No-Drama Obama
Yesterday, Commonweal posted my next column, “The Obama Gamble: Is Accommodation a Winning Hand” on-line. In it I try to figure out why the president isn’t stepping up and rhetorically, if not in other ways, describing the dilemma he and we are in until jobs come back, and what the government needs to do to bring jobs back. The column focused on who Obama is and where he comes from.
Today, Robert Reich points out a more immediate problem with the White House:
“…rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.”
Pretty discouraging–if True!
Hi, Margaret, very thought-provoking column – thank you!
Regarding Reich’s point – perhaps the White House has concluded that a bold jobs bill has no chance of getting through the Republican House, and the public squabble over it would damage the President’s brand as well as the Republicans’. That was the outcome of the debt fight.
“They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.”
Pretty discouraging–if True!”
Don’t despair yet; if the planned onslaught against the GOP nominee by the Obama campaign is anything close to what reports are, you’ll have lots to cheer about!
Weird, skinny jeans, dogs on the roof, rich…just think about all that red meat!
I guess my question to these “liberal” laments about Obama is simple: What should he do? These grand ideas can’t go anywhere, so they would really just be campaign talking points. That raises twoo other questions: Would they work politically? And is scoring political points as opposed to doing what you can for the country the best way to go?
Quite germane is Reagan’s landslide victory over Jimmy Carter. Iran and the economy buried Carter. All Romney has to do is act positive and say he will create jobs. Axelrod looks like he is having a heart attack. This is a no we can’t administration. Romney looks good because he can beat Obama, just as Reagan did. There is a good chance I could vote for Romney as I voted for Reagan the first time. Just to get people out of Washington who have no clue.
Margaret, thanks for your essay and the link to Reich’s.
Reich hits the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned.
Like you, I never saw Obama as a radical or even a liberal, but as a pragmatist, and possibly a populist. He wasn’t my first choice for prez, nor was Hillary Clinton. Both of them lacked political experience.
Tom Daschle (former senator from South Dakota), one of Obama’s mentors, however, advised him to run precisely b/c he didn’t have a lot of political background or baggage he could get nailed for. I thought that was an incredibly sad indictment on our politicians–only a newbie could get elected, b/c the veterans all had skeletons in their closets.
I don’t see anything to cheer about, not even while eating red meat on the roof with the neighbor dog in my skinny jeans (though making skinny jeans in my size strikes me as kind of a contradiction in terms …)
My apprehension about Obama wasn’t based on his being “a lefty”. (It would be impossible for a candidate to be too far left for me.)
It was based on other things.
1) His background as one of the only black kids at Punahou School. He talked about how he learned to smile, etc., to reassure white people. The importance of avoiding conflict was instilled early and deeply.
2) His years in Indonesia, where kids despised him for being black, taunted him, threw rocks at him, etc. His mother told him to take it, and he did. He learned the hard way to avoid conflict at all costs.
3) The missing years. What graduate student, however poor, doesn’t remember where he lived? There are gaps in Obama’s history that were never explained. To probe deeply made the prober look like a racist. I worried that there were people who knew stuff about him and were holding it over him. Stuff that probably would be no big deal, but given how voracious his enemies are, could be used to destroy him and his family.
4) How easily he tossed aside those who were not useful any longer: Rev. Wright, e.g.
5) How he allowed his campaign and his media swooners to treat the Clintons. (Eugene Robinson, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, etc., etc., etc., etc.)
He’s an appeaser and a people pleaser. That, combined with his pride, keeps him from standing up to the tea party that has seized control of our poor country. He is afraid to challenge them. They might call him names or throw rocks at him. He doesn’t want to fight them on their level. They would enjoy it too much and he would get muddy.
Hillary would have been so much better.
David’s question is the right one in today’s atmosphere. DEon’r agree woyth Geryln’s numbers 1- 4 at all. Too simple.
Personally, I think the thread is premature, but I could get back to you.
I guess my question to these “liberal” laments about Obama is simple: What should he do? These grand ideas can’t go anywhere, so they would really just be campaign talking points. That raises twoo other questions: Would they work politically? And is scoring political points as opposed to doing what you can for the country the best way to go?
——-
One thing he could do would be to end the wars in Iran and Afghanistan immediately. Not in a sloooooow draw down, but abruptly and dramatically. Apologize to the families of the sacrificed soldiers, apologize to our allies, apologize to the taxpayers for all the billions pounded into the sand (and into the pockets of the Republican’s masters).
Put all those men and women on planes and bring them home. Tonight. What a lot of lives and money it would save. That money alone would seed jobs. You can’t repair a broken-down bridge without bolts. So build a bolt factory. Put a master sergeant in charge. Put the returning soldiers to work.
The steel panels that fell off Busch Stadium because of bad bolts could have beheaded passers-by. More news from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
—-
The shipment arrived at the offices of the state Department of Economic Development within days of the governor launching a “bipartisan Made in Missouri Jobs” initiative.
Inside were 6,000 carabiners — a trinket combining a key chain, flashlight and pen. The agency plans to give the items away at the Missouri State Fair next week in Sedalia.
One side of the carabiner bore the insignia “Jobs.mo.gov.”
On the opposite side was a sticker noting the country that produced the gadget: China.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/job-watch/article_11820f8d-949d-5271-a4fd-b250513ab522.html#ixzz1UqZaTplK
Cool it, guys. Things aren’t terribly different from a 6 weeks ago. The Congress acted like idiots (not much new there), but it came through in the end. And some good news: to everyone’s surprise American job figures actually went up significantly more than expected in the last quarter.
True, Europe isn’t in great shape either, but recent jitters there were in large part caused by the stupid U. S. Congress and this week a (false) rumor that a big French bank was about to go under.
We just don’t know which way the American economy is moving at the moment. Beware of economic predictions without sufficient data — they can be self-fulfilling prophecies.
I suspect Obama will be a flash in the historical pan. He may have been more surprised than most when his star climbed so far so fast.
If what I’m reading here (a little) and elsewhere (much more) is near the truth, we’re headed into financially very troubled waters. If voters become convinced of that, they’ll likely choose someone with much more leadership charisma. If given the choice. That may not be the better choice, of course – charisma and wisdom have absolutely nothing in common.
He has charisma, just not leadership.
He promised to close the Bush Guantanamo detention camp, but didn’t.
He does not know how to make unpopular decisions go through: he is not a leader.
I am not going to do any facile amateur psychoanalysis of Obama. To David Gibson’s question: what would liberals have him do? Many of us want him to go around the country and cheerlead for a vision. The right vision. Short-term stimulus to promote job growth, insistence on the necessity of tax reform and a fairer sharing of the tax burden. We know he cannot get any of these proposals through Congress. It’s more than clear that the Repubs will not play ball. They have their eye on the prize of 2012, the common good be damned. However, public shaming of these alleged fiscal conservatives can frame the issues for the electorate and help them understand what is needed for the country and not fall once again into buying the fairy tale of tinkle down economics.
Spiegel on-line had three articles on Obama. The first was an interview with Jesse Jackson, the other two analyses from European observers. The common theme: disappointment.
“I guess my question to these “liberal” laments about Obama is simple: What should he do?”
Not sure about what to do on jobs, but a few ideas that could keep the President occupied:
Close Guantanamo.
Accelerate our withdrawal from Iraq & Afghanistan.
Direct banking regulators, the EPA and a host of other agencies to robustly enforce existing regulations.
What can he do? If he can’t get some stimulus through Congress, he can explain to the country why the current trajectory is not going to work. It will not work because people are unemployed in the millions, they are not getting paid, they are barely getting by. Until those millions are at work (have some at the podium with him), the economy will continue to drift and the deficit will only grow. He needs to speak with passion, compassion, and common sense. He needs to burst the deficit bubble!
On closing Guantanamo, I think Obama was quite ready to do this until politicians from across the political spectrum got all terrified at the prospect of detainees being held on mainland soil. Not least among these politicians were those in Obama’s home state of Illinois where plans were underway to transfer at least some of the detainees to a facility in the state. The choice is now simple: keep Guantanamo open and disappoint some people, or fight battle after battle after battle with local and federal politicians from both political parties over the transfer of detainees. President Obama is not the spineless one on this issue.
Claire:
I don’t know how you define leadership. Hopefully, you don’t equate leadership with leading us into two wars, one under false pretenses.
For me, the more interesting question is: How does a leader lead when a significant proportion of the country have as their primary goal to bring you down. Reagan did not have this kind of opposition and could get away with a lot. (I still cannot forgive him for his policy in Central America.)
I see a mean spirit in the opposition party today, even within the party itself. Last year, Sarah Palin brought her vacation bus tour to New Hampshire just in time to upstage Mitt Romney’s announcement to run for President. Now, Rick Perry is announcing his candidacy in South Carolina on the day of the Iowa straw poll. And the Tea Party, well, they had better wake up and smell the coffee. Their intransigence may in the long run do harm to the country and eventually themselves.
Despite all the Wall Street roller-coaster of the last 10 days, Obama remains more popular with the American electorate than either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton at the same point in their presidencies.
While Obama for sure remains electorally vulnerable especially if the gloomy economy continues unabated, the Republicans seem to be doing their best to scare the electorate [especially the infuriating "independent voters"] with the current gargoyles running for president.
I have to believe that Obama has a better handle than any of us bloggers here on how a mixed-race man gets elected president of the US in a society that still harbors the vilest racism within one of its two major political parties.
No leftist has ever been elected US president. FDR, the saviour of American capitalism, was actually a moderate, especially compared to his wife, Eleanor. FDR was forced to use his considerable political skills by a desperate and politicized electorate and muscular union movement down the path of the New Deal.
FDR’s genius through his sunny, hopeful persona ["Happy Days Are Here Again"] was his ability to galvanize public support through economic depression and world war.
Obama understand this political reality and dynamic better than any of us. That is why he is president today. Just ask Hillary Clinton.
Obama is still capable of scrambling the electoral dynamic in his favor: He could fire Geithner at Treasury. Force the Republicans to vote down jobs creating legislation – paint them as obstructionist to any American economic recovery. Announce early withdrawals from Afghanistan and/or Iraq. There are several more options.
I believe that Obama needs a new running mate, preferably a woman [Someone other than Hillary - someone younger who has the political moxie to lead the progressive movement] to galvanize and electrify the Democratic base and especially young voters. After hunting down and killing bin Laden, Obama doesn’t need Biden’s reassurance to the economic, political and military establishment that he [Obama] is a leader.
I wouldn’t bank on Obama going after Wall Street – he needs their money and acquiescence to get reelected, especially since they own the Congress and the Supreme Court.
It’s hard to ask people (voters) who don’t have a job to renew your job contract.
We may find out if Obama has that indispensable and ineffable quality of any really good, even great, politicians: LUCK!
Rick Perry just announced for president. One cliche after another about past American glories, present pain, future tax reductions and Ameircan pride.
Intrestingly, he didn’t mention the Democrats as being responsible for the misery, much less the Republicans — *all* his blaming was centered on Obama, with the exception of a few pot-shots at “Washington”, e.g., “I promise you I will work every day to make Washington inconsequential {sic] in your lives”. Really radical.
Perry: “I promise you I will work every day to make Washington inconsequential {sic] in your lives.”
Really?
That’s what the closed captioning said he said. I couldn’t understand the words myself because of my deafness. If the closed-captioning was right, it is indeed startling. Maybe he just doesn’t undersatnd what “inconsequential” means. I read recently that he was a particularly poor student at Texas A&M, but I can’t say he sounded dumb.
Inconsequential is exactly what my husband and I heard, as my jaw dropped.
I think he just tried to use a big word to describe small government – definitely, misuse of the word.
