Obama's Health Care Speech In Perspective

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:30


Following Obama's speech, Mike wrote a diary praising it (Hitting The Jackpot), while David wrote a diary underscoring its deficits ("Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech").  I immediately thought that both had a point.  Obama had given progressives reason to hope-but only because progressives had finally gotten aggressive and drawn a line in the sand.  And David had pointed what Mike was overlooking, and just how little reason there was to let up.  That's what I thought Wednesday night.

By now, it's clearly back to business-as-usual, squeezing the progressive to get back into line.  But in the process, an inconvenient truth was let out of the bag:  Obama's speech placating the liberals was a big hit with the public.  Sure, some of it was because he smacked down some big rightwing lies.  But if liberalism was really so terribly unpopular, what with us being a "center-right nation" and all, then the gains Obama made by debunking rightwing lies should have been undercut by his liberal moves-not just supporting the public option, but also praising Ted Kennedy.

In short, once again, Obama has inadvertently exposed the profound disconnect between conservative Versailles and progressive America.  Unfortunately Obama is on the wrong side of that divide, despite sporadic rhetorical forays to the contrary.

A closer look at the speech and Mike and David's take on it on the flip.
Paul Rosenberg :: Obama's Health Care Speech In Perspective
I want to move backwards in the rest of this diary, starting with Mike and David's responses, then moving to the speech itself.

Here's the key passage from Mike's diary:

Well, he hit the jackpot tonight. I have been listening closely to Presidential speeches for about 35 years now, have watched quite a few oldies but goodies from the past, have even contributed ideas to a fair share of speeches in the Clinton years, and I am sitting here thinking that was one of the very best Presidential speeches I have ever heard. JFK's inaugural and a couple of FDR's best are the only ones I can think of that moved me so much. More importantly, though, he did everything he needed to do:
  • Lay out clearly what he strongly believes in
  • Make a powerful argument for why we need to get this done
  • Answer the phony scare tactics
  • Fire up the people around the country who want to get this done to keep working to make it happen

On the public option, as I expected him to do given his long-term strategy, he kept his options open. No one should feel surprised that he did that given that he has been clear from the beginning that he is going to be open to negotiations with Senators like Snowe and Ben Nelson on the issue. But I was pleased that he made clear not only that he was for a public option, but gave a full-throated multi-paragraph defense of it. He did what public option advocates needed him to do, which was to make clear that he supported it.

My first take is, "Dude, check out LBJ's 'We Shall Overcome' speech."

My second take is that all the above is quite true in theory.  In theory, Barack Obama is a progressive leader.  In practice, well, we've yet to even get him to follow, which is where the Progressive Block standing firm on the public option comes in.

Yes, Obama did give an extended defense of the public option, but then he undercut it in two ways-first by suggesting that it could be replaced, and second by lecturing progressives that it was "only a means to an end."  (Dare I remind Obama that health insurance of any sort is only a means to an end?  Indeed, health care itself is only a means to an end?  So what kind of crap is that argument?)

So, in short, I can understand Mike's rationale, and even see the usefulness in it.  ("Keep hope alive," as Jesse Jackson would say.)  But the positive aspects of this speech-indeed, the very existence of the speech-were not a matter of Obama's own choosing.  He attacked the conservative lies, because simply smiling and taking it had produced exactly the same disastrous results as when Kerry tried this tactic with the Swiftboaters 5 Augusts before.  And he reverted to rhetorical liberalism because the Progressive Block made it impossible for him to continue treating them like the plague.  On both counts, the lesson was the same: pressure works.  You get more respect with a shotgun and a kind word than you do with a kind word alone.  Them's the rules in Obamatown.

David's main points could be summed up thus:

- Why do Republican presidents and politicians never bash "The Right," but President Obama uses a joint session speech to bash/call out "The Left?"
- Obama felt the need to tell the country that he's devoted to making sure the wildly unpopular private insurance industry at the heart of the health care meltdown remains profitable. He also made sure to forget that Americans love Medicare and hate private insurance....
- Completely unclear why Obama promised to "call out lies," and then proceeded to embrace the Right's most dishonest narrative about tort reform being a major vehicle to fix health care....
- The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Really - his insistence that he supports it but might also support removing it reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit parodying wavering and waffling Democrats....
- Though he didn't draw a direct equivalence, he implied there was one between the progressive push for single payer and the ultra-conservative push to destroy the entire health care system. Sick.

There's really not much to say about this.  Some commentators dumped on David's "attitude."  But his attitude was that of actually paying attention  to what Obama said.  And if we don't pay attention to what politicians say and do, then everything else we do is just so much BS, based on wishes and hopes.

Some argued that the speech was a hit, so David was somehow missing the point.  But so what if the speech was a hit?  What good would that do in the long run?  (After all, Clinton's health care speech at a similar point in time was also a hit.)  The points David stressed have a good deal of bearing on the limits of what possible good can come from such a speech.  And if people can't see the point of such a beyond-the-feelgood-moment perspective, then there's really no point in arguing with them.  They will never have any real impact on our nation's politics.

And that's the whole point of our writing here-to empower each other to have real impact on our country's politics and its future.

So what about my take on the speech directly?  Well, my main takeaway was that progressives forced him to say nice things about liberals and liberal ideas-including the public option.  This is a start-but only a start.  We need to keep up the pressure and intensify it. Obama is never going to give us anything out of the goodness of his heart.  He just isn't.  For whatever reason, he's just not wired that way.

But Obama can be pressured into being a good enough leader on the way to something better.  He embodies all the flaws that David pointed out, and those are never going to go away. But they can be forced into the background, if we force other factors into the fore.  That's our job.  That's our mission.  And I believe this speech-properly understood-did a good deal to clarify both who Obama is, and what our relationship with him needs to be.

Yes, it would be very nice if he were who many of us took him to be.  But he's not.  He's the guy who's going to justify forcing everyone to buy insurance by talking about shared responsibility-but not use the logic of shared responsibility to argue for Medicare for All. And he'll never make policy based on individual responsibility for banksters or Bush Administration criminals-at least not without 10 times more pressure than we've brought to bear so far on the public option.

He is a child of Reagan.  I wish he were not, but he has told so in innumerable ways innumerable times.

He is a child of Reagan.  Rhetoric is more real to him than reality will ever be. Even his own mother's death, and the heartlessness of her insurance company during that ordeal have no more visible impact on him than any other anecdote he might choose to tell.

He is a child of Reagan.  Deal with it.  That's what holding firm on the public option is all about.  Force his choices, and his rhetoric will follow.

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama's Health Care Speech In Perspective | 91 comments
Point in time (4.00 / 1)
After all, Clinton's health care speech at a similar point in time was also a hit.

Actually, Clinton's speech was at the very beginning of the process, whereas Obama's was towards the end.  A similar point in time would have been last May.  This was on purpose and one of the smarter parts of the Obama strategy.

Ok, back to reading the rest of what you wrote....

Calendar Time n/t (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
We agree on everything measurable (4.00 / 2)
I don't think we agree on what is going on inside of Obama's head -- for example, I think he really does want the public option, but doesn't think it will pass -- but at the end of the day that doesn't even matter.  When it comes to what is measurable, so what is visible on the outside and how to get the results we want, I think we completely agree.
Not Sure We Disagree (4.00 / 5)
I don't pretend to know his innermost thoughts.  I just know that he won't fight for it unless pushed to the wall--so we have to push.  If he becomes completely convinced that dropping the public option will kill the bill, then he'll flip--whatever's going on inside his head.  (And how can you assume that even he knows that?)

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
I think this is exactly the correct take on our President. (0.00 / 0)
I agree with Amrk above, that the reasons for Obama's actions are different than you surmise. I think, and this is a vague opinion, that Obama is trying to create a coalition that leaves out the crazies. As far as that goes, its very very useful. He is willing to make concessions to keep that coalition together. I don't think he wants to build a coalition of leaders, and want s a coalition of voters that will create their own leaders eventually. And I think he is trying to build that new centre, over here, somewhat.

