For those still in denial about Obama being an economic centrist:
Barack Obama today at his G-20 press conference, to reporters from across the world:
It doesn't mean the state micromanaging -- ( sneezes) -- excuse me -- I've been fighting this all week -- it doesn't mean that we want the state dictating salaries; we don't. We -- I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I -- as I think people understand in America, at least, people don't resent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good. But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results.
I heard it live, I heard him stress: people don't resent the rich, they want to BE rich--and then after a pause, affirm: And that's good.
More, shortly thereafter:
I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how unfettered the free market is. And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king. And I think what we've learned here, but if anybody had been studying history they would have understood earlier, is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes; that if it's completely unregulated, that if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place.
And so, in that sense, I think that we just went through a couple of decades where there was an artificial complacency about the dangers of markets going off the rails. And a crisis like this reminds us that we just have to put in some common-sense rules of the road, without throwing out the enormous benefits that globalization have brought in terms of improving living standards, reducing the cost of goods, and bringing the world closer together.
I hate to break the spell, but it really is way past time those in denial give up their imaginary Obama now, he's just not going to show up. He wasn't just pandering to the middle on the campaign trail and in his campaign white papers on economics, he meant what he said. He didn't get stuck with Geithner and Summers and others of the same school, he purposefully chose them. He's not waiting for pitchfork rebellions to allow him to go to the left on economics, because he doesn't want to be there and he doesn't believe most Americans are there. He's not against capitalism, he likes it. (Not only that, but rumor has it, he even likes some people that are also extremely wealthy!) He never lied about who he was on this front, either.
For those who missed it, I recommend reading the entire transcript or watching a video, it was quite a bit more interesting than his last one.
Although we probably don't agree on the interpretation of his words, we agree that he never lied about who he was. That's the part that confuses me the most about people, that's why I keep wondering and asking, why did people vote for him in the first place? From the day he started campaigning to the day he uttered the words above, he has been fairly consistent. What were people expecting?
At the risk of sounding rhetorical, he has never envisioned a red, blue, republican, democratic, neocon or progressive America, but a United States of America. I sincerely would like to understand, why is that not enough?
April 2, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We probably disagree much less than you might think. Why do you assume I do? Because I don't write rah rah stuff supporting everything Obama does or attack any criticism of him on this site. As a taxpayer and voter, I don't think that's healthy, especially after a politician is elected. You don't really know the people you elect unless you grew up with them in the same house. Part of the reason for our "free press" is that they are supposed to be figuring out what our elected officials are up to, not to unquestionably trust that they are doing what they said they'd do.
Because I think it's good to have someone like Paul Krugman criticizing his policy decisions? I find that another silly thing, because wasn't so long ago that many considered Paul Krugman pretty much a centrist as well for being a "free trader."
I was pretty much a fan of Bill Clinton, as much of a fan as I get of any politician, but that came AFTER following what he did carefully as president for several years. Still, he did some stuff at the end that I thought was wrong. Perhaps the only decent thing Ronald Reagan ever said was "trust but verify."
the part that confuses me the most about people, that's why I keep wondering and asking, why did people vote for him in the first place?
I am probably a bit less confused (though I may be wrong!) As I implied in this thread, I think many of them got delusional about him.
Let me be clear: I am pretty centrist economically. I am also not too happy with the "eat the rich" pitchfork mood that presents in a lot of the blogosphere right now, I think some of it is also delusional, in so many ways it's a waste to get into it, and hopeless to do so as it comes from anger in most cases.
I actually like his tone in this press conference, it made me feel more comfortable with him, I am pleased with how he has handled himself at G-20 so far. I feared he would not have the chops to handle this well, being a "newbie" at international relations, at a time when it couldn't be more important that our president make a confident leader-like appearance without being too arrogant. Just wish he would have done it sooner, it should have been him calling for at least a mini-conference weeks ago, not Gordon Brown. I was also disappointed with him not giving "war room" priority to more staff at Treasury ASAP, especially when Geithner got delayed by the tax challenge. It seemd too flippant, too cool, to wait and to not get on it right away with an army of people, and to think that the stimulus bill was of more import and not of equal import.
As to policy, there are not a lot of unexpecteds for me.
April 3, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only do I think you're right I know you are right. We agree more than disagree. We want the same things for America and its people. We simply have different methods of getting there and that's good. If my way fails yours may work and vice versa. My only concern is that we are not showing enough support for the man that promises to lead us in the direction we want to go. You and I both know THAT'S the story MSM will usually report. They want the criticism, the complaints the divisiveness.... How does that get us to the next level if it continues?
I stayed up most of the night reading the link to the diary you posted that a then Senator Obama wrote. I also read all the comments. The fact that you can so easily link back to it tells me you really do understand where I'm coming from:)
Trust me, I understand your point of view as well. So how do we come together find common ground in our methods, so both our voices will be heard?
April 3, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My only concern is that we are not showing enough support for the man that promises to lead us in the direction we want to go."
My only concern!
But some of us have a few other concerns, like destabilizing nuclear Pakistan by intensifying the war in Afghanistan, and useless multi-trillion dollar give-aways to the same bank speculators who destroyed the American economy.
$11.8 trillion so far to save bankrupt banks, and the economy is hemorrhaging jobs faster and faster... 651,000 jobs lost in February, 694,000 jobs lost in March, and no end in sight.
I'm not saying that Barack Obama is a clown who has no honking idea what he's doing in Afghanistan...
I'm not saying that Barack Obama is a sociopathic con-man who has sold out the rest of us to his friends in the financial services industry...
But if we had somehow accidentally elected a sociopathic clown as President of the United States...
That sociopathic clown would probably be promoting exactly the same policies as Barack Obama.
April 3, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong choice of phrasing but if you had bothered to read everything I've said in this thread,I suspect you know that already.
April 3, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many very liberal people voted for him believing he was just saying those moderate things and that he would be very liberal as President. Encouraging that myth was even a part of the campaign to some extent. On TPM and other sites during the campaign I read reports that the Obama campaign staff at the highest levels was winking and nodding to convey to people that he was only moderating for campaign purposes. That was one of the points of keeping the whole "change" theme vague so that liberals could fantasize he was really on their side. That's why I did not vote for him in the primary. For me, the final confirmation that Obama was just another politician was his cave in on FISA. Rahm Emmanuel as C of S was the crowning blow and triumph of the status quo over change.
