The Roosevelt/Obama Analogy

I saw a piece by Robert Reich on Salon, "What can I do to help Obama?", that is probably fairly typical of one viewpoint about President Obama. Reich, who is usually a pretty perceptive voice, at least on economic issues, divides attitudes on the left toward Obama into two camps, the trusters and the cynics. He suggests that both are wrong, quoting  FDR's famous response to a questioner to the effect that he agreed entirely with the person's demands, but that the people must make him do it.

Well, this is all well and good, and it was to a certain extent an effective tactic in the thirties. But things were very different then. For one thing, Roosevelt's guys were in charge of the Congress, which was not so dependent upon the contributions of the then discredited moneyed class, but was actually scared to death of bloody revolution or worse, being voted out of office, a thought that greatly concentrates the mind of most politicians.

For another thing, Roosevelt was able to define the agenda through the skillful use of his own personality and prestige, and also through bringing new people into government, people who had real ideas. Take a look at the Obama braintrust right now and you will see a bunch of guys who were apparatchiks in the Clinton administration, or worse, as in the case of Defense and the military, under Bush.

So, count me as a cynic in this division.  The point here is that the Obama team, for all the high hopes it generated during the campaign, has almost nothing to offer in the way of a coherent agenda that really matters to people.  From these guys, chosen to satisfy some incoherent urge not to be thought of as a radical, or whatever, expect nothing.

All of the issues continue to be framed in the same way they were going back to the days of Jimmy Carter.  For example, the desire to enact any sort of social legislation must be weighed against the stern measure of whether we can afford it.  Under Roosevelt and the New Dealers, even going forward to LBJ, at least we talked about rights.

Similarly, the idea that we might even consider dipping into a military budget that is literally ten times greater than any other country's is completely off limits.  As is the idea that we might want to withdraw from a series of costly, stupid, immoral, and unsuccessful wars sooner rather than later.  Ditto the idea that we might want to think twice about getting in deeper or fighting similar future wars.

I suppose, like myself, the majority of the readers of this blog consistently receive e-mails from the Obama team associated with Organizing for America.  The gist of these action alerts is to get behind the “grassroots” movement they have defined, to contribute money to support a legislative agenda that is largely toothless and irrelevant.  How is this to be done?  Why, of course, by contributing money so that the group can continue to send out appeals for additional funds.  This is the state to which politics in America has been reduced.  And many of the alternative progressives groups are reduced to the same lame tactic.

But the problem here is still the problem the Democrats have had for years.  People will not go to the barricades or take to the streets, literally or figuratively, for incremental and ameliorative reforms.  They want a tribune, not a mediator.

< The Washington Post Sells Out | False Flag 9/11 doesn't add up... >
 Display:
Thanks for the link to Reich's article.  I enjoyed reading the responses to his article.  The readership at salon doesn't have too many loons, and reader's comments are usually reasoned.  And the responses to Reich's article were generally harshly critical of Obama, and not because they were from right wingers.  His critics are upset because he's not liberal or progressive enough.

Obama's critics on the left are heating up and growning in number.  That gives me hope.

Maybe if we kick his ass a little bit and his poll ratings go down enough, he'll start thinking that in order to keep his Favored Celebrity status he might want to satisfy the people who put him into office.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 07/02/2009 12:22:19 PM EST

And this point needs to be pounded into the minds people who absurdly claim that Obama is a radical leftist and socialist.

Like Bill Maher said: "Socialist?...He's not even a liberal!"

The debate needs a serious reframing. The current paradigm of what it means to be liberal needs to be blown up and explained all over again. Even most self described "moderates" seem to think being liberal means you're pro-choice and think the government should have *some* role in things like the environment and health care.

Finally as we've said before, we need to continually remind everyone that there is a world of difference between 'moderate' Democrats and corporate Democrats. Even in conversation we need to avoid using the word moderate in reference to lobbyist driven chumps like Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad.

by ihavenobias on 07/02/2009 01:52:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't understand why they aren't in prison.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 07/02/2009 02:00:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How exactly would you define President Obama on the political spectrum? I'm just curious to hear your observations... :)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2009 03:10:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But so far I'd say he reminds me of Bill Clinton, except he has more appeal for many right leaning moderates and indes (and the right wing base HATES him, like Clinton but worse because of the racial element).