But this is spot on the money, this is the point we need to understand:

But Obama can be pressured into being a good enough leader on the way to something better.  He embodies all the flaws that David pointed out, and those are never going to go away. But they can be forced into the background, if we force other factors into the fore.  That's our job.  That's our mission.  And I believe this speech-properly understood-did a good deal to clarify both who Obama is, and what our relationship with him needs to be.
That it is also what we should be doing anyway ...is more than all to the good.

We are not going to save the planet with "small, going to be good enough eventually policies" - we are not going to end the militarization, reverse the drive for war as economic stimulus, or remove carbon from our atmosphere and oceans with "well can we agree this much" partial moves.

Progressives are going to need to organize vetter, pressure more, and draw more lines in the sand.

The win on the publ;ic option is vital to America's health, vital to ending the strangle hold of the right on political discussion, vital to starting the process of being powerful enough to force Obama to factor in the real solutions that will not be shoved aside for any 'grand vision' of what he thinks we need.

Thanks Paul, very good article. I appreciate that you took the time to put it in perspective.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
IWish I Could Agree With You (4.00 / 4)
when you say (the bolded part in particular:

that Obama is trying to create a coalition that leaves out the crazies. As far as that goes, its very very useful. He is willing to make concessions to keep that coalition together. I don't think he wants to build a coalition of leaders, and want s a coalition of voters that will create their own leaders eventually.

but I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever.

In fact, quite the opposite.  If he were after a coalition of voters, he would have campaigned for the stimulus by doing local events with parents, teachers, principals, doctors and nurses to double the size of the state stabilization funds in the stimulus bill.  And he would have done that especially in the state of Maine, rather than praising the two GOP pseudo-moderates who slashed the hell out of state money for schoolkids and health care.

And that's just one example.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
He's smart, not as smart as some dream, but smart. (0.00 / 0)
I am more than sure that Obama will be doing far more public events in the future. The problem is that it is time consuming. He cannot 'address a joint session of congress' seven times a year. How many visits can he do to local schools in fifty states during a four year period let alone for one project.

If we have data points on direct public speaking from past Presidents, we could maybe cut the most prolific speakers frequency in half, and hope that he has time to do those.

I would love to hear a public engagement scenario that overcomes those limits, and see what can improved over the recent past. Axelrod and the rest must be damn pleased with the results of the health speech, and will want to "apply Obama" again when and as soon as possible.

I hope they see the benefit of directr appeals, it benefits us all. And for exactly the reason you sate at the beginming of this, again, very good article.

But in the process, an inconvenient truth was let out of the bag:  Obama's speech placating the liberals was a big hit with the public.  Sure, some of it was because he smacked down some big rightwing lies.  But if liberalism was really so terribly unpopular, what with us being a "center-right nation" and all, then the gains Obama made by debunking rightwing lies should have been undercut by his liberal moves-not just supporting the public option, but also praising Ted Kennedy.

Because there is an emerging progressive majority, and we all need to not remember that, but remind Obama of that, and remind the people of that and try (and try) and try to remind the press of that. But mainly WE have toi remeber that, because it gives us the strength we need to fight unstintingly, like keeping true to the line the sand.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Smart, but ..... (0.00 / 0)
SPINELESS!
[ Parent ]
Well, give credit (4.00 / 1)
Finally we've got a workable explanation for why the policy  the "little single payer advocates" are fighting for is off the table:

The "crazies" are the ones who advocate the policy that works!

Reminds me of Iraq, in a way.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Isn't That The First Rule Of Empire? (4.00 / 1)
The "crazies" are the ones who advocate the policy that works!

Pretty sure it is.

I know it's not the first Rule of Acquisition.  That's for damn sure!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Wow lambert feeling persecuted much? (0.00 / 0)
LOL, the crazies is a reference to Bill Maher's show, and others since, about the fact there are two parties in America, the Centre Right Party, and the Crazies. I use it to extend wacko wacko to the just the birther/deather/Republican Leadership crazies, not the old baddies of the republican party, like Dole and Powell.

But whatever works for ya.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Why?

Well, except for the fruit flies in my kitchen, but that's only because I'm starting to bring the tomatoes in.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Greenwald has an entirely different take on"crazies" (0.00 / 0)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

I'm pretty sure that's the sense lambert meant it, though I certainly won't speak for him -- he speaks for himself very clearly.

[ Parent ]
but...incrementalism...Obama's speech made me see the light... (4.00 / 1)
We are not going to save the planet with "small, going to be good enough eventually policies" - we are not going to end the militarization, reverse the drive for war as economic stimulus, or remove carbon from our atmosphere and oceans with "well can we agree this much" partial moves.

I have been very cynical the past two months thinking the Dems were well on the way to lose yet another important political battle. I have to say now that Obama's speech (yes, rhetoric) completely turned me around in my thinking.

Or, maybe it was the intransigence of the Republicans.

Whatever, the point is I now think Congress should pass a bill with some sort of public option - in his speech Obama said it wouldn't take effect for four (4) years and would only cover five (5) percent of the population.

I know that's way less than ideal, but let some sort of public plan be installed. If this is done the bogey man factor against it goes away, and then it can be improved upon.

Change usually happens incrementally in this country.

The bill would also include some important and necessary insurance reforms, such as eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions.

Even a watered down public option might require the Progressive Caucus to hold its ground on the Block Pledge. This would be a bonus. The Progressive Caucus gets the chance to flex its muscle, thus becoming stronger.

[ Parent ]
How hard to push? (4.00 / 1)
I think you have to go farther than threatening to kill the bill.  I think you have to threaten to completely wreck his presidency to the point that he risks a segment of the people who voted for him walking away with the (false) perception that America just wasn't ready for a black president.

That's a very difficult proposition to get politicians to back.  Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus will think twice about such a strategy if it threatens to cost them committee chairmanships and the Democratic majority.  Republicans get more done because they are willing to engage in such high-stakes gambling, perhaps because they have ideological blinders that cause them to improperly assess risk.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Yes And No (4.00 / 2)
I think your bottom line point is correct--the GOP is willing to go further, and it's not just because of the reasons you state, but also because there are powerful outside institutions engaged as well.  Hacker & Pierson's Off-Center analyzed this in some detail.

However, I think that threatening to kill the bill will by itself pose enough of a threat to Obama's presidency and the two-faced Blue Dogs' re-election chances that they will have to shift.  Naturally, they don't want to, which is why they've trying to kill the public option in private, never letting it see the light of day.

Obama's already had to compromise much more than he wanted to simply by talking about it so much in such a high-profile venue.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The presidient must meet with the Progressive Caucus (0.00 / 0)
All or as many of them as possible, Progressive, Black, Hispanic, Tricaucus, even maybe a few Blue Dogs who support the public option

We must force him to meet with them

Why?  

Meeting with them does a few things

1. He actaully will know their strength and that they mean it.  He now thinks he can roll them

2. Refusing to meet them is not only dissing them but disempowering them.  They don't get to see themselves stand strong and together.  It is vaidating to them to see their own power....In a Maslovian sense it would be actualizing and the lack of a meting stops that

3.  A meeting makes the media and the conservadems take them seriously

4. A meeting in some numbers will make many of see that it can be done...that they will be taken seriously

5. A meeting can be stop the process of putting the pressure on the progressives but turning it onto the conservadems in the Senate and the House.

6. Obama met with the Blue Dogs and the Seante Conservadems and that empowers them- to him and to themselves.

I think that is one thing we can do to pressure Barack Obama to be the president we need him to be.

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Nope. Kill the Bill. There is no point to try and hurt Obama directly. (0.00 / 0)
As far as he goes, hes a benefit. The thing we need is not just the power to take away but the power to deliver. I am more than willing to support "Single Payer" democrats over other democtats, which is criticism and rebuke enough for me.

We can't have a better President for a while. Prove me wrong, and I'll take a look at your candidate, but until then, any effort top bring him down is a gift to Rush Limbaugh. And at soem point, they just point at the left and wave bye bye.

We are going to get Public Option, without Obama's help, but we could not get it without Obama.

This isn't popular here, but I have seen no argument beyond defeating the Democrats for a generation that points in any other direction. And that is crazier than Glen Beck.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Missing the point (4.00 / 1)
The point is that a health care bill is too important to the administration to allow it to be defeated.  Obama's people understand that.  That is why the progressive caucus has to stand firm and stare him down--giving Obama no choice but to go with the public option.  His next task will be to brow beat the conservadems in the Senate to not join a filibuster.

