Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama: Clinton or FDR?
After Obama's big speech to the joint session of Congress, David Gergen made the over-the-moon observation on CNN that the first half of the speech sounded like FDR, and the second half sounded like LBJ.
I didn't hear it that way.
In fact, in the second half of his speech, I noticed that Obama suddenly morphed into Bill Clinton. It was when he started talking about personal responsibility, waving his finger in the air, the way Clinton used to. I don't mind the occassional exhortation to be a good parent, or the argument that consumer debt is a widespread disease that helped contribute to the economic collapse. But it is ridiculous to make it sound like the working poor who signed up for balloon mortgages, or the high school dropouts Obama said are not only failing themselves but also failing their country (to a massive standing ovation from Congress) are just as responsible for our current fix as Wall Street bankers who exploited loose regulation and are now paying themselves bonuses and doling out divideds to shareholders with government bailout money.
The new Obama Administration slogan for the financial crisis: "It's not about helping banks. It's about helping people," is not particularly heartwarming, either. It sounds a little like the NRA slogan. Which people are we talking about, anyway?
Obama alluded to the disillusionment about the bailout. But the way he described it, it seemed that the bailout, while flawed, was necessary-not a boondoggle for Wall Street funded by the taxpayers. If Gergen heard FDR in Obama's references to the GI Bill and the public school system and other examples of things the government has done right, he forgot that FDR also stood firmly on the side of ordinary wage-earners, and attacked Wall Street's greed.
Just seeing the Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was enough to remind you that change only goes so far.
There were some bright spots, of course. The gee-whiz factor has not worn off the Obama Presidency yet. Just seeing him take the podium, flanked by Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, and seeing the sour Republicans reduced to a minority, was cheering. So was the showcasing of the brilliant and down-to-earth Michelle Obama, hugging the little girl who wrote about her flood-damaged school. The Obamas inspire just by standing there. We're a long, long way from the Bushes.
Most of all, the turning away from the war in Iraq, and Obama's promise to save money by getting out of that useless war, and by cutting Cold War relics like Star Wars out of the defense budget, was mighty encouraging. Obama's slaps at Bush for Guantanamo, his pledge that the United States can now pledge that we don't torture, his commitment to invest in education, health care, and alternative energy as the top priorities in his budget, were salutory.
But again, Bill Clinton hovers like an eminence grise over all these areas. While Obama projects an image of America that draws on the best parts of its history: especially the New Deal and Great Society, it's not clear that he is proposing anything remotely that ambitious. The TARP investments he touted are worthy. But 3.5 million new jobs doesn't sound like such a big number anymore, sadly. Nor does $2500 for college. "This is America. We don't do what's easy, but what's necessary," he said. Good turn of phrase. But it turns out to be a rather vague pitch for doing something about the health care crisis. "We can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold." Does that mean cutting Medicare and Medicaid, like the threatened "reform" of Social Security, or does it mean extending SCHIP, which Obama praises?
It's not clear where he is going with this. Clinton talked beautifully about the hard-heartedness of Republicans, but he also had his own plan to privatize Social Security. Obama also made reference to "modernizing" and using individual accounts.
Next week, Obama said, we will see a new task force that will address health care reform. We all remember how that went in the Clinton Administration. And while Obama alluded in his speech to Teddy Roosevelt calling for health care reform, it was universal health care Roosevelt called for-a phrase that, while it got a workout during the Democratic primary season, did not appear in this speech. No one will be shocked if what emerges from that task force is Clinton-style incrementalism.
Going into the speech tonight, according to The New York Times, Obama had the highest favorable ratings of any recent President, and a surprising amount of support from Republican voters. Republicans in Congress, on the other hand, are not faring well with their stonewalling posture. It was a good time for Obama to lean forward, defend government spending to stimulate the economy, outline an ambitious agenda.
The "Third Way" rhetoric in the speech left me wondering whether his agenda will turn out to be ambitious in its scope, or simply scattershot and small-bore.
Obama continued to talk about reaching across the aisle and making government work for people. That might be smart, insofar as it seems to make the Republicans look more and more stubborn and irrational. But Obama's gentleness to the deregulators and pillagers is not encouraging. Nor is his willingness to spread the blame around for everything from educational failure to the mortgage crisis to the banks' collapse.
Clinton was brilliant and sunny and good at making his adversaries look downright small minded and mean. But in the end he never delivered on the big promises to expand opportunity, access to good education, spread the wealth around society. And that was when the federal budget was in surplus.
We are living in different times now, as Obama himself pointed out at the end of his speech. We can't afford to be anything but bold.
65 Comments so far
Show AllYou know I am discouraged by the increasing mealy-mouthing about ending our invasions and occupations. I am infuriated by the type of foxes who have been chosen to guard the financial henhouses. I am sad that it is even a question that those who ordered torture and committed war crimes may not be subject to laws and penalties recognized around the world since Nuremberg.
But among the bright spots, I see Obama's calls for activation of people as a positive development. For instance, some college students have decided to devote Spring Break to public service. Maybe they will learn something about the world and what difference a person can make.
When it comes to the failure of our schools to retain students, I blame the instabilities caused by poverty, untreated illness, penny-pinching, insincerity toward and prejudice against the poor and working class and specific policies that promote dropping out.
Nonetheless there IS a need to ask people to get out of the rut of shattered expectations and turn off the TV, help kids with their homework. There is a need for people to put consumerism and entertainment in second place after the development of the children. If you have ever lived or worked in a poor school district, you know how pivotal the attitudes and priorties of parents are.
I know people are tired, worried and overworked, but it can be done. We will never change anything while people remain passive and accepting, while they can blame their "failures" on a lack of effort on their own part. When people start to take more responsibility, that can give them the self-respect to believe in their own thinking and to demand fair treatment.
Joe
Nanoo
I guess we all, owe our soul to the company store (China). I think most of us could tell Obama, like he doesn't know already, how to put this country back to work.
I like to see this country break up, end the empire. After Obama has given the banks sooo much money and then the recovery bill, plus expanding the illusionary war on terror, he'll finally say he has to reform social security because we no money. Bush couldn't pull it off, but the big shots think Obama can and that's why he was selected. Remember Obama keeps on saying, we all have to make sacrifices.
Once again, I notice a lot of negativity towards Obama. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things I regret about having voted for Obama but if you people really think Nader, Mckinney, Paul, or Barr would have done any differently, you're deluded. To understand FDR, one must have either lived through those years or at least have talked to someone as close who has. See, FDR did enact his programs overnight. Labor unions, credit unions, Social Security, etc ... began decades before the Great Depression kicked in at the community levels. As the economy grew worse, people became more united and focused less on money and more on quality. Back during the days of the Great Depression, there was strong public unity and labor support coupled with strong public pressure on FDR and the Democrats to clean up this mess. If it were not for that, the corporate and military elites who were hostile to him and even tried to stage a rightwing coup against him would have won and the Great Depression would have continued. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that our lack of unity and support for one another is why Obama is what he is and I would add both parties in Congress. Obama might be able to change a few things but until the public actually unites to pressure our Congress persistently, and yes it sucks to pay taxes to do just that, our country will be unable to achieve the major reforms needed.
P.S.: If you people really want anything to improve, I strongly suggest reading this article on the hazardous effects of negativity in online communities and pass this around because quite frankly, we the people are not using the Internet to empower ourselves for the better but are instead shooting each other like mad all the while the corporate and military rightwing interests continue to win and have plenty of field days at us.
http://www.marco.org/81566726
Nanoo
Negativity, yep I see your point. Then again it's hard not to be a realist and air ones frustrations. Spring is right around the corner and so is March 19th. That's the day my annual peace and awareness group would normally meet to protest the Irag invasion. Last year Moveon was there and while so early in the primary election season, was encouraging the people there to vote Obama. So, where does one go from here. I haven't heard anything and it's hard to go it alone, I also voted Nader.
Clearly, most of the commenters here would flunk a simple quiz on Clinton's accomplishments.
A sampling:
longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993
If one looks at Perry Logan's post, one immediately sees that he copied-N-pasted this list of "accomplishments" without even reading it himself. For instance, the list cites "Smallest Welfare Rolls" TWICE, with the wording changed. Near the top it says "Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years," while down near the bottom it says "Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969."
And of course, the REASON the welfare rolls were lower was that Clinton served the rich. They insisted he slash welfare payments, so he did. It didn't mean the hardships faced by the poor were any less. It merely meant that Clinton dismantled the meager safety net.
All the BS about Clinton's much-yakked-about "surplus" fails to note that the REASON for the surplus was simply the stock market boom, which yielded a temporary surge in capital gains tax revenues to the govt. That created the surplus. It was a one-off phenomenon, which came from an unsustainable source. In fact, Clinton's corruption was one of the main causes of the stock market boom, since in his eagerness to serve the rich, he repealed Glass-Steagall.
Exactly, the best Republican president we ever had, the rich became richer while Clinton threw the poor off welfare.
The banking deregulation that is the cause of the mess we're in was greatly accelerated under Clinton.
When he wasn't being blown by Monica or other fat interns he was making sure NAFTA and GATT were sending our jobs overseas, no wonder he's now getting all these millions from contributors worldwide.
He was also starving Iraqi children to death with his inhumane sanctions. AND! Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years, just like W.
He became the first war criminal from Arkansas when he invaded the Balkans on that ridiculously fake humanitarian pretext.
Spare us the propaganda.
Obama: Clinton or FDR?
Neither, Obama: Cheney.
From reading the posts below, we have about 41 people who should have run for president. Everyone here seems to be smarter and purer than Obama.
Unlike Clinton he is not going to need a vast right wing conspiracy to try to bring him down. He has one growing on his left. 34 days into the presidency and comments like these on a progressive blog?
There were only two viable contenders for president. Instead of telling me that Obama is a sell-out to capitalism and our country, why don't you tell me how much better things would have been with McCain, because that was the alternative? Keep tearing Obama down, predicting and hoping for his failure and you might just get yourselves a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go ahead, clear the road for Newt, Jeb, Mitt or whoever and take your pick because that is who we will get next if Obama does fail.
Et tu Brute
The problem is is that Obama is leaving the big hole in the tire as he attempts to pump in air. I admit, Clinton was a likable guy, and implemented some good policy. HOWEVER, it appears he ultimately did more damage than good by allowing the Glass-Steagel act to be repealed and gutting welfare (which so many more people will need now BECAUSE OF NAFTA and GATT, which Clinton was and is still gung-ho about). Obama MUST address and revamp those trade agreements, which will dissolve them as they are now (meaning to push for higher wages for slave labor and enforce environmental protections, or no deal).
Obama is quite charismatic, but he will not bring meaningful change by behaving like a Washington insider. Washington is corrupt to the bone and has been for some time. Unfortunately for Obama, his hand will be forced by the realities of the economic downturn. He will have to decide between continuing to serve elite interests and the stability of the whole. Seemingly FDR was put in the same situation, and was no doubt was 'forced' in many ways to do what he did. I'd like to think that back then the media was more on the side of the truth than it is today. Today we have better ways of delivering ever more sophisticated forms of propaganda, which confuses the masses as to what is truly in their best interest. Even if Obama wants to, it will prove exceedingly difficult for him to meaningfully challenge the corruption he faces. Looking at who he has surrounded himself with for advisers, the prospects do not seem good.
Most are still beating the so-called 'free trade' drum, which will lead to an escalating downward spiral and increasing unemployment. We MUST start producing again, even if only for our basic needs. Most do not understand the peril they (and especially their children) face from contaminated food and drugs from China. Some brand name coffee and creamers, containing Chinese milk are presently being recalled because of Melamine contamination. And many pharmacuticals you pay an arm and a leg for are not even being properly inspected to ensure quality control. You may be safer now ordering your drugs from India.
The longer this nonsense goes on, the more difficult it will be to change direction, and the more debt we will have accumulated. Even some of the elite must realize the peril they are in. If they persist in attempting to maintain their ill-begotton gains, meaning the status quo, they will no doubt to be in for a rude and unpleasant awakening.
Clueless Dem Party Apologist, Kool Aid Drinker post. Do you think we on left have been tough on Obama for only 34 days into the presidency?
We saw through the fraud at least 2 years ago. We were right about him then, and we're right about now. Just because Jeffrey Dahmer murdered less people than Ted Bundy doesn't make Obama more acceptable than McCain.
Do you think we on left have been tough on Obama for only 34 days into the presidency?
Q1. Who do you mean "we"?
Q2. What do you mean "left"?
A. The more I read here tonight the more I think you guys are devious right wing blogger nuts posing as left wing blogger nuts.
Are you paid by Richard Mellon Scaife? If you aren't, you should send him a writing sample. He has already spent over $200 million dollars for just this type of clap trap.
Maybe if you can describe who you are and what you are as asked in Q1 and Q2 above then I will understand your seemingly "cut of your nose to spite your face" philosophies.
Somehow, it doesn't surprise me a bit that Daniel David was reincarnated as a mudturtle.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Typical Democratic tactic of changing the subject and creating a diversion by concentrating on the messengers instead of on the MESSAGES.
Your questions are frivolous, as is your debate technique, if you can call it that. Two important questions that you SHOULD be asking are:
1- Where's the "change" that innocent Democratic voters fell for when they voted for the fraud Obama? He's filled his cabinet with right wing-members of previous administrations and is escalating the wars instead of ending them.
2- Why is Obama pumping as much taxpayer money as possible into the banks so Wall Street can be free to resume its corrupt and speculative practices, instead of directly pumping cash into the accounts of the taxpayers?
Exactly right.
Listen close buddy. No one's tearing Obama down. He's doing it to himself. Get that through your numb skull ! And FYI, between Obama and Mccain, there wouldn't have been a difference. We can have a 3rd party if we want. Now tell your DLC/BlueDog apologists to get the FUCK out of the way and let us make our case because a growing number of us are sick and tired of BOTH parties selling us down the rathole. Obama had a chance to put for change for the better and he's fucking blowing it ! Can't you see that or is your brain corn-fed like the idiot joehope?
Yes, we can have a 3rd party if we want! And I shall continue to vote for such parties. The bluedog, kiss-ass dems are not sick and tired of getting shafted by the corporate parties, but the hell you and I and others aren't. I'm sick of such people who would rather stand in the way than help solve the problems currently in place. They are practically the opposition much like the Repubs... unfortunately. As you can see, there are a growing number of joehopes lately..... sigh...
"As you can see, there are a growing number of joehopes lately..... sigh..."