According to the dictionary, inconsequential can also mean illogical, which I would say is one of the best descriptions of his rant (called an announcement of candidacy speech by the media).
I fear he just might be the demagogue the Tea Partyers have been waiting for. Not so smart as Huey, but perhaps smart enough.
I doubt any politician can do anything credible and reassuring now, at least in major ways. Events will unfold as they will. It looks as though the piper is about to collect big time.
But Obama can certainly do some principled things, not least stopping his persecution of immigrants. That’s simply unconscionable. It might lose him the election, of course, but at least he’d be remembered in history for acting decently and courageously in the face of a particularly nasty sort of popular bigotry.
It does look, though, as though he feels triangulation is the best he can do. I’ve never thought he was a great orator, with great ideas and a profound understanding of humanity and its history. He seems too young, too cosseted, too smooth. He needs more wrinkles, more gray hair, more adversity. He’s certainly getting the adversity.
Will Perry sell in Peoria?
Will Sarah Palin give her support to him if he promises to give her an ambassadorship —– to Russia?
I would like to see Obama follow the advice that Chris Matthews has been hammering home the past several days: have people go to the districts of the Republicans, stand on camera in front of the bridges, roads, schools, etc. that need repairs, get on the local news stations, etc., and tell the people that the Republicans are the ones preventing a jobs bill that would spend money to hire people to fix these things, etc. I.e., I’d like to see Obama really fight, the way Chris Matthews is suggesting. (Incidentally, one of the most delightful things about Chris Matthews is the way his Philadelphia Catholicism comes out, especially when he’s talking with other Catholics like Pat Buchanan — they have such a good time together, and the political differences don’t get in the way of laughing and having fun.)
Also: Jim, you wrote, that our society “still harbors the vilest racism within one of its two major political parties.” I assume you mean the Republican party. Now, I’m a lapsed Democrat, and not enamored of the Republicans, but this charge, while still valid to some extent, does seem to be weakening. I mean, what about Michael Steele? What about Herman Cain? Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell?
Brendan –
If there is a good thing that can be said about Dubya it is that he doesn’t seem to have a racist. (That he didn’t seem to understand the problems of poor people, black or white, is a different issue, I think.) Note also that he gave a great deal of attention to the problem of AIDS in Africa, something one wouldn’t expect from a bigot. How many other politicians share his outlook is another question.
Oops== should be: he doesn’t seem to have a racist bone in his body.
See the Lowenstein lettere and discussion about it in the NYT Sunday Review.
Conclusion: POTUS should make far bolder job crfeation centeed proposals.
The Tea Party House power will smack it down.
And life will go on … sort of, as the NYT editorial points out ,State savethy nets continue in decline and cries from the Circle of Protection go unheeded not only by the American Enterprise “apologists”shills for the plutocracy but our congress as well.
(Note: I”m angry at the copy editors of our local ABC news who statred my day with the sentence”the eyes of all americans are on” – you know, Ames.)Mpving forward(not backward as we are in the good old RC) is increasingly harder.
So what is the POTUS to do? (Norte 2: I don’t say Onama because it seems de riguer on the right to react to the mention of his name with venom and vitrionl)
Brendan:
Chris Matthews has one of the sanest responses to our current economic problem. Maybe, he should run for office, which I would not be surprised, has crossed his mind.
I, too, enjoy Chris Matthews, in part because I am a former native Philadelphia (and intend to return to my roots soon) and also because he and his brothers went to La Salle College High School with my brothers. Another factor in the repartee between Matthews and Buchanan (in addition to the fact that both are Irish) could be that Matthews comes from a very strong Republican family, which would have made for some very interesting Matthews family gatherings when Chris worked for Tip O’Neill.
I see some interesting comments about Perry; he’s not my candidate either, but in response to the “how will he sell in Peoria” question, he can say “my state added jobs in the last 4-5 years.” Pretty good.
And people should take a look at this immigration record before they write him off as a dumb Tea Party demagogue.
Jeff:
Now Perry will probably benefit from the midwestern evangelical backers of Tim (“I love and respect and admire the Catholic Church. I still attend Mass once in a while there.”) Pawlenty. (Sorry, I am sure that in good faith, he has found his place on this earth before God, but I couldn’t resist the temptation.)
A few days ago I sent a message to a friend who lives in Texas and I asked her about Rick Perry. This is her reply:
I do know that many if not most of the job expansion here are part-time, temp and low wage. You can build a whole lot of sports venues then the only lasting jobs are food service and custodial. And, like other southern states, we “benefit” when companies move work here because we have weaker unions. I wish (reporters) would ask Perry or his surrogates about the poverty rate in Texas. We have some of the poorest communities in the country AND one of the highest drop rates for high school students. If his campaign picks up steam, I hope we Texans will do a better job at letting people know the real story than we did with Bush 2 – we knew he was NOT a “compassionate conservative” nor a “uniter”!
With respect to his immigration record, I think it may have a lot to do with a “What’s good for Texas” approach.
On Perry: Hawk Internationalist….guess no cuts in the pentagon budget, and Douglas Feith makes a comeback attempt (D. Rumsfeld enabler). HT: Pat Lang
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/10/rick_perry_the_hawk_internationalist
NCR’s Jerry Filteau has a nice piece today on Catholic values being proclaimed as we go forward, and, particularly the Circle of Protection.
Unfortunately, politicians don’t seem to care much about that and I still fear ideoogy reigns.
The choice is now simple: keep Guantanamo open and disappoint some people, or fight battle after battle after battle with local and federal politicians from both political parties over the transfer of detainees.
I guess that for me Guantanamo is important. It’s a marker of the ways in which the US government behaves like a dictatorship. I see it as going against all the things that makes the US a country to love. For this country, it’s a great shame.
Closing the Guantanamo detention camps is also less complicated than ending the Bush wars.
I agree with Claire. Also, while closing Guantanamo may make some people angry, it is something that candidate Obama promised he would do. His excuse on many issues seems to be that he can’t deliver because he’s being obstructed by Congress; that would be a lot more compelling if he followed through on things- like closing Guantanamo- where he doesn’t need Congressional approval.
Bill Clinton today (August 15) on Rick Perry:
“Former President Bill Clinton spoke Monday morning to the International Association of Fire Fighters conference in Manhattan, The New York Observer’s PolitickerNY reports — and he had some tough words for the newest entrant into the GOP race for president, Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
“I got tickled by watching Governor Perry announce for governor, for president,” Clinton said — perhaps stumbling a bit in the wind-up of a joke. “He’s a good looking rascal.”
“The former president elaborated: “And he’s saying ‘Oh, I’m going to Washington to make sure that the federal government stays as far away from you as possible — while I ride on Air Force One and that Marine One helicopter and go to Camp David and travel around the world and have a good time.’ I mean, this is crazy.”
The word “rascal” gets something! Put Bill C: on the hustings: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/bill-clinton-scoffs-at-rick-perrys-platform-i-mean-this-is-crazy.php#more
Aren’t people tired of the Clintons, Margaret? “God, doesn’t he look just awful?” “What’s he talkin’ ’bout, Maud?”
David: “Tired” is a relative state. Bill Clinton looks thin…not awful. I am not proposing a Clinton for candidature–only for hitting some humorous and on-the-spot notes. And yes, it is crazy that we are paying attention 18 months before the election.
“Bill Clinton looks thin”. I hope he’s in good health.
Re: Guantanamo: I agree with Claire and Irene. I would just add: those detainees’ cases should have been disposed of, many years ago now, and then detaining them would not be an issue. Any number of ways of trying them have now been proposed. Mr. President, pick one, and then jail/release/execute according to the verdicts.
Yes, Guantanamo should have been closed the day after Obama came to office. However, I am hazy on why Congress is not critical to this move. Congress refused (including Dems) to appropriate the funds to close the place. Is that material to the prisoners being released, or only material to their serving in a site on the U.S. mainland?
