O (0.00 / 0)

Obama's grand accomplishment is not breaking a sweat while giving us a jobless recovery just like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr...

Presiding over the ongoing destruction of America's middle class with Bush-like cluelessness is not competence by any kind of remotely rational standard.

I will give you this: Obama shouldn't have re-nominated Bernanke. That was moronic and inexplicable, in so far as Bernanke doesn't seem to actually care about the suffering of unemployed people.

But having chosen another Fed Chairman a few months ago couldn't possibly have made the recovery look any better by this point. So I am wondering: what else could Obama have done? As near as I can tell, he passed the biggest stimulus that it was politically possible to pass right at the beginning of his administration.

The fact that the last two recoveries showed a very similar profile to this one suggest there's something structural about the US economy that needs long-term attention, but which Obama could hardly single-handedly have fixed in his first year in office.

This strikes me as a case of the The President is Responsible for Everything that Happens Fallacy.

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 17:44:58 PM UTC

This Is Just Ludicrous (4.00 / 14)

As near as I can tell, he passed the biggest stimulus that it was politically possible to pass right at the beginning of his administration.

Obama thought he was going to get 80 votes in the Senate by proposing a stimulus package that he knew was too small to get the job done, that was jammed-packed with tax cuts that are known to be less stimulative than government spending, and that failed to provide enough support to state government to prevent them from making massive anti-stimulative cuts in their budgets.

It was, in short, a doomed half-measure that never had any chance of getting the broad Republican support Obama dreamed of getting.

This was politically incompetent in at least six major ways:

(1) Obama completely misjudged the GOP.
(2) Obama completely misjudged the policy necessities.
(3) Obama completely misjudged the leverage he had as a popular incoming president, and made no effort to take advantage of that.
(4) Obama completely abandoned the direct appeal to the people style that got him elected in the first place, and that still had a great latent support infrastructure he could have utilized.
(5) Obama totally failed to lay blame for the collapse where it belonged--on the failed conservative policies of Bush & others who abandoned the sensible regulatory framework of the New Deal Era.
(6) Obama simultaneously gave away the store to Wall Street, both undercutting his standing with the voters, and hopelessly confusing the stimulus & the Wall Street bailout in the public mind.

But aside from that, sure, there was nothing Obama could have done.

Too bad that FDR didn't realize how limited his options were as well.  He should have just appointed Andrew Mellon to take care of everything, and gone fishing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:22:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

as I remember it (0.00 / 0)

He made one major tactical error: he expected that the Congressional sausage-making process would add dollars to the stimulus, rather than take away from it. Nonetheless, when you need 60 votes in the senate (which you shouldn't need, but again, that's not Obama's fault), then you need a bill that Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Olympia Snowe would vote for. Hence you end up with the overweighting of tax cuts vs. spending that we got. On those grounds I reject points 1-3. But this was a tactical error in the first legislative fight of his administration which nonetheless resulted in a bill that saved millions of jobs - it's not like he was off at some birthday party while an American city drowned.

As for point 6, I agree, but don't think that has affected the shape of the recovery in any significant way.

Points 4 and 5 I don't know about. These are criticisms of style rather than substance, and I'm not sure I even agree with the premises. Did he not argue for his stimulus to the American people? Do I not get e-mails all the time from Plouffe or Axelrod or whoever asking me to support some economic initiative or another? At any rate, again, I don't know how acting differently here would have materially affected the shape of the recovery.

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:28:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice Try! (4.00 / 4)

The process did add money--in the House.  Obama then applauded Susan Collins for her courage in slashing all that evil aid to schools and state-level social services.

The rest of your blather depends on assuming that a newly elected president doesn't have any sort of persuasive power with the public at large.  That's a pretty hard sell for a president like Obama, who continually evoked Ronald Reagan when it suited him.

All he had to do to flip Collins and Snowe was camp in Maine for a few days with schoolkids, teachers, principals and parents, asking why they wanted to hurt kids.  Meanwhile, his advance teams very noisily show up in half a dozen other carefully selected states.

It's not rocket science.

It's Organizing 101.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:57:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, his entire econ team (save Romer) are corrupt neo-liberals for starters. (4.00 / 9)

Seriously, right after his historic election, he basically sent a message to everyone who is economically literate to "go piss off." As for the structure of the economy, you make a very valid point. It is structurally unsound in terms of serving the broader interests of the nation. But Obama's team of economic managers are now and have been a part of that problem for a couple decades now. They are among the ones who created this mess in the first place, yes?

So it's not that Obama is responsible for "everything," it's that he's perfectly fine with the way things are that's the problem. It seems to me the "fallacy" you mention is just a false dichotomy dressed up as snark.

The previous two "recoveries" are the direct result of gutting our domestic economy to suit the interests of supra-national corporations. That's why the jobs don't come back. It's not an accident. It's driven by policy, so the only way to change that is to change the policies.

That's not going to happen under this administration or his Republican successor. Just as we just got "healthcare reform" that isn't, we're also going to get Financial Reform that isn't. Again, this is not an accident. It reflects deliberate decision-making on the part of this administration to leave us all out to hang. Indeed, I can't wait to hear the excuses offered us when the next financial crisis induces yet another round of looting the Treasury by the banksters. It is going to happen, you know.

I would make one distinction here: Obama is a very competent politician(in terms of hoodwinking the masses to suit the interests of his corporate benefactors), but he's grossly incompetent as a Public Servant. Even cravenly so.

As President, his charge is to serve the national interest and protect the US Constitution. He is a complete failure in this regard in every major policy area thus far. So, the looting continues, the homelessness rises along with unemployment and poverty in general. But his people are making out like the bandits they are.

Please tell me how he's not responsible for his own behaviors.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:30:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except That (4.00 / 5)

A politician is normally judged by political effectiveness.  Just get re-elected regularly is "effective" for a politician who aspires to nothing greater, and if nothing larger is at stake, then that standard can arguably be defended.

Hence, Obama's politics might be politically effective for a lower-level functionary, even a member of the Senate.  But as the leader of a political party that ought to dominate the next 40 years of American politics, not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:37:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, you're right. (4.00 / 1)

But I think the premise of "ought to dominate" is where the problem lies, which is why I tend to define down the meaning of politician, as opposed to "Leader of The Free World" (cough). But that's my bias.

If we separate out the "public servant" part of "politician", we're basically left with the Professional Huckster part of the job. Obama isn't really driven by an agenda that isn't already firmly in place. His job, then, is simply to defend the Citadel of Neo-Liberalism from critics within his own party. That's simple enough: Just lie your ass off until your term expires. So I see him as nothing more than a placeholder.

The Democratic Party could very well achieve hegemony of a good sort if they so choose to do so. Obviously, they seek to avoid that like having to share a cold bath with Regis Philbin.

The hegemony is already in place. But it's not ours. It's Obama's job to keep the proles in line until his successor can take over.


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:58:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Understand, But (4.00 / 1)

I come from a less cynical place.  ("Or so I like to think," he added, cynically.)

Or at least from a strategically more ambitious one.  The politician/public servant dichotomy you propose strikes me as letting folks off too easily.  It's useful for certain purposes, and I subscribe to it myself in some circumstances.  But I think that it gives an easy out, particularly for a politician who marketed himself in such an over-hyped manner as Obama did.

To me, there's a sort of journeyman level of political competence, call it the "pothole-filling" level.  One can be great campaigner and schmoozer and all that, and just not get the potholes filled.  That's a "public servant" failure, I suppose.  But at a much more humble level than that of initiating new programs and policies, even at the city council level.  And there's at least one level in between these two, which is a public servant who does citizen empowerment as well as constituent services.

So, in short, I think there's a lot more levels of failure involved in Obama's shortcomings.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:15:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I come from less cynical place." (0.00 / 0)

Well, no one's perfect, eh?

You're correct, of course. I was not being sufficiently nuanced and I stand corrected or something similar. Your strata of public service shall receive no criticism from me, as they all seem quite valid to me.

As for strategic ambition, we are both ambitious in that regard, which is why I can be a hard ass at times on that subject--though I try to keep that to a minimum these days.

Progressives don't have a strategic position for the simple reason the community cannot sufficiently agree on the answer to the very first question of strategic planning: What are we about?

If progressives can't coalesce around a definitive answer to that question, there's no point in going to steps 2 - 5, since those questions all rely on the very first answer to be of any real use. This is something even our own Pentagon seems to have forgotten, oddly.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 00:03:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More incompetent (0.00 / 0)

than whom?

---

by: Joel @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:43:41 PM UTC

FDR, LBJ, JFK (0.00 / 0)

for starters.

But, more to the point, really: Who asks that same question of Nero?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:51:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The entire argument strikes me as (4.00 / 1)

about as sophisticated as 'he's Nero!' to tell the truth. (Which isn't how I usually find your stuff.) It's meaningless, saying Obama's incompetent. By what measure? Dead presidents? Sure, I guess, fine. If we brought JFK back to life, he'd be much better.

Saying Obama's a crappy president, because he passed the Republican alternative to HillaryCare from 15 years ago over tremendous Republican obstruction is fine. Makes sense. Saying he's crappy because of his record on civil liberties or DADT or any number of issues makes sense.

But saying that 'a politician who undermines his party and his country cannot seriously be regarded as a competent politician' is silly. Of course he can be regarded as competent; if he's achieving his goals, he's competent.

If Obama wants to enact a truly progressive agenda, and is structurally able to enact a truly progressive agenda, and is trying to enact a truly progressive agent, and still can't, then he's incompetent. If he doesn't want to, or isn't trying to, or if it's just not possible, then that's a different fiddle of fish.

---

by: Joel @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:03:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Higher The Office,The Higher The Standard (4.00 / 1)

What's so complicated about that principle that it requires a nuanced 3,000 word essay to support?

As President, avoiding massive prolonged job loss is a pretty basic requirement.  So, too, avoiding mass foreclosures.

No Democratic president has ever failed as spectacularly on these fronts as Obama has, and the fact that he's caught so little criticism for it reflects an unbelievable amount of slack being cut for him.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:24:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Give Obama FDR's or LBJ's congressional majorities (0.00 / 0)

and I don't think he'd look nearly as incompetent to you.

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:35:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How About Harry Truman? (0.00 / 0)

From the American Prospect:

Give 'Em Hell, Barry
What Barack Obama can learn from Harry Truman's inspired use of partisanship.
Robert Kuttner | March 29, 2010

When President Barack Obama took office, at a time of grave financial crisis and disgraced laissez-faire economics, many of us hoped that he would be the next Franklin D. Roosevelt. That hope, to put it mildly, has not materialized. In fairness to Obama, he took office while the crisis was still deepening. FDR, by contrast, was inaugurated after the depression had festered and Republicans had dithered for more than three years, creating a popular mandate for more drastic change.

But if Obama is not destined to be the next Roosevelt, he can choose from one of two very different presidential role models, Harry Truman or Bill Clinton. When Clinton lost his congressional majority in the 1994 midterm elections, he moved emphatically to the center. He saved his own presidency by positioning himself almost as a president above party -- the famed strategy of "triangulation." But he did a lot of damage to Democrats along the way, suggesting that they were somehow too left-wing for the country.

Truman took a different route. When Republican obstruction of his policies was unrelenting and his own popularity was near an all-time low, he recovered by becoming an effective partisan and a resolute progressive. He not only saved his own presidency in the great election upset of 1948 but enabled Democrats to take back Congress in one of the largest vote swings in American political history. With the 1948 election, the House went from 246 Republicans and 188 Democrats to 263 Democrats and 171 Republicans, a net pickup of 75 seats for the Democrats.

Don't forget to read my tagline:

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:50:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting. (0.00 / 0)

It's de interesting if you draw that analogy out some time. But for now the relevant question is: what were Truman's great liberal accomplishments? I don't believe his health reform plan went over as well as Obama's. And I have a feeling you wouldn't have been a big fan of the Korean War if you were around at the time.

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 20:00:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

Integration of the miltary, the policy of containment  in western Europe, the Marshall Plan, fair housing and fair employment laws to name a few.  I would guess the GI Bill.  Successfully completing WW II.  Prosecuting war atrocities from Hitler and Japan.

The legacy of Truman in being the first to advocate Medicare really laid the groundwork for LBJ.

Not too shabby at all.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 08:47:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There wasn't much (0.00 / 0)

that was liberal about Truman's decision to drop both atom bombs.  Prosecuting the Axis power officials for war crimes was a bipartisan non-ideological undertaking that was a no-brainer.

It was on Truman's watch that the Cold War began and took firm root in this country, along with a second Red Scare which led him to enact the Loyalty Act and, relatedly, the Nat'l Security Act of 1947, both of which strengthened the repressive hand of powerful military and highly conservative and reactionary political forces in the land as it brought about the Pentagon and CIA.

The Marshall Plan was the velvet glove where underneath was the steel fist of the Truman Doctrine and NSC-68, which led to this country undertaking the role of world's policeman to stop the spread of Moscow-based world communism.

Yes, Truman did toughen up in that 48 race, but only after having handed the RW plenty of what it sought domestically and internationally in cold war policies and rigid unthinking attitudes.  

No, I'm not a big fan of all the Truman revisionism since the 70s and earlier.  But I will read the Kuttner article in its entirety as soon as it becomes available to us no-subscribers.  