Sad but true. But trust me, Mississippi would vote for a real progressive any day over the same old batch of DLC / Blue Dog types anyday. I'm pissed off that Obama's not even trying despite the golden opportunities he has to actually make real progress. Oh well, onwards to getting some 3rd parties into Congress starting 2010.
Is this an example of internet bullying?
Or
Could this be an example of a devious right wing blogger nut, posing as a left wing blogger nut, to give progressives who subscribe to common dreams an undeserved appearance of uncouth ignorance?
Putting some common sense and trying to tell you the truth is NOT internet bullying. And no, I'm not a rightwinger. I may be a gun-toter, have a Confederate flag on my pickup truck, not take kindly to the idea of abortion although I'm not gonna go out there and rail against it since women have their rights to, and be sick and tired of illegal immigration dumping. However, I am not for "free trade", tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy and big corporations, dragging the nation into endless and senseless wars, oversubsidizing big agri over small farmers, the war on drugs, anti-environmental policies, walmartization of businesses, deregulation, privatization, offshoring to evade taxes, and insourcing and outsourcing of jobs to near-slave labor. In short, I may be a social moderate but I am a working class liberal otherwise.
So you're another example of a DPA calling us true progressives "right wing nuts!" No wonder the status quo remains and we're all getting screwed. Good grief! And I'm afraid to inform you that most progressives who subscribe to commondreams are NOT of your type and do NOT support the status quo democrats.
The GOP ( the private sector) has taken it's chips and gone home. They gladly helped out their President, but when it was obvious they're party was going to lose they cashed in their markers and went on vacation. they'll be back when they can win again. In the mean time we've got a problem.
Health care coverage doesn't mean sh!t unless it covers the health care you actually need!
"...Obama suddenly morphed into Bill Clinton. Next week, Obama said, we will see a new task force that will address health care reform. ...We all remember how that went in the Clinton Administration. No one will be shocked if what emerges from that task force is Clinton-style incrementalism."
So, during the speech:
President Obama called for “comprehensive” healthcare reform.
The next-day reality:
“comprehensive” = 5%
Yesterday at Firedoglake.com Stirling Newberry writes about Obama's "comprehensive" reform:
"It's most important defect is that it neither is, nor leads to, significant savings. To underline the essential point. The plan offers savings of roughly 33 billion a year, when, by best estimates, the amount of over charging in the US health care system is 700 billion. The plan then addresses roughly 5% of the current problem. That is enough to contain costs, and enough to keep the system going longer, but not enough to put the system on a sustainable footing."
So no big shock--what emerges from that task force is Clinton-style incrementalism. So what's so wrong--as Atul Gawande put it--with doing what other nations have done to build on what they have, selecting out features of their current fragmented system of financing health care and expanding it?
As David Himmelstein wrote in his response to Gawande:
"The problem is that Atul Gawande is flat out wrong. He implies that other nations merely made adjustments in their existing systems to expand coverage to everyone. In fact, these were not simple adjustments to systems that weren’t working; they were revolutionary transformations of their health care financing systems."
"The fundamentals of these new financing systems were not based on path dependency, but they were based on path trailblazing."
Incrementalism in healthcare just dosn't work. Which is unfortunate because, sorry, "trailblazing" is not on the table. So in the end, Obama is fast becoming Clinton II--who "never delivered on the big promises to expand opportunity, access to good education, spread the wealth around society" or healthcare for all.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/25/obama-shows-us-the-money-on-medicare-and-health-care/
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/february/himmelstein_responds.php
More FDR. He's not slick. He's honest.
Honest? Perhaps.
It's hard, perhaps impossible, to gauge the honesty of a virtuoso professional Bullshitter™.
That's the problem. And I trust no one will have the, er, audacity to dispute this label. All of the enthusiasm for Obama's amoral pragmatism and supposed political genius-- the confidence his supporters have that he is a master political Ninja, with an array of subtle, shrewd, and stealthy skills-- presumes that Obama is bound as loosely as possible to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The ninja needs room to wiggle and maneuver.
He may be the voice of sweet, righteous reason to many of the people most of the time, but frankly, when I listen to Obama I hear a brassy gong. And anyone who can thunder on using the Global War on Terror lexicon developed by his criminal predecessors, with its preposterous bluster about conquering the evildoers plotting Amerikan ruin in their caves on the other side of the world, does not qualify as "honest".
Those who buy into the conceit that Obama is playing eighteen-dimensional chess appear willing to tolerate Obama's early acceptance of much of the Bush maladministration's policies, his appointing refried Clintonista neoliberal warhawks to senior positions (and one token progressivish Secretary of Labor), cozying up to Wall Street tycoons and wingnuts while freezing out anyone even vaguely leftish or progressive, etc.
But the problem with having a political elite composed of professional Bullshitters™-- Obama is the Employee of the Quadrennium at present, but he's by no means an exception regarding the general qualifications for holding Amerikan federal political office-- is that one never really can tell from day to day what they'll come out with.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Agreed. What about Lincoln?
