Today marks the end of only the ninth month of the Obama administration, yet it's already sounding much like FDR's administration as it headed, after four grueling years of vicious attacks by the right and determined shoves by the left, toward the 1936 election.
It was in June of that year, and not during his first campaign, as some mistakenly recall, that Roosevelt delivered his now-famous denunciation of "economic royalists." He had taken a roughly "corporatist" approach during what's known as the First New Deal, and what it earned him was bottomless ingratitude from the right, and persistent criticism -- not to mention growing political threats -- from the left.
What then followed was the corrective, more liberal Second New Deal -- Social Security, jobs programs, the Wagner Act, etc. -- and that abovementioned sharp rhetorical shift, which, as further noted, seems to be where the Obama White House is already headed.
"The [pay] bonuses are offensive," declared David Axelrod last Sunday on ABC's "This Week," sounding more like an irate Brain Truster than a mild-mannered adviser.
And that was no outburst; it was a calculated assault, executed in tandem with Rahm Emanuel's appearance on CNN's "State of the Union": "Not only do they come for a bailout," said Obama's chief of staff, "they're now back trying to fight a consumer office and the type of protections that will prevent another type of situation where the economy is taken over the cliff by the actions taken on Wall Street."
These remarks followed the president's own anti-Wall Street turn in "at least two high-profile speeches in recent weeks," observed the Washington Post about what it called the White House's "increasingly confrontational tone" against whom Roosevelt called those "economic royalists."
On a similar front, reports the Politico, the White House, in cooperation with leading Capitol Hill Dems, is "working to marginalize" the powerful Chamber of Commerce, which shelled out nearly $100 million last year to lobby against virtually every suggestion of liberal progress.
This year the Chamber is spending an equal amount in a propaganda campaign to "defend free enterprise" against the Obama's administration's attempts to rescue it -- again, just like the Roosevelt administration, which of course met with the same gratitude.
This passage was choice: White House adviser Valerie Jarrett "said she requested a meeting with [Chamber President Tom] Donohue when she first heard about the campaign months ago. At the meeting, she said, she brought up the Chamber's support for the bailout of the financial system last fall and the $787 billion stimulus package passed earlier this year. 'How do ask for all that government assistance and then say you believe only in the free-market system?' Jarrett recalled asking Donohue. 'And he really didn’t have an answer.' "
All of this comes amidst the media's latest obsession (when, that is, they aren't obsessing over balloon-boy dads): "Does the president have to do more to demonstrate toughness?"
That was the question posed by George Stephanopoulos last Sunday, and none other than George Will gave perhaps the best answer: "I hope not," because when young and inexperienced Jack Kennedy was confronted by similar doubts, his response was to prove his toughness by deepening our military commitment in South Vietnam.
Roundtable guest E.J. Dionne puzzled over the historical comparison, "LBJ, they say, 'Be like LBJ,' " but when on to note in a Why-do-I-need-to-point-this-out? kind of way that President Johnson "had 295 House Democrats [and] 68 Senate Democrats."
And even Paul Krugman, no uncritical admirer of the Obama administration, said "this is a weird time to be holding this narrative [of non-toughness] forth.... He's about to get the biggest change in our [health-care] system since -- since Medicare. That's not the mark of a president who's showing himself insufficiently tough."
Krugman then offered this analysis of presidential temperament, which itself -- see above -- is perhaps in flux: "Sure, [Obama] doesn't swagger.... [Y]ou know, he's not talking tough, but he's actually getting stuff done now, which is what matters."
For his trouble, Obama is being universally assailed by the right as too aggressive and, more amusingly, generally assailed by the left as too lethargic, if not indifferent. But as a student of history, I can guarantee you that in 70 years -- precisely what has happened in Roosevelt's case -- American progressives will be saying, Remember when we had that dynamo of progressivism, Barack Obama, in the White House? Yes, those were the happy days of real, and tough, presidential determination.
Like I said. It's amusing.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
at least
Well at least the conservative wing of the democratic party likes your rants P.M. Myself I think you stink as part of the He has only been in office 9 months.Obama is no Roosevelt and as a real history major as oppossed to a phony one like you i hate your smears of roosevelt by comparing Obma to him.Roosevelt came out swinging from day 1,many of his measures were ruled unconstitutional by the conservative supreme court in term 1 where you claim he was still a conservative republican.His cabinet and advisors weren't all republicans or conservative democrats like Obama chose.As far as talking about the corporations,all politicians do this when they strart to feel the heat,its what actions they take,not what they say.Obama was going after the tax cheats who hide their money overseas,when they started complaining he backed off quickly.
Lets tell the truth for once PM ,you are a stinking republican with all your supporters from the DlC who wants no progress in America.
Anti-business?
These people sure seam to be anti-business in their scathing rhetoric for CEO's, profits, bonuses, Wall Street greed... you know, the stuff our nation has prospered on. What gives? Are we now supposed to become socialists at the expense of capitalism? I don't think people were expecting this type of change from Obama. This was not part of the deal. casino en ligne
Anti-labor? Anti-consumer?
Maybe if some of that prosperity you "seam" to admire so much was again distributed among those who actually worked to create it, maybe there would be a more favorable image of your business class heroes among the people of this nation. But since the top 1% are "earning" more than the bottom 95% combined, I kind of doubt that will happen. It just doesn't "seam" to me like it would work, not with so much unemployment and too many foreclosures and reduced wages and lost benefits - all so that your heroes can "seam" to live like Olympian demigods.
So take your presumptuous prosperity pitch back to Mediterranean Avenue where you got it from. We, the People have to repair the damage your Boardwalk heroes left us.
Oh - and in case you haven't figured it out yet, it's spelled "seem".
You're welcome. No extra additional hidden charge. Really.
Traffic cop analogy
Corporate crooks-you know, the same assholes who brought our economy to the brink of ruin and were rewarded for their multille crimes by US-those crooks, continue with their in-your-face theft, right out there in the open.
This is approximate to a driver speeding through a red light while the cop there snoozes behind the wheel of his patrol car.
It's almost as if the bush crime family never left office.
You Call That Toughness?
Obama has demonstrated that he's tough like a crusty marshmallow in a microwave! Every time Boehner passes gas, Obama sits up and begs for mercy. Some toughness! Some street rat Obama used to advocate for probably is tougher!
But I do have to credit the Obama administration with getting the heavy hitters out into the media forum where they might actually do some good. They can display whether or not they have any of the rumored toughness that is so lacking in the output of the Obama administration. I just wish they had begun this right as the term began. It might have made a difference.
Obama's "toughness" ....
... is 'on trial'?" LOL!
Might as well claim Bush's intelligence is "on trial".
two typos
(one missing word, one wrong one) are very unusual on this blog. Wonder what that means.
Progressives are in a box and Justice Roberts will lock it up.
Whether or not Obama supports and initiative, opposes, pushes, pushes-back, supports, denies, or flies to the moon it won't matter a tinker's damn after the 5 fascists on the Supreme Court soon rule that corporations are citizens too. Corporations will be be free to enter politics to spend what they want, when they want, where they want, to say what they want to overwhelm the public with propaganda. Political campaigns will become even more of a farce than they are now. The corporatists (read fascists) have won. Practice your stiff arm salute boys ... and look for those 1940 cookie-duster mustaches to come back into vogue.
And The Odds Are...
...that VegasDave is absolutely correct.
Very much true, I think, as (updated)
Very much true, I think, as long as Obama does not ruin his legacy the way Lyndon Johnson did. But I would have thought that Kennedy's buildup in Vietnam had something to do with (the phantom of) Marxist dominoes, rather than George Will's penchant for psychobabble.
(I am annoyed by people's lack of perspective more than I am amused by it.)
Update: I would like to add that I am annoyed by the people who say that an "unrobust" bill won't help at all. People ought to think twice before using words like "all" or "nothing". The healthcare bill will be a great achievement even if it does nothing but give all those people, who have been waiting to go to a doctor, the opportunity to go to a doctor. Other people think of how we can punish the insurance industry for its ethical monstrosity; but I think of all the people who aren't going to the doctor because they are too terrified to risk it. Our first task is to remove that terror and let those people go to the doctor.
Wait.... The Spirits Are Speaking to Me, and Saying YMan,
Mike5000, ThomasD, epppie, nasrudin and all of the OTHER racist so-called "progressives" will spit in your face and whinge impotently at how "Obama is No Better Than Bush!"....same as they ALWAYS do whenever somebody points out that, however slowly, we are inching our way back from the Bushivek Treasonous War Crimes Regime.
Hmm - think I could get a spot on Leno w/my mindreading abilities? God knows he needs SOMETHING to fill five otherwise empty hours a week.... >:)
"However slowly"????
.... inching our way back from the Bushevik Treasonous War Crimes Regime?" Can't set the bar any lower, huh "Doc"?
Hey, ...... didn't you tell us that Obama was the true progressive candidate?
How's that workin' out for ya?
(snicker)
BTW - As for the impotence, ....
I'll have to defer to your expertise.
Perhaps Leno can have PM on as a guest
No wait, that would be even more "empty hours a week".
We don't say Obama is no better than Bush. That is your straw man delusion.
We say Obama is Bush light for continuing on with the insane Dubya/dick Fascist Military Industrial Wall Street Complex.
Plus Obama is now indeed a war criminal for not prosecuting Dubya/dick war crimes, as required under U.S. and international law.
Almost as amusing as Carpy's anti public option BS
The public option lives, no thanks to you, Carpy.
Keep hoping for the worst, while propagandizing against the best.
Who's Carpy? Does he have
Who's Carpy? Does he have anything to do with Grimey Grimes?
If Caving Is Getting Things Done Then He's Getting Things Done
Caving on single payer, caving on ending these damn perpetual wars, caving on torture, caving on unauthorized surveillance, caving on don't ask don't tell, caving on justice for Palestine, with caving on the privatization of Social Security soon to follow. Oh yes, he's softer on a few social issues such as medical merihuana, but on the forementioned "big ticket" items he's less than no help. As for his recent "toughness" - words, words words.
I'm sure it is amusing...
As we progressives flail and wring our hands over the steady progression of history--you know--the history that Carp guarentees us is coming in 70 years, in a sort of Nostradamean type of way.
Actually, I will admit that you may be right. But you also may be wrong, as I can guarentee you there is no 2nd new deal coming from this administration. Even if he wanted it he will not have the majorities in congress to pull it off, and if he did, the majority would be full of the same 21st century corrupt Bluedogs that we have now.
What Obama is doing now is bitching about being double-crossed by big-monied entities that he should have known would double-cross him if he's any student of history the way you are--and he's bitching because they are making his legislative job more difficult and causing him political problems.
The people who elected him are a secondary consideration.
In fact, we can test your theory early, as the infamous public option will be a bellweather for the type of prediction you just made. If Obama has indeed begun to see that money will always trump his wily charms where Big Business is concerned, and that he can't cut deals with them but must instead fight them, we will see him completely tear up the backroom deals he made with Big Healthcare and PUSH! PUSH! PUSH!
For a robust public option.
I haven't seen it. In fact, I've seen several leaks from White House aides saying the opposite, that he won't demand it--even as it becomes apparent that AHIP has sucker-punched him in the gut.
Let me tell you something--if Obama REALLY WANTS a robust public option it will be in the senate bill. Period.
If he does not, he has not crossed the Big Money rubicon the way Carp suggests he has (or will).
This is one time I sincerely hope Carp is right and that I'm missing something. But I read up on a little history myself, Carp. And what I see out of this White House doesn't even measure up to Bill Clinton, much less Roosevelt. At least Clinton fought for the gay community and went after the NRA in his 1st term. Without a robust public option for healthcare Obama will have done jack and squat.
In 70 years (as Bush might say) we'll all be dead. As for Obama's 2nd (new deal) term, I expect a lot of sound and fury and beautiful rhetoric--hey, sort of like we're getting now--without much substance. I guess if he can get throught it without impeachment or a court-packing debacle, we should consider ourselves fortunate.
Oh My God. Someone SEEING and SPEAKING TRUTH!!!
!!!!! GO PM CARPENTER !!!!!!
BRAVO MAN!!!!
[Here come the nails PM; the do-nothing Progressive roots will Crucify you over this.]
Is that you PM? Or perhaps a 13 yr old relative?
The ironically named Start Loving is your one member fan club.
Meanwhile, we "do-nothing" Progressives have turned the corner on the Public Option popularity:
'A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?hpid=topnews
Turned the corner!~--
---is still a long way from Downtown.
To me it seems the 'damn near dead on the doorstep GOP' has already won too much in the closed door sessions for Progressives to come out of this with anything more than a 'declaration of victory' while the Insurance industry moans its loss as it banks the bucks.
Progressives win the popularity contest which will fit nicely in their empty pockets. How nice.