Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Failed Presidency of Barack Obama
How the president's timid response to the economic crisis failed to capture America's populist outrage
Some presidents have first-rate minds, others have first-rate temperaments. Barack Obama had both. In the first months of Obama's presidency, every appearance he made reinforced the public's admiration. It was an Aaron Sorkin show brought to life, except with likable characters. The Obama family's Portuguese water dog, Rushbo, charmed visitors with his antics and yapping. Rahm Emmanuel amused everyone by graduating from the f-word to the c-word and even beyond. Obama oversaw ambitious and well-received spending on everything from school teachers to solar-powered windmills. And yet 2013 would see the inauguration, once again, of a Republican president.
The Great Recession began in 2008 when Americans abruptly realised that their wealth had vanished. The purchase of billions of massage cushions and ceramic frogs no longer seemed prudent, so everyone decided to try saving and producing instead. But this didn't work very well, since without consumers there could be no producers. So Washington stepped in to fill the void. Since America had no money saved anymore, it borrowed from China, which was eager to sell off a growing backlog of massage cushions and ceramic frogs. Everyone hoped this might restart the old party.
While Obama encouraged vigorous debate among his advisers on most things, economics was different. No one seemed to agree, and no one seemed to speak English. Debates became a combination of solemn jargon and angry epithets - like "neo-Wicksellian", "Hodrick-Prescott filter" and "Austrian". Obama needed a sturdy guide to an unfamiliar field. His choice was Lawrence Summers, whom Obama found to be brilliant, persuasive and even intimidating. If Summers had curious social habits, like screaming at people while eating pizza and falling asleep at odd moments, he at least had a clear answer to everything. Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner tended to reinforce whatever Summers said. Meanwhile, advisers like Paul Volcker had trouble being heard.
Cerebral by nature, Obama favoured Summers, Geithner and other economists who counselled pragmatism over emotionalism on rescuing Wall Street. Fairness was nice, they said, but not at the price of mayhem. "This isn't a morality play," the White House told Washington opinion writers. "This isn't a morality play," Washington opinion writers told the White House. Everyone agreed it wasn't a morality play, except for ordinary Americans, who saw a morality play. They saw that a financial elite - once omnipotent and untouchable - had created its own undoing. They saw that this elite was demanding - begging, cajoling, blackmailing - to be saved, no matter how high the cost or unjust the policy. And they wanted a stern enforcer to open the books and say, if necessary, "Tough sheets".
But Obama preferred stern talk to stern action. Instead of forcing banks to open their books properly, Obama tried to buy them time by getting more money to them, hoping they'd patch things up. Instead of allowing house prices to fall to a level that would allow more people to afford homes, Obama sought to aid banks to keep prices as high as possible. Instead of confronting the biggest malefactors, he wound up indulging them. Obama forgot that he'd effectively run as a warrior priest, not a technocrat. But Americans were far more willing to forgive mistaken policies based on firm principles than mediocre policies based on expedience.
The stimulus packages were well intentioned. The goal had been to do the opposite of anything Herbert Hoover did. Since "starve this fevered patient" had been the wisdom of 1930, "force-feed this fevered patient" was the wisdom now. But the patient remained purple - albeit now fat and purple. Some economists advocated the fiscal equivalent of the second word war, forgetting that wartime economics depends on wartime feelings. Americans didn't feel the higher purpose that they'd felt after Pearl Harbour and 9/11. Appeals to shared sacrifice rang hollow when tax dollars were going to AIG. Inflation returned.
Republicans captured the new mood of populism in the nation. Candidates like Mitt Romney, who now spoke with a southern twang and carried a pitchfork, asked why savers should bail out lenders and borrowers, why taxpayers should prop up bank directors and why houses should be expensive instead of affordable. Border control, which Obama had never properly addressed, also began to resonate with ordinary Americans amid the job shortage. The 2012 race looked close, but Mike Huckabee, running on the slogan "God help us", eventually pulled out a persuasive win.
During the next presidency, the economy finally recovered. The recession, deep as it was, had run its course. The new leaders, unfairly, claimed vindication for their policies of tax cuts and deregulation. The public, unfairly, believed them. Obama retired to Chicago, where he returned to teaching constitutional law, and liberalism's brief renewal, the dream of FDR reborn, slipped quietly away.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
90 Comments so far
Show AllOh, come on. Obama is a right-wing tool, dedicated to preserving government by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. Anyone who thought he was "different" wasn't paying attention. If the wage slaves held a general strike, he'd call out the Army as fast as McKinley.
one old atheist
.