This is the only way we succeed.


I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

[ Parent ]
This is exactly my point, That is the first three words of my point (0.00 / 0)
Nope. Kill the Bill.

Stand strong, make no waver, we are not afraid.

The only point other =than standing without any thought of giving up is that there is no point for this

I think you have to threaten to completely wreck his presidency to the point that he risks a segment of the people who voted for him walking away with the (false) perception that America just wasn't ready for a black president.

Which is as crazy as Michelle Bachmann. As much as we regret Obama's position, and lack of strong push for the Public Option, his speech made sure that there would be a Bill, that hasnt happened before, and because he is not opposing it, we can ensure the Public option. Regret is not opposition.


We can't have a better President for a while. Prove me wrong, and I'll take a look at your candidate, but until then, any effort top bring him down is a gift to Rush Limbaugh.

Oppose the Bill, point out it is already a compromise, demand nothing less. Support Obama's demand that the bill be passed, insist that it contains at least a strong public option.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Some good points here, but, (4.00 / 3)
I think the part about the impact of his own mother's death is a bit on the unnecessarily nasty side, really.

Other than that, though, I agree that there's cause for hope, but only if we maintain and increase the level of pressure from the progressive left.  First, we must win this one--either by accomplishing the passage of true reform legislation with a robust public option without triggers, or by defeating any legislation that fails to include this option.

Obama uses soaring rhetoric and then deliberately muddies the waters on the policy implications (4.00 / 11)
Obama's speech brings into stark reality the fact that he can only take a stand on behalf of the people rhetorically but not legislatively.

In fact, his pro-public rhetoric and anti-public legislative stands that muddy the waters policy-wise appear to be his basic modus operandi.

The man is simply unable to frame legislation aimed at enhancing the public good when it contradicts the interests of the most powerful actors in the room, in this case the private insurance interests in the corporate sector and the key decision-makers in Congressional committees who hold sway over health care reform.

I am a political scientist by training, academically, and I scrutinize his pronouncements to see what power centers and political interests they favor in terms of who gets what, when, where, why and how. In other words, I follow the money trail and try to figure out who benefits and who loses.

What Obama has done so far in his administration policy-wise, as far as I can determine, is preside over the largest transfer of wealth to the private sector and wealthy Americans of any American president.

From the $24 trillion bank bailout that the Obama administration has authorized (see report of the Special Inspector General) to the stimulus bill and now the health care bill, he has done everything possible to move money out of the hands of American workers and taxpayers and transfer it to the corporate sector.

What is so amazing about his support of predatory corporations through confiscatory public policies is that he camouflages it with his soaring rhetorical gestures that seem to recognize the needs of the people.

That is what makes Obama so dangerous. Many eople who watched his speech to the joint session of Congress were so taken in by his rhetoric that they were completely unable to follow the money trail of just what he was proposing, which is to grossly inflate the profits of the private insurance industry at the expense of the American people.

What makes following the money trail so difficult is that Obama typically and deliberately creates as much confusion as possible about what policies and programs he is actually proposing.

He amplifies the confusion by making assertions about seeking bipartisanship among quarreling factions whose quarrels he himself has stoked by refusing to formulate clear-cut proposals.

I believe that he refrained from intervening this summer when corporate interests started funding mobs of rightwingers to disrupt town halls because he wanted to pump up the political weight of center-right interests so that he could justify dropping the public option and his selling the health care store to private insurance companies.

What I am NOT saying, however, is that Obama is a totally disingenuous politician, despite the fact that he appears more often than not to be one.

Obama is exactly the kind of president that inevitably emerges from an electoral system and political parties as corrupt as ours. He had to make so many deals with corporate interests to get the campaign contributions he needed to fund his presidential bid (and will need to run in 2012) that he is simply not a free agent.

Moreover, he is dealing with a Congress the majority of whose members did exactly what he did, which is to make deals with corporate campaign contributors.

So more often than not they and he behave just like influence peddling politicians.

Last but not least, as an African American who grew up in a Caucasian dominated society, I believe that Obama learned at an early age that when involved in a conflict, the best path to take is to position himself as a mediator among the conflicting parties. Instead of taking a stand himself, he found it more advantageous to divide up contested loaves of bread among the adversaries, each portion commensurate to the relative power of each conflicting party.

How that Obama is president, he uses the same modus operandi, which in the case of the bailout and health care reform, in particular, allows corporate interests to dominate public policy-making.

Clearly, the only path for progressives to take is to work around Obama and his peculiar modes of operating and focus all our attention on getting progressives elected to every open legislative seat in government that we can.

Otherwise, the damage that Obama will do to the public good is immeasurable.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

   

I'm Halfway Between You And HouseofProgress (4.00 / 2)
I can neither be as cynical nor as hopeful, but I think you both have a piece of the truth.  I see Obama as very much constrained by his ideology, much of which is opaque to him and merged with his psychology.  So there is less freely chosen deliberation involved than most folks believe.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
But I think all three of us agree, that the short term need (4.00 / 1)
is strong organizing, strong messaging and a very real use of power to drive congress.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Just musing alongside your observations. (4.00 / 1)
What Obama has done so far in his administration policy-wise, as far as I can determine, is preside over the largest transfer of wealth to the private sector and wealthy Americans of any American president. - Nancy Bordier

I have no objection to your major points, but I would extend this statement in a couple of ways.  Obama has participated in the largest blatant and obvious transfer of wealth ... to, perhaps, one particular corner of the private sector.

I have little doubt that, like torture and rendition, some elements of Bush 'policy' had been going on for some time before Bush.  Perhaps, not on the same scale or as broadly conducted, but present nevertheless.  It just hasn't been well known, or the admission hadn't been made quite so openly.  The lid came off that with Bush.  It's how blatantly obvious this circumstance is, how openly it's being conducted, and how hard the press has worked to make it all seem perfectly acceptable.  As if it is the natural order of things.

While it shouldn't be overlooked that Bush initiated this blatant and obvious transfer, it is true that Obama has continued it.  And, it would appear that he is poised to extend that transfer to the medical insurance companies.  What is not entirely clear to me are the degrees of separation between the players in the finance industry who benefited from the Bush/Obama transfer, and those in the medical insurance companies who are poised to benefit, specifically, from Obama.  Insurance companies collect premiums and then look for places to invest.  In which case, the transfer might not be to the corporate sector, as much as it is a transfer to a particular element of the corporate sector.

All of which might suggest a much more intractable problem than Obama.  

[ Parent ]
This Is Really Complicated (0.00 / 0)
I've been digging around trying to get a good handle on economic history and theory to write something.  But so far as Obama's role is concerned, I'd just color him a whole lot more naive than anything else.

One can easily overstate the money transfer, as a lot of that is not money in the give-away sense compared with credits.  OTOH, once easily understate it, in that it's totally bailing out the very criminals who ought to be held primarily responsible.

More than anything, however, one can spread the responsibility for financial mismanagement all the way back to the "Keyensians" like Paul Samuelson who didn't understand Keyenes at all, and thus helped lead us into the stagflation of the 1970s, which was then used to "discredit Keyenes"--and then all the usual suspects who came afterwards.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Constrained by ideology, opaque and merged with psychology (4.00 / 3)
I agree with your (very insightful) observation, Paul, that "Obama as very much constrained by his ideology, much of which is opaque to him and merged with his psychology"-it neatly dispenses with the need to speculate as to what degree he is acting consciously in doing what Nancy Bordier observes. (Her distillation:

The man is simply unable to frame legislation aimed at enhancing the public good when it contradicts the interests of the most powerful actors in the room...

is as exquisitely simple as it is undeniably true.)

None of that is inconsistent with your point that Obama can be "pressured" but it seems as if his ideology/psychology constrains our pressure because of his perception of/reaction to it: In a very general sense, his psychological model excludes the process of "pressure" or contention as illegitimate. If the pressure is viewed by Obama as falling outside the narrow boundaries of what he sees "bipartisanship" or into "partisan bickering" (or however he weirdly characterizes his conflict avoidance), it's excluded.  Also, if it falls outside his "child of Reagan" ideology, it's excluded. It's an exceedingly small ambit in which to work, it seems to me, but seeking to expand that area-by changing his ideology/psychology-seems even harder. So he can be "pressured" but, arguably, only to a small degree. (I'm not referring specifically to the health care debate but more to the issue of just forcing him to be more of the leader "many of us took him to be.")

