Ian Welsh - What Can Obama Really Do ?
A zombie argument is going around about why Obama hasn't accomplished liberal and progressive ends to the extent many would have liked him to: Obama can't do anything because he needs 60 votes in Congress and he doesn't have them because Republicans and Dems like Lieberman and Nelson won't vote for his programs. This argument is misleading in one sense and incorrect in another. It is misleading in that it misrepresents how things get done in Congress. It is incorrect in that many liberal policies do not require the consent of Congress. Let's examine the misconceptions this zombie argument is built on.....
Obama can't do anything because he needs 60 votes in Congress and he doesn't have them because Republicans and Dems like Lieberman and Nelson won't vote for his programs.
This argument is misleading in one sense and incorrect in another. It is misleading in that it misrepresents how things get done in Congress. It is incorrect in that many liberal policies do not require the consent of Congress.
Let's examine the misconceptions this zombie argument is built on.....
worth a read keep to the Fen Causeway
Obama had the power to do many, many good things, and he refused every opportunity to do them. He refused to even attempt the most basic steps of negotiation with the opposition, asking not for a higher goal than what we really needed, but a lower goal as a pre-compromise, thus lowering the bar further still.
this is just the best summary I've seen rather than being an isolated voice. keep to the Fen Causeway
I believe they are doing what Obama asked during the election, to hold him to account over delivery. He isn't delivering and they are constantly saying, "you can do this". Yes, they are exasperated, they expected more and they fear that Obama's lack of progress on things signals something worrying about his commitment to genuine progressive values. He seems indifferent to the wishes, not just of his base, but the desires of the American public in poll after poll.
Bipartizanship is a virtue only if you get better legislation. If you end up with worse then chasing after it is a fetishisation of process over product. keep to the Fen Causeway
According to the first article you linked to he apparently simply doesn't want to fix the economy, repeal DADT, restore habeas corpus, help homeowners, or save social security. How is this 'holding him to account?'
Advocating and "making him" do what we want is not accomplished by ignoring the political environment and process and simply insisting he could do it if he wanted and, since it's not done, he must not want it. Or is 'indifferent.'
Bipartisanship, fetishy or not, has nothing to do with it.
But let's say for a minute that you're totally right -- he's got a fetish for Republicans and doesn't give a shit about progressive causes.
We're stuck with him for at least two more years. I was hoping for 6, but whatever. So what real world good does calling him a liar and various versions of an ineffective piece of shit do? What, exactly, does it accomplish towards our goals?
Is it going to win political support for liberals? Is it going to make future candidates go further left? Seriously, how is constant blame and criticism furthering our goals in any way? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
how is constant blame and criticism furthering our goals in any way?
Just about everyone who is now criticizing Obama did vote for him at least once, in the November '08 election. After about June '08 I had to agree with Booman that the thing to do was to support Obama. I chose to hope for the best and consoled myself that he had the political skills to make a difference - if he chose to try. I kept hoping that he would until about this time last year. I have stopped hoping for much from him. He is better than Bush, but that is such a low bar. Then, Obama seems to be a low bar artist.
Since this time of year in '08 it has been clear to most on this site that, if we are to have a better world, the US financial industry has to be reformed. Something that massive can only be done in a crisis. We had such a crisis. Obama demonstrated that he believes that the current financial system is vital and has to be saved. He went out of his way to reconstitute that system and avoided imposing any real new restrictions on it. That financial system continues to systematically loot the society in which it operates and is leading that society into an even bigger calamity than the one we are now experiencing.
"how is constant blame and criticism furthering our goals in any way?" How is Obama's conduct as POTUS furthering even the future of the Democratic Party? He is turned on by former Wall Street donors when he is seen as being less than an uncritical cheerleader, according to that idiot Sorkin in todays NYT. He gets no credit from the right for all his attempts at "bi-partisanship". He just comes off as being a more polished spokesman for financial and corporate interests, as would befit a Harvard trained lawyer at least to those who do not reject him out of hand as a Muslim Communist or some such stupidity. Are we supposed to still believe that he secretly wants to advance a progressive agenda? What is the evidence? He seems more like an Eisenhower Republican than a progressive democrat.
He came into office with the Republicans badly discredited by the Global Financial Clusterfuck, but, while he was happy to blame Bush, he has continued with their policies. He has done nothing to push back on the economic views that have gotten us where we are. Christina Romer's recommendation for a $1.2 trillion stimulus as what was needed, at a minimum never even made it past his Chief of Staff, Rahm E. It turns out she was right and the economy is tanking again, right on schedule, and he his in a box and has managed to put the Democratic Party in that box with himself.
Had he used the Presidency to push back on the received stupidity regarding economics in the USA he might have created some room to maneuver, but now it looks more like he will endorse Pete Peterson's campaign to cut back Social Security. Even that could be justified in some sense if it would even work -- but it won't. Instead it will produce needless suffering while further depressing the economy.
Meanwhile, the build-up in Afghanistan is starting to produce the levels of casualties that we were getting in Iraq in 2005, and we can ill afford the $1 million/soldier cost of deploying to Afghanistan or the continuing cost of stationing 50,000 troops in Iran indefinitely. It is a major hit to our current account and puts further strain on the dollar. Our best hope is that Hamid Karzai will kick us out before the Taliban drive us out or, more likely, our currency collapses and we can't afford to import oil or stay in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Obama may have been dealt a bad hand. But he cannot blame the Republicans for how he has played it. They were part of that hand, after all. Politics may be the art of the possible, but there are times when it becomes the art of doing the essential or seeing your country disintegrate. I fear this is one of those times. I fear that Obama either cannot or will not see the necessity of fundamental change. I see us headed for the cliff and you are complaining that I am not cheering. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
But it was odd how all of that leadership disappeared after taking office.
Leadership doesn't just mean getting a job done as best you can - it means defining what people are talking about, what they're thinking about, and how they feel they personally fit in with both.
Obama could easily have defined his term as a turning point. Instead he has left a complete leadership vacuum which rent-a-trolls like Beck, Palin and the tea baggers have been more than happy to fill.
Obama, the media president, stopped doing media.
We had people on here saying that Obama was teh genius for appointing Geithner and the other Wall St creepoids, so that they would take the fall when the economy tanks.
Instead the creepoids will still be smug and chuckling after Obama has retired to Blair-out his memoirs and head up whatever humanitarian thingy he decides to humanitarianificate about.
The US badly needed a real leader after Bush. Instead it's had a place holder, a filler, a lo-fat diet Democratic-Brand™ McPresident who is very serious and very respectful, and certainly isn't going to rock the boat while it sinks.
And worst of all, the Obama Vacuum and the next couple of years of economic fail, are going to leave the stage wide open for a serious run from some Manson-in-a-suit right-wing whacko to take over in 2012.
Apart from that, he hasn't been George Bush, exactly. Which is fine, I guess.
I am NOT "complaining" that you're not "cheering"...
If space aliens abducted Obama and his entire administration and they were never heard from again that might put us further down the road to accomplishing goals that are vital to our survival than Obama seems likely to accomplish in the time that remains to him. At least there would be the possibility of a real leader emerging. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
There you go filling in your narrative for me again -- where did I say you should support him (or, below, stay silent)? Are the only choices either supporting him or making personal attacks? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I'm asking what good your tactic of criticizing him personally is doing.
There is no obligation of loyalty on my part to Obama or the Democratic Party. I have been a registered Democrat since 1964 and have, I believe, always voted for Democratic candidates, not out of principle, but as a tactic. Since 1965 I have become accustomed to being in strong disagreement with the policies of Democratic Presidents. It is not my role to fall in line with the leadership. There role is to decide if my vote and the votes of people with similar views are worth accommodating. In truth, there is no party that has really represented my views. There have only been occasional candidates that came close, such as Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.
I am becoming more and more convinced that the only way forward is via a political realignment into a Reform Party that has as its prime objective dismantling the financial capture of Washington DC by the financial elites and fundamental reform of campaign finance. There are dangers in this approach, as the paleocons, such as Paul Craig Roberts, and the libertarians, such as Ron Paul, have very different social agendas. But we are, I fear, approaching the point at which the danger of the current system is even greater.
The effectiveness of Obama's political leadership has been such that the Democrats may well loose the House in November and loose ground in the Senate. The economy will continue to deteriorate and may well experience another collapse before November 2012 that is worse than that of October '08. Blaiming all of this on Bush will not cut it by then and we could well have a new Republican President with a Republican majority in both houses. We could then be reduced to hoping that there would even be future elections. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
you have complaints and we're all fucking doomed.
I am NOT "complaining" that you're not "cheering"and I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth.
For those of us who feel that where Obama is leading the nation is worse than where we are there is an answer to the question: "It shows those who are not too arrogant to listen that the policies they are following are losing them the support of a section of their former supporters." and "It provides a means for former supporters to show that they are not complicit in policies that they believe will prove disastrous."