How is he a right wing tool, old man? At least the others that disagree with Obama on this page contain some grains of truth... Oh I forgot, putting through equal pay for women, stopping DEA raids in CA, stopping torture, closing Gitmo, trying to end the Iraq war, and a willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints makes him a fascist, right? The man has not even had 2 months to try to correct the absolute s%*tpile he inherited! Take off your tinfoil hat, or at least share whatever you are smoking with me, I could use it after reading these Republican-Worthy comments. So go ahead and flame the crap out of me, I expect it after replying to this idiocy...
So I guess the author is saying that because Obama lacked the boldness to nationalize the banks, the slow to recover economy will be viewed as a failure of liberalism at both a practical and moral level? I don't think so.
I also think that Obama's first rate mind is capable of comprehending the pseudo-science called economics and won't be intimidated by the jargon or Larry Summers.
Look who Obama has chosen for his cabinet and other high positions. That in itself speaks volumes about how far he willing to go, and how 'bold' he's likely to be.
Then why did he choose mumbo-jumbo meister Larry Summers?
Joe
I keep hearing about Obama's great intelligence, but on what are those assessments based?
Crafty? Yes. Slick? Yes. Good self-marketer? Yes. Great speaker? Well, if you prefer carefully polished empty rhetoric over real substance. But highly intelligent?
So far Obama's "first-rate mind" hasn't been any more in evidence in handling the economy than anywhere else. While you can make fun of Summers - and who doesn't? - remember who put him where he is. (If that's the best that a first-rate mind can come up with, we are in deep, deep trouble.)
Oh, yes, I also hear about what a great constitutional scholar he is. So why has not only kept, but actually expanded Bush's faith-based twaddle? What's he doing with a panel of "spiritual advisors"?
(And who would give a dog a dumb name like Rushbo?)
Prior to the election, I raised the question: how can one that has been and is part and parcel of a corrupt system (from which he has risen to prominence) put an end to that same corruption? That requires a kind of integrity that would have likely prohibited his rise in the first place. Obama is no Nader or Welstone, nor should we expect him to be. Obama is likely to be disillusioned during the course of his presidency, just like many are now disillusioned with him (given that he was a 'true believer' to begin with).
Prior to the election (Sept. 2008) Obama told us there was no time to include conditions on the trillion dollar financial industry bailout that he made a special trip to DC to promote. The AIG bonuses are one of many manifestations of the fallacy of Obama's action.
The NeoCons are going to try to rewrite history by blaming Obama for everything and anything they can come up with. They are going to blame him for this financial crisis. Expect it. And lets just support the guy.....give him at least 18 months. (but lets keep his feet to the fire at the same time ...hes operating in a corrupt environment, and may have a tendency to compromise excessively over time and may accept bad advice from his own party. Hes better than what we had.He has potential.
Sioux Rose
JT: Obama is a nice guy and all, but when the dam breaks, it's insufficient to offer a bandaid as cure. There's been NO moves to re-regulate Wall St or hold parties accountable, not unlike the same approach being shown towards the Bush neocon torture team. Sorry, but apart from the democrats by and large going along with all the worst of the Bush transgressions, now with power on their presumed "side," where are there any SERIOUS changes in policy, principles, and practice? Obama didn't cause the fiscal implosion, nor has there been much SINCERE interest in reversing the tide or stemming its worst flood waters. The Dems just go with the flow... and lately it's not unlike the stink of raw sewage awash over the land and our collective assets.
The Wall Street will be re-regulated, and sooner rather than later, but you are right - I wouldn't bet anybody will be held accountable.
jt: The point of this article is that Obama had a chance to drastically change the game that hasn't worked for 99% of people, but instead of that, it looks like he is trying to prop up the old, morally and financially bankrupt system that has failed and will fail again, burying Obama's presidency together with his increasingly empty-sounding rhetoric of change and hope. Oh, and it will bury the rest of us, but I don't really need to add that, do I?
Based on what we have heard from the Obama administration to date, Obama may impose token re-regulation of Wall Street. Unless he dramatically changes course, no meaningful regulation will come from Obama.
By appointing insiders, failing to fire Bernanke, and pandering to the financial and pharmaceutical industries, Obama's actions are speaking louder than any revisionist history.
