought in Marxists to lunch with the President) and that he took good ideas no matter what their origin. His mantra was, "try something. If that doesn't work, try something else."
FDR succeeded, in large part, because he had such a strong sense of both command and self-confidence. He (like Lincoln) believed he had better judgment than anyone else in the room. It is clear that Obama feels that way about himself. He will hear Larry Sommers. He will not be intimidated by him. Or by anyone.
The source of his greatness seems to be well-placed self-confidence combined with the ability to hear dissenting views and choose among them. FDR did that. And so did JFK after he made the mistake of listening to the military and other hawks on Cuba. LBJ, who could have been great, was intimidated by the "Harvards" and the generals and his insecurity destroyed his Presidency. Clinton was overawed by the military and perhaps by Wall Street.
At this point, it appears that Barack Obama will rely primarily on his own informed instincts (George W. Bush also trusted his instincts but they were utterly uninformed except by the Lord). I trust those instincts and I will until I see reason not to. I don't expect that to happen.
What a joy to know that the President is smarter than the rest of us. What a relief to look up to a President of the United States rather than feel only pity, contempt or cringing embarrassment.
MJ,
I have my fingers crossed.
December 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
John,
Obama had his fingers crossed too when he first said that all combat troops would leave Iraq. He's not saying that any more, with the election over and all.
I guess his "vision" changed, from near-sighted to far-sighted. It can happen to anyone.
December 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
His picks all seem uber-competent to me. If we're entering the age of competence in American politics, that'll suit my fine after 8 years of keystone cop bumbling.
December 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about if he just slows the entropy? That will be enough. We probably still have little appreciation for the scale of Bush's vandalism of our institutions and assets.
December 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like you, I am not all that enthused about some of his cabinet picks, but I am encouraged by many of his recent statements. Indeed, none of his statements has disturbed me and many are more progressive than I expected. None of his picks really surprise me, but I never thought Obama was anything other than a centrist. He was not my first choice and I still have reservations, but he was clearly superior to the alternatives. After 35 years of voting, I accept taking the best choices I have and pushing the system to put forward better choices.
December 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel the same way. He's got my support and all my encouragement to be a great president and to call forth greatness from the nation.
These are difficult times. Any man in his position will be sorely tried. Any man's team will be forced to make decisions based on incomplete and dire information. As long as we stay within the Constitution and care about our fellow citizens, while holding the corporations' feet to the fire, I'm going to hope (indeed pray) for the best.
December 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has already shown poor judgement on FISA, health insurance, the TARP, etc.
And FDR certainly wasn't the smartest guy in the room.
Lots of bad history in this post.
Liberals are right to always question leadership, there is a lot of pressure from special interests.
December 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did Noam Chomsky remind us what Walter Lippman said about us? Chomsky singles out of the “liberal” or “progressive” intellectuals, Walter Lippman.
“He said that in a democracy, the population has a function. Its function is to be spectators, not participants. He didn't call it the population. He called it the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The ignorant and meddlesome outsiders have a function and namely to watch what's going on. And to push a lever every once in a while and then go home. But, the participants are us, us privileged, smart guys. Well that's one conception of democracy.
Read Sheldon Wolin's (Chalmers Johnson's teacher) "Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and Inverted Totalitarianism".
There are days like today I wake up and say "Please try to be more sheeplike today for your own good or you'll end up like those gadflies in HBO's "House of Saddam" who got shot." But then I open up this site and start typing. Oh well.
December 8, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ is saying that intelligence trumps collegiality, democracy and morality. MJ's wrong. The Best and the Brightest have appeared on the American scene before, to our detriment.
Obama's "vision" always results in his personal plans for the country. I will do this, I will do that. That's wrong.
The very concept of a new Decider is chilling in a government that is supposed to be Of The People, By The People, and For The People.
We've already gotten a taste of this with the Obama/Biden team eschewing any advise and consent of the Iraq SOFA -- which ought to be a treaty -- by the US Senate as required by the Constitution. This avoidance of a treaty, this non-participation of the Democratic Senate, this lack of hearings, is obviously to provide Obama executive privilege to do whatever he wants to do in Iraq. Mr. Smart Guy will decide what's best.
So much for government by the people.
December 8, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not president yet. We don't know yet how he will govern.
December 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just gave you a specific example of how Obama will govern -- by executive privilege. So what's new, pussycat.
December 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if it will go down like that. We seee what he does once he gets into office.
December 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligence is the necessary if not sufficient condition. And not just intelligence,brilliance.
Robert Reich or ,say, James Galbraith are "good enough". But with the entire world's economy tail spinning into what has the potential -if mishandled- to become a long,long depression I want Obama to have more than good enough advice . I want him to have the best.
He can't select an option that has never been presented to him. And while like most of those here I wouldn't want to give Larry Summers the final say on anything, I can't think of anyone whom I'd prefer to have handing Obama those options
Halberstam's Best and The Brightest were wrong
at the start of our expansion in Vietnam (well some of them, George Ball got it right)but they were right during the missile crisis. Imagine if JFK had been supported by Condi instead of Rusk, Bolton instead of Adlai,Card instead of Ted Sorenson, Ashcroft instead of Bobby,Cheney instead of LBJ, even Snow instead of Douglas Dillon. We'd be living in the ashes.
It's not that W's team are stupid. They're smart people who've risen a long way. But not the best.
At a time when Obama-and we- can't afford anything less .
AOBTW the financial team is not
all centrists. Christie Romer and Melody( I'm not coming up with her given name but I knew it when I googled her )are well to the left of that. And as Brad Delong points out Romer has known Summers since before he got his Phd and never yet had the slightest difficulty in standing up to him.
December 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Summers?? Let us see. He was a major advocate of deregulation during the Clinton admin (along with Rubin). They succeeded in abolishing Glass-Steagall and succeeded in preventing any regulations into the new markets for financial derivatives. Both Summers and Rubin then left government, took extremely high paying jobs on Wall Street, guided their companies into the new securitization markets, became rich and collapsed the economy. We all lost, taxpayers, workers, pensioners and investors. Summers and Rubin won.
And now Obama is placing them in control of the economy (or to be the filters that provide the options for his "decisions").
December 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe Obama is placing Summers in charge of anything except giving him-Obama- suggestions , some of which will be better than any other person could come up with
Speaking as a layman-and of course I may be wrong- it seems to me that financial matters at this level are so complicated as to be beyond "common sense". Given alternatives I'm confident Obama can choose between them.What he can't do is generate those alternatives himself.And I don't think anyone will do that better than Summers.
December 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Government by the people is a fine idea except for the simple, inconvenient fact that most people are... not too bright.
December 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Victor,
I was raised in small-town New England where the town was governed by town meeting. You might want to attend one some time, and while you're there tell the citizens that most of them are not too bright and incapable of doing what they're in fact doing.
The simple facts are that your not-too-bright people are 'way out in front of the bought-and-paid-for hacks, the bottom of the gene pool liars and thieves that matriculate to Washington and fill their pockets with ill-gotten gains.
December 8, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Don, is that why they voted in Bush...twice. Not Vermonters, I grant you, but just about every other rural small town in American, as near as I can tell.
December 8, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
Bush was elected by about 25% of the electorate. Half the people (including me) don't vote presidential, or (a few) vote third party, because the system has been perverted and so there is a dirth of candidates that reflect their opinions and represent their interests. Mr. Vision/Change gives us Mr. Gates for his "Iraq change." Hah.
That's not the fault of the people, Tintin. Blaming the intelligence of Americans who do hold their noses and vote for look-alike candidates who have brought us the situation we're in doesn't fly with me.
December 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a joy to know that the President is smarter than the rest of us.
This is the sort of slavish imbecility that makes me fear for our democracy, and for the cause of progressive change.
Look, I think Barack Obama is a great guy, with plenty of smarts and a sincere desire to to good. I supported him strongly, and voted for him, and wish him well.
But MJ and others are promoting a dangerous and feeble-minded romantic hero conception of the presidency. The president is powerful, but he is not a Supreme Dictator. Electing a good president gives us an opportunity to change the country. It is not a guarantee of the change itself, and progressive changes will not happen by presidential fiat and instinctual magic. All the great presidential "instincts" in the world will not give us a better country unless we are prepared to fight for it, and do 99% of the heavy lifting ourselves. And that lifting includes perpetual struggle against entrenched power and interests.
