Friday, Aug. 5, 2011
The Bizarro FDR
Barack Obama is a lot of things—eloquent, dissembling, conniving, intelligent and above all, calm. But one thing he is not is weak.
This basic truth is belied by the meager Obama criticism you occasionally hear from liberal pundits and activists. They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is "President Pushover," as The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.
This storyline is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today's imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.
Considering this, and further considering Obama's early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama's term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it's more than just silly—it's a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe "their" president is with them.
Such apologism, of course, allows liberals to avoid the more painful truth that Obama is one of America's strongest presidents ever and is achieving exactly what he wants.
Obama is not a flaccid Jimmy Carter, as some of his critics insist. He is instead a Franklin Delano Roosevelt—but a Bizarro FDR. He has mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor, but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of "organized money" that FDR once challenged.
On health care, for instance, Obama passed a Heritage Foundation-inspired bailout of the private health insurance industry, all while undermining other more-progressive proposals. On foreign policy, he escalated old wars and initiated new ones. On civil liberties, he not only continued the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects but also claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without charge.
On financial issues, he fought off every serious proposal to re-regulate banks following the economic meltdown; he preserved ongoing bank bailouts; and he resisted pressure to prosecute Wall Street thieves. On fiscal matters, after extending the Bush tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, he has used the debt ceiling negotiations to set the stage for potentially massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare—cuts that would be far bigger than any of his proposed revenue increases.
As hideous and destructive as it is, this record is anything but weak. It is, on the contrary, demonstrable proof of Obama's impressive political muscle, especially because polls show he has achieved these goals despite the large majority of Americans who oppose them.
Importantly, though, Obama himself has not suffered from equally negative polling numbers. While his approval rating is not terrific, he is in decent shape for reelection—and, more significantly, he has suffered only a minimal erosion of Democratic support. He is relatively popular, in other words, despite advocating wildly unpopular policies. Thanks to that reality, every one of his stunning legislative triumphs now has the previously unprecedented imprimatur of rank-and-file Democratic support.
In forging such bipartisan complicity with what were once exclusively right-wing Republican objectives, Obama has achieved even more than what he fantasized about when he famously celebrated a previous Bizarro FDR. In a 2008 interview with a Nevada newspaper, Obama lauded Ronald Reagan for "chang[ing] the trajectory of America" and "put[ting] us on a fundamentally different path."
Reagan was a truly strong executive—but the Gipper was nothing compared to our current president.
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
This basic truth is belied by the meager Obama criticism you occasionally hear from liberal pundits and activists. They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is "President Pushover," as The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.
This storyline is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today's imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.
Considering this, and further considering Obama's early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama's term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it's more than just silly—it's a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe "their" president is with them.
Such apologism, of course, allows liberals to avoid the more painful truth that Obama is one of America's strongest presidents ever and is achieving exactly what he wants.
Obama is not a flaccid Jimmy Carter, as some of his critics insist. He is instead a Franklin Delano Roosevelt—but a Bizarro FDR. He has mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor, but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of "organized money" that FDR once challenged.
On health care, for instance, Obama passed a Heritage Foundation-inspired bailout of the private health insurance industry, all while undermining other more-progressive proposals. On foreign policy, he escalated old wars and initiated new ones. On civil liberties, he not only continued the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects but also claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without charge.
On financial issues, he fought off every serious proposal to re-regulate banks following the economic meltdown; he preserved ongoing bank bailouts; and he resisted pressure to prosecute Wall Street thieves. On fiscal matters, after extending the Bush tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, he has used the debt ceiling negotiations to set the stage for potentially massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare—cuts that would be far bigger than any of his proposed revenue increases.
As hideous and destructive as it is, this record is anything but weak. It is, on the contrary, demonstrable proof of Obama's impressive political muscle, especially because polls show he has achieved these goals despite the large majority of Americans who oppose them.
Importantly, though, Obama himself has not suffered from equally negative polling numbers. While his approval rating is not terrific, he is in decent shape for reelection—and, more significantly, he has suffered only a minimal erosion of Democratic support. He is relatively popular, in other words, despite advocating wildly unpopular policies. Thanks to that reality, every one of his stunning legislative triumphs now has the previously unprecedented imprimatur of rank-and-file Democratic support.
In forging such bipartisan complicity with what were once exclusively right-wing Republican objectives, Obama has achieved even more than what he fantasized about when he famously celebrated a previous Bizarro FDR. In a 2008 interview with a Nevada newspaper, Obama lauded Ronald Reagan for "chang[ing] the trajectory of America" and "put[ting] us on a fundamentally different path."
Reagan was a truly strong executive—but the Gipper was nothing compared to our current president.
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
© 2011 Creators.com
Since the 30's, Government did it's job of providing an environment in which Capitalism (greed included) could thrive, and outpace Communism that was on the rise over across the pond. -- Hear that? Government did it's job of PROVIDING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR BUSINESS to grow and thus create jobs for American workers.
Back then, it was the right thing to do. We had plenty of unemployed Americans who were not yet accustomed to a high maintenance, high paid lifestyle. Business was going to use the eager labor force that was already here! Furthermore, the battles between unions and business owners had already climaxed, and labor unions won their foothold. A balance of power foothold that was supported by government and a majority voting public that gave government that power to keep business greed in check (regulations, anti-trust law, etc.) If business and labor were going to survive, they had to work together, compromise, in order for both to succeed.
Where is that spirit of working together today? All the workers see is the attempts by business to take the money and run, taking their jobs over the border with them. No more do we see an effort to allow the common masses a decent life. The working class will no longer need paid vacation days, since they will no longer be able to afford to do anything nice for vacation. No more does business care to have a large base of customers that have money to spend. Something is wrong with that. As much as working stiffs are complaining that businesses are moving manufacturing out of the country, how many saw the move of office work out of the country as well? The clock puncher in the shop is as narrow minded as they claim Mr CEO to be. Office is "management", not a wit different than Mr CEO himself. Working class and Middle Class (small business included) needs to work together, come up with a system that will minimize the welfare class.
On welfare entitlements for the poor (never mind corporate welfare for the businesses, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.), maybe Obama's time in Chicago (with his fellow thugs, as y'all like to say), he saw that handouts mean people stay home, lose their work skills, lose their civility, lose there exposure to diversity, and therefore lose their understanding and tolerance for diversity.
Remember, Obama ran for the moderate vote, he ran for president of ALL of America, not president of black America, Union America, or Corporate America.
Well so far Obama has only managed to enact policies that benefit Corporate America and the über rich. He ran on a very liberal platform promising universal health care for all, support for the Employee Free Choice Act and Card Check, Cap and Trade legislation, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, closing Guantanamo Bay detention center, putting an end to warrantless wire tapping by the NSA, and many others that have not been kept since he took office. As a proud progressive, liberal I know I won't be voting for him this time around. I don't know how anyone who cares about this country could. We have a two-headed one-party system, the R's and D's do the bidding of their corporate overlords and merely pretend to dislike one another. They go out to dinner together, their kids go to the same exclusive private schools, they belong to the same social clubs and charitable organizations, it's all a facade to make it look like average citizens actually have an equal say in how we are governed.