Funny, now that you mention it, Obama doesn’t seem to have done much memorable at all. Maybe that’s one reason for the disaffection. Boring – failure to entertain.
President Obama has accomplished quite a lot. Steve Chapman compiled this list for his Sunday column yesterday. Chapman is an independent thinker but in general is pretty conservative, with some libertarian leanings. so he does not qualify as a cheerleader for the Democratic party.
“But by any objective standard, Obama has plenty of achievements. He approved a daring raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He’s on his way to ending the Iraq war. He brought about a health insurance overhaul aimed at fulfilling the Democratic dream of universal coverage.
“He saved General Motors and Chrysler and the jobs they provide. He scrapped the military’s policy against gays. He put new regulations on financial institutions and the credit card industry.
“He signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. He launched a major initiative to promote innovation in schools, winning praise even from conservatives. He stopped the use of torture against suspected terrorists.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0814-chapman-20110814,0,4936968.column
Hmm, OK, Jim (8/15 11:33 pm), I stand corrected:
Then why does he seem so damned boring?
David:
So you think that Obama is boring and fails to entertain.
OK.
What do you think about Rick Perry? I think he’s hilarious. I can’t wait to see SNL’s take on him. (I bet he can see Mexico from his house.) Every time I see him or read about him I “laugh out loud” until I start to cry.
How entertaining! What a mean so and so! I’ll take boring any day.
On the question of Obama’s accomplishments:
http://obamaachievements.org/list
“He signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. He launched a major initiative to promote innovation in schools, winning praise even from conservatives. He stopped the use of torture against suspected terrorists.”
Jim P. –
Thanks for the post, especially the last part. I didn’t even know he had done these last things too.
My reason for respecting him greatly is that he has accomplished all this even in the face of many in Congress who seem hell bent on ruining his presidency at all costs. (Not that the Democrats are anything to brag about.)
Some pundits mentioned that at the beginning of his term he was confronted with the worst set of problems since George Washington. That he has gotten anything done is quite remarkable, though I must say that at the very end of Dubya’s presidency he did face the fact of the financial free-fall and was willing to spend some money on stopping it. My point is that Obama didn’t stop the free-fall all by himself.
ISTM that Obama’s biggest mistake was a strategic one — he went for health care reform before he went for job creation. Other than that big mistake I think he’s done remarkably well. What he is not good at is tooting his own horn, as are most hack politicians. Yes, bragging does seem to be part of political leadership, and he’s not good at it.
In all probability I’ll vote for him again,
Ann Olivier:
Ditto to “In all probability I’ll vote for him again.”
And the more the opposition tries to take him down, tries to make him a “one term president,” the harder my husband and I will work to get him reelected (and we have power, well, not really).
Re: the health care reform
During the 2008 campaign Ted Kennedy called Obama and told him that he was giving him his support. I may be wrong but I think that Obama’s push for a health care bill was his tribute to Kennedy for whom health care was the passion of his life. (During the debate in congress, Democrats were heard to say: “Win one for Teddy.”) Also, Kennedy’s widow and children were at the signing of the bill by Obama.
The more I read of David S.’s post the more I find them…. I’ll use a Mark P. word, vapid.
Obama has his faults but he’s been fought from the right, hammer and tong, from the beginning and, of course, they want to blame him for many of the problems they’ve caused.
You can argue that’s politics, but don’t fob it off as rational commentary.
I just saw a video of Perry in Iowa saying that if Bernanke “prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”
Yes, they sure know how to treat people “pretty ugly” down in Texas. I’m thinking November 22, 1963.
Yes, saw that; pretty shocking. Should the Secret Service get on his case for threatening a federal official? I believe that is part of their mandate–protecting not just the president, but federal judges, officials, etc.