It is probably going to be a bloodbath for Democrats in November. "What good will it do them to blame the defeat on leftwing bloggers?" Well, it IS handy to have a scapegoat. Perhaps even some of the Kossacks will have learned a lesson. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
That's ridiculous -- it's a direct question -- "what do you hope to accomplish" -- not a 'rhetorical device" to "silence the opposition." It's not like I asked why you hate Obama/the left/america, etc. where there was an accusation included.
If you have a defensive response to the question and are wondering why, perhaps it has more to do with your answer than the question. Which I thank you for FINALLY answering, despite surrounding it by further accusations and suppositions.
For those of us who feel that where Obama is leading the nation is worse than where we are there is an answer to the question: "It shows those who are not too arrogant to listen that the policies they are following are losing them the support of a section of their former supporters." ...It is probably going to be a bloodbath for Democrats in November."
"It provides a means for former supporters to show that they are not complicit in policies that they believe will prove disastrous."
So if I'm reading this correctly, you believe Obama is making things worse, that the Dems will lose power, and that this is ok because 'the left' is withdrawing support for principled reasons? And... you want to be vocal about why, but don't want any blame later? Does this make any sense to you? Do you have any thoughts on what might work to help the situation? or is it impossible? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
As far as the left withdrawing support, most will probably vote tactically for Democrats this year and for Obama in 2012 but be less willing to make small contributions. But while the Obama campaign made much of their online donors, they were not as significant as their financial sector donors. I doubt that the Obama machine gives a FF about small donations from the left. But they will be happy to blame disaffected progressives for their own failures. It won't be the progressives fault if the independents dessert the Democrats in droves, and I hope they don't...
Without trying to speak for others, I am not "trying to accomplish" anything other than letting pollsters, elected officials and candidates know what I want - more progressive policies and candidates. I am not going to change that just because "accomplishment" is improbable. Asking me "what I want to accomplish by criticizing Obama" attempts to shift responsibility for the results from their actions and policies to my attitudes. That is ridiculous.
That might not be what you intend by the question, but you are far from the first from whom I have heard that question. Booman was, in effect, asking the same question back in the summer of '08. Since then it has appeared any time the progressives complain about the direction of the Obama Administration. Probably within a few years some political guru will step forth and claim credit for coming up with that question for the Obama campaign, though it is likely as old as politics. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Again, you're misrepresenting what I said and conflating criticism of direction or action with personal criticism. There's a major difference. I was asking my question in regards to the latter. I'm amazed by how defensive you are about it -- claiming it contains framing, was focussed-grouped, and now that a political guru would want credit for it.
If you post your opinions in a public forum, especially a political discussion site, then they are no longer simply 'your opinions.' They're an attempt to persuade or inform others. When you write and publish, you're taking an action. As such, it's perfectly valid for me to ask what you hope to accomplish by it.
Asking it is not some bullshit genius political frame or an attempt to 'silence' you or to 'shift blame' or whatever other narrative you have in your head. It's an honest question. Sorry it makes you so uncomfortable. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Right - and I'm sure "the government" can easily be replaced by something pleasant and fair.
or something less obviously bought-and-sold by corporations/banksters, something, um, by and for the people instead.
obama had us all make it personal when he campaigned like a reformer, now we are supposed to stop attacking his choices? it is not easy to blame obama, it hurts a lot, as it points to how much we needed to believe after the country had 'gone bush' for so tragically long.
attacking his choices and policies shouldn't be interpreted as attacking obama, imo, but rather as holding his feet to the fire, and resisting being made dupes of a system that seems to have swallowed obama, rhetoric, charisma and all, into itself with nary a burp or a gurgle...
he may be the most articulate, charming, distinguished president the USA ever had, but if he doesn't grab the nation's imagination in the way he did campaigning, but better even, (to compensate for all the disillusion since inauguration), i for one will be as angrily disappointed as i remain about phony tony, because there's little worse in politics than to be represented by 'leaders' who purport to be on your side, and who promise the refreshment of real change you can believe in, hijack immense amounts of voter faith and good will, then turn around and do the precise opposite of what they promised. once, maybe twice, but over and over and over?
obama supporters aren't stupid, but the horror of republican rule can't be the only reason to support obama, or it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy...
now it becomes fully clear how two-edged the gift of such soaring rhetoric can be. if he had campaigned more modestly, and then continued to carve a path that split the difference between true progressivism and a real centrist position, (as the campaign trumpeted, and thus proves obama knows what's needed to be done), the costume change is too jarring to be anything but extremely questionable.
fiery superman has changed into mild mannered clark kent, the expensive firework is a wet squib.
nothing personal, o-man. my red flag of too-good-to-be-true right from the dem convention speech that pretty much got him the gig, or at least set the ball rolling.
extending credibility occurred when i saw how dogged a campaigner he was, but if it was just to act as he has, do you really think so many would have turned out to put him there?
if he is a stooge after all, was the purpose just to put a dem in for the wipeout of the economy?
i wish i could still believe, Izzy, i really do. the facts don't lie though, and if it's only fear of worse that he can depend on for a second term, or even a dem congress, then i can't see him affecting much more than he has, which ain't much. it is something, but it's very small potatoes, compared to what we have to deal with barreling towards us at breakneck speed.
if the only dems we can see in power are charming triangulators like clinton, i don't expect their influence to last long or go far.
they say if you dine with the devil, bring a long spoon. i don't see it long enough with obama, and i feel your pain that it is so.
perhaps obama is a bandaid on a tumour, and a stopgap placeholder while the orcs plot their latest farce-as-tragedy, i pray not, but at the end of the day, what exactly is the point of being attached to keeping the band aid if the tumour keeps growing?
i know leaders like obama are one in a million, and this is what pisses me off the most, the fucking waste of such a brilliant mind and orator, dedicated to propping up a failing paradigm using the strength of the poor believers who actually thought his election may have started the beginning of the end of their being screwed by the system.
no such luck, it seems...
a few commenters here expressing their doubts will do little either way to affect elections, but it will keep debate and discussion alive with sometimes conflicting points of view, something perhaps more important long term to us all. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I'm not interpreting. Policies are an entirely different matter and not part of this discussion. Do you deny that he's being attacked personally? Because that's what I'm asking the question about. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
he has chosen (and was chosen) to serve in the most prominently public position on the planet, in the role with more life and death responsibility than any other one soul.
is it any wonder he inspires criticism, from both wings? that's what you chose with centrism.
that's why 'hedge fund democrat' is so descriptive.
(h/t Bruce)
i agree some of the attacks are personal, and i have gone there myself, and am not proud of it, but his persona is all we can work with, and we'd be remiss as political observers if we were't deeply interested in the psychology of leadership, in its widest historic sense.
couple his public self with our capacity to parse and scry, and it sort of has to get a bit personal.
yet even the most damning of criticisms here at ET have not been mean-spirited, at least imo.
it's the kitchen he chose to cook in, and frankly, no matter how much heat these comments (and those dementedly beckian teabag astroturfers are really mean) may contain, he looks like he's staying the north side of cool, so...
if i were obama i don't know if i'd have the stones to do what needs to be done, so i never call him a coward. i respect him, and like ARG, find him pleasant, especially with his power. there's so one else even laughably close to his votegetting pull, so i wouldn't worry too much about obama personally, hard as it is to believe sometimes, it appears he was more sizzle than steak, what's really important is to work around him, and beyond him, as Bruce so correctly reminds us.
if anyone could surprise me (again!) it would be mr enigma himself, and i could not more want to be wrong about my doubts... i just wish this was all a great novel, not real life, you know? then one could really stop reading once in a while, and let it all go.
but when so much is at stake, and change accelerating exponentially, it's near impossible! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Oh jesus -- really, melo? do you think I'm stupid? or do you honestly not know the difference between a 'personal' attack and attacking policies? Don't be obtuse. It has nothing to do with whether you KNOW someone and you know it. If you truly do not know the difference between "X did a bad thing" and "X is a bad person" then you need more education than I can give you. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
obama makes me feel schizzy, there you have it...
it's driving me nuts wondering where the american story is going, and it's not my intention to be personal, but i can see the policies are worth criticising, the man...it's just bloggy speculation, pretty close to weightless in the great scale of things.
you can only separate politics and personas so long... my opinions shift constantly, and here at ET i can throw them against the wall and see which stick.
sorry if i offended you, but i don't think anything we burble on about here matters one jot to obama, or the future US elections. we're just backseat driving, s'all.
folks round here aren't too flattering about local leaders either, as you probably picked up by now, lol. trying to keep it as real as can be.
(we're just jealous you got such a rock star.)
he's a big boy, i bet he hears worse things every day than anything here at ET!
peace out
melo ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
