|
What Obama Needs to Do Now |
 |
|
Thursday, 04 November 2010 10:39 |
|
Joe Trippi: "For those that think Democrats are dead and won't recover from Tuesday's losses, I would urge some caution. Just 24 short months ago people were saying the same about the GOP. - Too bad you don't get do-overs in politics."
President Obama holds a news conference, the day after Republicans gained 60 seats in the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, at the White House, 11/03/10. (photo: Getty Images)
What Obama Needs to Do Now
By Joe Trippi
04 November 10
 uesday's loss of the House by the Democrats was a stunning defeat and should send a loud wake-up call to every Democrat.
This was not just the largest but, undoubtably, the fastest loss of control by any party in the House in the last 50 years.
And, it's the third wave election we've seen in the last 3 elections.
But, here is the first problem for President Obama. The wave elections of 2006 and 2008 removed GOP moderates - such as Connecticut's Chris Shays - from office and replaced them with more liberal Democrats.
Last night's GOP sweep of at least 60 seats in the House removed some of the most moderate Democrats and replaced them with more conservative, and in many cases Tea Party Republicans. This means that Barack Obama will have to try to compromise and solve some very tough problems with a more polarized and divided House.
It's no secret how we got here.
The American people elected President Obama because they were so fed up and frustrated with what was going on in Washington.Obama looked unconventional, gave people hope and wasn't a part of the establishment.
By turning to the American people, Obama united millions of Americans and created a movement that swept him into office.
But, once he went to Washington, instead of turning to the American people and rallying them by saying it's us versus Washington, Obama seemingly "went Washington" on the American people.
He turned over his legislative agenda to the corrupt process of Capitol Hill (Obama had Pharma's help with writing the health care bill); and instead of fostering the same vibrant primary process that delivered his own nomination over the Party establishment's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, Obama shut down primaries,played the inside game and handpicked party nominees thwarting the wishes of the very grassroots party activists that had carried him into the Oval office.
More importantly by allowing the process to dictate the politics the White House lost control of the message. And so they squandered what had been the greatest narrative since Reagan and we entered the 2010 election with neither side having a narrative.
The people had little regard for either of our two political parties, but having already thrown out the GOP just 24 months ago now it is we, the Democrats in the majority, who drew their ire.
Many people like myself have been critical of the White House, or (yes I did this too) had the audacity to support a primary opponent against one of their handpicked candidates.
The White House was never happy with such challenges to their authority but also seemed to have a tin ear when it came to listening or understanding what was going on. Supporting a primary candidate who took Wall Street money over a candidate who refused to take special interest money from any source. And attacked by them.
Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the president and his team in the White House.
The way forward is not that of George W Bush - where he became more isolated and insular as things went wrong around him.
What President Obama needs to do now is go back to what got him here.
Turn to the American people and rally them around the issues that unite America and by so doing invite the new Republican majority to join with him.
The GOP will either join with the president or in rebuffing him appear to take unpopular or extreme positions that could lead to a fourth consecutive wave election in 2012.
If the GOP joins the president in an effort to solve our problems - the president, the GOP and the country win. And if not it may be the GOP that loses a bunch of seats in 2012. The president wins in either circumstance.
Righting the ship of state now, admitting mistakes and making renewed efforts to seek more advice from outside what is a very insular White House is essential. Why? Because one of the key developments of Tuesday night's election results is that Obama's own path to victory just got a lot tougher in 2012.
With the loss of governorships that until last night had been held by Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, Obama's 2012 electoral map of 2008 is in jeopardy. True governors can make a big difference when it comes to a candidate for president winning their state and the electoral votes that come with such a victory.
But all three of those states have higher average unemployment and shattered economies. Anything that might put states like Ohio or Pennsylvania beyond Obama's reach in terms of winning electoral votes in 2012 will greatly handicap the president's re-election efforts.
Obama knows that - that's why he went to Ohio so many times - his visits weren't just about 2010 - but the losses in those 3 states make it that much harder for him in 2012.
For those that think Democrats are dead and won't recover from last night's losses, I would urge some caution. Just 24 short months ago people were saying the same about the GOP. - Too bad you don't get do-overs in politics.
On a personal note one of the bright spots of my night was Jerry Brown's victory for governor of California. It was a great team effort and I headed up production of the TV ads for Jerry Brown as he defeated Meg Whitman despite her spending $163 million in her quest to win the office and in a very tough year for Democrats.
 |
|
How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms |
|
|
Wednesday, 03 November 2010 19:27 |
|
Timothy Egan begins: "If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought."
President Obama fields questions at the White House, 11/03/10. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)
How Obama Saved Capitalism
and Lost the Midterms
By Timothy Egan, The New York Times
03 November 10
 f I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.
For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.
Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.
As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.
But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running - banks and auto companies?
The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.
"An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal - one of Obama's signature economic successes.
Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.
All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.
"We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years - a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package - have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.
But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut - even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either.
Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. "It could have been much worse!" is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today.
Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system - but no jobs.
Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama's initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must - or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year.
Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation - which should please big business even more.
President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank "holiday" in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign.
Obama can recast himself as the consumer's best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform.
And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil.
They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.
|
|
|
Obama Should Learn the Lesson of 1936, Not 1996 |
|
|
Tuesday, 02 November 2010 22:43 |
|
Robert Reich begins: "Which lesson will the President learn - that of Clinton in 1996, or FDR in 1936? The choice will determine his strategy over the next two years. Hopefully, he'll find 1936 more relevant."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Obama Should Learn the Lesson of 1936, Not 1996
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
02 November 10
 hich lesson will the President learn - that of Clinton in 1996, or FDR in 1936? The choice will determine his strategy over the next two years. Hopefully, he'll find 1936 more relevant.
Obama shouldn't be fooled into thinking Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 because he moved to the center. I was there. Clinton was reelected because by then the economy had come roaring back to life.
The 1996 election was about little else. Dick Morris, Clinton's pollster and chief political advisor (who effectively took over the White House policymaking apparatus shortly after Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over Congress in 1995), instructed the President to say only "the economy's booming and you ain't seen anything yet."
President Obama won't have that luxury in 2012. In all likelihood, the economy will still be anemic. It's now growing at the rate of no more than 2 percent a year – far too slow to bring down the jobless rate. Even now, sales are slowing. Business revenues are slowing. Home sales are down. Home prices are down. Foreclosures are increasing.
For the next two years Republicans will try to paint Obama as a big-government liberal out of touch with America, who's responsible for the continuing bad economy.
Obama won't be able to win this argument by moving to the center - seeking to paint himself as a smaller-government moderate. This only confirms the Republican's views that the central issue is size of government, that it's been too large, and the economy can improve only if it's smaller.
On the Republican playing field, Republicans always win.
Obama's best hope of reelection will be to reframe the debate, making the central issue the power of big businesses and Wall Street to gain economic advantage at the expense of the rest of us. This is the Democratic playing field, and it's more relevant today than at any time since the 1930s.
The top 1 percent of Americans, by income, is now taking home almost a quarter of all income, and accounting for almost 40 percent of all wealth. Meanwhile, large numbers of Americans are losing their homes because banks won't let them reorganize their mortgages under bankruptcy. And corporations continue to lay off (and not rehire) even larger numbers.
With Republicans controlling more of Congress, their pending votes against extended unemployment benefits, jobs bills, and work programs will more sharply reveal whose side they're on. Their attempt to extort extended tax cuts for the wealthy by threatening tax increases on the middle class will offer even more evidence. As will their refusal to disclose their sources of campaign funding.
The relevant political lesson isn't Bill Clinton in 1996. It's Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.
By the election of 1936 the Great Depression was entering its eighth year. Roosevelt had already been President for four of them. Yet he won the biggest electoral victory since the start of the two-party system in the 1850s. How?
FDR shifted the debate from what he failed to accomplish to the irresponsibility of his opponents. Again and again he let the public know whose side he was on, and whose side they were on. Republicans stood for "business and financial monopoly, speculation, and reckless banking," he said over and over.
And he made it clear they wanted to prevent him from helping ordinary Americans. "Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today," he thundered. "They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred."
The 2012 economy won't be as bad as the 1936 economy, hopefully. But it won't be nearly as good as the 1996 economy. For a president running in 2012, 1936 is the more relevant.
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
|
On Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert |
|
|
Sunday, 31 October 2010 12:00 |
|
Excerpt: "Consider the foot-stomping incident in Kentucky by Rand Paul supporters, just outside a Senate debate. Or Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller’s security detail handcuffing a reporter from a liberal-leaning website."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
On Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
31 October 10
The Real Center of American Politics: A Reflection on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert
he true center of American politics isn't found where most of us agree. We fiercely disagree. That's not a problem. Democracy assumes disagreement.
The true center is about how we resolve those disagreements. Most of us believe we should work them out respectfully.
We don't believe in winning political arguments through bullying, name-calling, lying, intimidating, or using violence.
In other words, the political center isn't about what we decide It's about how we decide. The center American democracy is a commitment vigorous debate, done honestly and civilly.
That's why some of what we've been witnessing recently is troubling.
Consider the foot-stomping incident in Kentucky by Rand Paul supporters, just outside a Senate debate. Or Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller's security detail handcuffing a reporter from a liberal-leaning website.
Consider last year's congressional town hall meetings where members of Congress were shouted down, a Tampa town hall meeting turned violent, and gunshots were fired at Democratic campaign headquarters in Arizona.
Consider the outright lies about "death panels," "government takeovers," and the President's nationality.
Consider Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst against the President on the House floor.
And the vitriol emanating at all hours from rage radio, yell television, and Fox News - against immigrants, intellectuals, "coastal elites," gays, and the President.
We're better than this.
This is not respectful disagreement. It's thuggery. It has no legitimate role in a democracy. And most Americans are fed up with it.
Sadly, we needed two comedians to remind us.
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
|