Even a progressive leader can only barely hold back a small part of the deluge of the influence of established power and wealth. Progressive forces need to weigh in aggressively on each and every decision Obama makes, including personnel decisions. And when decisions are made of which they have reason to disapprove, they need to express themselves loudly, persistently and without being intimidated by those who would call them "whiners".
Why? Because elite power will be weighing in very, very aggressively, and bringing all of its mighty influence to bear on the Oval Office. The powerful will be on the phone with Obama and his advisers; they will be crawling the hallways of power; they will buttonhole him at every stop along the road; at every state dinner; at every academic and civic pow-wow. And they have the power, through their command of financial and media resources, to blackmail and coerce a president politically into serving their interests, no matter how much smarts, good instincts and good intentions he has. As always, they will be all over the presidency, pushing hard. We need to push back two and three times as hard on the other side to have a chance.
Do you think these personnel decisions simply reflect Obama's "instincts"? Every one probably represents an intense lobbying effort by agents of corporate, military, financial, media and other elite influence. So we ordinary schmucks have to push just as hard for our story to be heard, and our people to be recognized, advanced and listened to. Otherwise we will lose, time after time after time. Simply watching the parade, in a cheery, sunny, approving mood, without aggressive participation and vigilant struggle, is not democratic citizenship. It is doltish and submissive serfdom, the attitude of an ignorant peasant subject, not a citizen.
People seem to be under the mistaken impression that it all gets easier now. It doesn't!
With a better president in place, it is true that there is more reason for hope that progressives can win a war in which the balance of forces are heavily stacked against them, as they always are. But it is still a war! And Barack Obama is not now the leader of a citizens' army of outsiders striking against the citadels of power. He is the commander of one of the citadels, including its military complex, and now finds there are many powerful constituencies and scheming vassals he needs to satisfy to retain his position.
It is surely a relief that George Bush is gone, and that John McCain didn't win. It is appropriate to be proud and satisfied in that victory. But people need to shake themselves out of this sense that they have just elected a new Emperor of Sunshine and Gumdrops.
December 8, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack Obama does nothing other than get himself elected (and he will do much more than that), he will have accomplished more than all but a half dozen of our Presidents.
Some people just don't "get" why the rest of us are so excited about Obama. Fine. You are entitled. But it demonstrates a certain lack of understanding of American history.
December 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being pleased or excited about successfully completing a historic accomplishment is fine, MJ. But that doesn't tell us how to behave moving forward, and I thought the latter question was your main topic.
My concern is that the celebratory mood is morphing in some quarters into an atmosphere of passive, faith-based hero adulation, and a dangerous tendency toward star-struck, thin-skinned defensiveness and protectiveness toward Obama, and anger about criticism of any kind, no matter how constructive.
I don't blame Obama for this. He has always emphasized that change is hard, that the road is long, that leaders need to be held accountable and that democracy needs to be participatory in order to be effective. But some of his supporters seem to have a different mind-set.
For what it's worth, I believe it is just as lazy and unproductive to indulge in "I told you nothing would change and everything would be the same" grousing. That is an equally disengaged and irresponsible attitude. I think it is pretty clearly the case that some important thing are going to change, as long as we keep working for them.
December 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, these are very sensible observations. We should be enthusiastic about Obama because he has the potential to listen to us. However, we will have to fight for his attention. It is clear from his appointments so far that he has little respect for the progressive wing of his own party. Today he feels more beholden to those who deregulated the banks, then those of us who were appalled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
December 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your group talks a lot about holding Obama responsible and making sure he keeps his promises. He expects and welcomes that. But he has also constantly said that he cannot do this by himself and will need our help. I don't see any suggestion in your post about helping Obama achieve the agenda that you and other progressives voted for. Why is there no mention of holding Congress responsible? While there will be special interest groups and political parties(all the same IMO) demanding things from Obama, who is going to demand that Congress do their job? Have you seen the approval ratings for Congress? What about the stats showing that Congress has basically phoned it in for the past few years? Where is the Progressive's plan to hold ALL elected officials responsible? Obama has a mandate, but is not a Supreme Dictator and he can't do much without the consent of Congress, what are Progressives going to do to make sure Congress cooperates?
December 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But MJ and others are promoting a dangerous and feeble-minded romantic hero conception of the presidency. The president is powerful, but he is not a Supreme Dictator."
I'm with MJ. Can of like trust but verify. If he fucks up I will be on his case just like an attorney.
December 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Kinda like trust but verify.
December 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he fucks up I will be on his case just like an attorney.
What will be your criterion for deciding when he has fucked something up? If the watchword is "trust", doesn't that set up a frame of mind in which one continually defers criticism of decisions that seem less than satisfactory, on the theory that these decisions are all part of a grand, long term plan that we should simply trust Obama to execute?
Whenever Obama tacks toward progressive, people-oriented policies, he will face a stiff headwind from powerful elites of many varieties. So I think we want to make sure that when he tacks toward elite approval, he faces a similarly powerful headwind from progressives. It's the best way to keep him honest.
Progressive discontent can have an effect. John Brennan was recently forced to withdraw his name from consideration for intelligence chief. This appears to be due to some progressives, including progressive bloggers, calling attention to Brennan's association agency decisions involving rendition and torture. It was a nice shot across the bow toward the intelligence agencies, letting them and the incoming Obama administration know that the left is paying attention, and this awareness creates a changed political environment that may end up saving lives and substantially influencing our intelligence policies. Of course, a lot of CIA insiders and Brennan's friends and colleagues are miffed. If the left had said nothing, those insiders would have been the loudest voices in the room, and Obama probably would have named Brennan.
Similarly, expressions of progressive disappointment with some of Obama's actual picks so far has helped create added pressure on Obama from the left flank, and may help us get some more progressive picks throughout the remainder of the process.
December 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What will be your criterion for deciding when he has fucked something up? If the watchword is "trust", doesn't that set up a frame of mind in which one continually defers criticism of decisions that seem less than satisfactory, on the theory that these decisions are all part of a grand, long term plan that we should simply trust Obama to execute?"
Trust for now. He hasn't been inaugurated yet. Many are worried about his cabinet picks but ignoring the importance of leadership in determining policy and it's execution.
Remember in a classroom the few bullies that sway the majority of students in a class? This is how we as humans organize. There are a few leaders and there are many many followers. Obama is a leader. Notice how he says things without getting a series of polls to determine his decision. He says some things that upset the left and some things that upset the right. He goes beyond ideological constraints. The right solutions can come form either side. I crave a political debate with the right that is absent all the ring wing Machiavellian bullshit.
Give Obama a chance to get into office and start making decisions before we decide how he will govern.
My criterion will be the process and the decisions that are executed by the new administration after Obama is inaugurated. I will be listening for the rationale behind the decisions he makes regardless of what side of the political spectrum they please. I expect lots of new or novel decisions that are based on nuanced stances instead of the partisan bull we've been living through these past decades.
During the decision making stages (i.e. prior to legislation being enacted) I will listen to the arguments and voice my opinion.
If his decisions repeatedly reflect IMO, poor judgment, THEN I will get on his case.
December 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has already made decisions. Although he has not yet been inaugurated, each of Obama's cabinet appointments is in itself a major decision that will have a large impact on how this country is governed. I think his decisions have been, by and large, sensible. However, I do think that there are important foreign policy perspectives that are not reflected on his foreign policy team, and that disappoints and worries me. I have reason to doubt that this team is capable of responding with the creativity and strategic boldness required by a rapidly changing global scene. Obviously, this is no reason to start screaming "all is lost" at this early date. But I also see no reason to delay weighing in with the criticisms until some future time when actual decisions are being made. They are already being made.
And I'm afraid it is just not in my temperament to take the attitude that Obama is a vast genius whose machinations and intricate plans are beyond the capacity of a mere mortal like myself to grasp.
December 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although he has not yet been inaugurated, each of Obama's cabinet appointments is in itself a major decision that will have a large impact on how this country is governed.
Lots of assumptions are being made by many, including yourself. You may all be right ... or wrong. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President. I don't see Obama as "I will delegate policy out" type of President. I see him as we will set policy in the White House, and delegate the execution to the various cabinet heads.
However, I do think that there are important foreign policy perspectives that are not reflected on his foreign policy team, and that disappoints and worries me.
What perspectives do you think are lacking?
And I'm afraid it is just not in my temperament to take the attitude that Obama is a vast genius whose machinations and intricate plans are beyond the capacity of a mere mortal like myself to grasp.
I don't think his plans are beyond our ability to grasp, but perhaps they are counter intuitive as they are new to Washington, less partisan with are born from a genuine interest in serving all.
December 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: I don't think his plans are beyond our ability to grasp, but perhaps they are counter intuitive as they are new to Washington, less partisan and are born from a genuine interest in serving all.
December 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The globe is, in my view, in a period of transition in which a few very large, rapidly developing countries containing half the world's population will acquire larger and larger shares of global influence, and in which some influence will flow ineluctably away from older powers, including the United States. I'm not predicting any sort of dark age or tremendous catastrophic decline for US, and I think the US is well-equipped to thrive and prosper in this new era. But it is an important shift that must be accepted and dealt with.
We are also now living in a world in which the interdependence of our financial systems, energy systems, environmental conditions and trade relationships demand new organs of global governance, and will in the US require a closer relationship between the agencies charged with protecting our economic security and those charged with protecting other aspects of our security.
It doesn't appear to me so far that any of the people in the Obama national security team possesses the sort of strategic vision and understanding of the new epoch necessary to deal with these challenging times, nor the boldness required to accept and adapt to these new realities. Are these folks prepared to make enemies? To thrive we will have to make some significant changes that will upset many apple carts, and anger many of the stake-holders in the present set of arrangements.
I worry that the prevalent mindset in the new team is to carry out a sort of Restoration, and bring back the bipartisan consensus and centrist approach that was in place before G.W. Bush so rudely interrupted the centrists. That would be a dangerous illusion and tragic mistake, in my view. The short-lived triumphalist heyday of the 90's is gone for good. I do believe that Obama himself has a somewhat better grasp of this new era than the people he appointed. But I would have been more reassured if he had included at least one big strategic thinker on his team. Instead, they appear to have been chosen for their relationships and experience with existing bureaucracies and power centers. That's a good thing to have; but more is needed in 2008.
December 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Progressive discontent can have an effect. John Brennan was recently forced to withdraw his name from consideration for intelligence chief."
All we know is what the MSM is reporting and they make up stuff to sell their media.
"Similarly, expressions of progressive disappointment with some of Obama's actual picks so far has helped create added pressure on Obama from the left flank, and may help us get some more progressive picks throughout the remainder of the process."
You may be right, but I have no idea if that is so.
December 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if current conditions would be considered bad timing on repealing taxcuts on the richest 1% than own 80% of the U.S., economy, that's still no excuse of not including a more representative voice in Obama's top tier cabinet positions. Obama is probably counting on Geithner and Summers to "learn" from their past mistakes and come up with some "fresh" ideas to move the country forward. When Obama made his shrewd political calculation on Hillary as SOS and defending it in his press conference, I just stuck my fingers in my ears and went la la la la la la la la I dont hear you la la la la la la....
Obama is self-sensoring himself in order to make it to his re-election in 2012 by telling us all, to have "patience."
December 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
When are you going to stop underestimating this guy? We didn't elect an idiot. Do you really think that Obama is counting on these two guys to "learn" from their mistakes? Why has it not occurred to you that Obama has probably been listening and talking with these two for several months? If Obama picked them, then they have probably shown that they have "fresh" ideas to move the country forward. Keep sticking your fingers in your ears, it seems like that's all Libs/Progressives have been doing for the last 2 years when it comes to what Obama has been saying.
December 8, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has become the POTUS, not your local dog catcher, so IT IS imperative to be critical and not give Obama a PASS on these important top tier appointments. Obama is backing down on taxing the wealthy---who convinced him of that??? His advisors Geithner and Summers??? Based on the conditions on the ground Iraq, the 16 month pull out may be stretched out or modified in a form that ends up looking nothing like his campaign promises--who is advising him on that perspective???? Hillary??? I wouldn't be bothered by any of the appointments nor by Obama's own campaign rhetoric had he been less rhetorically and more transparent about his intentions. At least Pres Bill Clinton campaigned and triangulated on the issues as a true Centrist, not as some phony Liberal.
December 8, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"(George W. Bush also trusted his instincts but they were utterly uninformed except by the Lord)."
On that note, maybe you need to go back and read that post again.
December 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have some experience with grass root organizing. I ran political campaigns in the New York City area, mostly state level offices. I would come into the campaign of a non-incumbent and find order lacking. I would talk with the candidate and determine what he was about and how he wanted his org to function. Once we got clear the policy, it would take about two to three weeks to turn things around. The biggest change occurred with volunteers. The quality and quantity of their involvement would shoot up once better order was infused into the campaign. Volunteers often volunteer because they believe in the candidate. But many candidates don't know enough about the nuts and blots of grassroots organizing to keep participation high and productive. Establish a high degree of order alone makes a big difference in the campaigns output.
The point is that an effective leader sets the policy and the tone of an org. The leader then hires individuals who help execute what the leader and leadership determine the policy would be. The candidates I worked with had the final say. Individuals who don't play 'team ball' get fired.
December 8, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
United We Stand. "You're either with us or against us" as we enlist in Obama's continuing self-promotion campaign -- is that your point?
December 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you point is? Orgs have a leadership structure. As I see it Obama structure includes a bunch who will not be yes men and women. They will give him divergent POVs to work with. They will then have the opportunity to create a policy born from the interaction of those competing views. Once the policy is set (Obama has the final say) anyone who chooses to go act against the policy should be fired.
December 8, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't say anything about POV's in your initial post, you talked about order and executing what the leader decided.
December 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the confusion. I did mentioned "the leader and the leadership" meaning the candidate and his top advisers. Of course Obama has put in place individuals with differing view, so let assume he'll be getting POV's.
December 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What a joy to know that the President is smarter than the rest of us."
If you experience joy upon realizing that others are smarter than you, Mister Rosenberg, then you must be the most joyous putz who ever lived.
December 8, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have complete confidence in the guy. Can't wait to see if anything gets through Congress. Will there be the same old gridlock? I think there's enuff Dems in the Senate to avoid that, but you never know...
BTW, I'm wondering how come TPM won't let me upload a new avatar pic. The one I have is so last campaign season. Or maybe the upload did take. I'll find out when I submit this.
December 8, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, didn't take. Same old avatar. Crap.
December 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As I see it Obama structure includes a bunch who will not be yes men and women. They will give him divergent POVs to work with. They will then have the opportunity to create a policy born from the interaction of those competing views."
I don't know. As far as I can tell, that's what Obama *said* he would do before he got elected. Now, he's elected and that's not what he's done thus far. Take his top two economic positions--Geithner and Summers, both of the same sneaky ideological skunk stripe. If Obama were being true to his marketing, he could have assigned one neo-liberal finance guy to Treasury, and someone of a different stripe to the post he gave to Summers.
What does Obama know about financial markets? Heck, what does Obama know about the real economy? Based on his education and his experience, he knows nothing. Nada. Most of what he "knows" will stem from what he is *told.* And there's ALMOST NO diversification I can see in his economic policy appointments, starting with the top two and going *all the way down.*
At another point in time, maybe this wouldn't be of the greatest possible significance. Right now I'd have to say it is.
December 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I should be encouraged by all the posts here promising to hold Obama accountable for the promise brought by his campaign. But my question to those people is 'where's your organization?'
I don't think Obama will govern based on sampling the opinions of the blogosphere. I do think he will be responsive to those like the UE workers occupying the Republic Windows plant in Chicago today.
The Obama campaign is helping to organize neighborhood meetings this coming weekend to keep the grassroots mobilized. Join us or create your own organization.
December 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ said:
-------------------------------------------
What a joy to know that the President is smarter than the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------
This is really unbelievable. Blind hero-worship. What would MJ say about someone who said that about Bush? All dictators try to get their people to believe the same thing.
The smartest president, in an academic sense, in the history of the United States was Herbert Hoover. He was a LOT "smarter than the rest of us". Another smart, academic President was Woodrow Wilson. Although he had accomplishments in domestic affairs, his failed war in Mexico and bungled diplomacy during and after World War I caused many of the problems that led to World War II. Another "smart guy". Then, as others have mentioned, there were "The Best and The Brigthest" who got the US into Vietnam.
Once the screw-ups start coming from the Obama Administration, MJ will be the biggest apologist for them, or he will lash out at all the critics, claiming they are blind to his "greatness".
December 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD is getting worried!
December 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because rational, pragmatic government is not on the side of "Eretz Israel." It is, however, on the side of America and the State of Israel.
December 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think I'm "worried" about that Obama is going to force Israel to give up vital territories (i.e. Judea/Samaria, Jerusalem), you are wrong. He may try, but he will fail, because the Arab side is not interested in a peace agreement. I AM worried that American democracy may be going down the drain because it is based on a citizenry maintaining a healthy skepticism about its leaders and if the uncritical hero-worship expressed by MJ is at all typical, this seems to be in danger.
December 8, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
With pogroms in Hebron and a country dominated by religious and national/ethnic zealots, you might consider ignoring the defects of the country you emigrated from in favor of the one you embraced. America has its problems but, as Obama's election showed, the USA is heaven compared to most countries in the world which are governed according to blood lines.
We elected Obama. You are going to elect Netanyahu. That says it all.
December 9, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ said:
---------------------------------------------
We elected Obama. You are going to elect Netanyahu. That says it all.
----------------------------------------------
So what? In the past you elected Bush and we elected Rabin. ( Please note: I am not saying that I liked Rabin, I am just pointing out how ridiculous it is for MJ to go writing off entire nations because he doesn't like how they vote).
December 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Can anyone remember the Carter administration? Jimmy Carter appointed largely people he knew well, who had his trust, knew what needed to be done, but had not the slightest idea how to get anything done. That explains a lot about Obama's appointments. He is chosing people who know how to get things done.
Cabinet secretaries don't set policy. They implement the policies set by the President, manage their departments so as to do that well, and offer what ever advice they can to the President. Cabinet secretaries are not independent.
I will have to admit that I have been extremely disappointed that Obama is dragging his feet about picking the dog for his girls. I expected more from him.
December 8, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me. Carter appointed people who did not know how to get things done? What about the most significant peace deal between Israel and her most threatening neighbors?
December 9, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carter has always been a good diplomat, and the Israel/Palestinian agreement reflects that. Don't forget that the agreement didn't occur until late in Carter's term. When Carter tried to implement the policies he campaigned on, he ran into Congressional roadblocks and was unable to find a way around them. The same could happen to Obama, but by choosing staff people who are experienced in dealing with Congress, Obama gives himself the maximum chance for success. Good intentions only go so far if you can't deal with Congress.
December 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shortly after the election, I had lunch with a conservative friend who wanted to know why an intelligent (I have him completely fooled!) person would vote for Obama. The short form of what I told him was that I expected Obama to govern to the center, and so far Obama's picks suggest this. What I didn't tell my friend explicitly was that I hoped that by governing to the center he will shove the right wing farther and farther into a corner of their own making -- we'll never eliminate them, but at least we can marginalize them and keep them under observation.
I still believe that what America wants is not small government, but good government. We on the left screwed up in the '60's and gave Nixon a chance. Nixon screwed up and gave us a chance and Carter blew it. (I was, and still am, a staunch Udall partisan.) Regan took the opportunity, and Bush I blew it. Clinton took that opportunity and then he (Monica ?) blew it. So Bush II took (stole) the opportunity and totally f***ed it, the nation and the world. Now Barack has the opportunity, and I'm hoping that he's smart enough not to blow it, and give Americans what they really want... good government.
Good government is pragmatic, not dogmatic -- leaves out the conservatives. Good government helps the little guy -- leaves out conservatives. Good government regulates greed -- leaves out conservatives. Good foreign policy is 99% diplomacy, 1% military -- leaves out conservatives.
And, heck, I still like the symbolism of Obama having his victory celebration in Grant Park.
Forty years on...
December 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink