I've been increasingly critical of Obama's politics of late, for a variety of reasons--the most important being that they seem more and more ominous in a number of ways. But life is complicated, and there's no real way right now to know what's in his head or heart. This came even more sharply into focus for me when I wrote a comment in response to Mike's diary yesterday, "The Heat in the Kitchen, The Buck Stopping, and All That". I wrote as follows:
If Only...
There were someone in Obama's inner circle savvy enough to take your advice!
I know people who worked for Jimmy Carter that are still bitter about Ted Kennedy's primary challenge, and I know old LBJ hands who never forgave Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. But these challenges from the left were a symptom of the problems those Presidents had with their base, not the cause of it, and the fact that there was a rift that never healed helped cause their Presidencies to fail.
So true! But it wasn't only a problem with their base. It was also a problem with reality (and its well-known liberal bias). Most infamously, Vietnam was unwinnable from the start, and the since-released tapes of LBJ talking to Russell show that even LBJ himself knew it from the get-go.
Somewhat analogously, Carter's hawkishness in office went directly contrary to what he's best known for since leaving office--arguably the greatest post-Presidential legacy since John Quincy Adams played a leading role in advancing the cause of Abolition.
In short, the absolute worst thing that a President can do is betray his own deepest instincts, and then go around blaming others for the resulting chaos and failure.
This is what haunts me: What if Obama really is as great as his more worshipful fans think he is? (Their seemingly mindless adulation makes it difficult for me to seriously contemplate, but what if they're right, anyway? Would that really be stranger than The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch?) And what if a significant part of what keeps him doing such terrible things is an internalized sense that he has a duty to do things that he doesn't believe in? (Or he could just be a robot... but I digress.) As I indicated above, this very much seems to have been the case with both LBJ and Jimmy Carter--although in different ways, of course. With Obama, it would be yet another different way, and yet the possibility remains quite strong that this same fundamental dynamic could well be at work.
And what is that funadamental dynamic, exactly? Simple: a basic belief that conservatives are right. That you have to "act tough", either domestically, or in foreign affairs or both. Because, in fact, FDR was the last Democratic President who didn't seem to feel the need to play that game. To the contrary, when it came to WWII, he genuinely felt there was a very great threat, but he had downplay his sense of the need to fight fascism.
So what if Obama's Cairo speech is his true self, but he's doing this whole "War On Terror Done Right" routine instead because of some sort of misguided notion that he can't possibly trust his own instincts, values and beliefs?
Wouldn't that just be the most heartbreaking tragedy since this:
The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure.
Perhaps the most important lesson I learned in my years in the Clinton White House was that when problems arise, it is up to the White House to solve them. When you are the top dog, you have more levers and tools of power than anyone else, and more glory and reward when things go well. But when there is a problem, no matter whose fault it is, no matter how bad luck it is, the White House either solves the problem or the failure to do so is theirs. The buck stops there, if you can't stand the heat, etc, etc.
It has always been this way, and always will be. James Buchanan didn't cause the problems that led the nation to disintegrate on his watch, but by not solving them he goes down as one of the nation's most failed Presidents. Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, but failing to make progress on it similarly casts him as one of history's biggest failures. LBJ's failure to end the Vietnam War destroyed him, in spite of his own amazing record of legislative achievement earlier in his presidency. Conversely, the Presidents like Lincoln and FDR that dealt successfully with major crises are considered our greatest Presidents, even though they made their share of mistakes along the way.
The combination of problems inherited from George W Bush is the biggest protracted crisis this country has faced since those days of FDR. This economy is damaged beyond what many of the conventional economists or commentators are aware, with a sustained situation that looks bleak for at least several years in the future. The war that Bush started and then ignored in Afghanistan is a quagmire that shows no sign of getting better anytime soon. The other long term problems the Bush administration (and other politicians for decades before, for that matter) ignored - our rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, the health care system's dysfunction, college affordability, our long term trade and budget deficits - certainly don't help the country's sense of well being, or our ability to compete in the world economy of the 21st century.
Even problems less monumental are also tests of Presidential leadership. Jimmy Carter's inability to solve the hostage crisis contributed greatly to his failure as President, and Harry Truman's failure to win or end the Korean War made it impossible for him to run for re-election in spite of all his other accomplishments. LBJ, Ford, Carter, and George HW Bush all failed to get along with their party's respective base, and that alone would have doomed their Presidency. (No President with a strong primary challenge from their base has ever won re-election.)
Again, it doesn't matter whether these problems are some one else's fault, or just bad luck: it is up to the President to deal successfully with whatever they are faced with. Period, end of story. [More in the extended entry]
It's not just a political question, it's a cognitive one. And of course, it's not just Rachel Maddow.
This diary has three parts: The Setup, in which Obama overpraise is once again front and center. The Reality Check, in which I once again remind folks of what LBJ did aside from the Vietnam War, and the Cognitive Science Reflection, in which I take advantage of an essay series by Errol Morris this week--helpfully pointed out by TSlavin which deals in part with the question "What if you're too incompetent to realize that you're incompetent?"
The Setup: Overpraising Obama Once Again
Rachel Maddow has been on a bit of a tear lately. Her coverage of the BP oil spill has been well beyond anyone else similarly situated in the media, and as I noted yesterday in "Why is Rachel Maddow the only one who understands what's going on?", she's the only one who got to the very heart of the contradiction in McChrystal's conduct, which went to the very essence of the "logic" of the Afghan War.
It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations. On the occasion of the Wall Street reform announcement today, Taegan Goddard at "CQ Politics" wrote, "Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform this country."
Even before today`s historic Wall Street reform agreement, President Obama, of course, did what politicians have been trying to do for more than 60 years. He passed health reform, which, for the first time, establishes government responsibility for the health care of American citizens.
Consider also the stimulus bill. It didn`t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system.
It was the largest investment in infrastructure since Ike....
But presidential legacies are complex. Not even the Reagan administration`s legacy is pure as the conservative-driven snow. But Taegan Goddard at "CQ Politics" was right today about nothing this big happening since FDR.
The list of legislative accomplishments of this president in half a term even before energy reform which he`s probably going to get to is, to quote the vice president, "a big freaking deal." Love this administration or hate it, this president is getting a lot done.
The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that.
I have just three letters to say to Maddow, the same three letters I had to say to her back in January ("Efficiency vs. Effectiveness"): L-B-J.
Most politics buffs probably watched this ad at one time or another. And after it was over, they may have wondered - how in the world was the daisy ad so effective?
By modern standards, it seems both outdated and completely transparent. The implication is most unsubtle: voting for Senator Barry Goldwater will bring nuclear war. Today's viewer might find it somewhat ridiculous, even laughable. It would be as if Senator Barack Obama cut an ad implying that Senator John McCain would start World War Three.
Yet the Daisy Ad worked. Mr. Goldwater went on to lose the election by a landslide, partly as a result of said ad.
This was because in 1964, believe it or not, many Americans actually worried that Mr. Goldwater might use nuclear weapons.
Hello Open Left. I'm reposting this diary to see if anyone responds to it since the message is ever more relevant since the WH is not interested in supporting the most popular element of reform now that reconciliation is on the table; the public option. Yes it would be stronger and robust if the house hadn't rid it of Medicare reimbursement rates, but it's a platform to build on because it has federal administration with the access to care and low cost bringing down the deficit with it.
As you can see it hardly received any attention at all. I put a lot of work in when I decide to write a diary and posting early in the morning doesn't always work either. So I mainly just write comments now and they get more notice.
The Senate bill as it is won't pass the House(Many people need to get over this and accept it) and no one can get mad at the House because they have constituents as well. everything in the 2008 Democratic campaign platform all around regarding HCR was surrendered, not compromised. Compromise is a two way street and the House Progressive Caucus deserves something in order to deliver for their constituents.
Bipartisanship with no principle is surrender not bipartisanship. I should of named it that, but here's my diary on this important subject and in depth review of what went behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relating to today and today's flawed surrender; the correct name for this type of bipartisanship.
Without further ado I re-post this. I hope you read and enjoy it.
-----------------------------------------------
Hello all. Right now I am going to finish up a series I wrote during the Primary (and I was in Primary mode so remember that when looking back) titles Partisanship Never Was the Problem and in most cases where something big had to be passed, this rang true as I outlined with FDR and the New Deal and Truman and his Fair Deal even though only one provision of that passed; it was the fight that Truman brought to put civil rights and UHC on the map building on what FDR created regarding the Civil Rights division in the Justice Department and FDR adopting his cousin's and father of the Progressive Era's platforms, who actually had the first UHC proposal.
"Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things." Peter F. Drucker
A range of people have commented about CQ's analysis showing that Barack Obama has achieved a record level of success in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position. Many people would take this to be a measure of presidential effectiveness. Many people would be wrong. It's a measure of presidential efficiency, nothing more, nothing less.
For me, given all that's happened--and all that hasn't--over the past year, the most obvious comment would be, "So?" When you haven't done what needs to be done, no other measure really matters, even especially if it purports to show that you're number one.
Here's the chart of CQ's data, back to when they first started keeping track. Note how good Bill Clinton looked in 1993/1994. Note that one of the "big" wins that contributed to his near-record performance was the passage of NAFTA:
I want to address a fundamental misunderstanding that seems to be directed at just about everyone here at Open Left-the notion that just because we frequently critricize Obama, we therefore hate him. This is, quite frankly, such an absurd notion on its face that I've been remise in not addressing it sooner. So let me be as clear as possible: To criticize a politician is not necessarily to attack him. Indeed, it is simply the most basic duty of a citizen, and a necessary precondition for the politician being criticized to reach their full potential.
Our leaders are not kings, indeed, they are not even our leaders. They are followers of the true leaders-those who recognize injustice and refuse to accept it.
Left: Civil Rights marchers paid the price of freedom in Selma, Alabama a week before LBJ took up their cause and introduced the Voting Rights Act, using their rallying cry, "We Shall Overcome." Congressman John Lewis was among those beaten.
Officeholders, on the other hand, may not be true leaders, but they are (1) public servants and (2) official leaders. On both counts, listening and responding to public criticism is, quite simply, an integral part of the job they've taken on. Bad things happen when they forget this-but worse things happen when the people themselves forget this. And that's what we seem to be in danger of, when Obama supporters start treating him like a man who can do no wrong, a man that none of us should criticize. We rightly criticize coservatives for taking this same attitude toward palapable fools, but the atttitude itself is fust as flawed when directed toward far superior men.
And that's where Lynodon Johnson comes it. You see, the Vietnam War was such a terrible event in our history, such a long, drawn-out, bloody crime, that it's difficult for most people to remember all the other things that Lyndon Johnson did-the things that, unlike the Vietnam War, he actually believed in. In order to really understand how bad the Vietnam War was, morally and political for our nation, you have to appreciate how good Lyndon Johnson really was. He was, in terms of his domestic record, the second greatest President of the 20th Century-second only to FDR. Part of his greatness was born of his own intentions, and part of it came from his openness to others.
STATE BLOGS