I posted about Reich on blog in which I am an author and also wondered if Reich was right. His claims are confirmed at length by Elizabeth Drew in the most recent issue of the New York Times Book Review. In response to David Gibson, I would say that it is good for the country for the President to lead on what need to be done to combat unemployment and that involves promoting the idea that government spending is needed to create jobs. American corporations are creating jobs in foreign markets and automating at home. The idea that the wealthy are “job creators” is increasingly fraudulent. The idea that unregulated markets are the key to solving unemployment cannot be defeated in the intellectual market if it is not seriously challenged by the President.
As to the President’s strategy, as discussed by Reich and Drew, here is what I said on my blog: “I hope this is not true. If it is, (1) Obama cares more about his reelection than the public interest; (2) Obama has no conception of his capacity and moral duty to lead the public on how the problem of unemployment needs to be solved; (3) Obama is deluded if he thinks the American people can be distracted from the unemployment problem; (4) Obama can rightly be charged with not trying to seriously address the unemployment problem; and (5) Obama apparently does not realize that if he tried seriously to address the unemployment problem, he not only would be backed by his party and the public, but also if the Republicans predictably refused to go along and continued with their smoke and mirrors approach to dealing with unemployment, their intransigence would be counted against them in the Presidential, House, and Senate elections.
Obama yesterday chided Congress for putting party before country. If Reich is right, Obama is putting himself ahead of party and country.”
On a happier note, the New York Times is reporting that Obama is reconsidering his political strategy.
Slight correction: Elizabeth Drew’s essay is in the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/aug/18/what-were-they-thinking/
At the moment, available to non-subscribers.
Obama’s remark: “He’s new; I’ll give him slack” about Perry’s attack on Bernacke is not one I could summon, but I have to say I applaud it. It suggests that Perry isn’t quite up to the mark as a candidate, and it shows that Obama is staying above the fray, which as far as the 2012 campaign goes (15 months away) is a good strategy.
As these discussions go on, I continue to wonder what values (if any) inform them.
This morning NPR reported the Ana E. casey foundation issued a report showing the number of children in poverty had doubled since the 90″s
But the discussion here seems often about whether you are pro or nati Obama and what you can blame or not blame him for.
Is this what we’ve come to stand for, and if it is, it’s the ugly American continued decline in action.
Of course there are values in play, economic values, viz. greed that really matters at bottom across politics, culture, and, I fear religion.
Thanks for the correction. It is an excellent issue by the way.
Bob: Maybe these conversations drift to ancillary issues, but I detect in many of the concerns that Obama has not vigorously pursued the unemployment/jobs issue.
If the Casey Foundation report is accurate, then it’s not hard to conclude that one of the biggest reasons for an increase in childhood poverty is that their parent(s) are either out of work or work at jobs that don’t pay a living wage.
Those who supported Obama in 2008 (as I did) have an obligation to criticize his weak record on this…maybe someone in the WH will pay attention if enough people begin to notice and to criticize.
During Obama’s campaign and early in his administration he did say that increasing employment was one of his priorities, and he would do it specifically through government spending on our deteriorating infrastructure and on government tax breaks for innovative technology companies. Nobody seemed to be listening at that time (it was during the melt-down). Then came the titanic health care battle, and again his priority wasn’t jobs, so he didn’t talk much about them.
Perhaps his programs just wasn’t specific enough in the first place, and hopefully he’ll remedy that soon. But it should also be noted that it wasn’t only the Republlicans who ignored his called for government spending on jobs, it was the Democrats. One must admit, of course, that when a great battle is being raged about cutting government spending, it does seem wise not to suggest that even more money be spent.
However (this whole topic is complex in the extreme), according to the Keynesians we are not in such dire financial straits *at the moment* that we cannot afford to borrow more money to combat unemployment by spending on infrastructure, etc. There’s the real rub: WHEN should we spend that money, not WHETHER we should. I don’t think the money will be spent until the people understand that spending it will not lead us into bankruptcy, but on the contrary spending on jobs is our only way out at this point. (The corporations and money-guys have already demonstrated that they are not about to invest their own moolah.)
Bring back the WPA!