April 3, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb to be honest I don't place a lot of stock in hearsay. I listen, read and observe but in the end, it's what Obama says that counts for me. It what Obama does that matters to me.
I really do understand the cynicism but I don't share it and because of that, people seem to want to turn me into some kool aid drinker. A mindless person who can not think for themselves.
All I really want is what most of you want, a better country for us to all share. I don't see how that will happen if we're constantly doubting and criticizing. I don't see how that will happen if we don't find common ground to make the changes we seek.
If I'm wrong I beg of you and anyone to show me how the opposite way is more effective, more consistent; more doable.
So far, I see a President that is following through on the promises he 's made. I don't agree with all his methods and the end game isn't perfect but so far I'm happy with the results. It's more than I have seen in 8 years. That alone makes my doubts or disagreements seem unimportant. (to me)
April 3, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A politician's job is to win. A Citizen's job is to question authority and "to speak to what is right not what is winnable." That's a view of Howard Zinn's and I agree. It is right to protest war and empire. It is right to fight for economic justice. That means fighting to end poverty. It means fighting for a living wage and a national heath care plan. It means criticizing crony capitalism.
It is our responsibility to tell it like it is and make it plain.
April 3, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
'liberal' or 'moderate' kind of misses the point, tho. He keeps dismissing that kind of framework but no one listens. See my comments below.
April 3, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because some of us want a United States of America that has some folks left between the rich and the poor? I know so 20th century.
April 3, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think I don't want the same?
I've been living dangerously close to the poverty line for years now. I struggle to take care of my 89 year old mother who is in the early stages of dementia, her house and all our needs.
I gave up a great, steady paying job and a wonderful life on a totally different coast that I loved. I've watched what I thought would be money I could retire on, slowly dwindle. I've had to come up with ways to make money sitting at home because I can't leave her alone, for fear of her burning down the house because she forgot to turn the stove off, under a boiling pot of water.
I'm not complaining because a large portion of her life was spent taking care of me when I needed her. To say I've had to make one hell of an adjustment because of circumstances is an understatement. So you're going to have to trust me (or not) when I say, I want and NEED to be more in the middle. It's why I'm so frustrated by all the criticism and bitching. Like millions of Americans, I just don't want a better life I need one before everything comes crashing down around me.
If we don't find a way to come together and work together, the rich will win and the rest of us will lose.
One way or the other I will survive, I always have but when the hell do we start to live as oppose to simply surviving? How does constant bitching and ranting change that?
The President hears us, we are the ones that are not listening.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html
April 3, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Working together isn't enough unless we're working together to do the right thing. After all for the "centrists" working together means making sure the top 0.02% get a better break on their estate taxes. I'm really not opposed to working together. I'm opposed to the big con that has allowed "centrists" to frame themselves as sensible moderates representing middle Americans. Watch what they do, not what they say.
April 3, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about, right wing, left wing, centrist, progressives or kit and kaboddle ideology, that's the part you don't seem to understand about my position.
Maybe I'm a little older than you, I don't know but I've been around the block long enough to understand, I can't always have it my way and this is coming from a big, me, me, me personality.It sucks and I would love to fall on the floor, kicking and screaming until I got my way. The problem is, it doesn't work. At least it's never worked for me.
If working with a centrist, neocon or Methuselah means I can finally get affordable health insurance, a break on my taxes... hey, I'm all for it. I don't have the luxury of being picky at this stage in the game. I can't pay medical bills, heating fuel, utilities property taxes, food etc. with ideology, high moral rhetoric or my moms meager SS check. I'm not slamming anyone over their beliefs, I truly understand them but I am being honest, about the particular realities I'm facing. There are millions of us facing those same realities and worse.
April 3, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the centrists and neocons are funding 2 wars and global military commitments plus reducing estate taxes on the top 0.02%, there isn't going to be any money leftover for your heathcare. There are winners and losers. That's what politics is about. We do not all want the same thing. You're kidding yourself if you think the neocons are going to bargain away their wars in good faith so you can have primary healthcare of if you think the centrists are going to stop filling their pockets with contributions from big insurance so that you can afford a policy.
April 3, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This back and forth is not getting us anywhere. I understand the value in your way, but I don't agree.
I'll take my chances doing it my way, you do you. As long as we both get what we want (and I'm guessing you want affordable health care) it all works for me.
April 3, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can he be a progressive and a centrist?
It's not that it would be impossible, I'm asking you what that would look like in general.
On the campaign trail he said he favors capitalism. If "favors" is accurate, then he's open to non-capitalism too. But he's also interested in some kind of wealth redistribution.
I don't know how it is good to want to be rich, as he put it. The love of money is said to be the root of all evil. To want to be rich sure looks like to feel a desire for money, in this context.
What do you think he's up to here?
April 2, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he's "up to" anything, those are his beliefs. I've read his books, listen to what he says and has said carefully and I don't see any inconsistency.
I have long seen a lot of people, mostly in the blogosphere, see things in him that aren't there.
Part of it goes back to the primary. I always thought he and Hillary Clinton were very alike in their beliefs and policies, about as alike as two Senators could be, except that Hillary might be a teeny weeny little bit left of Bill Clinton on economics, and Obama a teeny bit closer ot Bill Clinton, making her also probably a teeny weeny bit left of Obama.
I always saw Obama as accepting of the basic principles of Rubinomics and DLC-ism, but looking for a new, 2nd generation approach. Not for nothing did he get a lot of campaign support early on from financial sector folks. He never presented as FDR reborn to me.
Economically, the difference between getting the Clinton crew back in the White House or Obama promised to be zilch. It's not like the Clintons are unaware that things change, afterall. In actuality, Obama might have ended up more retrograde, as he ended up picking a lot of old Clinton people while Hillary might have gone for some new folks to differentiate herself from Bill.
In any case, I think the difference was all false and virtually all blogosphere driven, a blogosphere bubble of non-reality, making differences where there were none. And it just goes on and on. I do think Obama the only thing Obama was dishonest about is that he played that in the primary as long as he could with the vague inspirational speeches, and playing his down policy specifics, because it got him a liberal base and momentum that were tired of the Clintons.
I go into past history here because I think the delusions about Obama as an economic liberal all stem from the early primary. It was all self-delusion on the part of "supporters." By the time he started trying to get a bigger percentage of the vote and therefore made his centrist policies more prominent, those supporters had already convinced themselves and gave all those rationalizations that he wasn't telling the truth. I'm probably get grief for this, but a few of those early supporters also probably had some reverse racism issues, thinking that a person of color simply must be an economic liberal.
(A pre-emptive for the Iraq fanatics: Yeah, I know, they differed on the Iraq resolution. So what, they are/were about equal on the hawk scale, just that Hillary fell for the threat--not totally crazy since she probably heard a lot of bad shit about Saddam as first lady--and thought Bush would handle it better than he did, and Obama didn't really have to cast a vote, talking against it was a hell of lot easier than having to vote against it.)
April 3, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that he may not be as ideological driven as people seem to think? He has principles and obviously those principles lean liberal but what I see is a man who lives by his principles and not an ideology. Maybe that's where the misunderstanding is coming in to play. Not just from the left or far left but from the right as well.
April 3, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect he dislikes ideologically driven "warriors," a proclivity I happen to share. First hint of that for me was this Sept. 2005 Daily Kos post he wrote in response to bloggers there dissing him about his behavior regarding the John Roberts nomination, but there has been a lot of other evidence.
I know from "Audacity of Hope" that special interest groups really bother him, especially when they ask for a politician to tick off yes or no answers on a questionnaire whether one supports their cause. I think that's related.
April 3, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair warning:
Obamanomics
By David Leonhardit,
August 20, 2008 New York Times Magazine
written from a long interview with the nominee to be, and with info. from his advisors, a week before the convention.
April 3, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The article actually confirmed what I've always believed and I still think it's where people misunderstand him. This isn't a man who will allow himself to be pigeon holed into some little box and I think that's what people have been trying to do.
He looks for the good in both sides of an argument or person for that matter. There are times when two people can be right based on perspective and all we have is our individual perspectives. He tries to see thing from both points of view and then find a compromise that works for all.
In order for us to live in a fair and just society TOGETHER, we can't live in a my way or the highway mindset.
April 3, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is the potential of synthetic pragmatism:
"He looks for the good in both sides of an argument or person for that matter"
One also needs to look for the bad in both sides, as well, or at least have that if not the focus neither repressed or hidden but in the background.
April 3, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with that Eds. Only a fool would not watch their back but focusing on common ground, is where we start to find solutions IMO and the President seems to want to focus on finding common ground. It's not everyone's way of doing things but that doesn't mean it's the wrong way. Especially if it turns out it works.
April 3, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you will accept my friendly amendment in the "I agree" spirit rather than the "I don't disagree" spirit! :-)
April 3, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Relative to McCain, whose promised spending cuts are extremely vague, Obama does indeed look like a fiscal conservative. "
But he's clearly not a fiscal conservative now. You can argue necessity applies, that huge government deficits are needed, but that's of course only a biased defensive argument.
As a fiscal conservative, I'm not impressed by Obama. I still support him for other reasons.
April 3, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense.
"I don't know how it is good to want to be rich, as he put it. The love of money is said to be the root of all evil. To want to be rich sure looks like to feel a desire for money, in this context.
What do you think he's up to here?"
You totally avoided the question and the point.
Obama is advocating evil. He says its good to want to be rich.
Does Obama stand for evil or not?
April 3, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The markets are the most efficient way we know to satisfy the desires of millions of independent actorss. It does not mean that it is results in distributional outcomes that are representative of what those independent actors prefer. That is the job of he political system.
Faith in markets for their allocative efficiency is fine--markets are mechanisms--but we all know that efficiency is only one objective. Some people think that markets by themselves can accomplish all those other objectives. That is a massive mistake.
April 3, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I can't figure out is how you can be a centrist and still be out to destroy the middle class?
April 3, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newt could use that riff. Add it to his "war on religion". Good polemics.
April 3, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't count Newt out. If Democrats can't figure out how to do populism (they wouldn't have so much trouble doing it if they actually represented the kind of folks that elect them), someone on the right will do it.
April 3, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's "artificial complacency"?
April 3, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, strange choice of words in that context. Doesn't a standard reading really imply people were pretending everything was ok when they actually knew it wasn't? Artificial means "fake" to me. It seems in context of other things he said, though, that he would instead want to say that that they had too much faith that the markets didn't need regulation? It's the difference between innocence or guilt that's unclear there, so it's not like you're nitpicking.
April 3, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let me ask this question of anyone who wants to answer. What do you think President Obama wants, not just for himself and his family but for America and it's people?
April 3, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, by asking that, what you're implying to me is that one should figure out the measure of the person you hire for president, and then you should go about your own business and trust him to do the right thing. I don't think that's a good way to run a democracy. I think people should pay attention to the details. Just because someone has a good heart, good intentions, and is smart doesn't mean they won't fuck up. That's not having an informed electorate to do it that way, to just trust a politician working for you because you think they have good intentions. That's where I totally disagree with you. Matter of fact, I don't think Obama would agree with your approach either.
April 3, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you have read any of my post NOWHERE do I say you have to follow this man blindly off a cliff. Personally I would think you were an idiot if you did.
If you voted for him you should do one of two things, trust your judgment or trust him. That doesn't mean you can't question him or his policies. However, at some point you have to tell yourself, you really believe he wants the best for this country and it's people.
It would be great if the end results and the methods were both something you could agree on but it's not always going to be that way. It would be great if the end result is exactly what you want but again, it's not always going to be that way. That's how life works, no guarantees.
We all have to live here (unless a person chooses to leave) and we all have different ideas how to make that life comfortable. His job is to find a way to make it work for all Americans in spite of all those differences. The fact that I understand that doesn't make me a koolaide drinker or want others to be one, it makes me as pragmatic as the President.
April 3, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If you voted for him you should do one of two things,..."
I wonder if this is a truly fair statement, it negates anyone who voted for him as a symbol of voting against McCain, or anyone who voted for him because he's goodlooking, or anyone who voted for him because he's black and its time, etc, etc.
I don't question anyone's motives when it comes to voting, but I suspect that only a very small number of people vote based on their analysis of policy proposals. Additionally, you would have a pretty good idea of his policies once you understand the basic differences between Democrats and Republicans.
So in a way I think artappraiser is spot on, the personality (real or media-manufactured) and the symbolism of that personality, is often implicitly assumed to be some sort of quality-seal.
April 3, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So a person who voted for him cause he is good looking, I assume, must trust that he will remain good looking and not go all Michael Jackson or Mickey Rourke on us? Ditto for all those who only care that he is black, although I assume that Jake Tapper and Chip Reid and the rest of the pack will have all sorts of ways to tell us whether the president is black enough. As for those who voted against McCain you'll have to trust he won't turn into a crotchy old boxing fanatic. That's not so hard.
Those folks are of course in the distinct minority. Most people vote on policy, or shall we say political philosophy, not the detailed particulars of one wonkish proposal or another. They preferred Obama's version of war and economics and social relations to the one offered by the other side.
As for "personality", it is hard to understand how temperment, judgment, honesty, intelligence, generosity, empathy, or intolerance, stupidity, selfishness, hubris, dishonesty, callousness are not every bit as important to being an effective leader as the specific policies one presents. If you think voters are incapable of evaluating those qualities and of legitimately valuing them more than whether top tax rates are 36% or 39%, you need to learn more about people.
April 3, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been around long enough to know things are not always what they seem.
For all of Josh Coulter-Malkin snappy reporting recently of Obama's high approval ratings, Michelle Obama's ratings are even higher. Does that mean that she has a better "temperment, judgment, honesty, intelligence, generosity, empathy, or intolerance"
Also, I think you are confusing a charismatic personal appeal in a media-driven world, with skills.
April 3, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who make comments like one person is more popular than another by claiming a polling result of 72% is statistically different from 69% should never be listened to.
My guess is that the criteria people use in judging whether they approve of the President versus the first lady are different.
It's intellectually lazy, but all too common to dismiss the public's evaluation of Obama's "personality" or personal characteristics or abilities as merely likability, or popularity, or charisma. It's true that no one can tell how anyone will actually perform as President beforehand, but to pretend that people have no ability to judge personal characteristics that they think are desirable, meaningful, or indicators of success for a president is to have very little regard for people indeed.
And why should we think that charisma is not an incredibly valuable tool for a politician or leader to have? What is the alternative?
The dimness of your view is to think that because he has charisma that people cannot see anything else. That's your problem, not theirs.
April 3, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dimness of your comment shows that you started typing before you had a chance to actually take a minute and think what point upthread my comments were referring to. Perhaps an understandable reflex to defend and protect, even though nobody was attacking.
April 3, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Josh Coulter-Malkin"? You're really good at this abbrasive obnoxious troll schtick.
April 3, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
House, Senate Pass Obama's Budget
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/02/house-approves-36-trillio_n_182604.html
Here is a President who is doing everything he possibly can to fulfill his promises and many of you are acting as if it's still not enough. What do you people want from this man, that he's not doing his damnest to give you?
April 3, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, sometimes a word is just a word. Maybe if we stop trying to find the hidden meaning in the words and simply read and or listen to the words before us, there wouldn't be so much confusion.
Or maybe that's where the questioning should come in, making sure you understand what a person is saying instead of assuming they are implying something that was never there to begin with. That goes for me as well, so I'm not jumping on you.
April 3, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have one last thing to say. (actually a few last things to say) After that and for the sake of my peace of mind, I'm going to walk away from this discussion.
According to Five Thirty Eight and as of 11/05/08
63.7 million people voted for Barack Obama.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/popular-vote.html
Imagine what 63.7 million people could do if they all came together as one voice to push single- payer health care, affordable education, equality...
Even in my pragmatism, "I have a dream," if you really paid attention and listened to the President, you would know, so does he.
However we both understand reality dictates there is no way in hell, he will ever get 63.7 million people to agree on how to achieve those things. Doesn't mean it can't happen, the election proves it can but what are the odds of that happening again before another election cycle? If he can't make that happen, what is he suppose to do. Lean to the left, lean to the right or find a comfortable and practical balance?
Here is my suggestion and challenge to you and anyone who is up for the task. Find a way to get 63.7 million people on board with your ideas, and life will be a piece of cake.
April 3, 2009 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we allowed to consider what the president pledged to do as candidate? Does that matter?
April 3, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you under the impression that evaluating how a president is doing is an objective process? Do you think we doubt you can justify any misgivings you have how ever you want? Aren't rhetorical questions fun?
April 3, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm not sure what your asking. You seem to have a bigger dog in this debate or something that I'm not really concerned about. I'm really not attacking the president; I never believed that he would be something other than a centrist. I am, however, sensitive and tuned into his promises to organized labor and I do think it presents a puzzle for him. But see my reply to htwt as a possible answer to your queries.
April 3, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine what 63.7 million people could do if they all came together as one voice to push single- payer health care, affordable education, equality...
Yes, but that's not "centrist". "Centrist" is
April 3, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm done 'imagining'. I'd rather have health care reform this year, rather than waiting for some come of mass awakening that will never come. I'm just sick of watching this American health care trainwreck go on. What did Volatire say about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
April 3, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says it's going to be good? It may just be a "centrist" plan to cut costs, i.e. care.
April 3, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately, I think the most significant consideration is the current ability of the Repubublicans in the Senate to filibuster. Whatever the president's politics are, and I agree with AA that the president has centrist inclinations, it is important to realize that he also made a number of commitments during the campaign which really are anything but centrist. The Employee Free Choice Act, for example, would be a dramatic albeit necessary (imo) departure from federal labor law as it has existed since the 1930s, and President Obama made a strong commitment to fight for it. The problem is, of course, with Spector retreating to the GOP caucus on this one, it cannot survive a filibuster even if/when Franken is seated. So I guess the question then becomes two-fold: (a) to what extent will a centrist Obama fight for EFCA and what political capital is he willing to spend on it (remember there are some very nervous Democratic senators over this bill, particularly those in the south); and (b) to what extent will he seek to water down the bill's components to pass a modified EFCA. Political realities as much as anything will guide the president, and right now, inclinations or otherwise, he looks like, as always to this novice voter, that he's staying in the middle.
April 3, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the legislation is doomed then why exhaust your political capital on it. I use the word "exhaust" because it is a finite resource. The only test is he stupid enough to continue to fight a losing battle long after it is lost.
April 3, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that exercises in futility are just that and should not be pursued. I guess, since your asking me, I think President Obama has to figure out how he will deal with organized labor, to which he proclaimed over and over and over again that EFCA would be among his highest priorities.
April 3, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you feel like their is ambivalence from the Administration on EFCA? I guess I am trying to distinguish promising to supporting something, even promising to push for it and stupidly wasting political capital if the argument is lost. I mean there are many things that are on the agenda that will help labor even if EFCA dies in the Senate, and I think cutting off one;s nose to spite one's face--if it comes to that-- it not a good idea.
The anti-democratic Senate is clearly an major impediment to progress in this country, but I don't see where even a fully committed president can reverse that just cause he wants to.
Ideologically driven presidents like to tilt at windmills. Prudent ones are able to pursue progress.
April 3, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still old enough to remember when Democrats represented organized labor. I think he better figure out pretty soon how he's going to be dealing with what's left of the middle class. "Centrist" is a bogus term. The "centrists" are corporatists. They are neither liberal nor conservative.
April 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or is it a losing battle because he isn't really fighting? There is hardly anything more reflective of American ideals or democracy itself than the idea of workers’ unions. Yet, almost 90% of the workers in America are not unionized. An earlier comment asks about what could be accomplished in if the 63 million who voted Obama were united for single-payer health care, education, etc. That’s a good question. First let’s define what that movement would be: a union with common goals. Secondly, whom would that union actually be remonstrating against (that is, who in power needs to be pushed to make these goals a reality)? The answer on many of the progressive or liberal issues, sadly, would be President Obama, himself.
The EFCA is the most important union legislation in some time, and it’s nothing more than allowing employees to unionize easily if they wish to. What could be more democratic than that? Obama has mildly reinstated his support for EFCA after backing off from it. And, with many, many $millions spent by business lobbyists, even many Democrats are starting to back off. He is the only one who could pressure not only the Dems but could have swung a wavering Specter to it. When a Democratic President and Congress cannot pass a simple bill that would only ameliorate some of the union-busting of the last quarter century, what do the Dems stand for?
Of course, Obama’s health-care proposal was never single-payer because he does and has represented corporate interests, despite his speeches to the contrary. His education proposals basically just extend NCLB. Whether Obama is centrist or progressive is an important question, and I agree that he didn’t flagrantly misrepresent himself in the campaign, but he did reverse on several telling issues. Besides that, there is not one progressive cabinet member or advisor on his staff, not one, while he has appointed many right-leaning and corporate-centrist types (even Republicans). There were going to be no corporate lobbyists in his Whitehouse, yet they abound. And what does it say about the majority of his top appointees neglecting to pay taxes on their relatively large incomes?
The status quo economic recovery programs, giving credit for some stimulus programs and proposed re-regulating of Wall Street, can be revealed in a simple comparison of the Wall St. bailout vs. the automakers “bailout.” What our leaders do in DC isn’t a minor question to many people who are hurting right now (600,000 losing their jobs month after month after month and over 50% have no back-up savings). To some it is a life and death question. But it isn’t so much what party or faction or label that can be attached to the President or Congress, it comes down to whose interests they are ultimately fulfilling.
April 3, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Obama, I support President Obama, do I think President Obama will change the way we conduct government and business? Of course not, he's a centrist, a Reagan democrat and the reason I know this to be true is because he SAYS so in his books.
April 3, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bev. How are you. I agree, even though, much to the consternation of my son, I haven't read his books.
April 3, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bruce, I'm doing well, how are you?
I think ArtA explained this really well - Obama is what he is and to expect something different is a mistake.
April 3, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really wanted to walk away from this discussion but you spoke to me directly and I feel I should show you the courtesy of answering.
If you understand anything I have written you would know, of course it matters. If anyone can show me where I have written that you shouldn't disagree with the President, that you should not question the President then I will walk away humbly with my tail between my legs. However I'm not concerned that will happen because I have never said those words. I'm a very direct person, I don't imply.
I find it interesting that in all the criticism I see against Republicans, few ever mention the fact that one, if not the main reason they were able to hold the reins of power for so many years, they showed a unified front. Some because they were robots, many because they knew, together we stand, divided we fall and the negative side of that adage is playing out now in the Republican party. The negative side of that adage seems to be a constant in the Democratic party.
As a side note; Ironically, AA and I share a common interest and I'm willing to bet we could find a lot more common ground but we both have a distaste, for ideological warriors.
I ran across an article that I thought was very interesting and quite germane to this topic.
Lawmakers shrug as Obama's grass-roots lobby delivers pledges.
http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1119246.html
While reading I humbly suggest you ask yourself, how is it possible with all the criticism and rage progressives are feeling, their voices have not been heard? It's my fear that a large majority will answer that question by pointing fingers outward.
From where I sit and on both sides of the fence, it seems more important to be an individual,unique, divisive, to criticize , to complain to be an obstructionist, than it is to work together to make the changes we so desperately need as a society.
63.7 million people came together and voted for the President. Yet 63.7 million people will not come together to stand behind the man they voted for. 63.7 million seem unwilling to be the wind at his back. The wind that will help him push congress into doing what is best for our country and it's people.
April 3, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comment. My question was more tongue in cheek. I understand that the president cannot please everyone, and that he cannot do everything he's promised. I'm focusing, as you can see, on EFCA, and I know that there are expectations, inflated perhaps, by organized labor, that EFCA would be enacted. But if you read my post below, I'm not really blaming Obama for the fact that he's not going to be able to overcome the filibuster. But, and I think you agree, campaign pledges do matter.
April 3, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is, post above. :)
April 3, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, they do matter but they can't always be fulfilled and that may not always be the politicians fault.
I'm concerned about EFCA and I'm also concern we did not get approval to fast track health care, education and environmental issues but who do we go after, the President or Congress?
Picking your battles is important, knowing your enemy is imperative. I bet we can agree on that as well.
April 3, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
63.7 million people came together and voted for the President.
Didn't happen.
Now, if you'd said, "63.7 million people came together and voted against John McCain," well, there'd be something to that.
April 3, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Potato, potatoe, call it whatever you like but the point is, the majority of voters put the man in the White House. Whatever reason they had and I know they were varied, their votes got him there. If we could find a way to show that type of consensus, it stands to reason we could get the things we are after.
April 3, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Potato me no potatoes.
The point is that -- and I didn't think I'd have to shout it -- it makes a great deal of difference.
You shouldn't expect those who pulled the lever for Obama to be The Wind Beneath His Sails if what they were really doing was voting against his opponent -- as they always do.
April 3, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweetheart, I don't EXPECT or depend on anything or anyone but me. I lost that luxury the day my dad died. I said it was a dream, not a reality.
April 3, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess to only having read excerpts of Obama's books, but would you please cite the exact quote and context of his claim of being a "Reagan Democrat"? I'm not familiar with it.
To me, Obama is the anti-Reagan on certain very key philosophical/governing points. He has repeatedly stated that trickle-down economics is a failure. That was Reagan's real legacy, the notion that the rest of us are inherently best served by any governing policy that increases the wealth of the wealthy. That, and the notion that the government is more problem, than not.
I don't believe single labels, such as liberal, or centrist, or conservative capture what Obama is about. He is a pragmatist, which, in my mind, mean that he will adopt whatever specific policy elements he believes will achieve his end goals. He as much as says so.
That doesn't mean I believe that Obama isn't guided by an overarching set of values. It's just that those values vary depending on what the subject area is, and often straddle the standard definitions, as I believe is true for most Americans. On social issues, I think Obama could be fairly described as having liberal values. On foreign policy, it's a mix and he could be considered a centrist. On economic policy, again, it's a mix. His values can't accurately be characterized by a single declaration. Again, as I believe is true for most of us.
So, I, for one, am not suffering from any illusions or disappointments about Obama. He seems to have a long-range perspective for his decision making, cares about people, and yet also recognizes that hard-nosed pragmatic choices are part of being an effective president.
April 3, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD was lying. The bitterness hasn't worn off yet.
April 3, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Oh my, now I see. You really do have a big dog in this race, calling Bev D a liar and bitter. Wow. So like what's your thing? You don't want anyone to say anything that might in anyway be construed as a negative against the president because it might endanger his place on the unused portion of Mount Rushmore? Holy smokes. I came over here to get away from the Israel-Palestine mishigash. You need to take a deep breath or something.
April 3, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course not, he's a centrist, a Reagan democrat and the reason I know this to be true is because he SAYS so in his books."
"Reagan democrat" ? please. slander even if snarkified isn't criticism. And we know where BevD has been on Obama since way back in last year.
Fundamentally what is getting under my skin is that people think politics progresses only when everyone pursues their own interests. Unity doesn't have to be enforced as a pattern of thought, but it is necessary to exercise political power. It's why divide and conquer is such a powerful strategy.
April 3, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, thanks for this post. And also for your long comments here in the thread. I read it last night but didn't really know how to respond. And I'm actually glad to be reading it this morning with all the comments.
Our job, as citizens, is not to be "loyal" to any leader - no matter if we voted for them. I doubt Obama would consider that our job. He has his job. We have ours. Ours is to voice our views, to advocate for what we prefer. To critique what displeases us - on some reasoned basis, not just out of pique. I think you've done that. And you're doing that.
Kudos on presenting this! I appreciated reading it.
I must admit I'm not sure I agree with Obama's comment about the American people. As if there are only two choices. To resent the rich or want to be rich. I think it's possible to resent the greedy rich. And appreciate the rich who give of their riches - however they do it. Maybe some people want to be rich. Maybe not. But these two views, as presented by Obama, are not exclusive. And, to my mind, if Obama loses touch with what Americans are really thinking - and tries to "represent" that to us or to the world - he'll be in trouble. I think he should confine himself to expressing his opinions. And letting us express ours. (Then again, that's my view of it!)
April 3, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bushies were blatantly high handed, while Team Obama prefers the Big Lie and assumes we are all too dumb to see through it. Yves Smith
April 3, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hitler comparisons?
I'm waiting for TPM to introduce filtering, so I don't have to wade through your inane trolling and that creepy eye!
April 3, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen is a highly respected member of this community, and she's making the pretty uncontroversial point that the administration's justification of the various modalities of the bailout program is unbelievably mendacious. If you have a problem with her point, address it.
April 3, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sayeth Obama:
"people don't resent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good."
Obama isn't an economic centrist, he wants to take that revolving door and get rich off the presidency. Like Clinton.
And that's not good.
April 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's already rich, chief.
April 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and I can't for the life of me figure why that should be, but anyway, he's not rich like Clinton--but he is following right in his toadying path.
And that's not good.
April 3, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a totally accurate statement of Americans, who have never hated the rich like some lefties want them to.
(Actually a worldwide phenomena -- wanting to be rich, your kids to have a better life than you... Chinese parents all want their kids to go to Harvard)
Only pampered, comfortable first-worlders take it for granted that affluence is preferable to destitution.
Everyone else is too busy trying to earn a living.
April 3, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what the issue is. Obama is, to borrow a phrase from Gene Sperling, a pro-growth progressive. He's never concealed that.
Does that make him a centrist? Sure, if you like the label. It also helped make him President. And it's also his best chance of gaining meaning traction on his budget priorities. Which, IMO, are progressive by almost any definition.
April 3, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
A pro-growth progressive is an outmoded term and a classic sign of the kind of hypocritical fence straddling DC Democrats love to engage in. It's just hypocrisy and trying to deceive voters that they are going to look out for their interests when the truth is that if the public interest and the interests of the rich and powerful collide, the "pro-growth progressive" will side with the rich and powerful.
April 3, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gene "He's Baaack" Sperling is an "outmoded" advisor.
April 3, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is making it too hard for himself (and maybe he has a reason to do that).
Nielsen's new political branch has released new study that shows consumer spending was growing strong between the election day and inauguration - until Obama used his address to reassure Americans that the worst was yet to come.
http://adage.com/article?article_id=135687
I want my bailout money back and a different speach on the teleprompter.
April 3, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we care what you want?
Maybe you should study the employment figures between the election and inauguration. Losing one's job has a way of ruining most people's plans for a weekend spending spree.
http://apture.s3.amazonaws.com/000001206c8094b283c560f5004300c0002e0016.blsunemployment.jpg
http://apture.s3.amazonaws.com/000001206c8841043803e8ab004300c0002e0016.blspayrolls.jpg
Troll city.
April 3, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you could connect the dots from two separate comments and form a thought, but I was wrong again, Bromides.
Now please leave me alone.
April 3, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I take from this is that if we're more progressive on the issues than Obama is, we can't just sit back and let Obama do his thing. We're going to have to get our ideas across one issue at a time, in the political process.
The good news is that we got ourselves the most receptive president we could get under the circumstances. Now we've got to do what we can with that, by making careful arguments about what will benefit ordinary people.
April 3, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, a reality based, glass-half-full, sensible liberal! :-)
April 3, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is what will you accept, not just want do you want.
April 3, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, you are, of course, absolutely right on this.
Obama is in the club and has no intention of upsetting the other members. He not only doesn't want to be on the side with the pitchforks he will actively oppose them.
I doubt anyone was ever naive enough to think Obama didn't like capitalism. I do think there were many people who thought he was actually an economic liberal and while his budgets are a good start, it's clear that his ultimate economic philosophy is status quo all the way baby. I also think that he's more than likely got his eye on what he does with the rest of his life and like Clinton is going to make sure he takes care of the guys who can make his years after the Presidency very comfortable indeed. Cyncial? Of course, but the man is human and thus corruptible and I think that while he's a good and smart fellow, he isn't terribly interested in rescuing the people from the plight they've suffered their entire lives in a nation that ignores it's peoples needs to the maximum extent possible in exchange for making a quick buck for those at the top of the heap. Like most politicians his primary interest is in advancing himself.
April 3, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. He's a Chicago politician. So what he really needs is plenty of political pressure from the left. He's not an ideologue. He could be moved IF he has enough pressure to move. All these robots who want to follow him like he's the Messiah rather than demand that he represent the people who elected him will probably make that impossible.
April 3, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accusations of lockstep robotic conformity reflect more upon the accuser than the accused. Name your "Obamatons" in public so that they can defend themselves. These specious generalities about people as robots is nothing more than red-baiting. Inquisitor's tactics.
April 3, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper, i'm more or less with Bluebell on this. on my own topic of prediliction, the financial bailout, there is a tendency among some Obama supporters to regard liberal criticism of his policies as dangerous or shameful. And they do so from a conviction that he will do the Right Thing - i.e. the most viable liberal solution. But whatever Obama's actual view, a question about which I have no idea, the sphere of the politically viable depends on the grassroots pressures that are brought to bear on the issue. Right now everything points to him caving to the banks, and that tendency could be stopped if Obama supporters did less 'supporting' of whatever policies he proposes, and actually start advocating for action in line with what they hope Obama believes.
April 3, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to offerupus a few names -- in no particular order -- while we await bluebell's rejoining us:
Jon Taplin, Jade7243, steve katz, observer2, and Candide.
April 3, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think where I side with Obama against some on the left is that I am firmly opposed to dogmatic ideological thinking. Obama's non-dogmatic style will inevitably irritate the people who insist on the One True Thing that they firmly believe in and refuse to compromise on. Ideologues and true believers have their place in the debate and in balancing the national debate, don't get me wrong. But my view, and apparently Obama's if you read his last book, is that they have come to dominate the debate in an unhealthy way. Good is better than perfect, and real results now are better than decades of stalemate fighting for a Holy Grail of some sort.
I am just being candid and trying to diagnose why some liberals like myself totally 'get' Obama and go along with him and why others who I also respect seem to flip out at his actions and positions. I predict that they will need a lot of antacid for the next four to eight years, because pragmatic non-dogmatic Obama is guaranteed to aggravate them.
Don't expect Obama to conform to some sort of ideological purity, and also try not to micromanage. But don't stop pushing the debate and the progressive agenda. We need a louder megaphone for our issues, against recalcritrant congresscritters and the right-leaning MSM.
If you haven't done so, read his second book, which is a clear about his way of thinking. He totally disdains "dogma" is one take away for me.
April 3, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fall in that "some liberal" category too. Which koolaid do you prefer, purple or red? :)
April 3, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
shouldn't KOOLAID be in all caps?
;-)
April 3, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahaha...good point!
April 3, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whys thank ya suh, dats mighty White of you to say suh!
You call people names and insult their intelligence; for a person who calls himself an "observer," you don't have a clue.
How does your dialogue advance the conversation or do you care? Rhetorical question.
Ladies, gentlemen and the not so enlighten, have a great day. I'm out.
April 3, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not read all of the comments, because, well, there are a lot of them. I suspect, therefore, that I may be echoing somebody I didn't get around to. Still, I'm not going to accuse AA of jousting with strawpersons (the "some people" who seem to believe he's a secret leftist), but I do think the use of the "centrist" label is fundementally misguided.
Obama is not a "centrist" or an adherent of any "ism" other than pragmatism. His entire message is that dogmatic ideology, ideology that dicates desired policies rather desired outcomes, is what has gotten us off track. That insight is what drew me to him because it was one I shared.
For complicated historical and sociological reasons that are fascinating, but not strictly germane here, far too many of this nation's politically active people, rightists, centrists and leftists, have gotten their political thinking locked into a framework that's more appropriate to adherents of a fundementalist religion than to citizens of a representative democracy. Their ideology is really dogma, dogma that identifies with policies rather than outcomes. Indeed, at some level, we've ceased to be particularly interested in outcomes.
Rightists of this stripe might say say "I am for deregulation. Deregulation is good therefore if I implement deregulation, any outcome that results from deregulation is, by defintion good." A leftist might say "I am against wealth and privilege. If we implement policies that abridge wealth and privilege, whatever outcome that results must likewise be be good." Meanwhile, the centrist says "I am for compromise between left and right, therefore any outcome taht results from such compromise must likewise be good."
It really has gotten to the point that a lot of people, Republicans in particular but not exclusively, have a kind of indifference to the outcome of the policy preferences dictated by their dogma. Instead, it's just part of their psyche; they can and will engage in whatever fantastic mental gymnastics are necessary to characterize whatever outcome ensues from their preferred policy as desirable.
Obama, however, says that this kind of thinking is the root cause (or at least a root cause) of the dysfunction that has crippled our politics for the last few decades. In his world, you may have an ideology in the sense of having desired outcomes, but it is the desired outcome that dicates policy, not vice versa. Sometimes, it may happen that one's attempt to achive a desired outcome either fails or generates undesirable unintended consequences that outweigh the good you were trying to accomplish. When that happens, you analyze what went wrong and then either change policies or admit that your desired outcome cannot be achieved at an acceptable cost and modify it or even abandon it.
This is the real reason you get so much of this "he's a progressive, no he's an old fashioned liberal, no, he's a centrist, no he's a conservative, oh god, what is he? I am so confused!" crap. It is because they are trying to categorize him based upon the policies he's implementing (or trying to implement) rather than looking at what result he says he wants to accomplish.
April 3, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, good discussion you started here, AA, even if I haven't been able to read it all yet. Rec'd.
April 3, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above reasons echo my own rationale for voting Obama. I identify liberal, but I believe in pragmatic government. I step forward with my left foot, but I am willing to whatever solution can bring about the highest good. I may have socialist inclinations, but if socialism were to come, I want it via representative government and the will of the voters... not armed insurrection. I believe in increasing voter turnout everywhere and let the nation decide its course with the help of an informed and informative media. I don't want an army of mirrors reflecting my opinion upon the world... that would make me no better than Bush, even if I fancied myself the most benevolent of dictators.