[ Parent ]
You're Right (4.00 / 4)
Obama does not initially see our pressure as legitimate.  He sees us as DFHs.  We say "International Law" and he hears "9/11 Truthers."

So the first barrier we have to pierce is that of his ideological denial.  He have to be so intractable, that he is forced to deal with us as legitimate.  As best I can tell (guess?) he is currently half-toying with doing that on the public option, and simultaneously feeling sick to his stomach with the prospect.

Tough!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
No - they say 9/11 Truthers, he hears International Law (0.00 / 0)
He was, after all, a law professor.

I also don't agree with the idea that Obama is/was naive, or with the approach of trying to analyze his presidency so far on basis of his psychology.

WTF - He's shown himself to be a politician. He came into POWER in the middle of an economic meltdown, so severe as to be compared to the Great Depression. I do fault him for surrounding himself with Clinton economic advisors who are corporate lackeys. Those were choices he made, perhaps even before the meltdown, but I understand that as part of being at the center of POWER.

There must be a million ways to make things work out..that's a line from a David Byrne song, but I think this is true.

Obama's presidency may yet end up with putting new regulations, programs, policies, etc. in place that support Progressive aims.

I think it's naive to expect radical change.

[ Parent ]
I think you are very right here about his psychology (4.00 / 2)
Some pressure and ideological ambit is within an acceptable sphere and left pressure falls outside his ideological and his personal psychological zone.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 4)
Your qualifications of my statements add clarity and lucidity to what I was trying to say.

But I would also point out that the $24 trillion that the Obama administration has set aside for bailouts is light years greater than the piddling trillions that the Bush administration squandered.

Yes, the stage was deliberately set during the Bush years for this confiscation of taxpayer dollars and resources and its bestowal on the banking and financial sector.

But instead of stopping it dead in its tracks, Obama and his administration (Geithner, Summers, etc.), together with Bernanke at the Federal Reserve and other lesser but nonetheless consequential agencies like the FDIC put their fingerprints and signatures all over the $24 trillion.

They could have stopped the confiscation after the first $300 billion went out the door under Bush, but they did the contrary. In fact, Obama went out of his way BEFORE his inauguration to threaten to veto any Congressional legislation that would interfere with the confiscation of the second half.

By way of comparison, compared to the measly $900 billion that Obama is willing to expend for health care reform over ten years, isn't it amazing that the entire country is not up in arms over the disparity between what he is giving them for health care and what he is giving to corrupt bankers and financiers?

It boggles my mind.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm, (4.00 / 1)
My understanding is that anything Obama does, that directly helps the middle class, must be revenue neutral.

The wanton distribution of bailout money to the banking and insurance industry (industry?) is based on the Administration's belief that these systems (people) can not be allowed to fail--or everything comes down. By the way, that is probably true for Obama on a personal level too.

And so this is why it is still secret exactly what happened to the bailout money. Obama is working hard, using taxpayer guarantees, to help the American bubble to implode a little more slowly. Who does that help? Who pays for this over the next century?

I doubt that Obama is fully aware of what's happening. As smart as he is, he is also naive.

It's time to invoke the name of Naomi Klein.

[ Parent ]
He's give political scientists and historians plenty to ponder in (4.00 / 2)
the short time he's been President and I for one think that once the clock goes off( inauguration) he's being measured.

However, in the last 10 days I have had Democratic progressive activists tell me 'but,but, he's only been President for 8 months, how can you criticize him?'

I just start listing things that are bothersome to me as a progressive):bailout to Wall St with little or no reform, smaller than should be stimulus bill in pursuit of the holy grail of bipartisanship, DADT, DOMA, Energy bill,his education policy which has not really popped up on radar yet but the unions are going to hate it when it finally gets attention, the ignoring of Bush Cheney abuses, ratcheting up Afghanistan, continuing renditions, and the signals of giving away the public option on health care.... and as I tick them off silence is usually the response.

Then I ask, 'Did you vote for any of that?'


[ Parent ]
Non-silence (0.00 / 0)
Sure, I'll dive into your list.

bailout to Wall St with little or no reform

Progressives have been analyzing health care for years, Obama came in with a well thought plan, congress was prepared, and so on.  No one had really thought about Wall Street reform until very recently.  Politically, the bailout and reform should have been tied together.  Policy wise you might be able to argue we should have enacted what felt right and fixed it later if need be, but that isn't so obvious.

The good news is Geithner came out with a plan, Franks is working on one in committee and public hatred opinion of the banking industry hasn't changed much.  The bad news is the banks are in a much better position to fight back then before.

smaller than should be stimulus bill in pursuit of the holy grail of bipartisanship

That bill passed the Senate filibuster by, what?, two more votes than needed.  That was no holy grail, that was reality.  Obama seems to keep making the same mistake of pre-compromising his initial proposal, which makes the end result worse than he needed -- I agree there. But the filibuster is the real culprit, not Obama.

DADT, DOMA

These are trickier.  If it really is just a matter of going through items in order of priority, I agree that these are lower then health care, preventing the Great Depression II, etc.  If these are being tossed aside, then there is a big problem.  Right now I can't tell the difference.

Energy bill

Here it is more clear that Energy is coming up quickly on the list of priorities.  So far I have no problem.

his education policy..., the ignoring of Bush Cheney abuses, ratcheting up Afghanistan, continuing renditions,

Here I basically agree with you.  For Bush abuses and Afghanistan Obama is doing exactly what he said he would (or would not) do, so at least those shouldn't be disappointments, even if they are problems.  Perhaps the same is true for education -- I didn't really pay as much attention to that in the elections.

[ Parent ]
You Missed Your True Calling, Mark (4.00 / 2)
You're a better Obama apologist than anyone on TV, including his press secretary.

It's all bullshit, of course. But much better bullshit than we get on the outertubes.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The stimulus wasn't filibustered (0.00 / 0)
it didn't have to be, it needed 60 votes to pass simply because it spent on the deficit.

another reason why the healthcare bill is deficit neutral, a fact that seemingly goes over the heads of the progressives lately.

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
I knew that at one point.
[ Parent ]
$24 Trillion (0.00 / 0)
Once again, you can't equate loans and loan guarantees with direct cash transfers.  Bush's tax breaks were direct cash transfers.  Furthermore, this is all printed money and only qualifies as a wealth transfer if you believe it is inflationary, which only the far right believes in this time of deflationary concerns.  Also, since they are loans that should be paid back, they don't add to the long term dept, alleviate inflationary concerns.

That isn't to say big loans can't make someone richer -- of course they can.  There is some wealth transfer involved, but it is only a small fraction of that $24 trillion.  Personally, I think to throw that number around as if that was money actually given away isn't honest.

[ Parent ]
Nancy (4.00 / 2)
I just want to commend the seriousness of your evaluation here.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Thanks so very much (4.00 / 1)
I must confess that it makes me nervous as hell when I write comments for Open Left because I am always trying to reach beyond my past understanding to new clarity for myself and for those of you for whom I write.

I get so riled up by outrage at what is happening to our country that I just start writing and can't stop rewriting and editing and rereading what I wrote for what often seems like an eternity.

Then I wait to see how my thoughts are received, fearing the worst, namely that I may have gone overboard or evoked a torrent of criticism for something I misstated or haven't yet clearly understood.

So it means more to me than you can imagine when I see that folks like you have gone in and posted a recommendation next to my comments.

All and all, the dialogs we have here have added enormously to my sense of optimism and confidence that we progressives will figure out how to wrest control of our sold out government.  

[ Parent ]
Your thank you makes my day (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Just read your earlier posts, including (0.00 / 0)

One day walking across my hometown's very historic town Green, (one of the centers of New England Townhall meeting governments) it was at that moment I realized I was a liberal.

We seem to have quite a bit in common. Where is this? I spent my high school years in Greenwich, Connecticut, also known for its town meetings.

In fact, I'm coming up from Washington, D.C. for my 50th Greenwich High School reunion next month!

The following re your generous contribution to Open Left also made me chuckle:

I consider Open Left an investment in the future that I want for my daughter, her new husband and the grandchildren I (and they too, really I am not just a typical, nudgy mother!) am hoping for.

I have three grandchildren and hope you too experience this great joy in the not too distant future. For a while I thought of myself as rather like an eccentric Auntie Mame type grandmother teaching them to be as outrageous as possible, but now realize that I'm just a traditional doting grandmother like everybody else.  

[ Parent ]
Guilford, Conn founded in 1639 by the Reverend Henry Whitfield (0.00 / 0)
The town has 500 pre Revolutionary War houses.  The oldest stone house in the American colonies.  And on the rectangular town green with a white Congregational Church with a steeple at its head, there is a Civil War statue with names of those who died in the war, the same names as the people I went to school with.

And when I went to High School the town spent all its money on making sure its children had a good education.

The opticians window had piles and piles of unclaimed glasses...50 years worth.  

Sort of reminds me of the top of my own bureau, haven't thrown away a pair in decades.

Oh, one house on the Green had been where the Marquise de Lafayette stayed when he came back to America on a trip.

The epitome of New England democracy. It was a Republican town then, now it's a Democratic one.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Greenwich, CT (0.00 / 0)
When I attended public school in Greenwich, there were no homeless children and pediatricians made house calls.

We learned that the representative town meeting was the place where all important decisions were made.

Boy, did things change after I left for college in 1959. When I returned in 1979, my children came home from school with horror stories about children living in their cars!

I moved to Westchester in 1981 and only returned to Greenwich last year which I spent in North Salem writing Re-Inventing Democracy.

Greenwich had metamorphosed again.

I ventured into Greenwich a number of times to see for myself the new dimensions of the place. It has become home central for hedge funds and hedge fund managers who have upscaled just about everything in sight.

For example, the houses that I and many of my classmates lived in have been bought by owners who have doubled, tripled and even quadrupled their size.

The following article in the New York Times about a hedge fund manager living in a palatial residence in Greenwich captures the essence of the new gilded age in which the top 10% of wealth Americans lives: For Steven Cohen, 35,000 Square Feet Isn't Enough.

Needless to say, I didn't see any homeless people in Greenwich when I drove through it.

I do not know how the democratic process is faring in the representative town meeting, but with U.S. taxpayers' bailout money flowing into the pockets of the wealthy financiers who live there, I am pretty sure that they are doing just fine in most if not all respects.  

[ Parent ]
That nervousness is a positive symptom... (4.00 / 1)
..for out debates here having an impact on the participants. It will does a good to see our past opinions challanged, and to have to cope with different points of view. Being a passionate commenter, it happens regularly to me that I see different pieces of information falling into the right places, and a clearer picture emerging from that. The feedback, by rating and by answers, is essential for this process.

And I guess it's the same for you, and that your "nervousness" is just a subconscious concern about not knowing where the discussion will lead you. Nothing to fear, really.  

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
Yes, you make a very good point.

When I am writing a comment, just knowing that people with diverse and even divergent viewpoints might read it leads me to be as balanced and as objective I can be despite the fact that I am trying to make subjectively-driven points.

At the same time, I find it challenging to keep up with all the comments that are posted to a particularly provocative post, especially when they keep coming for an entire week-end.

Also, given the fact that there are so many diaries posted during a single week-end that elicit continuous overlapping comments, it can feel like a pretty bumpy terrain trying to follow them all and insert comments. I am mystified how it is that Paul Rosenberg manages to pull off his week-end extravaganzas week after week!

Maybe the time is coming when I should have multiple windows open, each focusing on a single diary and commentaries.

The whole phenomenon of weblogs definitely creates an "embarras du choix" to have so many streams of thought being generated at once, making it feel like standing in the middle of the White River Junction.  

[ Parent ]
Thanks. (4.00 / 7)
I can always count on you to talk me off the ledge.

If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain
I'm still on the ledge. (4.00 / 1)
Could someone come get me?
[ Parent ]
nah (4.00 / 1)
but I'll bring you a six-pack and we can hang out for awhile.  I'm finding myself there a bit too often nowadays.
[ Parent ]
Actually I'm just fine here. (0.00 / 0)
This post has created a wonderful parlour for a Saturday night.
[ Parent ]
Well, In That Case, Let Me Invite You To... (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
An unrelated perspective worth noting.. (4.00 / 1)
While C-span's right wing cable monster Brian Lamb chooses to air - live - the Right's tribute to Glen Beck, as it's quid pro quo payment for doing it's public service, MSNBC does the more responsible thing by airing a health care rally by the President of the United States - which it also did when Bush or Clinton spoke.

The growing disrespect to this President is angering me to such new heights I consider 'bipartisanship' to now be a filthy dirty word.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

Total disagreement on Lamb (0.00 / 0)
The guy built C-Span from scratch.  He's why you can watch the legislature on TV, just about the only consistently good PROGRESSIVE thing to come down the cable pipe these last 30 years.

As to the Tea Baggers, I think it is vital that they be seen for what they are.  I love the unvarnished, long-form opportunities C-Span affords for checking out the personalities that defend this society's unjust status quo.

Hands off my C-Span Worldymother dude!  

[ Parent ]
Ditto (0.00 / 0)
Show them as they are, not as they would have us see them.
[ Parent ]
LOVE (0.00 / 0)
The endless single camera wide angle shot.  Love that they leave the camera on so you can watch everybody shake hands and mingle.

Most of the telegenic communicator tricks are based on the "talking head" medium close-up and sound bite "debate" format that rules all other televised media.   C-Span is a total anomaly.  That is all Brian Lamb.

Also, probably my favorite interviewer.  He reads the books.  He asks simple, fundamental questions.  "What is your day like?"  "How did you get your job"  "Where do you do your writing?" Never tries to be somebody's pal.  Always unpacking jargon.  An anti-celebrity.  

Sorry.  Crush.  

[ Parent ]
Paul, it's generous of you to say (4.00 / 5)
that Lux "had a point" but isn't the reaction of someone like Lux--a prominent progressive blogger--not a small part of the problem?

I mean, Obama gives a speech in which, as everyone from Robert Reich to Claire McCaskill to David Brooks points out, he essentially killed the public option and embraced the Max Baucus approach to reform, in which he threw trial lawyers under the bus by embracing tort deform (as if that's essential to reform), in which he lectured the left but not the center, and then in response, liberals like Lux celebrate as if FDR had risen from the dead.

Maybe it's because certain progressives want to believe in Obama so badly they believe bullshit, or because liberalism has been so battered and beaten some people don't know how to tell the real thing from a bogus version. In either case, it doesn't bode well for change if an centrist neoliberal can impress much his base simply by saying a few sentimental paragraphs about Ted Kennedy.


I Stand By Arguing That It's More Complex (0.00 / 0)
Obama was forced to make concession to the left, and highlighting those concessions is a way of making the most of them.

Should it blind us to what else is going on in the speech?  Absolutely not! And that's where I focus most of my attention.  But there is good sense in what Mike is saying as well, even though it's not my own inclination.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Complex? Not really. (4.00 / 7)
Here is a speech in which, to quote Robert Reich, Obama sided...

with the Senate Finance Committee and against the Democratic base on the details. The President was careful to note that a public option is only a means to an end and he remained open to other ideas (read: Conrad's cooperatives or Snowe's trigger). The speech included nothing about Medicare bargaining leverage, thereby letting the drug deal stand. The President clearly sided with Senate Finance on the funding mechanism of a tax or fee on high-end insurance rather than a surtax on the wealthy. And his promise to limit the costs of universal coverage to $900 billion put the President directly in league with the Senate Finance Committee rather than than the House, whose bill is projected to cost more than $1 trillion.

Okay, to review, Obama used his big speech to oppose the progressive approach to health care reform. Sorry, I'm not so impressed that he said nice things about the public option, not least because it was in the plan he campaigned on. What a low bar.

In any case, Lux isn't "highlighting the concessions," he's beaming:

Well, he hit the jackpot tonight. I have been listening closely to Presidential speeches for about 35 years now, have watched quite a few oldies but goodies from the past, have even contributed ideas to a fair share of speeches in the Clinton years, and I am sitting here thinking that was one of the very best Presidential speeches I have ever heard.

And then, in the same breath, Lux tells us to hold his feet to the fire! I don't mean to pick on Lux, (or maybe I do) but the fact that a progressive blogger can call that one of the best speeches he's ever heard is to me emblematic of a larger problem.


[ Parent ]
No, It IS More Complex (4.00 / 2)
In any case, Lux isn't "highlighting the concessions," he's beaming:

He does both.  And I found the former useful, even as I didn't buy into the later.

(BTW, you really should check out the LBJ speech.  I hadn't done so in a while, and it holds up like you wouldn't believe.)

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I read it for the first time (4.00 / 2)
after you cited it the other day. Terrific. And tragic in retrospect, given this:


This is the richest, most powerful country which ever occupied this globe. The might of past empires is little compared to ours. But I do not want to be the president who built empires, or sought grandeur, or extended dominion.

I want to be the president who educated young children to the wonders of their world. I want to be the President who helped to feed the hungry and to prepare them to be taxpayers instead of tax eaters. I want to be the President who helped the poor to find their own way and who protected the right of every citizen to vote in every election. I want to be the President who helped to end hatred among his fellow men and who promoted love among the people of all races, all regions and all parties. I want to be the President who helped to end war among the brothers of this earth.


[ Parent ]
Yup (4.00 / 1)
He was truly a tragic figure in the Aristotelian sense. There really was no other president like him.  If not for Vietnam, he'd be remembered in the same league as FDR.  But for the most part he didn't have to be pressured to do the right thing.  He was driven.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam (0.00 / 0)
Despite his good speech-making. And the War on Poverty that he carried out - lots of good social programs and Medicare in 1965 - were on JFK's agenda.

LBJ left the Presidency a broken man, due to Vietnam. We ought to be watching Afghanistan a little more closely.

In sports it seems like underdogs who start out with big successes uually end up losing. Underdogs who start out slow get bigger and better.

Let's hope Obama is an underdog.

[ Parent ]
I know Bobby was more (4.00 / 1)
than a little miffed when LBJ failed to adequately credit Pres Kennedy for some of those progressive measures passed after his death.  Including the poverty bill -- one of the last substantive policy matters JFK was working on just before Dallas.

And Kennedy's 1962 Medicare bill -- so damn close.  A shift of one vote, and it's passed.

Of course, MajLeader Mansfield's top senate aide and nose counter, Bobby Baker (Lyndon's aide and crony in the 50s), well known for his ability to count votes, that one time in 62 had a curious "undercount" for the Ayes -- very unusual for him to be off by even one vote (LBJ had taught him well how to count real votes).  

The day after the bill was defeated, Baker took out a large loan at a bank owned in part by the biggest anti-Medicare senator of the time, OK Sen Rbt Kerr ...  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, politics sucks...thanks for the info (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
"Okay, to review, Obama used his big speech to oppose the progressive approach to health care reform. " (0.00 / 0)
Is this really what you heard? If we are talking about single-payer, that was taken off the table a long time ago, by the entire establishment. If we are talking public option, he did not "us[e] his big speech" to do anything of the sort.

Obama "used his big speech" to undercut his political rivals, gain support from the left by a tepid backing of the public option, and to give himself a way out if the public option is defeated. There is little evidence that Obama's real goal is to kill the public option, but plenty of evidence that he is willing to do so if it costs him passage of a bill he supports. Politicians are cowards. Hear anything from Feinstein lately? Sure, she shows bravado at the beginning of MoveOn's campaign, but the campaign certainly shut her up.  

[ Parent ]
It is to be acknowledged that Barack Obama was trying to extinguish the viability (0.00 / 0)
of the public option.  It is to be acknowledged though, for the moment, sotto voce.  Quietly amongst friends.

However it is also to be bruited about to the media and the public at large, that Barack Obama has upheld the public option in his speech.  Because doing that is a way of putting further pressure on him to mean his own words...and to get the media to tout that as well.

It is a negotiating strategy...which may work for now and may or may not need to be discarded later.

But yes it is important to keep one's eyes and ears alert...to what is really being said.

I think for most of the public it worked.  For the left it was just like all the best magician's a misdirection. Distracting the public while trying to do in the left.

But some of us are paying attention.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Child of Reagan (4.00 / 4)
Trace back politicians and a key period in their lives is the first ten years of adulthood.  I use 18-28 but it could be fudged a few years forward.  In Obama's case a 1961 birth places these years as 1979-89, clearly a child of Reagan.

It's a very good tool.  Jefferson's key years came during protests against the British.  He wrote the Declaration of Independence and formulated the first real political party in the world as an opposition party.  Madison's key years were during the Revolution and Confederation and his lesson was order.  Madison wrote much of the Constitution.

Both Bill Clinton and W were born in the same year (1946) but took different lessons from Vietnam.  Bush was a child of privilege; Clinton came from a very hardscrabble start (widowed mom went off to nursing school while grandma took care of him; alcoholic and abusive step-father).

LBJ was nine years older than JFK.  The lessons of the Depression were most important for LBJ.  For JFK, WW II was more the defining event.  Nixon was a tweener mixing a few social programs with an over-riding concern about stablility on the world stage.

Fwiw, each of the first seven Presidents was between 57 and 61 when inaugurated.  Only two since have hit the magic spot.  Bill Clinton became President at 46; Obama at 47.

One President stands alone.  George Washington not only was hugely influenced by the French and Indian War (aka Seven Years War), he was the only one to be a major player on the world stage for much of the key period.  Washington started a world war (probably the first real world war).  Then he took a major British army that was defeated and carried it on his back for about 200 miles to safety.  Then he was the principal guardian for much of the frontier. He also learned obe of the two secrets to being the richest man in the colonies: sweat equity surveying.  Washington was extremely active and took his fees in plots of land.  The other secret was marrying a rich woman who respected him.  

I visited "Washington's Office" from this period a year ago.  He certainly was not the individual pictured in the legend.  Yes, he was outstripped intellectually by Franklin and Jefferson.  Who wouldn't be? Franklin and Jefferson were major world class intellectuals.  The very fact that he was able to hang with these guys says a lot.  Washington may have been quiet but he was constantly, thinking, scheming, planning and doing.  Not only was Washington "no Grant" he was far ahead of all the other military Presidents (Jackson, Harrison I, Taylor, Grant,Ike).

Herbert Hoover's key period revolved around the second worst economic period in the country's history, the Panic of 1893 (a five year mini-depression).  Hoover's personal highlight was saving Europe from disaster and starvation after WWI.  Unfortunately, Hoover was not up to the bigger task of salvaging the country from the Depression.  He did try but could not think outside the box.

Add the ten years in with a few other factors (personal sorrows and tragedies like the death of Lincoln's intended wife and his mother, the death of TR's wife, FDR's polio, TR's asthma, the relative "failure" of LBJ's college-educated mother vs. the "success" of his backwoods legislator father, Nixon's lemon ranch  and death of the favored brother) and things frequently come together.  If I had to guess, the key other factor for Obama was the importance of his bank exec grandmother in "rescuing" him from the international DFH background of his mother and installing him however tenuously into the ranks of the upper class. Prep school, Columbia, Harvard Law.  The prep school being far and away the most important part of the story.

And yet in the end Hamilton was by far (4.00 / 1)
Washington's preferred advisor and right hand man, not Jefferson or Madison. I would argue that it was because Hamilton was both of their intellectual superior (even though in the end they were his political superiors), as well as a cynical and clear-eyed realist, at least in the way that Washington had long since been since his F&IW; experience. They feared centralized power. Washington and Hamilton believed that it was essential (and at the same time, needing to be checked so as to not turn into tyranny). Plus, both were in many ways self-made men. Washington was born into wealth, but didn't just sit on it and become yet another middling country aristocrat, and vastly exceeded what would have been his expected life arc. Hamilton was a bastard born into poverty, and had one of the most spectacular personal and career arc in American history. There was clearly an ideological, political and personal kinship there.