Relatively/Casually (un)informed moderates love him while many informed progressives become increasingly disenchanted with his (seemingly) DLC ways. The fact that his plans don't seem to be even close to fundamentally reforming the economy in a meaningful way as opposed to just reinflating the bubble doesn't help.

But his rhetoric is much better, particularly on foreign policy.

by ihavenobias on 07/02/2009 09:50:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are becoming uneasy with Obama's lack of direction and his severe control of the press - Lefties hate it because he lied about being progressive, Righties hate him because he's a closet communist - and Moderates are stuck with him until he falls.... Bad situation all the way around, and certainly no "Change we can believe in" :)

by bobo1 on 07/03/2009 11:50:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How many chances do you want, bobo?  How much ridiculous bullshit must we tolerate?

You say that you're a history teacher.  How many of your peers would think that saying Obama is a "closet communist" automatically disqualifies you from membership in that profession?

All of them?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 07/03/2009 12:36:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Most teachers, especially history teachers, saw Obama coming from a mile away and know what he is - whether they agree or disagree with his politics is another matter entirely. As teachers, we must provide objective information to our students and that's what I do, quite effectively I might add... :)

by bobo1 on 07/03/2009 01:04:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Most teachers, especially history teachers, saw Obama coming from a mile away and know what he is..."

A "closet communist", presumably?

Now you're insulting history teachers everywhere.  You've convinced me that you have no idea what communism was and that you are not a rational person.

I keep hoping that somewhere inside you there's a reasonable person trying to claw his way out.  It's been a fruitless hope, because you have no idea how far from reality your perspective has strayed.  But the good news is that I can no longer hold you responsible for your behavior.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 07/03/2009 01:21:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"Maybe if we kick his ass a little bit and his poll ratings go down enough, he'll start thinking that in order to keep his Favored Celebrity status he might want to satisfy the people who put him into office." Or maybe we get Republican progress in both chambers in 2010 and Mitt Romney as the president in 2013.  Part of the reason that solidly-purple districts have all been trending D is that Republicans throw out anyone open to the slightest bit of moderation or compromise.  The Club for Growth would clearly rather lose elections than elect "RINO's" (anyone to the left of Fred Thompson).  Would we rather lose and put the Right back into power?  (It's inconceivable, but we all agree it will happen _someday_.)



I am not happy with Obama's performance and even less happy with the performance of the D's in Congress.  But that doesn't mean I encourage forcing down their numbers so low that we get R's just so in theory the true American Left might mobilize.  The Left DID mobilize in 2006 and 2008 under utterly hideous circumstances (Bush in office, Lott/DeLay/Frist/Hastert, etc., as Republican leaders in Congress).  If ever Liberals were motivated to clean house, it was over the last few years.  And it got us this set of weak, compromising, terrified D's.  I hate to say that the "perfect should not be the enemy of the good", since this has been far from a "good" 6 months for Progressivism.  But aren't the stakes too high to gamble on the prospect that Boehner/McConnell/Bachmann/ King/Imhoff et al are suddenly back in charge? 

by Milltycoon on 07/02/2009 03:12:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly how would we accomplish that if we wanted to do it?  As far as I know, there's only one way to do that:

Have Obama not do what the people want.

I think you're putting the responsibility for Obama's poll numbers on the wrong people.  It's his fault if they go down.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 07/02/2009 05:28:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"This set of weak, compromising, terrified D's", as you put it, is mostly the same set of weak, compromising, terrified D's that have been in office this entire decade.  What have we got, 35 or so new Democratic seats in the House and 12 new ones in the Senate?

Most of the faces are the same old crowd that's always been there.

That is the problem.

Campaign finance reform.  That's how we can really begin to solve our problems.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 07/02/2009 06:13:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: