How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics

[Bleyseng]

copied from the Atlantic Magazine Jan 21, 2012

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF - Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs.

I've lamented of Obama apologists who tell a narrative of his administration that ignores some of these issues and minimizes the importance of others, as if they're a relatively unimportant matter to be set aside in a sentence or three before proceeding to the more important business of whether the president is being critiqued fairly by obtuse partisans.


Says Sullivan, "From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity." Without getting into all the issues contained in that passage, it is in fact true that Obama represents a continuation of Bush policies on civil liberties! And in some respects he has gone even farther than Bush.

"Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels," Sullivan writes. Yes, but no thanks to Obama, who opposes both marriage equality and marijuana legalization! This is the height of illegitimate Obama apologia: attributing to his credit policies he hasn't advanced because a change in public opinion happens to have coincided with his tenure. By this logic Bush also deserves credit for the increasing support for gay marriage during the aughts.

It isn't that I object to Sullivan backing Obama's reelection if his GOP opponent runs on bringing back torture. Is he the lesser of two evils? Maybe so. But lauding him as a president who has governed "with grace and calm" and "who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name"? If indefinite detention, secret kill lists, warrantless spying, a war on whistleblowers, violating the War Powers Resolution, and abuse of the state secrets privilege don't fit one's definition of "scandal," what does? If they're peripheral flaws rather than central, unacceptable transgressions, America is doomed to these radical, illiberal policies for the foreseeable future.

Realpolitik is disturbing for sure. But I do believe that Obama is far more alert and intelligent and open to growth than any of the alternatives.
We citizens have work to do to clean up our own country.
Colin

yes, Obama is actually doing a good job of it except a few new laws which the paranoids in power insist on passing. I don't like it that its legal to arrest and detain without appearing in court for a US citizen. Maybe the Supreme Court will strike it down as its a joke.
Voting is a must!

[denjohn]

YES WE CAN

[Amskeptic]

YES WE CAN

Elaborate please. Is this guilt by association, inadvertent propinquity, what?
I have the one of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
I have a photograph of my step dad shaking George Bush's hand.
What is your point?
Colin

[Sylvester]

YES WE CAN

The pin on the lapel, is that the support for autism?

[denjohn]

For those who may not know, the other fellow pictured is Jon Corzine, the disgraced ex CEO of the recently disgraced MF Global and also ex CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Colin....
One point is to remind folks that Obama is ineffectual and/or corrupt.
Another related point is to help prevent an ineffectual and/or corrupt public servant from outsmarting his many justified critics.

The MF Global debacle is just one of the more recent examples of the corruption and ineffectiveness of this administration.
There has not been one arrest since the MF Global news broke over 3 months ago.
This chart and the related verbiage from the recent Why Our Currency Will Fail thread speak to the problem well:

"Here's the reality. Under Obama, criminal prosecution of financial fraud fell to multi-decade lows during what is and remains one of the most target-rich environments in living memory."


This is not partisan bashing, I voted for Obama, but he has squandered the mandate for change and transparency.
There has been no significant reining in of the Too Big to Fail Banks, the causes of the ongoing crisis have not been addressed.
There will be no sustained economic recovery until a more appropriate balance is achieved between corporations and the individual, before the Big Banks are restrained, and before the finance system is reformed.

Colin....unlike you, I don't really have a way w words, but this fellow does:
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.co ... fairs.html

The theft of (MF Global) customer funds was bad enough, but the manner in which the exchange, the regulators, the court, the Congress and the Obama Administration have dealt with the aftermath of this is truly despicable. Throughout the financial crisis the character of the public's dealings with the financial sector has been dominated by of opacity, obfuscation, misuse of influence, abuse of power, and fear.

If I have ever seen the opportunity for those in the government to take a heroic stand in defense of the people against the predations of powerful financial interests this was it. And they have failed miserably. So whatever these politicians now say seems at best a shallow mockery, with the ring of untruth, and the hollowness of hypocrisy.

And perhaps this is why the American people are turning away from their corporate-branded presidential candidates and Congressional representatives, whose approval ratings have fallen to 9%, in righteous indignation and revulsion, in disgust at their craven betrayal of their sacred oaths and trust.

They must have no sense of justice, or of proportion, or history, and apparently they have no shame.

President Obama may speak brave words in his speeches, but the actions of his Administration show that there is little teeth in their supposed championing of the public interest over the powerful interests of Wall Street. Actions speak louder than words.

America's leadership is bankrupt.

Propinquity.....I'll give you that.
Inadvertent........I doubt it.........especially after Googling "Corzine Obama"

[Lanval]

America's leadership is bankrupt.

The problem is your formulation. To describe the leadership of America is to see the leadership as separate from the people. They are not. The leaders are the ones we've chosen, and their existence is a de facto expression of our real desires/beliefs. To crib a quote Shakespeare, "Our faults Denjohn, lie not in our stars, but in ourselves." We speak of what we want, but our OWN actions speak louder than those words. Our actions (or inactions, if we wish to be specific) have made it clear to the leadership that we are willing to tolerate more rather than less. The real lesson of the Occupy movement was this:

1. Not many people were willing to give even modestly of their time/energy to support it.
2. The protesters themselves actively engaged in cooperation with the authorities; their policy of being unwilling to risk anything meaningful (wealth, health, etc.) made their "protest" little more than theater.
3. The vast majority of people in the country were OK with the government's disregard for the theater.

If our leaders are corrupt, so are we.

Michael L

Addendum ~ following on Colin's thoughts down below, let me be absolutely clear: I include myself 100% in what I say above. I'm actively trying to change how I interact both economically and politically, but I am part of the American people. How many times have I seen a need for change, and walked on by... ? Too many. Too many. Now I ask this: "What can I do to give my son a better America than I was given?"

Michael L

[ruckman101]

What other arena is there?

Michael L

I would hesitate to write off the occupy folks just yet. They have no corporate sponsors.



neal

[Amskeptic]

America's leadership is bankrupt.

The problem is your formulation. To describe the leadership of America is to see the leadership as separate from the people. They are not. The leaders are the ones we've chosen, and their existence is a de facto expression of our real desires/beliefs. To crib a quote Shakespeare, "Our faults Denjohn, lie not in our stars, but in ourselves." We speak of what we want, but our OWN actions speak louder than those words. Our actions (or inactions, if we wish to be specific) have made it clear to the leadership that we are willing to tolerate more rather than less. The real lesson of the Occupy movement was this:

1. Not many people were willing to give even modestly of their time/energy to support it.
2. The protesters themselves actively engaged in cooperation with the authorities; their policy of being unwilling to risk anything meaningful (wealth, health, etc.) made their "protest" little more than theater.
3. The vast majority of people in the country were OK with the government's disregard for the theater.

If our leaders are corrupt, so are we.

Michael L

Denjohn, I applaud your clear insight. I was at a party last night where I was engaged with a roomful of progressives who have actually dedicated their careers and their lives to pulling the predators off us prey. Their passion and their fury at Obama's painfully squandered opportunity (as best remembered by that night at Grant's Park where there was actual hope for a fleeting instant) was too damn real to be dismissed as "crackpot" like many in Fox News describe the Occupy movement.

But I responded . . .

"imagine that you are stranded on the side of the road. Only one person stops to give you a lift into town and he is smoking a smelly cigar with a deer carcass in the back, a rifle in the rear window, a confederate flag on the antenna, but he politely offers you, "this is not red America, this is not blue America, this is the United States of America." You get in the damn truck.

Obama is the best we have to work with right now. As Lanval mentioned, it was thousands of individual decisions that set the course we are on. We buy cheap crap at WalMart because we hunted the ten cent bargain to death and put our own mom-and-pop businesses out of business. That was us. We listened to hucksters and morons and put them into the halls of Congress and the White House time and again, and they said to themselves, "dayam, these voters really are stupid," we did not express our displeasure with the media when they peppered Olympic athletes and Presidential candidates alike with the most inane of questions, and now we have a fourth estate that is almost devoid of insight. Thousands of little decisions make our kids spoiled and self-centered too, and we can't just yell at them one day and expect change. We have to change. We have to slowly direct those who serve us to perform with greater integrity and we have to support them through the change ... just like you support your kid as you demand that they grow more aware of others.
Colin

[glasseye]

The leaders are the ones we've chosen, and their existence is a de facto expression of our real desires/beliefs.

With all due respect, that's preposterous. To say that the average voter is resposible for the behaviours of the elected leaders belies the fact that approval rates of those leaders by those voters are at record lows. The same is true in many countries, including mine. They do not represent our interests. Politicians are doing what's good for politicians, not what's good for their respective countries. And that's why their approval ratings are so low.

To blame Democracy's failure on those who shop at Walmart is equally preposterous. You can't blame people for seeking value. For example: A few years ago I had a quote from a local window blinds supplier to provide slated blinds for my new house. She wanted several thousand dollars for the job. Instead, I bought identical blinds at Walmart (and, admittedly installed them myself) for less than $50. Is that behaviour therefore responsible for Democracy's demise? Is it my fault that I chose made-in-China blinds for less than $3 each instead of identical ones from who-knows-where for $100?

I agree that Walmart sells crap. But so do many other retailers, but at higher prices. Nor do I deny that Walmart, Monsanto, Exxon et al are evil. It's also true that the governments that allow them to do business are equally evil. Regulation is what governments can and should do. But they're not. They're deregulating, just as fast as their corporate masters demand.

The simple fact is that Capitalism has hi-jacked Democracy and getting it back is gonna prove very, very difficult.

denjohn, who professes inadequacy with words said of Obama: "he has squandered the mandate for change and transparency"

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[Lanval]

The leaders are the ones we've chosen, and their existence is a de facto expression of our real desires/beliefs.

With all due respect, that's preposterous. To say that the average voter is resposible for the behaviours of the elected leaders belies the fact that approval rates of those leaders by those voters are at record lows. The same is true in many countries, including mine. They do not represent our interests. Politicians are doing what's good for politicians, not what's good for their respective countries. And that's why their approval ratings are so low.

To blame Democracy's failure on those who shop at Walmart is equally preposterous. You can't blame people for seeking value. For example: A few years ago I had a quote from a local window blinds supplier to provide slated blinds for my new house. She wanted several thousand dollars for the job. Instead, I bought identical blinds at Walmart (and, admittedly installed them myself) for less than $50. Is that behaviour therefore responsible for Democracy's demise? Is it my fault that I chose made-in-China blinds for less than $3 each instead of identical ones from who-knows-where for $100?

I agree that Walmart sells crap. But so do many other retailers, but at higher prices. Nor do I deny that Walmart, Monsanto, Exxon et al are evil. It's also true that the governments that allow them to do business are equally evil. Regulation is what governments can and should do. But they're not. They're deregulating, just as fast as their corporate masters demand.

The simple fact is that Capitalism has hi-jacked Democracy and getting it back is gonna prove very, very difficult.

denjohn, who professes inadequacy with words said of Obama: "he has squandered the mandate for change and transparency"

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

I don't agree with what you've said, as it assumes that "capitalism" and "our leaders" have power outside of that which we give them, and aren't somehow part of "we the people". "Capitalism" isn't an evil entity that exists outside of us. We're all a part of the system that you decry; we give it power through our patronage, and acceptance of the values it represents. We can choose our path, and accept the consequences or not. People can be blamed for seeking "value" as you call it; they bought cheaply regardless of the consequences of their actions. They did not protest when jobs were shipped overseas. They did not... by why go on with the litany of failures here? The people choose the government they want, either through action, or lack of it. The latter is what we have, and while you point to polls that show broad dissatisfaction, I urge you to attend more carefully to what I wrote. actions speak louder than words. While people may express dissatisfaction, until they are willing to act on it, those words are meaningless.

I would draw this parallel ~ Slavery wasn't a "thing". It was the sum of the actions and beliefs of a set of people. Until we as a nation were willing to act on our beliefs that slavery was wrong, slavery existed. When we as a nation decided we would act, risk even our lives to end it, it ended. This no different. No different at all.

Michael L

[denjohn]

Obama is the best we have to work with right now.

We have a difference of opinion w that one as long as Ron Paul is still in the running.
Voting for Obama would be more:

We listened to hucksters and morons and put them into the halls of Congress and the White House time and again, and they said to themselves, "dayam, these voters really are stupid,"

I was so duped by Obama that I'm reluctant to be a strong Ron Paul advocate til I know more about him.
But, I believe that this country needs to change course fast if we are to avoid serious hardship for many.
I probably believe that serious hardship for many is unavoidable, that we are past the tipping point.
Rather than having problems that can be solved to get us back to whatever, it feels more like a 'gone over the cliff' predicament that doesn't have solutions, but wants wise, compassionate attention and decisions to facilitate the softest landing possible w a sustainable future.

The best option I see for now is to get on a more Libertarian heading.
That seems our most pragmatic course, for now, to get out of the corporate/crony-ism death spiral.

What we have now is unsustainable, change is here/coming, maybe gradual like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, but big change. Will it be by design or destruction?
More Obama, more corporate/crony-ism business as usual, more kicking the can down the road feels like we are going to be picking ourselves out of the ashes before whatever comes next.

I don't mean to be beating up on Dems and Obama, he's the figurehead heir to a corrupt system that he hasn't the will or power to change. The same can be said for his sorry predecessor. But, for any smug Dems out there........don't forget, it was Clinton that signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. There is plenty of culpability on both sides of the aisle.

The “Only one person stops to give you a lift” analogy doesn't seem appropriate, there are lots of rides being offered, tho the skillfulness of the drivers is very, very questionable.

[denjohn]

Glasseye.....I agree w your sentiments, but take exception to “Capitalism has hi-jacked Democracy”.
Until recently, I've never had an interest in Economic or Political Theory, my choice of words may not be much better, but if we are trying to make the world a better place, I believe we need to do our best to clarify what's wrong.

It seems that Capitalism is a bit of a vague term, in my effort to educate myself before posting this, I see this in the first para at Wikipedia, “There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.”
Perhaps one of the more Economic minded here would offer us their definition.

I don't believe that Capitalism is the culprit, what we have is not Capitalism.
I'm not sure what we have, but corporate/crony-ism seems more appropriate.
I'd offer that “Corporate/crony-ism has hi-jacked Democracy and Capitalism.”

[glasseye]

Glasseye....
I'd offer that “Corporate/crony-ism has hi-jacked Democracy and Capitalism.”

Agreed. "Capitalism" is too broad a brush.

[glasseye]

...We're all a part of the system that you decry; we give it power through our patronage, and acceptance of the values it represents.
People can be blamed for seeking "value" as you call it; they bought cheaply regardless of the consequences of their actions.

So, would you have spent the several thousand dollars instead of the fifty?

The people choose the government they want, either through action, or lack of it.

What choice is there? Push comes to shove, it appears that politicians behave pretty much the same.

With regard to your slavery argument, I submit that that was an isolated (and despicable) policy easily identified and corrected. What we see now is global and systemic.

(btw, on the topic of slavery, have you read "Sacred Hunger" by Barry Unsworth?)

... while you point to polls that show broad dissatisfaction, I urge you to attend more carefully to what I wrote. actions speak louder than words. While people may express dissatisfaction, until they are willing to act on it, those words are meaningless.

What actions are you suggesting? Voting for one party or another appears to have had no discernible effect.

[Sylvester]

They did not protest when jobs were shipped overseas. They did not... by why go on with the litany of failures here? The people choose the government they want, either through action, or lack of it. The latter is what we have, and while you point to polls that show broad dissatisfaction, I urge you to attend more carefully to what I wrote. actions speak louder than words. While people may express dissatisfaction, until they are willing to act on it, those words are meaningless.

We must act on this very thing. Create production in the USA and the world be damned.