In any case, history lesson aside, I generally agree with you that people are to a large extent products of their formative years. Nothing groundbreaking there. But it's clearly far more than the collective events that they live through during those years that determine how they turn out. I'm just a few years younger than Obama, had certain similar experiences growing up, and yet I'm no Reaganite (even though many from my generation are, even if they claim to be liberals). Even as a child in the mid-70's I saw Reagan as a dimwitted fool, no more fit to be president than Gerald Ford's dog. I hated it when he got elected, despised him throughout his presidency, and never saw a single positive lesson to be learned from him, on a policy or political level. He pushed through horrible policies, and practiced a form of "patronize teh stoopids" politics that became the template for the next 30 years. And Obama appears to have overlearned that example (as he seems to have overlearned Clinton's as well).

I see Obama as a smart derivative thinker. That is, intellectually he's clearly gifted. But he appears to have stopped at assimilating the ideas of others, instead of trying to challenge them and see how and whether they fit into the world that he actually inhabits, and maybe modify them to better fit it. E.g. bipartisanship, centrism, consensus-building, overinclusiveness, etc. Listening to his many speeches, interviews and debates, I've sensed a certain preference for doctrinaire ideas and thought processes, as opposed to genuine intellectual investigation and engagement. His preferred ideas might be more liberal and sophisticated than Reagan's, but both appear to have gone shopping at the "Ready to wear" idea store, rather than at the "Do it yourself" store. Obama just happens to have spent more time in the adult department, while Reagan appears to have camped out in the toys section.

Also notice who Obama picked as his top advisors and lieutenants, which is quite telling. Aside from his Chicago gang (some of whom have obviously been discarded), nearly all are center or center-right experienced political hands. Clearly, he's a political conservative (and in some ways intellectual and even policy conservative, in the non-wingnut sense), who doesn't like new ideas or taking chances. He might tweak things a bit, but everything that he's done has been formulaic and politically safe. Risk-taking is simply not in his blood. He might talk bold, but he acts timid and safe. More like JFK than many other recent presidents, i.e. someone who SEEMS fresh and bold and innovative, but who is really just a younger and hipper version of the status quo. And like JFK, he needs to be pushed to actually do the things he promised to do. A deviance from the mean is simply not in his DNA.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

[ Parent ]
Risk Taking (0.00 / 0)
Risk-taking is simply not in his blood

Obama ran for president after only being in the Senate for four years.  Personally, I don't think anyone who runs for president can be considered unwilling to take risks, but this is especially true in Obama's case.

Yet I almost agree with this.  It's just a bit off.  I don't think the problem is risk taking, but in risk analysis.  In other words, I think he believes certain things are far more risky then we do.  I believe he has internalized the opinion of the Versailles and thinks they are factually correct.  They see Obama more as a risk taker, thinking this whole attempt to fix health care is an enormous risk on its own, for example.  I think Obama sees himself as that kind of risk taker as well.

I don't think Obama is entirely incorrect, either.  The problem with Versailles opinion isn't that it is wrong, the problem is they don't realize their opinion is self factualizing.  This is literally what the Overton Window is about.  In politics, perception of reality greatly influences actual reality.  What Obama only kind of gets is his ability to move that window and change perception.

[ Parent ]
I Agree WIth About 3/4 Of This (0.00 / 0)
And conceptual space in which our thinking overlaps has a fractal dimension.  So it would take an entire diary to untangle.

But I do agree that you're in the right ballpark, and ahead by 3 in the bottom of the 7th.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
risk taking (4.00 / 1)
Different levels of "risk taking": you can choose a course of action at which you might lose ("take a risk") and then pursue it boldly ("take a risk") or timidly. A person who bets on the house favorites at the track might be a risk taker or not, depending on how you view it.

You might have a preference or a behavioral inclination for doing the former (choosing a course of action) only if you plan to choose the safest (least risky) way of pursuing it. That's either "prudent" or "timid." You optimize your chances of winning but lower what you can win.

Obama might be both risk averse and faulty at assessing the risks.

If by "only kind of gets" you mean Obama doesn't get more than he gets his ability to move the Overton window, I agree with that.

[ Parent ]
Something to lose (0.00 / 0)
Here, all grant you this much on the risk taking.  I'm sure we've all seen sporting events, say a tennis Slam, where an unseeded underdog goes up against a big name player.  Sometimes the underdog decides s/he has nothing to lose and just goes all in on the risk taking.  Goes for the big shots and really plays to the best of his or her ability.

Then the underdog starts actually winning.

In theory, the underdog should just keep playing the same way -- after all, it is working.  In reality, the moment s/he realizes that victory might be at hand, the underdog starts to tighten up.  Now there is something to lose and it is much harder to take risks in that situation.

I'll admit Obama seems unwilling to take risks if he thinks victory is at hand.  Or more importantly from a progressive, political prospective, he never seems to contemplate how much more he can get.  He might take a risk up front, but won't take a risk to get more.

On the other hand, when his back is up against the wall he tends to go all in.  That is exactly the opposite of what you would expect someone to do who is adverse to risk taking.  Now maybe that is because Obama is just really smart and realize this is actually less risky then meekly hoping the problem goes away; but if his basic nature was simply to avoid risk, it wouldn't matter.

[ Parent ]
Very Apt (0.00 / 0)
I didn't see much risk-taking in Obama's decision to run for President.  Durbin had advised him to run now, as the longer he served, the more of a record he'd have to defend. He had an enormous wave of free, positive publicity coming from publishing his second book, and all he had to do was harness that wave to begin his presidential run.

Had he lost, there would have been very little downside. He might well be a top contender for the VP slot, and whether or not he was, he would be a frontrunner for the nomination in 2012, if the Dems had lost the general election.  Given that Clinton was seen to be a prohibitive favorite, and other attractive candidates might well emerge by 2012, or at least by 2016, it could very well look riskier not to make a move when he did.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Intellectually (0.00 / 0)
I think this is all true intellectually.  But when I contemplate whether someone is a "risk taker" or not, I'm thinking more about the emotional element.  How does someone react at a gut level.  It is at this level I'm arguing against claims that Obama instinctively tries to avoid risk as part of his character.

But I'll certainly accept that Obama isn't much of a risk taker in terms of intellectual, thought out strategy.  But this quickly segues into my post on risk analysis, making it hard to separate to tell.

[ Parent ]
not much risk taking in running for President (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I didn't either. (I meant to mention that but didn't have a chance before.)

To be fair to your point of view, Mark, if I might interpret your "gut level" comment, there remains sort of confidence  to Barack Obama. He's not a coward (not in the "turn and run" sense nor in the swaggering "bring it on" sense).

If you're saying he carries himself through the world "standing up" there might be something to that. I have one friend who just carries himself with a "don't mess with me" attitude (knows martial arts), never gets pushed around. He also happens to be the most cautious, risk-averse guy I know.

Obama is not quite like that but if you're thinking of something along those lines, I can see that.

[ Parent ]
Again, this type of view (0.00 / 0)
More like JFK than many other recent presidents, i.e. someone who SEEMS fresh and bold and innovative, but who is really just a younger and hipper version of the status quo. And like JFK, he needs to be pushed to actually do the things he promised to do.

just isn't borne out in the actual record of JFK.  Read the recent book by James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable for the true inside story, often overlooked by the mainstream historians, about how JFK was pushing back against the JCS and CIA and most of his own nat'l security team on numerous issues like VN, Laos, and formal first-strike nuclear war against the USSR.  Then the moves toward détente with the Soviets post-Missile Crisis, and the clandestine admin effort in 63 at a fresh start with Castro.  JFK almost alone at times was trying to move the country in a new progressive direction in FP areas.  Plenty sufficient motives right there for some powerful elements in our country to have him removed.

On domestic matters, he came w/n an eyelash -- one vote, in effect -- of passing Medicare legislation.  And when his own VP, Lyndon Johnson, advised him to hold off on pursuing CR legislation, Kennedy acted more quickly and boldly than some advised -- including his very liberal top adviser, Ted Sorensen.

Far from being pushed to do these things, in most cases mentioned most advisers were pushing on Kennedy not to act or to act cautiously in ways consistent with maintaining the status quo.