How can you say that?
"It's not about helping banks. It's about helping people," says Obama.
- Please explain how giving the banks unlimited trillions of dollars is not "about helping banks," but rather about "helping people."
Obama says, "...we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away..."
- How can you claim this is honest? Do you think the war in Afghan/Pak is really about keeping "the American people safe from terrorism"?
Sorry. Unintended double-post.
Honest.
Perhaps I can assist here, Mr. Bronstein.
"It's not about helping banks. It's about helping people," says Obama.
See, by going into the pockets of the bank executives and major shareholders, instead of being disbursed back into the economy through lending, the money ISN'T helping the banks ... but it IS helping enrich the PEOPLE who run the banks.
Therefore, the statement - while perhaps incomplete - is honest.
Ah, well, that's a pretty good point. In that sense, I guess, the statement is honest (though incomplete).
if something looks, walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck but not in politics / obama speaks like a man with a vision, but in reality, surrounded by innocently corrupted old-timers, signs on the least controversial ideas given to him / domestic production replacing the china's one is not on the agenda for the investor in politics
edweg
Bill Clinton hovers like an eminence grise over all these areas.
That's right. Bill (Big Blue Dog) Clinton got the Damnocrats into the habit of crawling on their bellies along the yellow line so they could lick the Republicans' jackboots. That is the party Obama inherited. He also inherited a nation coming off 30 years of catastrophic reactionary rule. While a month and a few days really aren't enough to tell what kind of president he will be or how he actually intends to govern, right now the tea leaves and the chicken entrails read like a lousy paperback novel. Perhaps Obama now realizes he should have been more careful what he wished for. Or maybe he just out and out flim flammed people like me.
I don't care what Obama promised insurance and drug companies, NOW he has the power to introduce single payer health care. The people want it, everybody knows it's the best system.
Promises to the people are routinely broken. There is a lot of moral high ground to be claimed here. Besides that, I'll bet the economic mess can't be cleaned up without it.
Obama has the power, but not the media. If Obama gave one wink towards single-payer health care, he would be shouted down by the corporate media and the republican echo chamber on the radio airwaves. Clinton really screwed us over when he opened up that fascist floodgate in the 90's.
Wrong Question in title. It should read:
Obama: Clinton or Bush?
Please let's stop insulting FDR by attempting to compare Obama to him. Despite being a multi-millionaire who scrambled to save capitalism, compared to the current gang he was out-and-out a red who responded with greatness in relation to his times. In fact, he included some reds (both communists and socialists) among his advisors and supporters, as well as any number of progressives and liberals. That is a qualitative difference from the current administration, which may not even be "not Bush."
It should also be noted that in FDR's time most Progressives were Republicans. Hell, even Taft is to the left of Obama. And there is one very different factor that must be considered when comparing the two time periods, 1930s to post-2007s--in the former period there was no National Security State (NSS) greatly limiting what might be done to solve the economic problems, while in the latter period the NSS acts like a ball and chain that strangles policy and even discussion about how to solve the economic problems. To be sure, there are other great disparities to note, especially the great dominance of the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems that are allied with the NSS.
While there is continuity between Obama and the failed policies of past presidents, I think it folly to compare him to any one in particular. One of the major problems with articles of this sort is they put too much emphasis on the president as the be-all end-all, which results in ideas like the Unitary President. Ideally, the suggestions of the president ought to carry the same weight as those from a first term congressperson when it comes to sovling the country's problems. That this is no longer the case signals that the federal government needs to Evolve into a more democratic institution. Which is to say I do not think the federal government as currently formulated is capable of solving the economic problem, or any of the problems related to our environmental Overshoot, even if FDR was to return to office.
One of the first things FDR was create the NSS by amending the War Powers Act of 1917 in 1933 to give him emergency power over American civilians during times of emergency, which we have been in ever since. In fact in his inaugural speech, he basically threatened Congress to give him this power or he would take it anwyays.
FDR then confiscated Americans gold, and after paying them 20 dollars an oounce, he then devalued the dollar and sold the gold to the Fed at 35 dollars an ounce which they paid for by creating the money out of thin air. The government then had 3 trillion in profits to use, profits stolen from the American people. More importantly, the Fed was no longer constrained by the Gold Standard. However, they did not increase the money supply much until the war, which lifted us out of the depression.
FDR also recognized Stalin during a time he was killing millions in the Ukraine and guaranteed loans made to the Soviets when the banks were witholding credit from Americans. Our business and banks were widely involved in financing and developing German technology as Hitler built up his military during a global depression, and FDR did nothing to stop this. Indeed, even when we were at war some business continued doing business with Hitler, including Standard Oil and Prescott Bush's bank.
FDR was also the father of fascism in this country with the creation of the NRA and AAA, both of which were overturned by the Supreme Court in later years, which hurt small businesses and farmers and favoured the larger ones. He then tried to throw out the Supreme Court justices who voted the wrong way and replace them, but Congress would not go for it. But basically, FDR was pro-business and from Wall Street. His main focus was on protecting the big banks and supporting industry by keeping prices high, even for food, despite people suffering from declining wages.
The fact that the same corporate media that lied to us during the Bush days lauds FDR should tell you something. Hoover was actually a progressive, in 1920 there was talk of a Hoover-FDR ticket on the Dem side before Hoover decided to become a Republican, since Woodrow Wilson lied his way into office promising to keep us out of the war only to reverse course when elected . FDR campaigned for a sound money and balanced budgets. He reversed course once he got elected. History repeats.
FDR aide Rexford Tugwell admitted that practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs Hoover started. The only things Hoover might have done different was not go along with the NRA (previously proposed as the Swopes plan when Hoover was in office) and the AAA, not to mention the gold standard.
"...Wrong Question in title. It should read: Obama: Clinton or Bush?..."
- I totally agree. I had the same thought in reading the article. Except for ONE progressive appointment (Solis), Obama packed his entire administration with warmongers, Republicans & overt agents of Wall Street.
His basic program is: unlimited trillions for the banks, continue the wars, continue the dishonest justification for the wars (Al Qaeda, "terrorism," etc). Say with one side of your mouth you're against torture; but with the other side, continue to claim the right of "extraordinary rendition." And throw some crumbs to pacify the riff-raff.
It's disheartening & astonishing that most liberals can't see through this. They just can't get past the idea that Obama's being a much better speaker than Bush, does not necessarily mean he's so terribly different; or that he's not representing the same basic interests.
I agree with other posts: Obama is basically Clinton. The results of his policies, however, will be more like Hoover. He is a President of Half-Measures, which we all know, avail nothing. Within four years, the economy will be where it was in 1932 (25% unemployment) and people will be angry enough to vote him out of office. Another "Friend of the Rich" President was voted out of office for his bread and treacle approach to human suffering during a depression: the Democrat Grover Cleveland. Already after only one month in office, I see his defeat in 2012 in our future.
It really is the Clinton administration all over again, with the lying intact; only the adultery is missing. Torture, war, covering up, triangulating, enriching the fat cats, all continue. And consider this, from the part of Obama's pep-talk that dealt with education:
"But we know that our schools don't just need more resources. They need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We'll invest in innovative programmes that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools."
WHO knows that our schools "don't just need more resources"? Not all the kids and teachers struggling in broken-down buildings without good libraries, labs, books, and enrichment programs and activities. Does anyone else feel offended on behalf of the kids and teachers when it's always about giving more money to private companies to develop "innovative programs" and charter schools, and insulting teachers by assuming that they need "new incentives for teacher performance?"
Good schools like Sidwell Friends and the University of Chicago Lab School, for example, where Obama has sent his children, scorn Obama's kind of "reform." They have "resources" in abundance. Their teachers are different from the loser teachers Obama thinks need "incentives" to do their jobs in one way only: they have the tools they need, and they are encouraged to be creative, NOT to drill the kids all year for standardized tests. They are treated like the respected professionals they are. Of course, it helps that their students get enough to eat and have safe places to live.
If Obama were serious about changing the fact that, as he noted, "We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialised nation," he would be pouring the "resources" into the classrooms, and not diverting any money into the boardrooms of the testing materials and "charter school" companies.
yes, i feel offended. more money is the most important thing, the rest is mostly BS. before you know it, b.ho will be talking about the soft bigotry of low expectations.....
petrkrop sez: "If Obama were serious ... he would be pouring the "resources" into the classrooms, and not diverting any money into the boardrooms of the testing materials and "charter school" companies.
***
Dude, that's Neil Bush's slush fund yer talkin' about. Hands off!
Thanks for standing up for teachers and real education and acknowledging the fact that it takes both RESOURCES and will to conduct such an important activity as public education with any level of quality.
Keep in mind that "progressive" Ruth Conniff was pushing Hillary Clinton as the best Dem Presidential candidate. That should tell you something about her politics.
That said, why is she--and so many other Wall Street socialists and Defense Department liberals--surprised to discover that Dwight D. Eisenhower is back in the White House? Of course, *this* Eisenhower will never criticize the military-industrial complex...otherwise, though, it's a close political match.
It's a sign of what decades of lying and sellout bring: a steady downward spiral that has given us Bush and now Wallfare for the mendicants of the Street. How much more do Americans have to swallow before they discover their gag reflex?
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
It's my guess that if Obama refused to follow his orders from Wall Street and the MIC that his daughters would grow up without a father. Anyone who would dare oppose the system is weeded out by the corporate media in the primaries (and if by some miracle that person were able to get elected, the term would be abruptly cut short), and only craven opportunists are left standing.
The system has been gamed to the point that voting is pretty much useless, and talking about anything that might actually bring about real change is illegal. I understand that, but what really disgusts me is when somewhat reasonable and intelligent Americans appear to assume, ignoring all the evidence, that they do not already live in a police state.
You know what then--why bother?
Why did Obama even bother unless it was merely ego gratification.
What if FDR hadn't taken great risks and instead, fearing for his own life, cowered?
They won't be able to put a bandaid on the bottom dropping out for much longer.
It is inevitable that Obama will fail.
With today's corporate media, FDR would never have had a chance, or at least not a chance for reelection after he demonstrated that he was not in Wall Street's pocket. As it was, there was a plot to overthrow him by the barons of Wall Street, which Smedley Butler apparently spoiled when he provided the details to the government.
Why bother? I suspect that there is a fair likelihood that events to come will spur significant and even widespread action regardless of the legality of such.
As for Obama, even if he has no real power, the presidency is "the stuff dreams are made of" for a politician.
I am getting the feeling that Obama had his "oh shit, I've been had!" moment the day after the election,
when the CIA had a "sit-down" with him, and he realized that he wouldn't be calling the shots...
The same feeling WBush had when 911 happened, and he didn't know what to do...
i have no doubt that there's lots of stuff going on in this country we have zero clue about, but i seriously doubt the prez getting a "sit-down" w/the cia as you describe is on of them.
that there's some illuminati cabal behind the scenes running the show and threatening anyone offering a prospect of change strikes me as pretty far-fetched. someone like obama has been preparing his entire life for this moment, and wouldn't have gotten this far if he hadn't been thoroughly vetted long beforehand. every politician, as every person, has done or said things the media alone can just run with to destroy a person's career. they all know who's buttering the bread and they are in it to get a slice for themselves, not distribute it to everybody else.
don't get me wrong. i don't put anything past certain elements in our gov't/society (you gonna lie us into the iraq war, what *won't* you do?). your scenario sounds implausible b/c it's unnecessary. there are no mr. smith's going to washington who have to be pulled aside and told the facts of life.
I believe you are correct in stating that there is not "some illuminati cabal behind the scenes running the show and threatening anyone offering a prospect of change." On the other hand, if a president were to actively thwart the desires and plans of certain powerful interests, a conspiracy would soon develop (as it did in FDR's case, though Smedley Butler disrupted it). If that president were vulnerable to impeachment, it is likely that an attempt at that would be the response, with tremendous help from the corporate media to be sure. If such a president possessed no such vulnerability, and particularly if such president were perceived to be a likely target of assassination (e.g. maybe the first black president in a land with right-wing radio propagandists stirring up racial hatred), I would guess the latter option would be preferred by such conspiracy.
i don't see any presidents working to thwart the desires and plans of certain powerful interests, so there's no need for a conspiracy, is there? so far, i see no evidence that corporations (or gov't insiders) need to resort to blackmail or murder, when bribery and access work wonders. so occam's razor and all that.....
Nope, I do not see one either. As I stated above, and as you also argued earlier, the corporate media does a pretty fair job of keeping the "dangerous" sort of candidate far away from the Oval Office. And I agree that bribery and access are always there to corrupt those who are not already corrupted. I seriously doubt that under the system as presently constituted we ever will elect any president who will work "to thwart the desires and plans of certain powerful interests," though if we somehow miraculously did, the banksters and other ghouls in the Washington-Wall Street Axis of Evil would likely conclude that desperate times call for desperate measures and would get busy with those desperate measures.
Not since JFK & RFK...
We know for certain that there was a plot against FDR. It remains speculation with regard to the level of government involvement in the JFK and RFK assassinations, and intelligent and fair-minded people may differ in their conclusions regarding those events. But what we should all be able to agree on is that the business elites of the country have several lines of defense, and there is precedent that certain elites will use that last line of defense if need be.
I generally do not think of it in terms of some coordinated and close-knit group conspiring together and deciding on orders to give to a president, but rather as a group of people with similar and consistent interests, who act as referees of a sort who are mostly on the same page and who each contribute to determine the rules of the game. And any politicians who violate the rules of the game will be punished sufficiently severely to stop the violation, even if that means taking them out of the game.
Oh Ruth, you are such a purist and so unreasonable in your carping complaints and whining protestations. You can never satisfy those Leftist extremists out there on the fringe. Give him a chance, after all he isn't Bush and that is all that matters. rolleyes
And why would anyone aspire to unity--Nazi Germany was unified and I was never comfortable with the unity post 911. Unity represents conformity & represses dissent.
The article presents a pretty good appraisal. Certainly, Obama is basically another Clinton. Despite brilliance in style & rhetoric, Obama is the man of the banks. He is the president from Wall Street & the military-industrial complex. He rhetorically postures as "the friend of working Americans," while actually making every single decision in favor of the banksters and the war machine.
Ms Conniff ends her piece asking that Obama be "bold." In a sense, Obama is already being incredibly -- even outrageously -- "bold." Unfortunately, that sense is that he has the gall to stand there in front of the whole world, making outrageous claims like "It's not about helping banks. It's about helping people," -- while in fact, it's about helping banks. When you give unlimited trillions of public dollars to the banks, you're helping banks. There's just no way around that.
If anything, Ms Conniff is letting Obama off too easily. She writes:
"...Most of all, the turning away from the war in Iraq, and Obama's promise to save money by getting out of that useless war, and by cutting Cold War relics like Star Wars out of the defense budget, was mighty encouraging. Obama's slaps at Bush for Guantanamo, his pledge that the United States can now pledge that we don't torture, his commitment to invest in education, health care, and alternative energy as the top priorities in his budget, were salutory..."
A closer look at all these seemingly positive items shows that there are huge loopholes in every one of them, making each much less constructive than it appears at first glance. For example, torture: the "We don't torture!" rhetoric is bold. But the reality is that Obama is continuing extraordinary rendition, and that Panetta has just said (according to Amy Goodman) that "...while interrogators will have to abide by the Army Field Manual, President Obama can still approve harsher techniques using wartime powers."
I pretty much agree with you. How can we use our critiques to organize people to apply pressure for progressive change, rather than appearing simply like leftist grinches and dealers in doom and gloom?
Joe
well said.
Ruth is still a bit taken in by the gee-whiz factor herself. Seeing Obama on the podium, "flanked by Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi ... was cheering"? OK, at least the sour Republicans were denied their moment in the sun. No more Nuremberg rallies with them delivering standing O's every time der Fuhrer smirked and lied about Iraq or Social Security. That much is heartening, but if anyone thinks Biden or Pelosi, or Obama for that matter, is a harbinger of great progressive change on the horizon, they've been studying too hard at the University of Low Expectations.
And as I myself pointed out in a December blog comment:
Bonnie Prince Barack is the New! Improved! Clinton 2.0-- all of the hearty neoliberal, exceptionalist, militarist, Machiavellian flavor and none of the fattening calories and sour aftertaste of lechery.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Exactly right, Orson!
As far as "Savior Roosevelt" is concerned, I read recently that FDR said during the worse days of the Depression (and I'm paraphrasing) -- that the American economic system, that is to say, capitalism, needs a dose of reform every generation or so.
In other words, FDR and all the "liberal reformers" who came after him don't want to eliminate capitalism, they want to *preserve* capitalism. And THAT'S the problem! ... The economic elite, via their mouthpieces in the Democratic-Republican duopoly, reform capitalism from time to time, but then the monster turns back into what it's now become -- capitalism run amock -- a.k.a. "corporatism."
Who was Barack Obama five, six years ago? Was he known to the general public? So how did he become president so quickly, so suddenly? Simple: He speaks on behalf of the oligarchic-few. Barack Obama is the smile the "friendly face" the economic elite hope to put on the face of capitalism and empire.
That's Obama's job -- to preserve capitalism and empire. But, from a homo sapien point of view (and you all know this, fellas and gals) IT'S A LOSING PROPOSITION!
Not only shouldn't capitalism and empire be saved. They *can't* be saved. You know it and I know it. ... Now all we have to do is break the news to our children and grandchildren. (Any ideas along those lines Uncle Tom/Spokesman Obama?)
There's a quote from Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" that's appropriate here. Wille is talking to his next door neighbor Bernard about giving up his crazy, delusional dream -- in reality, the crazy, delusional dream that so many Americans have been brainwashed into believing.
And Bernard says: "Sometimes you have to just let go."
Willie: "But what if you can't let go."
Bernard: "Well, I guess that's when it gets tough. Good-bye, Wille."
Capitalism *will* die. The only question is: will it take the United States, along with Planet Earth, with it to its funeral.
Empire *will* die. (They all have, you know.) The only question is: given the reality f nuclear annihilation, will the crazy, delusional dream of empire take the United States, along with Planet Earth, with it to its funeral.
One has to be both morally and pragmatically blind not to see the pain and suffering and misery capitalism has created. The death of these two monsters has to be swift and eternal, otherwise their "preservation" will destroy us all.
Finally, what can one say about those "at the top" who seek to preserve both capitalism and empire. Perhaps we should name a few. ... George Bush. ... Dick Cheney. ... Barack Obama. ... Rahm Emmanuel. ... Paul Volcker. ... Donald Rumsfeld. .. Hillary Clinton. ... Condolezza Rice. ... Colin Powell. ... John Edwards ... Howard Dean ... Jesse Helms.
Git the picture, biped?
Interesting thought though--It is at the end of it's rope and he isn't doing a very good job of "reforming" it. Will his lack of bold measures and incremental half measures accelerate its collapse? Wouldn't that be the final irony?
Obama's stimulus package may somewhat resemble FDR's the New Deal.
Unfortunately, it will take $5 of private investment for every $1 of government stimulus to stop the economic freefall we are witnessing. Although, there are trillions of private dollars waiting to be invested, none will be invested in the US until Obama's financial industry policy starts resembling FDR's New Deal.
When it comes to the criminal financial industry, Obama says he gets it. When will his actions demonstrate that he gets it??????