We are witnessing LBJ pandering to the right all over again. Look what happened to LBJ.
Sioux Rose
I think it's not only funny, but plausible, that someone like Huckabee could run with a slogan, "God help us." Given the lack of intelligent muscle being under-utilized by the current party as things remain a mess, at least 30% of the citizenry will be more than ready to turn it over to the "big guy upstairs." Given the dichotomous nature of human nature, when the shit hits the fan and keeps on fanning, some lose faith in a higher power, while others cling to it as their only recourse and means for sustaining a faith in living.
i tho't that line was funny (and plausible and thus scary) too.
For every action there is a reaction.
Have you been reading the baghavadgita?
It is amazing how many people on this so called progressive and almost Marxist portal still see the fate of nations through the lens of supermen acting on the world stage. Hence all the hopes for the Big Daddy or whoever, this time cerebral Kenyan from Chicago, who will perform the final miracle of salvation of unsalvageable.
The systemic crisis does not play that way. American system, as part and parcel, of the global system that was set in motion around 1492, had run its course and run out of space and resources on this planet. The most important condition of the famous formula for systemic change – masses does not want to live according to old rules – is not here yet. So, all whining about personal traits of this or that leader is exercise in infantilism. This blabber of capricious kids, a.k.a. Boomers ought also run its course and give way to generations with gravitas. If solution to our existential problems will cost couple billion people so be it. Our planet is too exceptional place in our corner of Universe to allow further abuse of Her patience.
v.purto
Good one purto.
to the degree people are looking to Big Daddy, are they really progressive (or marxist)?
that said, if anybody's personality is worth consideration for its impact on global events, wouldn't obama qualify? still, he is just wheel in the machine. a big wheel, but still a wheel.
"run its course and run out of space and resources on this planet." THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT TO CONQUER OUTERSPACE AS WELL. When this "nascent empire" (George Washington's words) was founded, we were told that security only exited in our ability to expand. So we conquered all of the western hemisphere, moved beyond and took the Phillipines and now the whole globe is run by the US Godfather (who is incidentally, economically broke). But still we must extend farther into the unknown, maybe conquering the galaxy. This is the madness of imperialism. If not stopped, it (or they, the imperialists) will exterminate humankind. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS BABY!
Excellent, v.purto.
And I love that "cerebral Kenyan" as our Prez, and "... blabber of capricious kids, a.k.a. Boomers..." You got it! ... and likely we will have some "generations with gravitas," who sit around the campfire in their caves, eating roasted squirrel on a stick. That generation with gravitas may turn out to be the Boomers afterall once they get the hang of the outdoor life without amenities.
Our planet is an "exceptional place..." and needs be treated as such. Maybe that realization will sink in too.
peace, /cm
obviously 54 days is well enough time to completely judge Obama's presdidency.
Exactly, Obama's barely been in office in two months and already the Right are sharpening their knives (excepted) and the Left is ready to hand him over with a kiss for 30 pieces of Silver.
He's not perfect and has made some mistakes. However, we gave Bush 8 years to screw up and we barely made a peep. Criticize Obama and fight for more progressive action. But don't stangle the baby in the crib just because he spits up on your brand new shirt.
actually, obama himself is still pretty popular (if polls are to be believed.) neither the rush limpdick crowd or CD crowd is any way representative (the CD crowd unfortunately, far less so).
jesucristo, cappadonna, what would obama have to do to get you to abort that baby? nuke iran? give the *entirety* of the federal budget to AIG and co? increase the DOD budget by 20% annually instead of his 8% (or whatever it is)?
how could he possibly be any more cowardly and prostrate before the status quo than he is?
some people here at CD were opposed to bush from day 1. some had the same view about obama.
We want Obama to succeed.
Our definition of success is getting capitalism under control at least as well as FDR did.
Not only has Obama not yet demonstrated any action to control capitalism, his actions are enabling more of the casino capitalism that sent the economy into a freefall.
I didn't give old George 8 yrs. I never voted for him, and don't forget he STOLE both elections. Not that anything would have been any better under the other wing of the one party system.
actually, -54 days was enough for me to judge obama's presidency. it seemed clear that he would be a middle of the road, generic politician.
Until the citizenship of corporations is revoked all we will ever have is a Failed Presidency - one after another.
