Yesterday the Times' Adam Nagourney invoked a jarring analogy to reframe President Obama's Wednesday night speech, which, Nagourney safely ventured, "was about more than health care." Of equal and perhaps transcendent importance, it was, rather, designed "to show that he was not -- to use the shorthand of the day -- another Jimmy Carter."
Yes, fair to Mr. Carter or not, that's the sort of comparison most any White House would wish to vividly expunge from the get-go. Yet, fair to Mr. Obama or not, it was likely inevitable. For, as Nagourney further observed, "It is one thing to create and surf a political movement" -- "Obamamania!" remember that? -- but "quite another to lead an uneasy country and a politically divided Congress toward tough decisions that create winners and losers."
In short, to belabor today's oft-heard phrase of the conspicuously true, it's the difference between campaigning and governing. The former, at the time of the former, seems exhaustive in demonstrating a candidate's leadership skills and abilities; but it's a momentary walk in the park compared to the insufferable demands of the Oval Office. In fact, there is no real comparison: as political universes, they're perhaps parallel but vastly distinct.
What's more, I'm beginning to think we should altogether cease comparing presidencies. It's an amusing parlor game, but increasingly unprofitable in terms of deep understanding. One can compare presidential styles to some (questionable) benefit, but not, really, presidencies themselves.
For starters, every successful president has possessed roughly similar traits: leadership, patience, "the vision thing," determination, intelligence, principle tempered by pragmatism, pragmatism colored by principle. The unsuccessful ones have not, or at least their lack of one trait has torpedoed the others.
And all of this tells us ... what? exactly. The same traits apply -- or not -- to corporate CEOs and right on down the line to stay-at-home mothers and many a McDonald's franchise manager. So we're left pondering broad commonalities of rather dubiously useful insight.
What is key, however -- and at first this seems too obvious to note, yet maybe it's time for this necessary notation, what with all the favorable or unfavorable Obama-comparisons to Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, or Carter flying about -- is the epochal zeitgeists, historical circumstances, and assorted Congresses each president has coped with. Those, far more than presidential styles, are what have defined 44 presidencies.
In other words, national contours extraneous to the president himself. He can, no doubt, work to reshape and redefine those contours, to varying degrees of success, but he's largely a prisoner of them.
Take, for instance, the harsh references one so frequently reads to what FDR and Johnson's leadership abilities were able to accomplish and which put, in those past processes, Obama to shame. While it's true that one can legitimately compare the threesome's presidential styles -- and favorably, in this one man's contrary opinion -- the latter is nevertheless operating in a discretely different political universe, and that's bound to radically affect and alter the outcomes.
Above all, the essentially conservative personality of Obama's Democratic Congress -- reflecting, as it does, this nation's general rightward shift stemming from 40 years of unremitting disinformation campaigns -- makes comparisons to FDR and LBJ's administrations almost laughably crude. Notwithstanding the obstacle of their anti-federal Southern segregationists, both men happily possessed a Congressional-voting coalition of authentically liberal Democrats and moderate-to-liberal Republicans.
Those days, those times, those political contours are long, long gone. The GOP's structure has been ideologically strafed and reduced to contemptible rubble; and many of today's liberal Democrats are yesterday's moderate Republicans. Hence, unhappily, Obama's inner progressivism has in Congress a minority voting coalition of one (and he knows it).
FDR also possessed the paradoxical benefit of an incorrigibly ravished economy, which decisively loosened preceding ideological restraints, and LBJ the memorial loss of a beloved predecessor, not to mention lifelong ties to Congress. Well, one could go on, but you get the point: those were different eras, different circumstances, different personalities, all harboring different assets and challenges.
Just to rather untidily wrap these comments up, I would urge that returning, say, FDR's liberating 1933 Congress is up to the American electorate, not Barack Obama -- who's merely doing the remarkable best with what he's imprisoned by.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
shorter PM Carpenter:
"the buck stops somewhere in Congress, probably with the minority."
Barack Buchanan
Presidential analogies? James Bucannan. Faced with the apex of an ethical crisis that had been building for decades, both of these presidents kick their respective problem just down the road with rickety constructs of logically preposterous, unsustainable compromises.
"I have not said that I was
"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter (abolitionist) because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based (chattel labor) system in this country with private insurers (fat, white slaveholders), and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive."
Barack Obama, August 11, 2009; Ghost of Barack Buchanan, March 4, 1861
As Usual, Correct and Astute
As usual, P.M., you make an astute observation base on accurate observations. If some of my progressive brethern had spent significant amounts of time in the South and West, they would better realize just what Obama is up against. They simply are not adequately sensitized to the kind of ingrained and hidebound racism that exists there. They also have no idea that people in those areas thinks of "yankees" or "easterners" or "Kalifornikators" as seperate races of people. That is not a lame attempt at humor. That is how they really, really (really, really) see those other people.
I cannot begin to list the number of friends and family that I have, who are life long Democrats, progressive Democrats, who hated Bush and Reagan, but would not vote for Obama. Regardless of the weak explanations they gave and whether they will ever admit to themselves, I know it is because he is half black. And these are intellegent, educated, generally good people - who are on our side. Imagine what the other side is like.
As I suggested earlier, it is not simply black racism. It is a kind of zenophobia that distrusts, fears and hates, in no particular order: blacks, Mexicans, gays, non-Christians, Arabs, Muslims, gays (twice), blacks (three or four times), city folk, Catholics (except Southern Catholics), educated know-it-alls, Indians, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, yankees, black yankees, black Jewsish gay yankees, Deomocrats, Socialists, Communists and so forth.
Or as I like to refer them, the majority of America.
And that is kind of the point.
For those of you closer to my age, try to imagine the the U.S. being invaded by Russia in the early 1960s and having godless communists running everything. Really, try to imagine how you would have felt. I promise you that is how 25-35% of the country feels. They are scared shitless and are acting accordingly.
There is a governing implication from this that P.M. continues to explain, but my progressive brethern refuse to accept. If there was a great Migration of Redneck Republicans from small and rural states to states such as New York, California and New Jersey (in addition to Texas and Florida), Obama could get not only the public option, single-payer healthcare. And he could phone it in because we would pick up another 10 votes in the senate.
As I have pointed out before 30% of the senate is elected by 5.6% of the population. 40% is elected by 10%, and 50% is elected by 16%. Generally speaking, these smaller, more rural states have Redneck Republican majorities. So that 25-35% of the country that is scared shitless of the real U.S., is capable of and motivated to leverage their minority status to stop progress and change, which are the two things that have scared them shitless.
This is Obama's Zeitgeist. It does not relieve of the responsibility of overcoming it. As a progressive, (Socialist), I want a full scale assault on what is left of the Old South and international corporations. But I live behind enemy lines, and I know what he is up against.
Correction: As Usual, Incorrect and A Stupid
It's just another oped about nothin'!
Carpy forgets, again, that the correct comparison is with Dubya/dick. He continues on with the fascism, so Obama is indeed a Blue Dog DINO-Fascist.
Good luck in your next Democratic Presidential Primary, one term pResident Obama!
The Progressives have the power! We got rid of the Republican Neocon-Fascists in the last two elections. Now it's time we rid our selves of the Blue Dog DINO Fascists as well!
I like Kucinich, but ...
... if you think the "(true) Progressives have the power!", you need a reality check. Let's see, the "Progressives have the power!", so it follows that they supported Obama (he won, after all), who you now call a "Blue Dog DINO-FAcist". But now, you think you'll be able to take that "power" in 3 years and use it against Obama to get a real Progressive elected, right? Someone like, say ........... Dennis Kucinich, right? Funny, that despite having "the power", you "true progressives" only managed to use that power to get Kucinich 1% of the votes cast in the primarys/caucuses.
Hey, ...... do ya think that by 2012 you'll be able to pull that up to a full 2%?
'Cause that would really show them you have the power.
Dont diss Dennis
Kucinich got standing ovations during the presidential debates for having the temerity to tell the truth and call for the impeachment of Bush & co. to defend the constitution. The corporate media fears him, so according to their establishment, he is "insane", a" far left " socialist, etc etc. Its this media macihine that chooses wich candidates are allowed to run with a chance of winning, and has nothing to do with the persons appeal or ability. If Kucinich was given air time and allowed discuss issuess without snarky talking heads framing what he says, he would do as well as any of the others. If you dont think its the media who "helps" people decide who is an acceptable candidate, see G.W.Bush. We will always be forced to choose corporate candidates until money and madison avenue are kicked out of American politics.
I don't think they fear him, ...
... I think they just didn't take him very seriously, primarily based on his extremely low poll/vote numbers.
BTW - When did I say the media doesn't influence elections? Could you come up with an easier straw argument to knock down?
More Correctly, ...
... progressives have the numbers as long as we stand for things people are known to want. The key is to mobilize those numbers into effective action.
Obama's collapsing presidency is the model for the problem, in that we got him elected with margins that neutralized ES&S and Sequoya vote tampering, yet Obama still caters to the people who opposed him then and continue to oppose him now. We can't - as I'm hearing liberal Congresspeople say about the "public Option" phrase being used as proof that there will be one - declare victory and walk away from the problems.
Agreed. but...
I agree that Obama is humstrung with a much more conservative congress than either FDR or LBJ. In fact, the thought occured to me just the other day when I was doing what liberals do--in this case, wondering if I was being fair in my critisism of Obama.
So let it be said, Obama has no Everett Dirkson to reach across the aisle to. So what Obama must do then, by definition, is corral his OWN party. And to do this, he has to decide which side he intends to provide cover to--the consevative bluedogs, or the rest of the caucus. And time and time and time again, thru corporate master Rahm, he has come to the defense of the bluedogs and twisted the arms of the liberals.
I put it to you that this is a choice.
Liberals are tired of getting their arms twisted by this "liberal" president. I expected an even hand, with the complete understanding the bluedogs wouldn't be with us on some issues, but on health care? No, this is where I expect an LBJ moment. I expect Obama to pull Mike Ross into the Oval Office and grab him by the lapel and give him the business--
"Now Mike, we're gonna pass a goddamn bill, and the bill is going to have a public option. Mike, now you're going to vote with us on this thing or I'm not going to lift a finger for you next year and that's just the way it is. I'm sure you see this my way. Rahm, give Mike a soda. Now Mike, you just let me know if there's anything you need. And remember what I said."
There is exactly zero evidence that I can find that Obama has ever done this or any other variation thereof to any bluedog on any issue, including healthcare. But there are many examples of the opposite--too numerous to mention--of corporate butt boy Rahm getting in the face of liberals and outside liberal groups.
So I'm still waiting on that LBJ moment from Obama. I'm waiting for him to grab the collar of a bluedog for once. Especially on this, healthcare, the most important of issues and the defining principle of what it means to be a democrat. If we lose the public option because Obama made the choice not to LBJ the bluedogs, we will then know him for who he is.
And I don't plan to give him an out just because this isn't 1935 or 1965.
Waiting For Obama...
...will be a longer play than Waiting For Godot.
You wait in vain for Obama to act. Because of his deliberate disposal of the power given the Democratic Party in the last election, his opposition has become emboldened and more confident of victory. His speech - filled with recycled platitudes and emptiness - confirmed that when it comes to the occupant of the Oval Office, "there is no there there". He is only marking time and keeping the seat warm until the GOP can resurrect the public image of one of their damaged goods to be presented to the American People as their savior from Obamanism. It worked once before (see: Richard Nixon, 1968), so there is every reason to expect that it will work again. And when it does, the corporatist express will be back on the tracks and steaming full speed ahead.
America, we hardly knew ye.
Arm Twisting
The real arm twisting must be done by the Senate leadership, and as floated by Senator Schumer. Senate Democrat committee membership and chairmanships must be elected every two years instead of being based on seniority. Then, chairmen such as Baucus would be much more responsive to the center of their party instead of the center of the country. Imagine Feingold or Schumer as charman of the finance committee.
"The real arm twisting must
"The real arm twisting must be done by the Senate leadership..."
Well sure, when your national executive, the head of his party, refuses to do so, you are left with the next folks down the ladder to take up his slack...and you're left with the 2nd-string's priorities reflected in the legislation. Ever heard the term "Bully Pulpit"?
Yes
Yes, I have heard of the bully pulpit. Have you ever heard of calling someone's bluff? If Obama threatens a senator and the senator says, Piss off?", what can Obama do then? Don't even bring up LBJ. LBJ was the senate bagman for for the oil industry and had bought every Democrat and a lot of Republicans. He knew where all the bodies were buried.
"If Obama threatens a
"If Obama threatens a senator and the senator says, Piss off?", what can Obama do then?"