And on CR, when a few eager CR activists were saying he was stalling, he acted about when his very sharp political instincts told him it would be advisable to act -- and not a moment sooner.  Not unlike the way Abe Lincoln was seen by some to drag his feet on freeing the slaves -- against the constant urgent demands of the abolitionist wing of his party, Abe issued the EP when he thought the situation had sufficiently ripened and not before.

As for Obama, as I noted earlier, he's still acting too cautiously, too much in ways that mostly maintain the status quo.  Still waiting for the bold move where Obama defies the establishment and goes against the grain, with all the political risks that might entail.    

[ Parent ]
Children of Clinton, Bush and Obama (0.00 / 0)
Where I really feel great hope is this era is generating one of the great liberal ages.  Though it isn't consensus here, most people see Obama as liberal but fair.  (I almost said "liberal and fair".  Unfortunately, "but" is the correct word when analyzing perception.)  I've even read that the phrase socialized medicine polls very well with the younger voters -- they actually believe from Fox this is what Obama is doing and thus approve.

I'm not going to say the image of success and failure is more important than the reality, it isn't.  But the image carries a legacy of its own.  I believe the image of Clinton's and (I hope) Obama's successes and the image of Bush's failures are producing a new generation of leaders that will be far more progressive then those they are following.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (4.00 / 1)
There's very little evidence that anyone knows what "progressive" means in terms of policy, as opposed to feeling.

No doubt about it, Clinton and Obama feel much better than Bush does.  But Obama just wants to do about 90% of what Bush wanted to do, only do it right, dammit!

The long war and building a conservative welfare state are the two prime examples of this.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Obama is too much like Bill Clinton, (0.00 / 0)
in that they both need to be "loved" by everyone.  Maybe because neither had a father, and were raised by single mothers, that need in them is so strong. Therefore, in an effort to gain that "love" (whether by the Republicans or others), no firm stand can be taken on issues of concern to liberals.  That is my theory, anyway.
[ Parent ]
WoW, interesting stuff - thank you (0.00 / 0)
No offense to Paul Rosenberg, whose excellent posts on the weekends I read with interest, but these specific details to suggest aspects of Obama's psychological make-up are more credible to me than working backwards from Obama's current words and actions to hypothesize about his psychological make-up.
[ Parent ]
By details - I mean the posts about prep school in the formative years (0.00 / 0)
and comparisons to backgrounds of previous presidents and their subsequent actions.
[ Parent ]
On holding Obama's feet to the fire on "Public Option" (0.00 / 0)
http://www.correntewire.com/pu...
There are two different issues here: the speech and the end policy. (0.00 / 0)
My prediction is that the reform that will be passed will essentially be protection for the middle class, and that the medical establishment (doctors, insurers, etc.) will still slowly bleed the rest of us. There will still be many uninsured, and much hardship for the lower middle class.

But I am baffled by David's take on the speech, and Paul's saying that David "was actually paying attention." Really, all of the summary points have problems, but let's take two:

1) Obama implied that insurance companies will remain profitable.--How could it be otherwise, if they are to continue to exist? They are, after all, private, for-profit companies. Yes, like most here, I would rather do away with them. But in another part of the speech, Obama claimed that it was the profit motive that caused the insurance companies to deny needed care.

5) David might have felt that there was some equivalence drawn between destroying reform and the drive for single-payer, but Obama throughout his campaign said that were we starting from scratch, single-payer would be best, but moderate reform would allow for a continuity and minimize suffering that a massive overturning would cause. Obama repeated all these points in his speech. A lot of BS, to be sure, but as far as I know, Obama never said that reform wasn't necessary.

Ultimately, Obama's main concern is about self-preservation. If the bill doesn't pass, his presidency will have suffered a major blow. I agree that we should put pressure on our reps to vote against any bill without a public option, but I think even if the option does get passed, the failed effort to control costs will mean that even the public option will enrich the rich: doctors, pharma, etc.  

Some concession to the left (4.00 / 4)
Hi honey, let me gently put you under my newest bus. I'll listen to everyone else who have consistently had the worst plans or no ideas and aim to cost you the most. And let me just make sure no "illegals" can possibly receive care in time of health crisis. After all we just had a pig flu scare... and they are the folks who handle the nations pork.. they don't need access to medical care.  If you get sick, you might be able to see a doctor starting around 2013.

But you all who are right about care and costs, and have the only two plans which would improve things on both counts ( PO or SP).... you are just a conduit to some air fairy future bliss. Not mine.

And yes, I'll stand up to these baggers... just ignore the one in the audience right now.. especially ignore the fact I ignored him... and turned around two days later to write into legislation specific "illegal" bashing for that very bagger.

Obama's speeches are like cut flowers. Pretty for a couple days, then they die. And long before the flowers die, the date has run off to conspire against you with Rahm and his thugs.

Quit making excuses.. his actions have failed us since FISA and the financial collapse.. consistently.

You Sound Like A Jilted Lover (4.00 / 1)
I was never in love, so I'm not so bitter.

He's a politician for cryin' out loud!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
So were FDR and LBJ "politicians" (4.00 / 2)
And the Obama... Well, let's try to use neutral language and say the Obama marketing campaign and its adherents sold Obama to us like he was a combination of FDR, Lincoln, Bobby Fisher, and the second coming of Christ. So after a buildup like that, the letdown can be a little painful....  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Not at all, but I do desperately need health care (4.00 / 1)
and have many friends who do as well. It's who we should be as a nation.

I didn't vote for him in primary or general, though I did send him a little money late in the primary season. He lost my vote with FISA and TARP.

As you know he never allowed progressives to sit in during the early health care meetings... unless folks like Conyers promised not to talk about SP etc. Nothing has changed in substance since that time. And here we are, quite possibly down to the wire, making excuses for him again. Thanking him for a mediocre at best PO hat tip in his speech and at long last one conference call a week ago.

Minutes later his words and actions demonstrate it means nothing.

His numbers go up when he talks like a liberal, but he won't act like one, refuses to do so. I'm just sick of pretending.

Hardball tactics are all we should be considering right now, imo. We need some health care hail mary's. /s

[ Parent ]
A politician, sure, but more hypocritical than most. (0.00 / 0)
He promised "change", and to fight against the established powers that srew the people! And now, it's just business as usual. And people are right in being pissed about this, and not letting him get away with his outright lies! Will all honest respect, Paul, but imho you're a bit too much apologizing him in this regard. This new height of bigotry (for a Dem politician)is scandalous, and so Obama isn't just "another politician", he is taking the profession to new extremes.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
"Child of Reagan"? (0.00 / 0)
Hmmm...my gut tells me that this is only true insomuch as Reagan presided over the period when Dem haplessness went public and the party became totally compromised. I think Paul's right that there are finally noticeable chinks in the idea that this is a "center-right" nation, but our political spin-cycle means you have to wade through an awful lot of bullshit to figure that out.

That said, I am still somewhat optimistic about the chances of a public option because I think the public wants it, and I think what will help Obama "fight" for it is seeing that the public is truly engaged on this. On the surface, he seems to have the same success-oriented, DLC-like ambitions that got the Dems to this hapless place, but his speeches always suggest more. And let's face it, when coupled with the current economy, they've managed to cut through the most ridiculous GOP attempts at spinning everything, which is why nine months into Obama's presidency GOP "values" really look suspect, ideological and obstructionist. If this trajectory keeps up, "centrist" Democrats are next, because if they go against what the public wants (a public option, in this case) they are going to bring reform to a halt and kill this presidency. I know I sound like a Johnny One-Note on this, but I truly believe that we get what we want if the public stays vocal.

You stole my line (4.00 / 2)
Obama is a child of Reagan.  He insists that government cannot run a car company or a bank.  What is that assertion based on?

The former mayor of Madison WI, Paul Soglin, was fond of saying:  "It's not that government can't run things, its that we get stuck with the losers!"

Obama is not a knight in shining armor.  He needs to be pushed.  If we don't push, we fail.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

Your thank you makes my day (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
Obama's Health Care Speech In Perspective | 91 comments
For each DVD you purchase, Brave New Films will donate $5 to OpenLeft.com to support our various projects. Please click on the buttons above to make a purchase.
SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
Donate to Open Left

--Senate Whip Count
--The Progressive Block
--Senate 2010 Forecast

QUICK HITS

blog advertising is good for you

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

blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox