The discussions of Obama’s Presidency that have popped up here on BMG have generated a lot of passion recently. I was originally going to post this as a comment to Charley’s recent excellent post, but I figured I’d put on the table in a full-blown post what I see as problematic aspects of the progressive attacks on Obama here on BMG.
(1) Some of the attacks are simply unfair. Obama is not a Prime Minister. To get anything done, he has to deal with a bicameral legislature that has not been particularly friendly to progressive or even center-left policy — even when the Democrats had strong majorities in both the House and Senate in the 111th Congress. Many of the procedures currently in place in the legislature — particularly in the Senate — have helped to create a broken system, and one tilted heavily towards the status quo. Much of the criticism aimed at Obama should be instead aimed at these broken procedures. (A major piece of evidence supporting this view is the fact that so many progressive bills died in the Senate — not on the President’s desk.)
(2) The other major thing that bothers me are the false equivalencies that sometimes enter the debate. You may believe Obama is not progressive enough, or even that he is a “conservative.” But he is in no way, shape, or manner equivalent to the crazy wing that has driven the Republican Party over the past few years. Even if Obama deserves criticism, which he does on some issues, these radical right-wingers deserve far more. Yet so much of this criticism makes it seem like Obama is singly responsible, when the modern-day Republicans Party deserves the lion’s share of the blame for the problems this country now faces.
(3) Blaming political leaders such as Obama shifts focus from broader rhetorical/strategic problems that have plagued the progressive movement since the 1980s. While of course the job is not done, progressives have done a solid job gradually convincing the American public of our position on “social” issues, such as gay rights, issues dealing with race, and so forth. There has been a major cultural shift over the past three decades, and much of it has been favorable to the progressive position. But on economic issues, progressives have been much less successful. There are a host of reasons why this is, but poor/incompetent political leadership is only one of the many factors, and probably a relatively minor one at that. The bigger problem is that conservatives have shifted the terms of the debate in the past few decades on economic issues, much as progressives have done on social/cultural issues. Figuring out better ways to convince the American public of our position on these issues works from the ground-up, not the top-down. Again, this grassroots action has shifted the debate on cultural issues but not on economic issues. That’s the real problem here, not Obama or any other individual.
Note that I am emphatically not saying that there should be no criticism of Obama. While the Republicans’ Eleventh Commandment does encourage greater cohesion, it also comes at the price of accountability. I’m not saying we should adopt that approach. What I am saying is that the fairest and most accurate criticism is made with the larger picture in mind: the broken nature of our political system, the craziness of the Republican caucus, and the reality that grassroots progressives need to shift gears on rhetoric and strategy in regards to economic issues. There’s certainly room for criticism left when grading Obama against these factors, but much of what I’ve heard so far too often elides these factors.
for putting this in more comprehensible and even-tempered way than I’ve been able to muster.
First, I don’t know if I am a “Litmus test passing progressive” – nor do I care.
Second – every analytica statement or disagreement is not an “attack”.
Additionally, it is entirely proper to compare presidential styles, to discuss options, and why one thinks the wrong option or options were chosen – that is also not an attack.
For those such as myself who are remnants of New Deal Democrats, and became or remained Democrats because of new deal type principles and programs, just not bein a disciple of Grover Norquist is not sufficient to be a champion of the Democratic Party.
One role, I believe, of the Presidency is to be the champion of the well being of the country (not any one class, region, or profession therof) – a potentially conflicting role is to be the Champion of the values of a political party; the one that as a candidate a president courted and found support from.
A president is also the chief negotiator, the leading putlic representation of the USA at home and abroad, and an executive who controls many agencies and can therefore issue executive orders that can change many governmental functions.
Further, a president chooses his own advisors. Whether my analysis of the 14th Amendment power is correct or not, it is completely proper for me to advocate for what I consider the best course of action to be, and analyze the results of not taking that set of actions. Doing so is public discussion, civic engagement, and a duty of citizenship – not an “attack”.
I feel equally certain that I have every duty and right to similarly evaluate local elected officials, the head of the religion I joined, and to analuyze the actions of historical figures. And I do. So my willingness to comment publicly on this presidency is neither new, or an isolated action.
Sadly, it seems likely based on my analysis that the economic results of the willingness to “reward tantrums in Washington, DC” by the president and others will be at best very bad, and at worst, dire.
The best thing that could happen going forward in my estimation may well be gridlock leading to the demise of the so-called Bush Tax cuts, and the revenue stream becoming more normalized, and more in line with other industrialized countries.
Was it fear? Lobbyists? Lack of willingness to be the ones to take responsibility? I would really like to know. There should not have been a “debt ceiling problem” in 2011.
1. We all understand that he can only accomplish those things that are possible within the current, crappy system. The problem I have with this President is that he so rarely fights for these causes and pushes the envelope on what is possible. Was a public option possible? Maybe not. Was getting something more in the health reform bill in exchange for dropping the public option possible? Maybe, but we’ll never know. He never tests the boundaries and gives away too much before the negotiations really start. His line in the sand is the one he’ll erase with his foot at the first sign of pushback. I want to see at least some actions showing that he supports and is willing to fight for progressive values. I have not seen it yet.
2. No on thinks that he is as bad as Bachmann. Obama being bad and Bachmann being much much worse is a different thing than Bachmann being bad and Obama being good. When we absolve Obama of any blame or criticism, I think we end up with the latter circumstance, and that is not good. I blame the Republicans for ruining us, but I also blame Obama (and Senate Dems) for letting it happen almost unchallenged.
3. I disagree. Yes, we have had successes on social issues, although at a slower pace than I think we could have. National Democratic leaders have not been willing to take hits on these things, and won’t until public opinion polls hit about 60% on certain issues. On many things, though, it is just plain cowardice of the politician (i.e. Obama on same-sex marriage). I’m happy we are progressing on these issues, but I would like to see some more leadership on them from politicians. We need bottom-up and top-down leadership.
On economic issues, I think our rhetoric has some success. People support things like Wall Street accountability or the rich paying a larger share of taxes. But when our leaders, including and especially Obama have to choose between moving on those issues or risk losing support from their biggest donors, they balk, even though their rhetoric would appear to support those progressive changes. For whatever reason, Obama accepted the Republican and Tea Party worldview that we need to deal with deficits immediately. During his many press conferences and public addresses on the issue, he could have explained how our most pressing crisis is joblessness and a stagnant economy, but he did not. He is one of the best communicators and salespeople we’ve had in the Oval Office, but he chose to sell how we’d reduce government spending rather than fix this country.
Indeed, I think your analysis is precisely the type of criticism that can be helpful. Your point, like a somewhat similar point kbusch made in this comment, is fair enough. I think Obama’s strategy here is politically rational, if not ideal, in that he thinks seeming like “the reasonable guy” in this debate will help him with independents. Seeming like a partisan warrior, I think he believes, would hurt him with this important swing group. I’m not sure it’s a wise strategy either, but it is not a sign of weakness or incompetence.
On point (2), I don’t think one needs to “absolve Obama of any blame or criticism” to think that he’s good. Indeed, I think he’s been a good President, but could be better. He deserves all the criticism we can muster on some issues — for example, I would argue that his failure to deal with the Guantanamo mess Bush left us has probably been his biggest failure thus far. But just because he hasn’t accomplished everything doesn’t mean that he hasn’t accomplished anything or that he’s been a failure.
On (3), I wouldn’t even mildly shortchange progressives for their accomplishments on cultural issues. In some ways, I would expect these issues to be the most difficult to change over time, because they often involve peoples’ most deep-seeded beliefs. Yet progressives have done so very rapidly — more rapidly than I would expect from the perspective of the 1980s. Case #1 is gay rights, which has witnessed a cultural sea change for the better in only a couple decades — which, when you’re talking about deep-seeded prejudices, is not that long at all.
On the economic point, the problem with looking at polls to gauge Americans’ beliefs is that most do not differentiate between hard and soft support. What the conservatives have managed to build are hard-core economic right-wingers who view any new tax or government program as a step closer to socialism. By contrast, many of the respondents giving “progressive” answers in this polling are much more soft. One piece of evidence for this is how much polling shifts when conservatives start using their false-but-simple bumper-sticker rhetoric against reasonable proposals (like cap-and-trade). Unfortunately, progressives don’t have the kind of hard-core support for New Deal/Great Society-type programs that we once did. That’s what progressives need to do better, and it’s part of a long-term project that goes beyond whatever leaders may be in office at the time.
I think it was Jack Balkin (maybe someone else) who analyzed the history of public acceptance of New Deal programs. His conclusion was that once the opposing party accepts something, it becomes entrenched for at least a generation. So, once Ike would not agree to cutting New Deal programs, they became ingrained in the culture. Similarly, once Obama accepted many of Bush’s war on terror policies, they will be nearly impossible to undo.
I think we may have the reverse situation going on here. Republicans have wanted to dismantle New Deal programs for the last 30 years but the Dems would always prevent it. Now the Dems are willing to deal on these things and we’re seeing support crack. Maybe that’s a bottom-up soft support causing it, or it could be a top-down thing. I think we’re certainly getting into a period of bottom-up/top-down feedback on these things that is very scary.
Query – what’s going on with abortion. Certainly we are seeing a period of anti-choice prominence, but how is it happening? Is it the soft support from younger generations who did not have to fight for choice, better marketing from the other side, or weak leadership on the issue? I think it’s probably some combination of the three.
I think that regardless of how things are happening, however, we still need strong leadership from the top – either as a reflection of or an inspiration for support at lower levels. Because of that, I would like to see a firmer hand from Obama when dealing with many of these issues.
I actually think many of your criticisms are reasonable and respect the limitations of the Presidency. Where we disagree on 1) is small, mainly which lines he has erased and whether he should have, where he should have drawn them, etc. 2) and 3) there are a few more substantial ones. I think it is important to remind people what we are up against, not because Obama needs to be absolved of any ideological sins, but simply to point out the extreme danger that ideology would pose to the well being of the country. I am honestly convinced that this country will go down the road to failure and second rate power status if we let the Republicans win in 2012. That kind of fear to me, was not justified in 1996 when Clinton used it, and arguably not in 2000 when Gore used it. 2004 though and I would argue 2008 and 2012 are elections where it does matter. I am convinced McCain would be President now and we’d still have a center-right neocon government had Kerry won in 2004 and got caught up in the dubya tailwinds, but at least he could have stopped the damage. I think Obama has had just one four year term to undo eight years of terrible mismanagement, and he might not have the kind of permanent progressive legacy I am convinced he and I know we all want him to have,but managing crises competently and undoing the damage is still significant and will be undone by a GOP victory.
3) I disagree with the Krugman-Cheney school that deficits don’t matter, the danger of default was present in part because we did so little to curb the debt. Where I would agree is the President’s constantly playing defence instead of offense on this point. Doing so has put the blame on him instead of Dubya where it belongs, and because of that it makes Democratic ideals like social spending, stimulus, and job creation seem like ‘pork’ we can’t afford anymore. Instead I would have directly blamed the wars and tax cuts, because a)thats where it actually belongs and b) thats how you win elections and preserve and even expand progressive programs.
I have to admit to being bummed out for a couple of related reasons: 1) I wrote a long, thoroughly researched post and was summarily dismissed (rather than refuted) 2) there’s an embarrassing of hyperlinks and sourcing these days. I have, and I’m sure I will again, violate the BMG Rules of the Road. If we have a poster child for civility it’s Christopher, not me.
Dismissal example: “File this post under “Yet Another Progressive Who Thinks the America Has a Parliamentary System.” It’s a popular thesis of HoyaPaul, but he fails to provide evidence for it. Not only is this assertion untrue of me, there is no evidence to refute it. File this kind of dismissal under “blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.”
2) Whatever happened to hyperlinks and sources? This isn’t happening much these days. In the lengthy thread that ensued from my post on Obama, there was exactly one hyperlink that I didn’t supply. My post had 13 hyperlinks to probably ten sources. I supplied 2 or 3 more in a comment. These aren’t window dressing. They support what I’m saying. Example in this thread: Conway’s false equivalence of Cheney and Krugman on deficits on HoyaPaul’s most recent post. If he read Krugman, he’d know Krugman’s position on the deficit is not that it doesn’t matter.
I’ll respond to this comment and the one directly below in this response.
First, this post does not refer to you in large degree. You had a recent and passionate post that helped kick off another round of this debate, but that was just one in a series of similar sentiments that I’ve seen here and elsewhere. You are not the only progressive to criticize Obama, and you won’t be the last. I’ve disagreed with the sorts of arguments you made in your post many times before, so this was not a response to you specifically.
Second, I’m not sure what you mean with your hyperlink argument. In this particular post, I did not find it necessary to have a plethora of hyperlinks. If you disagree with any facts where you think there should be a hyperlink, I’d be happy to direct you to appropriate sources. The rest is opinion with which you are free to disagree. I also appreciate that you had lots of hyperlinks in your post, but I saw little need to respond to each of them. (For example, I’m still not sure where your Twitter reference was going, and you link to a number of books and articles with which I largely disagree and made clear in my comments).
As far as failing to provide evidence for my statement about progressives seemingly thinking we have a parliamentary system, I trust that you know that I don’t literally think some progressives believe we have a head of the Executive called a Prime Minister and not a President. My point is that some progressive arguments demand as much of the President (a highly constrained entity) as they might a Prime Minister (who is not similarly constrained by a bicameral legislature, the fact of the Senate filibuster, etc.).
As far as some of your other points, I obviously did not suggest that “we’re not really allowed to talk about Obama.” You say I suggest this, but I most certainly did not. Should progressives interested in pursuing progressive change criticize radical Republicans more than Obama? In my view, of course. But as I explicitly stated in my post, criticism of Obama is hardly off-limits. What I would like to see more of is fair criticism based upon political realities, not much of what I’ve seen from some progressives.
My hyperlink argument refers mostly to my last post. You have an attractive parliment/progressives thesis, but I’m not seeing the evidence. In this post, you cite no concrete examples, hyperlinked or not. Show me what someone said that supports your thesis.
I don’t know what my Twitter reference is at this point either. Was it in my post?
When I say we’re not to talk about Obama, I’m referring to the constraints you and Charley would put on what is said: you’re basically saying that it’s okay to criticize Obama, but critics should either criticize the GOP and the system first or together with Obama. Look at the implications of what you’re saying. What you say explicitly is contradicted by the conditions you place on what is said.
degree, and Paul is being polite by not saying so. If that’s the case, please unload the specifics, I can take it because there’s not a shred of evidence in this post.
This post is really a meta post talking about how we should talk about politics, or more specifically, how we’re not really allowed to talk about Obama.
That’s the effect of what Paul is saying when he writes, ”
or
In other words, write about the GOP, not Obama, or if you have to criticize Obama, write about the GOP and the senate first. They deserve the blame [not him].
2) False equivalencies that sometimes enter the debate.Well, I said Obama was a moderate Republican. In fact, Bruce Bartlett, a Republican in the Reagan Administration, says Obama is basically a moderate Republican in his actions. That’s interesting and important and evidence that the equivalency is not false of the most prominent representative of the Democratic Party.
(3) Blaming political leaders such as Obama shifts focus from broader rhetorical/strategic problems that have plagued the progressive movement since the 1980s. Um, blaming political leaders for what? Which political leaders? Problems of messaging?
Obama is the major spokesperson for the Democratic Party, and what he says or does not say, has a major impact on political discourse. If he doesn’t argue for Keynesian economics, it’s off the table. If he says that the deficit is more important than unemployment, then it’s off the table. If he says lack of “confidence” is the problem with the economy, then America doesn’t learn about “uncertainty,” which means lack of economic demand.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/8/2/214920/4633
etc.
The problem is *primarily* the Republicans. We can argue about the strategy to overcome them, for sure, and Obama *absolutely* deserves criticism. But he doesn’t deserve defeatism and typical liberal circular-firing-squad stuff.
“We” don’t deserve defeatism, etc. Got me all focused on the wrong thing. He works for us.
generalizations:
“we don’t deserve defeatism and typical liberal circular-firing-squad stuff.”
Where’s the evidence?
Was it “defeatism” and “circular-firing-squad” stuff to complain that Neville Chamberlain’s policies of 1937-1940 were dangerously wrong?
You seriously misjudge the character (or absence thereof) of today’s GOP, and so you seriously misjudge the steps needed to stop it.
How much worse does it have to get before you’ll admit that the approach you so stridently advocate is not working?
.