April 3, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post NCSteve. You've given many of my thoughts the words I haven't been able to find. Thank you.
April 3, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hope is that partisan issue-based activism remains strong (in fact strengthens) over the course of the Obama Presidency. There needs to be vocal criticism and there needs to be outrage.
I view Obama as pragmatic. I also view him as expedient, which can be a problem. He missed an opportunity to break up the banking trusts, and there may not be another one. For all of the talk about regulation (which is good), it will be difficult to regulate commercial/investment megabank monsters because their fundamental structure is corrupt. It is like having an addict in the same room as his fix... even if a cop is nearby, the addict is going to figure out a way to get his fix. You have to separate the two from one another in order to facilitate recovery.
I retain some hope that we can navigate through this mess. I know that the McCain alternative was unthinkable, and given Hillary's support of banking/finance vis a vis bankruptcy legislation, I doubt she would have served as a viable alternative. But I doubled down on Obama because he was proposing regulation and reform of the "failed conservative ideology," but isn't showing the gumption to break apart the monopoly.
And, historically, trust-busting is bipartisan... so it would have been a "centrist" thing to do.
April 3, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument about missing an opportunity to rectify "too big to fail" is very compelling to me. However, do we really know for sure that some of that still isn't eventually going to happen with some with Geithner's plans? I admit I ask as as someone not fully informed of the possible outcomes.
April 3, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the amount of money already thrown into transferring toxic credit default swaps and derivative options from shareholders to taxpayers, I can't believe that Geithner/Obama's ultimate intent is to break them apart. There are rumblings in finance about separating commercial banking from investment banking, but that should have been done before the administration committed to bailing out the institutions.
If the legislation would have been passed, then the megabanks would have to be restructured into, at minimum, two banks... thus the toxic assets would have to be analyzed to determine which belongs to whom, thus putting the onus of "stress testing" on the banks instead of understaffed government auditors... and the information on the potential market value of the toxic assets could have been used to guide policy. Instead, policy is being made while the banks are able to keep their cards against their chest.
April 3, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thus subsidizing the risk and privatizing the benefits. And letting the same whiz-kid perpetual motion snakeoil salseman create the next big scheme.
April 3, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thought:
I know where the temptation is... if shareholders take a bath, then the damage is narrow and deep... if the damage is spread to taxpayers, then everyone takes a much smaller burden and the shockwaves are evenly dispersed. I believe that the Obama administration has been convinced by this argument and have a keen interest in stabilizing the patient. But the vast majority of Americans did not get a ticket for this thrill ride. But Americans might be willing to strap themselves in and share the burden if they were convinced that the players and system that wreaked this havoc were broken apart and strictly regulated (with a few perp walks thrown in for triumph)... instead I have an uneasy feeling (that is shared by many) that the criminals will be back to sucker us again.
April 3, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're dying to say *I told you so*, aren't you AA?
He is doing everything he said he would do in the campaign and I voted for him because of the things he said he would do. That would be green infrastructure, alternative energy, healthcare reform, and a diplomatic approach to foreign policy instead of waging new wars.
In fact he's moving ahead with his program much faster than I thought he would given the economic collapse he inherited. Picking over every word he says looking for goofs and gaffes and aha moments is a waste of my time. I'll leave that diversion to you and the MSM.
April 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously a provacative and well done blog, AA. My thought is that regardless of what we hoped for and expected from Obama, how can we now compare what he has done versus whatever he might have led us to believe he intended to do and then come to any conclusion about where he REALLY stands in the political spectrum?
Here is how I see him handling his job since events exploded in his face upon taking office. I am impressed even though I hope to eventually see him in a different act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZWq14uD-A
April 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama made it pretty clear that he believes that elites should run things. This is a Hamiltonian position. He has surrounded himself with Hamilton Project Rubinites. Read Chris Hedges "America is in Need of a Moral Bailout". Chris Hedges calls Rubin, Bernanke, Summers, Geithner, Paulson all manipulative characters. They are "trained to sustain the corporate structure" at schools like Harvard and U of Chicago.
Obama may be smart, but he is not yet wise. A wise man would never say, let alone believe, that our goal is to be rich and that money equals wealth.
April 3, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how it's an unwise statement. I want to be rich but rich is relative, so is wealth. At this point and time, 100K cash (after taxes)would not only make me feel rich but wealthy. Heck, half that to be honest. It all depends on the lens you're looking through.
April 3, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. Obama said that we don't resent the rich. Do you honestly think he meant somebody making $100,000? And do you honestly think he was making some some zen statement about the meaning of life and what is true wealth? No, He was specifically talking about CEO salaries being capped at $500,000. He was talking about 21 million dollar bonuses. And for the record, I don't believe in caps but I believe in a progressive taxing and a excessive consumption tax. And I don't believe in the free market system. It's a flim flam. It's U of Chicago crapola Friedmanism. It's caused misery around the world.
Sorry but all this wishy washy everything is relative thinking often called just being pragmatic is what is meant by our losing our moral compass.
April 3, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest I DON'T resent the rich. I resent the mindset that thinks it's perfectly ok to step all over me, cheat me and or lie to me, to get rich.
April 3, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say the same thing I said up thread only shorter. If it's between morality and keeping the heat, lights, phone, etc. on and a roof over my mother's head and mine, morals be dayum. I can't pay bills with a moral compass. The bill collectors don't play that!
April 3, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Obama in part because of the things he said he'd so, and in part in spite of the things he said he'd do. And I find him exactly as advertised (for better and for worse). In a politician, that's as refreshing as it is rare.
April 3, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear some of these people must believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus -- and oh yes the sincerity of John Edwards' populism -- too.
April 3, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind hanging out with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny but John Edwards is a sleaze bag, always was, always will be.
April 3, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of sounding rhetorical, he has never envisioned a red, blue, republican, democratic, neocon or progressive America, but a United States of America. I sincerely would like to understand, why is that not enough?
The answer to this question (posed by havethoughtwill travel in the very first comment on this post) is this: America is not populated by people who share common values. It is made up of people whose values are as different as the rest of the world's. Assuming that one could govern an entire country and satisfy even a majority of the people is ludicrous. There was a very good reason why the Constitution was written with that end in mind.
April 5, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that should have read: There was a very good reason why the Constitution wasn't written with that end in mind.
April 5, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink