Fighting for Regular Folks

by: Mike Lux

Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:30


One thing that every major policy initiative the Obama administration has taken/has been forced to take on (most of them are in the latter category given the stakes) early in their term have in common is their overwhelming complexity. I am glad we have a President with real brains and a mind that can understand complexity, because when I think about the problems we have, and what it will take to solve them, the idea of George W. Bush, John McCain, or Sarah Palin being in charge gives me a bad case of the shivers. Think about what is on this President's plate: solving the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, dealing with the mess in Afghanistan, finding a long term international solution to climate change, finally reforming health care in a comprehensive way, dealing with an utterly out of control and corrupt financial sector, finally finding a fair and comprehensive solution to immigration reform. I know I'm missing some big things, but you get my point. There's not a single issue on this list that is simple to resolve, either substantively or politically. This level of major issues and crises to handle really does rival only a few other Presidents- Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our nation's earliest days, Lincoln in the Civil War years, FDR.  So thank goodness he's smart, and thank goodness he has surrounded himself with a lot of really bright advisers, because to make progress- let alone resolve- these issues is going to take a huge amount of brain power.

Brain power is not enough, though...

Mike Lux :: Fighting for Regular Folks
History has numerous examples of smart Presidents whose presidencies were not especially successful- John and John Quincy Adams, James Buchanan, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon all come to mind. John Adams was just as smart as Jefferson, Buchanan had as much brain power as Lincoln, Hoover was considered by his peers a genius while FDR was considered an intellectual lightweight. Yet all three of the former lost the confidence of the American people and essentially failed as Presidents, while all three of the latter not only succeeded as Presidents but became known in history as three of our greatest. They kept the American's people's confidence in spite of the hard times they were leading the country through.

In spite of the incredibly complex and dangerous challenges and crises those great Presidents faced, in spite of setbacks they had and mistakes they made, the public ultimately stuck with them through all the tough times. My belief is that the reason that happened was not because of the results these Presidents achieved but because the people felt confident that those Presidents shared their values and were really fighting on their behalf. Jefferson barely made it into office after the massive electoral college meltdown in the 1800 election, did hugely controversial things such as the Louisiana Purchase, and was attacked as viciously as any President in history, but his faith in regular people and in democracy itself (still a very contentious idea in the early American political debate) bonded him to Americans as they were trying to forge their identity as a new kind of nation. Lincoln suffered setback after setback in the Civil War, but his noble spirit, steadfast values to his vision of America, and his unyielding determination made the country love him in spite of the horrors of the war. And FDR was able to forge a lasting and passionate bond with his countrymen and women even with times so tough, and later with that awful war against tough odds we had to fight. In every case, the country knew their Presidents were fighting for them, knew their Presidents shared their values, and even in the toughest of times remained loyal to them as leaders.

We face another juncture in history where the challenges are incredibly tough, the problems devastatingly complicated. The test of this President through all these tough times is whether regular Americans trust that he is fighting for them. Through all the complicated policy debates, and all the complicated politics, does he make choices that show he is on their side? Will he step up and fight for a public option that will give genuine competition to the private insurers that people know do not have their best interests at heart? Will he really take on the "Too Big To Fail" banks and rein in their power and corruption of our political and economic system? Will he really fight like crazy to squeeze out every new job in this economy, not just tell people that "jobs are a lagging indicator" and say that they will get here eventually?

I am an optimist on these kinds of questions. I believe that the President has good values and that at the end of the day, he will deliver. But watching the process is sometimes a worrisome thing.

I will close with this thought. One of the reasons President Obama's mentor and dear friend Ted Kennedy was able to get so many things done was because he was such a fighter. His progressive allies fighting for immigrants, for civil rights, for labor rights, for the poor always knew he was giving heart and soul on their behalf, and that he was getting everything he could possibly get for their causes through the legislative process. They never doubted that even when he finally did compromise at the end of the day that the compromise was not a sellout, it was the best deal he could possibly get. We knew, without a doubt, which side he was on, and we knew it was ours. If progressives, and regular working Americans, see Obama pick a side- our side- and really fight for it, no matter what happens over the next 3 years, we will stick with him and fight for him, too.      


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's not enough to say you are on someone's side (4.00 / 9)
you have to BE on their side.

