Pierce writes: "Anyone who was listening to Barack Obama and thought they heard FDR was tuned into his own private frequencies. Handed an economic catastrophe a month before his election, and then governing through the worst of it in the early days of his administration, he sought consensus because that's the most basic instinct in him, and, alas, consensus was that claque of Wall Street Magi whom he brought aboard."
Has Obama actually walked away from his campaign promises? (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)
The Predictable Presidency
23 February 12
ver this past weekend,I had some fun hosting a book salon over at the Firedoglake site with Thomas Frank on the topic of his new book, Pity The Billionaire. As you can see, the dialogue got a little spirited when the topic of the president came up. Bear in mind, I have my own problems with the way business has been done by this administration over the past three years. Rahm Emanuel never should have been let near the White House, and that passel of Wall Street people never should have been let near the nation's fiscal policy until some of their old lunch buddies had done some serious time.
This president has attached himself too closely to the Bush Administration's policies on terror. His signature health-care law is so full of compromises, duct tape, thumbtacks, and rubber bands, and chewing gum that it's vulnerable to 100 different attacks from 110 different directions. He should not have needed kids in drum circles halfway through his presidency to tell him who his real enemies were. But the fact is, I'm not surprised by any of this. To me, anyway, Barack Obama is pretty much the conciliationist Democratic centrist that I knew I was voting for back in 2008.
(There was only one person back then who looked as though he might walk the whole progressive walk on income inequality and the rising power of oligarchy in the country, and that was John Edwards, and what a field of buttercups that administration would have turned out to be. Yoicks.)
Recently, in a spate of writing on the topic of how the administration has done its business, there seems to be a rising sense that the president underrated the true monomaniacal nature of this opposition while simultaneously overrating both our desire to be together and his own ability to get us there. James Fallows wrote that, "If Obama really thought that America had moved past partisan division, then he was too innocent for the job." All I can say to those folks is, well, welcome to the boat, y'all. Beer's in the cooler.
The people I don't understand are the people who pronounce themselves "betrayed" by what has happened since the president was elected. As hard a political lesson as this is to learn, the politicians we vote for are under no obligation to be who we think they should be. Nine times out of 10, anyone who complains that "This isn't the guy I voted for" either wasn't playing close enough attention at the time they held the election, or was really voting for himself by proxy. If we're very, very lucky, circumstances will conspire with dumb luck and enable a politician to deliver unalloyed by compromise maybe 25 percent of what he promised us when he was running.
There was never any doubt that, in a great many instances, Barack Obama was going to accommodate and compromise because that's the way the man's built. He took a dive on telecom immunity in July before he was elected. That should have been a caveat emptor moment for everyone.
While running for his first term as president, on a campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio, FDR said:
"It was the heyday of promoters, sloganeers, mushroom millionaires, opportunists, adventurers of all kinds. In this mad whirl was launched Mr. Hoover's campaign. Perhaps foreseeing it, a shrewd man from New England, while in the cool detachment of the Dakota hills, on a narrow slip of paper wrote the historic words, 'I do not choose to run.'"
I can't recall Barack Obama's ever saying anything that direct or harsh in 2008, either about the incumbent, or about the situation in which the incumbent was handing over the country to him. (I don't recall him saying anything that harsh and direct about anything or anyone, ever.) The moment of that election desperately needed - hell, demanded - an FDR, but there was no FDR on offer. Anyone who was listening to Barack Obama and thought they heard FDR was tuned into his own private frequencies. Handed an economic catastrophe a month before his election, and then governing through the worst of it in the early days of his administration, he sought consensus because that's the most basic instinct in him, and, alas, consensus was that claque of Wall Street Magi whom he brought aboard. Not good, but entirely predictable.
So what now? There are some signals that the president is realizing consensus is impossible with an opposition made up primarily of Bible-banging pyromaniacs, and that, anyway, consensus is not always a desirable goal in and of itself. (His reflexive proposal to cut the corporate tax today, however, is not a good sign. He's bidding against Mitt Romney on Romney's home turf, on an issue that will not resonate with any great mass of Democratic voters at all.) His chances of being re-elected are better than they were a year ago, but it's still going to be a long pull up a dirt road to get to 270 electoral votes. Once in that dreary effort, I'd like to hear all the eloquence that made him a star edged with the faintest amount of vitriol, just a dollop of scorn to liven it up. The country deserves that. A little more consensus and we might all go down together.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
BO gives a great speech and you get all hopeful and then the next day he gives away the store even before he's been asked.
something is very wrong here
Every new POTUS finds out that continuity of foreign policy, even bad foreign policy, is preferable to zigzagging and waffling. No POTUS would have acted any differently than the one we have now.
As for "bad person," you aren't qualified to make that judgment.
And what does "ill adept" mean?
Do you know this person? If not, InnocentVictim knows more about Obama than you know of him/her to pass judgement.
InnocentVictim writes, "This President is not ill adept." And you ask what "ill adept" means. Really? You cannot possibly figure it out?
Ill at ease, ill tempered, ill will, ill spoken, ill mannered, etc.
Although it is a double negative, essentially meaning, not, not adept -- or not poorly adept. It simply means that Obama is a "sharp politician," and knows what he's doing. It is failure by design, capitulation cast as compromise, and calculated betrayals of most progressive causes interests, empowerment and protection of financial and industry interests through appointments, policies, and executive authority -- and inept, political strategy -- and whole-sale corrupt politics of the worst kind.
This is what InnocentVictim means by "bad person." A person who is distant enough and (personally) immune from the consequences of his bumbling and calculated political betrayals -- outside not being re-elected.
Reflexive apologia and willful blindness are becoming all too common.
Anybody who sees it is qualified to make that judgement.
Someone who willingly hands the keys to the economy to the very the people and corporations (apparently no difference there) who have already shown they are hell bent on wrecking it, and creates laws to further protect them, and fake "settlements" for the people whose lives have been wrecked by these monsters, is a monster. Anyone who sees this is qualified to make that judgement. This is a criminal.
Remember Ralph Nader's quote? Better to vote for a loser than for a winner who will betray you! I vote for losers with a good, clear conscience. What BO's supporters or Rick Santorum's supporters do is not on my conscience.
The "Democratic" Party operates by encouraging the very same kinds of fears as does the Republican Party. Their entire "Lesser Evil" strategy depends on their instilling terror at the prospect of a Republican victory. So then, every voter to the Left of a Dubya or a Rick Santorum or ANY one of the remaining Republican contenders RUNS to the polls and votes (reluctantly or just plain defensively) for what they are told (by Dem Party hacks and wiseguys) is the ONLY candidate who "has a chance of winning"
Face it folks....you continue to be chumped every four years by the "Democratic" Party into voting for THEIR candidates....L EST the sky fall in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be more than one alternative to the "disastrous alternative" you presume to be BO's ONLY competition.... IF people would wise up and have the guts to get out of this friggin' BOX we've meekly--or frustratedly!-- accepted as containing the entire universe of political options.
As long as we "go along" with this monumentally flawed (corporate-appr oved)"two"-part y system, we have no business calling ourselves a 'democracy'. I'm hopeful that the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement can shake the defeatism out of our progressive electorate. Until then...we will apparently continue to vote against ourselves.
Against extraordinary odds, Barack Obama has done as good a job as President as anyone in the world could have.
Would you rather have Obama, or the republican choosing these 2 new judges? Consider what the Supreme Court has been doing lately, and how corrupt Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are. What would it be like with 2 new right-wing justices? And this would affect the country for the next 20 years and beyond.
I think you're overlooking Dennis Kucinich.
Why do we always do that?
Because the corporate media did such a masterful job (in both 2004 and 2008) of vilifying him, until many people, even some progressives, thought he was just some kook who saw UFOs.
But FDR? FDR wasn't FDR when first elected: he was forced into his social programs (which saved capitalism for our subsequent grief) by an active collection of string unions, socialists, and communists. No such strong left now exists, and this has been our downfall so far.
Unfortunately, Hillary was too busy hobnobbing with the very right-wing nuts you mention.
Before her campaign, when she was showing up at Washington evening events on the arm of such local luminaries as Newt Gingrich, it was hard *not* to recognize that all these politicos sup from the same trough.
But, no question. Backbone is neither the forte of this President, nor of any but a single handful of the entire Democratic Party either. Even the Republicans are shocked at how quickly and easily the Dems "lay down" for them.
Hlillary is the same brand of vile and vicious, just wrapped up in XX, like Margaret Thatcher. They are all literally murderous kleptocrats, bent on accreting and abusing as much power as they can, for themselves and their parasitic friends.
The "let down", you write, is Obama's diplomacy. Do you mean when he lectured his guest, the V-P of China, in public about human rights, rights which we violate all over the globe? You write that Obama's convictions "seem sincere to me at least". Is this also part of your analysis? In other words for you analysis is not fact, argument, logic, it's a "look in (the) eyes", how things "seem" to you? If the bar is so low now, as your second sentence states, shouldn't you take care not to trip on it?
We get the politicians we get today because people have stopped looking more at character. Just slick talk and analysis. Analysis to death. You and me and all of us should have the ability to see someone for who they are. Not what they say or we think they say or mean. They are not always the same.
We should not analyze a good judge of character out of the debate. Obama is sincere to me. George W. for example was dishonest the first few seconds I say him. It was obvious.
Don't you see the difference? Do you ever trust your gut over logic. Math is easy. Judgement is a whole different thing.
You are very fortunate, Sir, I am a graduate physicist, and I find mathematics not "easy" but quite difficult. I take comfort in that Albert Einstein reported a like difficulty.
Looking at deeds, I've come reluctantly to believe Obama is much better at deceiving progressives than Bush ever was--and that Obama is, therefore, more dangerous than Bush.
Even many 'liberals' are well into that mythology -- and it is difficult to shake free from it. It will take time, but in the meantime the 'machine' still controls who gets a chance to be elected to major offices.
Obama appears to be the designated puppet of the rich and the military-indust rial, congressional, financial etc. oligarchy, and 'destined' to be re-elected. Surely the Republicans could come up with candidates besides extremists and nut cases if the powers that be directed them too, but the good cop bad cop and fear games would not work then. Once they got the two-party duopoly system well established it is easy to control who will be the winner -- just as in a fixed horse race or prize fight where one contestant throws the fight. Think the oligarchy (who owns the media) can't control this? Of course they can -- until many more people catch on (and it isn't easy for them considering they mostly have to make it through the day or month).
The real pity is that a progressive challenger to his reelection never emerged to throw his craven pandering into sharp contrast.
You voted for BO, you wrote, because "the alternatives were inconceivable." Are they more conceivable now? You are stuck with the same wrong idea you had back in 2008, but you "will not do that again." Why not? Where's the difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"NO CHOICE?!!!" If progressive voters had voted their HOPES, rather than the FEARS the DNC spin-meisters encouraged, we might have had a progressive administration.
The "two"-party system is tragically flawed!
I most certainly have a choice who I will vote for! And so does everyone else, including, Socialist, Green, Libertarian, and any independent.
Do Americans yet have someone with a gun to their heads in the voting booth? Or just the fears and boogymen manufactured by the media and propagandists who no one MUST believe? As long as people continue to fall for the election scams and lies of the oligarchy things will only continue to get worse. (Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 3 times, fool me forever??)
It really does look like the country will support Obama for a second term, simply because there is no alternative. To have some left liberal types sit on their hands because Obama is no FDR is flat out dumb, and we on the left, whatever our faults, are not dumb! I hope that all you Obama critics will keep up your criticism while actively supporting this guy. He may turn out to be one of our greatest presidents, especially if we continue to hold his feet to the fire during his second term.
How's that worked out so far? Maybe if you had a few hundred thousand to give you might have a voice -- otherwise all you get is pepper spray, or maybe indefinite detention without habeas corpus, or just killed on the president's say so alone (on orders from HIS bosses most likely).
People need to stop listening to what these guys say and start watching what they do.
Exactly, ganymede. The purists will always ruthlessly complain when a Democrat does not pass their progressive litmus test.
All the while failing to realize the precarious postion our first Black President is in.
Of course I would prefer a move to the left-Scandinavi an style social Democracy. But as a pragmatic radical I realize the overwhelming majority of my fellow Americans just don't bend in that direction. It is the country we live in. I have come to the realization that the "purists" revel in their opposition.
A pragmatic approach is too much work for them, I suppose.
How can we find out how many FBI Agents have been assigned to investigate the Wall Street Banks disaster on mortgages? I heard only 10 were assigned.
During the Savings and Loan mess 15 or so years ago there were over 1000 agents assigned to investigate, and over 1000 bankers went to jail. The Wall Street Mess is (I was told 40 times larger) so doing the math, there should be 40,000 Agents assigned, not 10.
The NY State AG is the one handling it, but looks like his hands have been tied behind his back and he has been blindfolded.
That there is no Republican likely to get the nomination who would be less a criminal if elected is true and a terrible consideration. But that is another matter. There is nothing that can be done about that. Re-electing a war criminal only gives him a stamp of approval from the American people. We are not responsible for whom we do not vote. That is on the heads of others. The American system is broken. An election in which there is no morally acceptable choice is not an election. IT IS SHAM DEMOCRACY! Don't be a part of it! Stay home, vote an independent, write-in a movie star, but don't vote for a man who prolonged unjustified war for three years and now executes Americans as did the Xing emperor of China, by decree! This is not democracy! This is not the rule of law!
Obama lied to us in his campaign. He did not believe in change or hope. He believed in the status quo.
I think he will beat all the republicans running against him, and, for sure, they are worse. The election in November will be a real choice between two evils -- and both will be very, very evil.
Texas Aggie: I suggest you are missing a realistic choice. You could be demonstrating to the Democrats, if you are a progressive, that you will not be discounted, that you will show your presence by voting but not for a candidate they force on you or for a clown from the other party. If they lose, you may get the credit for it, and a credit it will be because enough of us, voting, but for a Green or a write-in will show that you have someplace to go. The consequences? A Republican would be elected. Could a Republican have killed more people than Obama or given away more money to corporate thieves? I don't think so!
John Wayne: Leading our country is not a matter of showing oneself to be daring. It is having the right preparation and experience to formulate effective policies for our country's future and the savvy to get those policies effected. This requires a good knowledge of history (not just the Civil War!), economics, and people. More than all, it requires a public morality directed towards improving the lives of most Americans - not just wealthy supporters. I know that is a lot more than "balls", as you wrote, but there are such good people in our country.
We know a president can never deliver all he promises, but he could always accept being a one-term president and go for broke. We never saw that in these four years although BO said he would do so.
Yesterday's poll shows Obama with a low approval rating and this is an indicator.
Maybe it's time for some strong stands and guts?
Suggestions:
-Stand firm against Israel on invading Iran
-Get rid of the Wall Street crowd in the cabinet
-Be a real CINC and end the war in Afghanistan now
-Stop the drone attacks around the world
-Give real and direct help to mortgage holders affected by the Wall Street crimes
-Stand firmly with the Occupy Movement and the 99%
Oh, well, it's fun to dream!
But then again, just imagine having a President Romney, Santorum or Gingrich! Now that's a nightmare!
But Obama will choose not to do any of the things you propose because that is not where he is politically. He's a protoge of Bill Clinton and Clinton is a product of the Bush family president factory. Think about it -- Since 1980, the Bush family and their coterie has held the white house. All US policy has been Bush dynasty policy.
NEVER AGAIN vote for Obama. He's betrayed you and will always betray you. If you vote for a traitor, you get what you deserve.
The share that business contributes to revenue has dropped and dropped and dropped, yet big-corporate profits continue to soar. The question is not the RATE at which corporations are taxed, but the PERCENT of their gross income that they actually pay into the Treasury.
The economic middle class is footing the bills, including the national debt. Poor BIG business is practically getting a free ride!
I paid taxes as a sole proprietor, and I have my doubts that SMALL business is suffering as much as they claim. My taxes were a miniscule percent of my GROSS earnings.
The problem with business taxes, like taxes on enormous incomes, is not that the rate is too high, but that it is applied, after all allowable deductions and exemptions, on much too small a percentage of GROSS income.
RSS feed for comments to this post