Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Obama's Obsession With Compromise Has Compromised His Presidency

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:07pm.

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

UPDATE: Since this commentary was written in the early afternoon of July 27th, Think Progress has confirmed that President Obama was negotiating a gradual increase of the eligibility age for Medicare to 67. As Think Progress reported:

Jacob Hacker, political science professor at Yale University, has called the scheme "the single worst idea for Medicare reform" since it "saves Medicare money only by shifting the cost burden onto older Americans caught between the old eligibility age and the new, as well as onto the employers and states that help fund their benefits." Worse still, some seniors between the ages of 65 and 67 could "end up uninsured," the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities' Edwin Park predicted. Individuals "with incomes too high for premium subsidies in the exchange and those who qualify for only modest subsidies" could be priced out of affordable coverage, he warned.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, raising the eligibility age to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare. Seniors in Medicare Part B would also face a 3 percent premium increase, the study found, since younger and healthier enrollees would be routed out of Medicare and into private insurance. Beneficiaries in health care reform's exchanges would see a similar spike in premiums with the addition of the older population. Federal cost savings, meanwhile, would be slim.

Meanwhile, Think Progress also revisited how Timothy Geithner had warned Obama against negotiating on the debt ceiling because it would likely lead to a quagmire.  Obama ignored his advice.

President Obama's view of himself as a consumate behind closed doors negotiator with Republican leaders may be due to hubris, but is certainly not effective; in fact, he generally ends up as the guy at the poker table who started with the biggest stake, but ends up with no chips left to play.

Yes, polls show Democrats, in general, would vote for him again, but it may be due more to a fear that he is the only thing between America and the cult of barbarians at the gate than due to his weak leadership and feckless negotiations.

OBAMA'S OBSESSION WITH COMPROMISE HAS COMPROMISED HIS PRESIDENCY

Regardless of the current political theater taking place over the debt ceiling, what drives much of the right wing - in terms of symbols - is the iconic image of the lone male (usually with a gun) who doesn't flinch from a fight, when his integrity and justice are at stake.

Let's call this "The John Wayne Syndrome."

Ronald Reagan, a Hollywood colleague and buddy of Wayne, was the epitome of this - in large part because he could act the role so well.

This brings us to the issue of form vs. content in the Obama presidency. Obama has positioned himself as a mediator between the Democrats and the Republicans, not as an unwavering leader for a specific agenda or vision. Since his presidency began, he has been primarily on the defensive, caught on the Republican side of the football field with has back to the goal line.

This is where his emphasis on "compromise" may have compromised his presidency. The Republicans, in general, value strength in politics over concession. They tend to look at a man who is frequently backing away from his positions, whatever his lofty rhetoric, as weak and as someone who can be pushed around.

The intangible in all this is that, while most Americans want the "gridlock to break in DC," it hasn't broken. Despite polling that shows Obama is perceived a bit better on the debt ceiling issue than the Republicans, he is starting to lose advance polls against some GOP candidates for the next election.

What Obama may not understand is that most Americans want strong leadership standing up to bullies and thugs, as Gary Cooper did as the sheriff in "High Noon" (popular culture drives our image making, after all). They didn't elect a mediator in 2008; they elected a leader who would break the DC logjam not by showing weakness, but by showing resolve and an ability to forcefully exercise the power of the presidency.

Republican political leaders are jackals at sensing weakness in opponents. In the end, President Obama's insistence on pleading with the GOP to accept legislation that is similar to what they originally proposed as a first-step debt reduction target is a sign of a failed strategy and risk aversion, not strength.

******

If you'd like to receive these commentaries daily from Truthout/BuzzFlash, click here. You'll get our choice headlines and articles too.




»

We Needed Another FDR and Got Jimmy Carter Instead

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:19pm.

Reviewing this President's record in total, not one registered Democrat should vote for his reelection.
Progressives should be so totally disallusioned by this President's concept of post-partisan politics and by his refusal to actually take charge and lead by employing bedrock Democratic Party principles that a primary challenge from the Left should be the consequence of his betrayal of the cause.

This will not happen of course since The Left would guarantee that a Republican would assume the Presidency in which case what is left of the country we grew up in would be obliterated, which is probably only a matter of time anyway regardless of who wins in 2012.

With the nation enduring a coup d'tat in 1963, Nixon's never ending war in Vietnam, the assassinations of RFK and MLK, 8 years of Reagan's attempts to dismantle the the New Deal, and another 8 years of craven economic policies which included two unnecessary wars ginned up by the Bush/Cheney cabal, Barrack Obama was the country's last, best hope. Unfortunately, he has squandered his opportunity and the outlook now is very bleak.

»

"Compromise" as a weapon

Submitted by Alan8 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:13am.

"Yes, polls show Democrats, in general, would vote for him again, but it may be due more to a fear that he is the only thing between America and the cult of barbarians at the gate..."

THIS is what is dooming America to a future with a few billionaires and most of the population struggling to survive as peasants in a police state.

People vote for the moderately-fascist corporate-funded party out of fear of the radically-fascist corporate-funded party. This must stop.

This good-cop/bad-cop scam has allowed the wealthy to get whatever they wanted for the last 30 years. Obama, like Democrats in general, is financed by the wealthy, and has used "compromise" as a weapon against citizens to give the wealthy what they want WHILE APPEARING TO BE REPRESENTING CITIZENS' INTERESTS.

The Green Party doesn't accept corporate money, and REALLY represents citizens' interests. See www.gp.org .

We can break this cycle by making the Democrats start to fear the SWING VOTERS ON THE LEFT, by supporting the Green Party. There's a Green Party is virtually every country, and they all share the same Ten Key Values (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml ) making them ideally suited for the international coordination needed to stand up to the multinational corporations.

5% of the vote will get the Green Party matching Federal funds, and will send the corporate-funded Democrats a message that they can no longer take progressives' votes for granted.

The Green Party won't compromise. VOTE GREEN!

»