Montani semper liberi

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is stupid, just as Hoover, Nixon, and Taft were stupid.  He is an imbecile just as Reagan, Bush, Sr., Clinton, and Bush, Jr. were all imbeciles.  This is because all these vermin ever cared about was power for its own sake.  Using the power they wielded to make a positive impact on society, to stand and fight on behalf of the public, was never on their agendas, and We the People recognize that when we see it.  As such, they were and remain dreadfully out of touch with reality and the common good.

The Roosevelts, for example, for all their flaws, acted in the interests of the public.  They were able to recognize that the system as it was (and is today) is incapable and unwilling to serve the needs of the public, and they fought like hell to change that system no matter the personal costs.  Intelligence isn't in being able to string together a coherent sentence or in a piece of paper from a university no matter how prominent.  It's in the ability to learn, to grow, to see the world for what it is, and above all, recognize the necessity not to accept it, but to make it better.  That is genius.

But let that not be said of dim bulbs like Obama, his stooges, or any other powerful member of the far right.  These clowns are interested only in power, and refuse to see anything beyond the acquisition of it.



[ Parent ]
Taft busted more trusts than TR (4.00 / 4)
Hoover genuinely did care, and was actively trying ot fix the Depression, but couldn't convince himself about the necessary actions.  That is not power for it's own sake.  Nixon, even, was quite intelligent, and able to adapt to circumstances, and even willing to attempt radical policy proposals (wage and price controls/negative income tax) at times.  

The difference is what you are doing it for, and being able to step outsie of the current situation and look at the big picture.  Having vision and having the ability to lead goes far, far beyond 'intelligence.'  And that you're willing to say that those three were stupid 'just as Bush Jr. was an imbicile' is absurd.  


[ Parent ]
Power and the Party (4.00 / 1)
Mike, If the Democrats don't start producing jobs, they are in deep trouble.  It won't matter how much power the accumulate.  They will be gone.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
So much for Bipartisanship (4.00 / 2)
If progressives, and regular working Americans, see Obama pick a side- our side- and really fight for it, no matter what happens over the next 3 years, we will stick with him and fight for him, too.

I think the biggest problem with this is that he campaigned so much on "bipartisanship" or "post partisanship".  

If he picks a side in a fight and wins, the country stays with him.  If he picks a side in a fight and loses, the only way the country will stay with him is if he starts calling people out by name who blocked it.  That will become a very ugly - even if necessary - environment.  

Most Presidents could get away with it, but Obama campaigned on bringing the exact opposite kind of environment.  He really campaigned himself into a corner.


Given how the republicans have acted, (4.00 / 7)
He has plenty of room to say that he has changed his mind or that postpartisqnship only works with good faith partners. If he wanted to.  

[ Parent ]
Good point, but (4.00 / 1)
He'll still have to make the case that he tried reaching out and got his hand slapped away.  I'm not saying it's impossible, just an extra degree of political complexity.

[ Parent ]
Yes, (0.00 / 0)
but it's the difference between a cannonball and a forward dive without a flip, especially with his rhetorical ability.

[ Parent ]
So much for his efforts to date (0.00 / 0)
Has he not made the good attempt to "reach across" and what has it gotten him? You have to have people willing to do what is right for the country not the party. Zero votes in the house on laws says there is no one on the other side willing plus the zero ideas .....  

[ Parent ]
Just more proof that he's stupid. (0.00 / 0)
No politician who wants to get anything done paints himself into that corner.  If Obama really was as smart as people wish to believe he is, he'd have learned that lesson a long time ago.  He certainly had more than enough examples from the Clinton debacles to show him how and why the notion of post-partisanship is sheer lunacy in today's political climate.  But he ignored each and every lesson.



[ Parent ]
He's screwed if he reaches across, and will be screwed if he doesn't. (0.00 / 0)
If he steps up to what the progressives want, he will not be playing well in "flyover" country.  The coastal inhabitants tend to discount this area of the country, however they dare.  The "flyover"  people are looking for results.  If the results are not forth coming from this administration, the first thing rotated out will be the federal representatives of "flyover" country.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit. (0.00 / 0)
Progressives are regular people. Most of us live in "flyover" country. Our positions are the popular ones everywhere outside of Versailles.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Given the choice, he should have fought for progressive ideals. (4.00 / 2)
The public respects people who try, even if they fail, far more than it does those who never make bold decisions.  Obama was elected with a mandate to govern from the left.  After eight years of wholly destructive right-wing policies and unaccountability, he has a duty to take the nation off that course.  Let the right-wingers whine and complain.  Let them be shut out of running the country.  They have had the run of it for more than thirty years, and they destroyed the place.  Obama was never going to get any help from the far right because it is not interested in reaching across the aisle.  The Clinton years were proof enough of that.