Humbaba. " Until the citizenship of the corporations is revoked ". Now, that is change I could believe in! Until that happens, all we ever will have is the political, insanity of voting in fixed elections run by both parties that are puppets of the MIC.
We need a balanced budget, balanced trade, peaceful relations with all foreign states and a consistently applied rule of law. We have none of these. Neither the dems nor repubs support any of these.
AND THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO, EDPELL!
Great article reflecting refreshing outside the box thinking. Well done.
You've got to give him time. How do you jump to these conclusions so quick when he's only been in office almost 2 months? He's not fast freddy! This economic collapse is more complicated and complex than the government knows what to do. If you leave it up to the free market to fix you'll have failing businesses giving out bonuses to employees all over the place.
Street Fighter Game Characters
There is a "Method in his madness".
Stability is the key anyway. Things are picking up, slowly. We will get through it, but it takes time.
Next year he can do better things for us. If we get out of Iraq, and get on better terms with the World, things will be better.
If we put more into keeping jobs in the US and start producing things again. Made in USA used to mean the best. The best wasn't the cheapest, look at Apple. We need more Apples and less Wal-Marts, then we could grow our way back.
COME ON! WHAT CAPITALIST CLOUD ARE YOU ON?
Most posts so far are either supportive of Obama or philosophical about his situation. Not many Obama bashers here so far. I guess the article brought home what a failed Obama presidency would mean to those "progressives" who join the Republicans in wanting him to fail.
Apparently TA Frank expected the "magic negro" to wave a magic wand and everything would be fine.
I'm actually a bit surprised to find an article like this on CD. Why are you playing step-and-fetchit with corporate shills?
That's a ridiculous statement, and a real affront to honest progressives!
Criticizing someone's stupid choices is very different than wanting him to fail. If I wanted someone to fail, I would support every stupid action he took and encourage him to take more that are at least as stupid.
The progressives that need to be referred to in quotation marks are the ones that blindly back everything he does, no matter how ill-advised, no matter how dangerous to the nation (and the world), not matter how unethical, no matter how unconstitutional, no matter how REgressive.
Shame on you - and on them!
Bashing Obama is like beating a dog for barking. The problem with politics is that it is run by politicians.
Reminds me of the fox and the scorpion:
It seems that a scorpion wanted to cross a river, but scorpions can't swim. He saw a fox nearby and asked the fox for a ride across the river, but the fox refused. "You would sting me and I would die," said the fox.
"But you will be carrying me across the river, and if I sting you then I would also drown and die," reasoned the scorpion.
The fox was convinced. The scorpion jumped on his nose and the fox began swimming across the river. Halfway across, however, the scorpion stung the fox on his nose. As the fox began losing strength and slipping beneath the river's surface, he cried out to the scorpion, "Now we will both die! Why did you sting me?"
He answered: "Because I am a scorpion, and that's what I do. You knew that before you agreed to carry me across."
It's articles like this that made me stop reading Common Dreams daily (I still check it out, when I'm done at Huffington Post). I was intrigued by the title, and then I researched the New American Foundation. Check it out at Wikipedia. They claim to be "centrist" but they are basically corporate shills.
But what did you think of the content of the article?
That is a good point that readers should check up on New America Foundation. As for the Huffington Post, I find it to be a bit pseudo-left, and I never go there anymore. If I want to see something more mainstream than CD, I check out Buzzflash. As for something more of the authentic left, do you ever try Counterpunch?
Huffington Post = Obamania + Britney Spears and Madonna, endless escapism, the People magazine version of Democratic Party politics
Exactly.
Jesus, Brittany Spears and Maddonna and Paris Hilton are all a bunch of fools. The only one I like is Sophia Bush and that's because she's gorgeous! Never saw dimples like that on any woman! Goddamn!
'....because she's georgeous!' Is that how you decide on someone's credibility - if she's worthy of consideration as a political commentator?
Buzzflash is a joke, always desperate for money. I've never encountered a more greedy "news site", always obsessed with making a dough, nothing else. Their blind support of OBama's an obvious sign of their corruption.
Much of Buzzflash is garbage, but it often has a few good links. It does have a bit of variety, and frequently lists articles critical of Obama from the left or otherwise of the left. I posted a number of comments over there some time back, but got blocked from further posting I think for either being too radical or too critical of the annointed one.
Counterpunch (Alexander Cockburn's baby) is just fine by me. So is the world socialist web site and the socialist worker...