---

by: Brodie @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 16:20:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Marshall Plan Was Initiated In 1947, NSC-68 In 1950, So... (0.00 / 0)

The Marshall Plan was the velvet glove where underneath was the steel fist of the Truman Doctrine and NSC-68,

Not so much.  It was actually more of a piece with the Long Telegram, and I've written several times before how the two documents differed crucially from one another.  Truman didn't really grasp the difference--very few people did, it appears.  But the point is that Truman sort of stumbled from one thing to another--it was not a neocon-like master plan kind of thing. It also had its limits, as Truman refused to green-light the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh, which Eisenhower quickly signed onto.

I agree with your skeptical attitude toward the Truman revisionism wave, but Truman's centrist side was almost all he was known for when tapped to be VP.  And after the losses in the '46 election, he could have easily done nothing but give us more of the same, while running scared in the face of a growing Red Scare.  Instead, he gave us a mixed bag, including all the stuff Kuttner highlights--stuff that never would have happened if Truman hadn't decided to fight.  And stuff that made an enormous difference in terms of long-term influence.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 16:45:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right, first (0.00 / 0)

the LT then NSC-68.  But imo the embrace by HST of the latter was entirely predictable after the first became the basis for Truman FP in the late 40s.  HST may not have gone along with every major scheme from the Pentagon or CIA, but he was very much inclined by temperament to agree with the increasingly paranoid attitudes coming out of those entities.  

Not quite the sophisticated thinker on foreign matters that one might have hoped for at that crucial transitional moment in history.  And Ike wasn't much better actually.

---

by: Brodie @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 18:10:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just Go Read The Article (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't go as far as David (for one thing, the GI Bill was passed in 1944), but he's got the right idea.  Basically, if Truman hadn't stiffened his spine, there's really no telling what might have happened.  We would have been a very different, much more conservative nation, that's for damn sure.  A nuclear war could have been a very real possibility.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 09:59:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Than What the Country Needed (4.00 / 3)

Obama didn't have to be FDR. He just had to be a realist willing to buck the status quo enough to push the country back in the right direction. Instead, to date, he's been an enabler of the status quo.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:07:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite Right (4.00 / 3)

FDR had already done the heavy lifting.

All Obama had to do was remember his history, and use his none-too-shabby oratorical gifts to remind folks that we already knew the basics about how to start cleaning up the mess.  Now, it would have been struggle, no question, give the psychopathic nature of the GOP opposition.  But it would have been a struggle worth waging, one that would have made people smarter over time, and empowered them to keep on getting smarter the longer the struggle continued.

In short--just the sort of stuff that community organizing is supposed to be made of.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:19:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama Is Not FDR (0.00 / 0)

I have to say I struggle with whether Obama is just too conservative to go there or getting bad advice or not competent, but just going slightly populist early last year would have been a political grand slam.  There was no way on h3ll the economy is going to recover before 2010 or even 2012 so the obvious move was to go after Wall St.

Unfortunately, I also think Obama is a pretty smart cookie so it was his CHOICE to do as he did.  As I pointed out in Chris's diary "David Frum is right: conservatives have suffered crushing, nearly irreversible defeats", the support to Wall St has been absolutely massive, tens of trillions of dollars, and dwarfs the dollars being spent on Main St for health care insurance reform.

---

by: glenjo @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 20:32:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Think Obama Is Incredibly Superficial (4.00 / 1)

Unfortunately, I also think Obama is a pretty smart cookie so it was his CHOICE to do as he did.

Clearly it was his choice.  But it seems quite probable that he really had no idea what he was doing.  And this is possible only if his understanding of history is as shallow as that of the rest of Versailles.

About which, it seems, every day brings a new confirmation.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 21:11:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Change We Can Believe In? (4.00 / 1)

So how do we change this?

I've been a strong proponent of dumping Summers, Bernanke, and Geithner.  But if you think Obama just reflects the group-think of all of DC, well, then this leaves little we can do to influence his decisions.

I fear that big loses in 2010/2012 or another rather dramatic economic downswing to force change. Obama now owns the economy and health care since he has "fixed" both so it will be easy for the Republicans to swing voters their way in 2012.

---

by: glenjo @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 21:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Complicated, To Be Sure (0.00 / 0)

There are no simple answers.  But we're definitely going to need more than our share of luck to have a chance.

But above all, I think we really need to be about developing our own independent political identity, quite apart from Obama & the Democratic Party leadership.

See my new diary, "A democratic republic within " for more of a philosophical reflection on this.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 21:46:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Competence (4.00 / 2)

"He is an extremely competent politician.  He's our first black President for Christ's sake!"