Perhaps the problem here is your automatic assumption that any politial resolution coming from our side must be nothing but a smoke screen,waiting for a whispered question to clear the air and reveal a couple hundred fat Democratic backsides jiggling out of every exit. Self-fulfilling prophesies are a drag. Its Obama's responsibility to make sure that he's NOT BLUFFING!
This is the trouble with Democrats these days: they've been media-brainwashed to implicitly believe that progressive positions don't hold ay water; even though they still kinda want the team to win.
Well, you're in luck; I happen to be capable of critical thought, and I can assure you that earnest single payer arguments beat the hell out of those babbled by the right wing - and all too often pathetically echoed by our president and congressional Democrats. A smart guy like Obama wouldn't have to worry at all about getting beat in a rhetorical battle by tools like Wilson, Boehner, and Cantor - if he would actually argue the points faithfully.
...instead he embraces 3/4 of their bullshit and uses their lexicon as he meekly argues for tiny fragments of our party's traditional platform ... and the simpletons Grassley, Beck, and Palin actually win policy contests with him! It's enough to make you puke.
Bozo ratio
Good comments. I would like to define a bozo ratio for Congress. The bozo ratio would be calculated by dividing the number of bozos in Congress by the total number of members. Obviously, this ratio would vary from zero to one, with one representing a Congress that is totally composed of bozos. There could be an aggregate ratio for both chambers, and individual ratios for each chamber. Because of the filibuster in the Senate, a lower bozo ratio would be required there to get anything useful done. Ideally, you would want to keep the ratio at the same, or lower, than the bozo ratio of the American voter, but since Congress is composed of politicians, this is probably not possible.
Defining a bozo is a subject that needs work, but certainly if you think the Internet is a series of tubes, or you really believe that the Earth is 5000 years old, then you're a bozo.
Now what's required is some Congressional scholar, who knows more about the subject than me, to calculate the current bozo ratios, as well as historic bozo ratios. I think when this is done, that we will find that we now have a historically high bozo ratio, which will validate the Fifth Columnist's hypothesis.
Times
Maybe a crash course in Civics..?
President Obama is not a dictator..the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution divided the Federal government into three co-equal branches of government..The Executive (President, Cabinet, Administration, etc) The Legislative (Congress, the House and the Senate) The Judicial (Supreme Court, Department of Justice, FBI, Attorney General, etc.) If you want to change the way things are...don't blame the President....blame your selves, you are the ones who elected Congress (the President did not appoint Congress) if you don't like what your Congress critters are doing...then do your homework, educate your selves, and vote in a Congress that does work for the people, and is not backed by the Corporations and their "campaign donations"..better yet, lets get the Corporations and their lobbyist whores out of our Congress.....force a change, take Corporations out of Congress (we are supposed to be self-governing, remember?)...and lets get "public financing only" for politicians...no more corporate puppets who take Corporate lobbyist checks (in the case of GOP Duvall, "bribes" and sexual favors) then in return for the "favors", gladly write legislation for the benfit of Corporate greed while kicking "we the people" to the curb) ....did you know that the Supreme Court (lead by John Roberts, Alito and Scalia..the Catholic Mafia) is right on the verge of flipping over a precedence that has stood for over 100 years..allowing Corporations to "donate" unregulated, no limit, campaign funds directly (no more funneling through PAC's) to any politican that Corporation choose...? (As I said..educating your self, is the first step)
Crash course in VETO Power
All Obama has to do is tell the Blue Dog DINO-Fascists to vote for single payer or he will veto the bill.
But he would never do that, since he is a Blue Dog DINO-Fascist traitor himself, and Rahm wants more legalized democracy destroying bribe money from the insurance companies, via the K Street lobbyist pimps.
Obama
"Just to rather untidily wrap these comments up, I would urge that returning, say, FDR's liberating 1933 Congress is up to the American electorate, not Barack Obama -- who's merely doing the remarkable best with what he's imprisoned by."
Just a reminder, Obama chose his cabinet AND his administration, so HE chose his captors. If he wants something bad enough, he can get it done. Quit apologizing for him. He was aggressive about getting the TARP program passed for his corporate friends AND he is aggressive about getting funds to support our war/occupation with two countries.
When is he going to get aggressive for the American people???