[ Parent ]
Jefferson is easily the most overrated president (4.00 / 4)
He is remembered for basically two major accomplishments, the Declaration of Independance, and the Louisiana Purchase.

The first was clearly a great achievement, but it was just a document, a statement of principles, and not an actual tangible accomplishment that involved risk, sacrifice and hard work, like winning the war (which he in no way took part in, unlike many of the other younger founders) or writing the constitution, was really a collective effort that he merely put his stylistic stamp on (quite well, of course), and took place a quarter century before he became president.

And the Louisiana Purchase was basically a no-brainer that fell into his lap (and whose actual architect was, IIRC, James Monroe), was going to happen sooner or later, violated his libertarian principles, and may well have been unconstitutional.

But his presidency was otherwise marked by horrible policies that not only led to the disasterous War of 1812, but ensured that the US would lose it. He did little to promote the economic advancement of the country, did much to stifle it (that whole yoeman farmer as a model for the US economy fantasy), and left to future presidents the work of transforming a post-revolutionary infant country into a viable modern one. But of course he said nice things and had great PR, so he's remembered as one of the greats. Nonsense.

I would be remiss in not acknowledging his important role in pushing the US in a small-R republican path. But this took place well before he was president, and his libertarian purism and anti-Federalist paranoia also did a lot of political damage during the Washington and Adams administrations. For all his whining and scheming against the allegedly evil closeted monarchist Hamilton, he offered precious little in the way of viable alternative policies. And the way he messed with Madison's head to turn him against Hamilton and Washinton was unforgiveable.

And let's not even get into the whole Hemmings matter, his not freeing a single slave even upon his death, and the sheer hypocrisy of a pampered plantation and slave-owning aristocrat complaining about elitism and economic unfairness.

Ech. I used to like and respect the guy, until I started reading up on him. Some stuff to admire, lots to despise, vastly overrated IMO.

There are ways in which Obama is Jeffersonian, PR-wise, but it's still way too soon to tell how deserved that will end up being.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


And let's not forget his bloodthirsty streak! (0.00 / 0)
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Looks like the guy never heard of, or didn't approve, pacifist solutions. "Refreshed with blood", my ass!

[ Parent ]
I can't tell you how much I loath that quote (4.00 / 1)
Not only because it inspired genocidal loons like McVeigh and his teabagger admirers, but because it was made by a coward who actively avoided military service in the very war that he championed with words, while others did so with their lives.

He uttered them in reaction to the first major challenge to the new union, Shays' Rebellion, which he supported, in doing so promoting the concepts of sessession, arbitrary rebellion and disunion. He was really good at playing Iago to the nascent nation's Othellos.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Uh, slave owner? (0.00 / 0)
I know it's all relative with 18th century aristocratic White men, but Thomas Jefferson was also a slave-owner and rapist with imperial designs on Latin America.

The height of inconsistency between incredibly persuasive rhetoric/myth and actual populism/active progress is the genius of the American system.  Every President has been forced to do the best things they did.  Every one.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/


[ Parent ]
That he inherited slaves and was brought up (4.00 / 4)
in a world in which this was considered ok was one thing. That he renounced both only in words and not in deeds was far more telling and damning. We're talking mid-1820's, when he died, 25 years after Washington freed his, and 40 years after Hamilton helped found one of the first abolition societies in the US (and 50 years after he tried, unsuccessfully, to organize southern regiments composed of freed slaves). Jefferson was a master of words and ideas (but then so were Hamilton, Madison and Franklin). But his actions often feel vastly far from the mark. Ultimately, it's actions, not words, that speak loudest.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Really wrong (4.00 / 1)
Jefferson not only planned the Louisiana Purchase he planned and trained the Lewis and Clark Expedition's leaders before the Purchase.

What else?  He founded the US Military Academy.  The idea was to have a trained group of professional officers without having a large standing army.  The ofricers would work as engineers and managers in peace time and be ready to go in war time.

Jefferson was considered the leading geopolitical theorist in the world.

He was the invebntor of political parties and governed so well that the Whigs were first limited to a regional party and then faded into oblivion.

Jefferson did more to "promote" the economy by inventing the mouldboard plow (the dominant and superior item for 50 year) than the "theorists" did.  He also opened up superior agricultural lands.

Yes, he tried to avoid war and by doing it kept us away from entanglement with France.  That's a plus.  And, uh, we won (not lost) the War of 1812 against the greatest military power in the world.

Jefferson established a political era that was unique in American history with three competent two term Presidents from the same party.

No matter what the "money guys" say 200 years later, Adams and Hamilton were the ones that are not only over rated but humongously over rated.  But then they did work for the monied classes of the time.


[ Parent ]
Adams overrated? (4.00 / 1)
He was a stuffed shirt, I admit, but Adams devoted several decades of his life to ensuring the U.S. would be successful. He spent many years in Europe doing diplomatic work when America was as popular as smallpox.

He wasn't theoretical and he wasn't a political animal the way Jefferson was. So no, he didn't invent or particularly care for political parties. And he was pretty p.o.'ed that Jefferson didn't clear the way for Adams' second term.

But to suggest that he is somehow overrated because 200+ years later, we recognize that the guy did some important stuff of lasting importance, is wrong.

I don't want to party with Adams (give me Philly boy Franklin for that!) but if I want a guy doing the detail work of making my country solid and convincing the rest of the team to pull together on our problems, I think our second president is deserving of recognition.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA


[ Parent ]
Jefferson (0.00 / 0)
Also had the first presidential wine cellar in the White House, purchasing as much as $5,000 worth of wine a year, an incredible sum at the time.

[ Parent ]
Let them drink wine! (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps he spent too much time hobnobbing with the very royals he supposedly loathed. Jefferson is a classic example of someone who wanted to have it both ways, believed he could do it, and sort of did. Not unlike someone else receiving underdeserved praise.

But teh people they do need their myths, I suppose.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Fact check time! (4.00 / 1)
The idea of a military academy was Washington's, with the backing of ACTUAL military experts who risked their asses in the war, like Hamilton and Knox, as opposed to Jefferson, who sat it out in Virginia and turned tail as governor the minute the redcoats came calling. It just happened to be founded under Jefferson.

You're referring to the Federalists, not Whigs, of course, the latter not becoming a party until decades later.

I have no idea what you mean by the "leading geopolitical theorist in the world". How so, in what sense and why? What did he say or do to deserve this accolade? More so than Napoleon, Tallyrand and Pitt--not to mention Washington and Hamilton, who kept the US out of wars that it wasn't ready for and wisely remained neutral on the French Revolution (please don't tell me you think that Jefferson got THAT one right)? Please explain.

He didn't "invent" political parties, especially in their 19th century form. They naturally emerged from the inevitable factionalism over issues like the constitution and a national bank, and he played a major role in the formation of one of those parties (by embarrassing himself with his economic ignorance and engaging in truly loathsome yellow journalism that would do Rupert Murdoch proud).

You're joking about that plow, aren't you? Or do you actually believe that it was more significant than Hamilton's debt assumption and national bank policies, which indisputibly put the country on the right economic path (although I won't dispute that these policies were almost immediately exploited by unscrupulous speculators and crooks, but then there's that whole suthun' slavery and plantation thingee...).

And I can only laugh at your pat dismissal of Hamilton. He clearly lost it after Washington left office, but his role as his aide de camp, primary promoter of a constitutional convention and its final product--and to this day, along with Madison, its most cited and respected contemporary interpreter--writer of Washinhgton's farwell address, and of course the aforementioned debt assumption and national bank, pretty much speak for themselves.

Jefferson might have had broader talents and a more diverse intellect, but he also had the benefit of a first-class aristocrat's education, uninterrupted by something as inconvenient as a war. And unlike Hamilton, many of Jefferson's talents and accomplishments were of a non-political nature (UVA, inventions).

And I also find it extremely hard to look past his overt racism, his rape of Sally Hemmings, and his not freeing a single slave (unlike fellow Virgina planter Washington, who freed them all). A mean-spirited and hypocritical esthete till the end.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
It's not paranoia when they're after you (4.00 / 1)
The Alien and Sedition acts were pretty much a direct (and unconstitutional) attack on Jefferson.  

But it is right that his Presidency was a mixed bag, just as that of Lincoln also was (the draft, his assault on free speech, the way that the Emancipation Proclaimation applied only to the slaves in territories yet to be conquered by the union--slaveowners in union-occupied Tennessee, Louisana, and Mississippi were allowed to keep their slaves).

Even FDR had some serious flaws, from his court-packing plan, to the way that the alphabet soup agencies were jury-rigged together, and that the New Deal had to be saved and restructured by Truman in order to accomplish anything approaching permanency.  