That makes him an extremely competent campaigner.  But being good at campaigning is NOT being good at leading once in office.  I'm not necessarily trying to slam Obama (though I do see him as a disappointment) but to point out a fallacy.

---

by: Notorious P.A.T. @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 18:54:32 PM UTC

It Bears Noting (0.00 / 0)

That Obama has been extremely fortunate in never having had to run a tough campaign before this, except for his loss to Bobby Rush.

While I don't mean to diminish his achievement, I think one can make a compelling case that it's harder to win campaigns at a lower level, when one has significantly fewer prospects for attracting support.  This is a familiar phenomena in many fields: getting the first big break is often the hardest part in any career.  In Obama's case, it's simply amazing how regularly he's avoided having to battle in a tough campaign.

From this I gather that he's been a very savvy careerist.  But a competent practitioner?  Not so much.

Which is all a sort of long-winded way to say, "You Betcha!"


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:03:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's The Status Quo that Must Go (4.00 / 3)

Obama strikes me as a throwback Democrat compared to Alan Grayson and their ilk. In the 1990s, Democrats had to be Republicans to get elected (or so they thought: being a Republican at least was easier than fighting for core Democratic values). This after Mondale and Dukakis lost for any number of reasons, Republican negative campaigning being a big factor, how they demonized Democrats and liberals.

Perhaps the lousy recoveries since George Bush, Sr. have to do with income inequality, union busting (e.g. the failure to pay people a living wage), free trade agreements, and the rise of monopolies. Recently, for example, no one in the media or the government batted an eye when Comcast paid four billion in cash plus debt to buy NBC. A generation ago, not only would the concentration of economic power have raised eyebrows, so would the cash hoard: investors would've clamored for some of that money, Comcast customers and programming suppliers would have felt ripped off, and Comcast employees would have demanded the cash be spent on higher wages.

The status quo is geared towards enriching the largest corporations and the 10,000 or so highest wage earners at the direct expense of the other 300 million plus Americans who live and work in the same country. You can't have true economic job-creating recoveries without tearing down this destructive economic machine built by Republicans (with some Democratic help).

As a person who loves words, it comes down to language. If Obama pushes Republican policies and core Republican values and preserves the status quo built by Republicans, we should call him a Republican. Democrats gain nothing by pretending Obama is a neoliberal Democrat or a conservative Democrat. The job of change becomes even harder if we don't face the truth. A Democrat who sells us out repeatedly is not a Democrat.

Yes, Obama has pushed for a few progressive things on the margins, I'll grant him that. And let's hope he has a change of heart. But I don't see anything in critical policy areas that suggests Obama realizes the status quo must go and that core Democratic values are what the country needs right now: a focus on working people, on a living wage, on breaking up monopolies, on re-taxing the wealthiest at rates that reflect taxpayer investments in the infrastructure that makes wealth possible. A few progressive crumbs don't make a loaf of Democratic bread.

As Democrats, we need to figure out how to field a real Democrat for President in 2016, if not 2012, in addition to electing to Congress Democrats who promote core Democratic values most of the time. We need to focus on real change in place by 2020. Part of that process involves calling Obama a Republican as long as he continues to push mostly Republican values. Part of that process means figuring out how we can find and make people like Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren viable Presidential and VP candidates.

Democrats do ourselves no favors if we don't have backup Democrats in place for all government positions, politicians who fight for and articulate well the core Democratic values. Obama should feel politically threatened by his own party if he strays too far from our values with his policies. He should believe we won't support his re-election, for one. He should feel the public is not behind him as long as he coddles Republican constituencies like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and their ilk.

Sorry to go on. You've hit on a critical issue for Democrats: is Obama enough of a Democrat in his policies and, if not, what should Democrats do to retaliate? Maintaining a Republican status quo hurts the country. You can see that in the jobless recovery stats you point out.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:02:49 PM UTC

Oh my, Paul. (0.00 / 0)

He's finally gotten to you.

Thank you for having the courage to say these things.

I would make one distinction here: Obama is a very competent politician(in terms of hoodwinking the masses to suit the interests of his corporate benefactors), but he's grossly incompetent as a Public Servant. Even cravenly so.

As President, his charge is to serve the national interest and protect the US Constitution. He is a complete failure in this regard in every major policy area thus far. So, the looting continues, the homelessness rises along with unemployment

This country is in trouble and many people "hoped" that someone was on the horizon to "change" that.

Sadly it is/was not to be - and, I suspect, will never be the case with the two parties as they are currently functioning (and I use that term lightly).

---

by: Shainzona @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 19:24:20 PM UTC