I don't like the exalting of past leaders much at all.  Let's just have an honest assessment of the good and the bad that people did, and move forward trying to encourage/ legally mandate the former, and discourage/outlaw the latter.  


[ Parent ]
The A&S Acts were clearly despicable and dangerous (0.00 / 0)
But they were passed years after Jefferson's own most damaging and despicable contributions to character-assassination yellow journalism and acts of treachery against his boss's administration. This did not justify these acts (which were passed for many reasons other than fear of Jefferson), but neither were his acts defensible. He was the leading teabagger of his day, smearing people he didn't have the expertise or courage to confront openly, behind their backs. He was a master of taking the low road.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
This red herring (0.00 / 0)
What does the discussion of Jefferson's persona and accomplishments have to do with Obamma's success?  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
You tell me (4.00 / 1)
To me, though, it's pretty obvious. I think it is to you too.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Thank you Kovie (0.00 / 0)
I really get hacked off at our political leadership.  I'm sure that the forthcoming politicians will be carefully vetted instead of being picked out of the primordial stew as they are now.

Your citation of Proverbs is profound itself.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
Ah, you're going for the time-tested (0.00 / 0)
"Could YOU have done any better?" non-answer answer. How clever (and convenient). So because Obama isn't McCain or Bush, we should lay down, stop criticizing, and heap all praise upon Dear Leader because it's the best we can hope for right now. Democracy at its finest!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Mike Lux and the good fight. (4.00 / 7)
You certainly are an optimist. When looking at the same evidence, I see something far different, and considerably darker. I'd prefer that you were proven right in the end, but as my bookie knows only too well, I don't place bets based on what I hope for.

If I had to defend the power of positive thinking, Mike, you'd be the first general I'd hire. I'm actually sorry that I don't believe a word of what you say, at least when it comes to President Obama's chances. Rahm Emanuel, Mike. Two words which speak volumes.


In some ways, (4.00 / 8)
It's hard to know who your wrote this for, Mike.  Me, who voted for Obama, to shore up my flagging enthusiasm?  Or, for Obama, himself so that he might know that the people will stand behind him if he makes the right choices?  Or, are you trying to convince yourself that there is a basis for your optimism?  I'm really not clear on who the audience is for this piece.

I believe that the President has good values and that at the end of the day, he will deliver.

Belief shares the same thin thread as Hope, Mike.  Whatever Obama thinks, or doesn't, believes, or doesn't, thinks, feels, values is all genuinely unknowable to me - and, to you.  What we know of Obama is what he does.  If I am your audience, you need to speak to me of what he does.  And, what he has done so far, and - perhaps even more importantly - the way he has approached what he's done, has made me very skeptical of Obama's progressive predilections.


Climate Change (4.00 / 5)
If Obama really understood the complexities and implications of global climate change, he'd have committed himself to a Manhattan Project-style effort to cut carbon emissions and green up our energy supply with meaningful changes within 10 years and a complete transformation within 20.  If Obama really understood the financial crisis, he'd be aggressively pushing to break up the big banks.  Et cetera.

Obama is a good man with good values, but he's mired in Washington bubble thinking.  For all that he's intelligent, he lacks understanding.


But in his way of desperately aboiding hanging out in that limb (0.00 / 0)
is an opportunity for moving him.  He still pretty much is a Rorschach test President.  If hewere to make a sudden policy swing, I doubt that it would have much political consequence at this point.  

[ Parent ]
Obama is not a good man and his "values" are abhorrent. (4.00 / 1)
Let's be perfectly clear: you're absolutely right that if Obama were truly interested in doing anything good, he'd be making honest efforts to do just that.  But he isn't.  There is nothing in his political record to indicate that he was ever doing anything more than offering lip service to con the left while making it clear to the corporate bosses that he is on their side.  The right simply is too stupid to recognize its own, but the corporate bosses aren't.  Bad people are bad because their actions prove their motivations and intentions.



[ Parent ]
Values (4.00 / 1)
Everyone says Obama has good values. But doesn't values have something to do with character, which in turn hinges on convictions.
If he had any convictions some of these so-called tough decisions would be simple, as his morality would be his guide.

Watching Obama operate, one can't help but think of Pontius Pilate who washed his hands of tough decisions and let others decide.

Oh  Jeez.


Strategy is important, too (0.00 / 0)
I liked this post quite a bit. I also want to credit Obama with some real strategic skill. Consider how the GOP has been reduced to a rather ridiculous "Brand" as HuffPost calls it. They did it to themselves, but they were given the pathway by Obama's NOT making rigid sounding demands, drawing lines in the sand, tough talk, etc. --the Republicans thought that made him a "weak" president, and he played to their stereotype of the 'wimpy' Democrats. They've even said as much.

So they rolled on and on with their bullying.

And behold. It hasn't worked.

Who's playing smart politics to get the job done?


What? (4.00 / 6)
The "job" that has gotten done so far is amnesty for telecos who illegally spied on Americans, amnesty for those who ordered torture, a blank check for the ones who crashed our economy, and a deal in the works to force all Americans to buy  private health insurance. Oh and doubling down on Bush's Wars. Did I leave anything out?

Smart politics maybe, but not on behalf of regular people.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Obamma's accomplishments (0.00 / 0)
One of the accomplishments of this administration will be that the american public will probably never take the government for granted again.

It's folly to think that the health care system problems will be solved by this congress.  Any time legislation is decided by back room deals and closed sessions, people get unhappy.  This is the nature of the american public.  We decry the backroom deals of big banks, insurance companys and health providing organizations.  We will probably thoroughly disect Acorn, SEIU, and the motor companys of Government Motors and Chrysler.  BTW, has anyone heard anything from Fiat?  Every partnership Fiat has had on the North American continent has failed.  (Look it up!)
Healthcare will be revisited by all of the congresses forthcoming.  It will be modified and re-modified.

Yes this administration-congressional leadership will activate a lot of hangers on but that is good.  It will in the end be more representative of what people want and feel that they should have in their government.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
creeping mandarinism (4.00 / 8)
What is the most common refrain of the various anonymous Villagers in dismissing the opinions of people like us? "Oh, they just don't understand the complexities of the situation."

I agree that it's good to have a President who can understand complex concepts. But the fundamental problem with Bush, Palin, McCain, etc. is not so much about handling complexity, it's that they are not interested in factual reality.

Complexity is a matter of scale. What makes for a good diet? You can get into the detailed biochemistry of enzymes and trace elements and such. You can also simply note that a good diet includes lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. Which is not complex at all.

Solutions in DC are often complicated because of a refusal to make fundamental changes. We know how to save money on health care. But the folks in DC won't do those things, because the interests that they in fact represent would lose out. So they play games. It's like trying to get better gas mileage out of your old car - you can keep tweaking it and tweaking it, and you'll get some improvements, but nothing like what you'd get if you just got a better car. Or an electric car. Or no car at all.

The nature of the problems themselves are, at the right scale, often relatively straightforward. Stop unterraforming Earth. People who are sick need medical care. People want jobs that earn enough to provide a decent life*. Look at Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, or Sen and Nussbaum's list of capabilities. These are not difficult concepts.

Obama and others use complexity as a smoke screen and an excuse. We shouldn't help them in that.

* Speaking of accepting complicated solutions due to fundamental premises, but that's a way different subject...

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Poor Obama he thinks complex DC problems require complex answers. (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, most academics see things this way.  On one hand Obama wants America to see himself as fair and intelligent.  On the other hand, we see he and Joe B. make bonehead decisions which will probably screw the rest of us.

As an academic, he doesn't understand simple answers are the most elegent and intellgent.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
Joe B.? Does he make any decisions at all? (4.00 / 1)
Isn't Rahmbo much more powerful than the VP?
:-/

[ Parent ]
Yes, Rahmbo is. (0.00 / 0)
I believe that he has more influence over the president than the VP.  Joe, in his public utterences, has pretty much said what the rest of America is thinking.  As long as we are losing jobs, we are declining in our economy.  The economy pays the government's bills.

Rhambo, is the inside political whip to the Democrats.  This congressional power is felt in the halls of congress.  He can get bills written either by politicians or outside organizations.  Axelrod forms public opinions.  He has a lot in common with Goebbels.  He however, doesn't make the speeches though.  He probably presents them to the president.  This is the reason for all of the teleprompter stuff.......to keep the president on message.  Between the two, they have pretty much neutered the VP.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
re: optimism (4.00 / 3)
I am an optimist on these kinds of questions. I believe that the President has good values

I am an optimist too but I'm slowly losing my optimism

I want to see some fighting for those values


Don't lose optimism (0.00 / 0)
The President has good values.  His problem is; that he's not a leader.  His tenure in this office will be short but it will engender the rest of us to be interested in what goes on in DC.  The new politicans that will be rpresenting the us won't be the fossils of yesterdays political parties.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search