Presidential Politics

Bill, just going on facts, the far more likely "conspiracy theory" (for that is what you are describing) is that the Rs are intentionally sinking the economy in order to sink Obama. Speaking of facts and Rs: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/super-committee-riven-by-major-divide-over-basic-fact.php?ref=fpa

ddt

Quote
John Willoughby
GWB was able to actually enact his policies. Obama can't even get his own party to follow him.

Obama is very good at implementing GWB's policies (wars, tax cuts for the rich, private sector based healthcare reform, no-fault bailouts for financial sector frauds, proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare, etc.). If you think he's a supporter of FDR's policies, he looks like an idiotic buffoon. If you think he's a supporter of GWB's policies, he looks like a smashing success. Occam's razor - GWB redux.

Ockham? Why not look at empirical evidence, and see how (they even admit to it) the Reps have been really, really good at shifting the Overton window, so that anything to the left of, say, Nixon, is labeled "socialism". Note how "liberal" has become a stop word in policial debate.

Of course, having written that, I now realize how pinko and impure Nixon would be to today's Rep party -- appeasing China, creating the EPA??? And Reagan raised taxes???

Obama seems to be more concerned with getting shit done, and that can be his weakness. Along with wanting everyone onboard. As a result, he's had to appease and appease and thus has ended up farther to the right than I, or his supporters, would have wanted or expected. (Not that he was never left of centrism and isn't relying heavily on corporate and Wall Street povs.)

ddt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2011 10:20AM by ddt.

Reagan signed gun control, too. Darn commie!

Quote
ddt
Ockham? Why not look at empirical evidence, and see how (they even admit to it) the Reps have been really, really good at shifting the Overton window…

The window was shifted by Obama, not Republicans. When the starting point for "Democratic" proposals is right of center, the only option for Republicans (who want to get re-elected) is to move further to the right.

I don't think you understand the concept of the Overton Window -- and cause and effect. Though I will agree that there's nothing "left" or "leftist" about Obama's proposals, and that makes me sad. Still, the recent AJA offers me some policy happiness in places, and certainly is preferable to the insanity from the Republicans.

ddt

Quote
ddt
I don't think you understand the concept of the Overton Window -- and cause and effect. Though I will agree that there's nothing "left" or "leftist" about Obama's proposals, and that makes me sad. Still, the recent AJA offers me some policy happiness in places, and certainly is preferable to the insanity from the Republicans.

ddt

Searches Amazon for Steely Dan songs...

I know that all people of all times seem to feel this way, but I really do think that things are drawing to a close. Neither party is willing to make the tough decisions, and the electorate is toggling between them every election trying to somehow magically right the ship. I think that things are going to get BAD. And stay that way for a decade or more.

Time to resume my flint knapping and leather tanning courses.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2011 02:58PM by John Willoughby.

Quote
jdb
If you think he's a supporter of FDR's policies, he looks like an idiotic buffoon. If you think he's a supporter of GWB's policies, he looks like a smashing success.

That's an good way to look at it. ddt, you may be reading James' opinion into it too much. Whether it's because Obama's been unable to change the course of the ship that GWB set, or because he's actively maintaining it, the observable outcome is the same. It doesn't matter what the president says or even does, after all - it's the effect on your life. The electorate voted for change and did not get it. Blame your favorite punching bag, but as JW notes, it's a deeper problem than either party.

I've been thinking about the lifespans of various civilizations, and what conditions set at the beginning were the fatal flaws. American remains the Great Experiment - what's the longest reign of any form of government, anyway? - and I wonder what the Framers could've written in to head off the problems we're having now, or whether it was gradual, inevitable corruption. Either way, did they provide a method to purge these cancers?

But this may just be a phase, brought on by a shitty economy + the baby boomer masses retiring, and the ship will right itself in calmer seas.

Why would the seas get calmer? I'm really curious. We're certainly not taking any measures to calm things down; the electorate doesn't want to give up any entitlements, the government can't/won't raise taxes, Europe's considering sliding into the abyss, the drive for theocracy is building, and science is being denounced as a tool of liberal ideology. And the Bill of Rights is becoming a list of optional guidelines, readily disposed of if any allegations of security risk arise.

Well, now I can't find the link, but there was a graph showing how most of the SS crisis is because of the baby boomers reaching retirement. Once that bump is passed (they die off) it's back on track, so the trick is to pass any kind of revenue increase that gets us over that.

When we reach that point, we'll be younger and have gotten over our fear of the Information Age. The electorate will be more aware that information can't be bottled up, and will be more sensitive to the violations of civil liberties. (If it hasn't totally been lulled into a stupor.)

The call for theocracy is getting louder, but it's not coming from more people. We're increasingly atheist, and are close to equality for gays (sad that we equate religion with intolerance).

I'll say that our electorate is happy to give up entitlements if they elect a Tea Party candidate. So be it.

I don't necessarily expect that what I just said will happen - this is the optimistic path. Who knows, maybe it'll just take one more Texan president to really fuck it up and make us learn.

I wish Obama would just be combative and demand that Congress give him the chance to do what he was elected to do. Bring on the class warfare.

Social Security is not the problem.

But reforming health care is socialist.

Mexico must be doing something right. Must be all them illegals stealing our health care.

Seriously, that's depressing. Especially because half our government doesn't acknowledge it. Even if they did, they have a wildly different approach to fixing it, even from their own party 40 years ago. (Hmm, reminds me I should get insurance.)

If the GOP solution is to pass it off to the states (cuz Rick Perry cares, you know), that brings us back to the Great Experiment. How important to our democracy have state's rights been? Seems like the culture clash (which I use loosely - not all Arizonans are crazy, not all Massholes are bleeding hearts) has exacerbated the division between right and left.

Boehner has decided that the special deficit reduction super-committee will not be allowed to increase taxes. How nice that the bi-partisan committee has its hands tied before it even begins by partisanship.

James and jk, sorry I wasn't clearer. What was more my problem was that the original statement seemed (and still seems) to me to imply and/or require intent on Obama's part to be GWB lite. (And I'd also say that this only holds in degree and in some cases, such as foreign policy in parts of the world, in not reversing course on some huge economic actions though doing so in others, and certainly we've seen solid change in the State Dept, Justice Dept, FEMA, EPA, and in the few judicial appointments that have been allowed to come under consideration.) I think it's a mistake of kind and type to say anything other than that the Obama administration has not been a radical break from the GWB one in some specific areas.

Then the question is: why? Again, you can't say he wanted or wants the policies he's ended up with. It's fair to ask why again. And this was my comment about the Overton WIndow. For one example, look at his comments about the health care plan: he is on record as saying that no matter how much he or anyone else thought single-payer was the best idea, or that we should be moving towards that, the fact was that he knew he could not get anything like that passed (see: Republicans). So, in the interests of Getting Shit Done, the health care proposals were intentionally shifted further to the right than the White House would have made them had the Repubs not moved so far right.

Cause. Effect. Obama didn't cause the current nutwingerry in the Republican party, but said wingnuttery, and the purity agenda attached to it, is having an effect on what Obama can propose.

That's all I'm saying.

See how Jon Stuart says it: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/jon-stewart-compares-daily-show-to-fox-news-were-both-expressions-of-dissatisfaction-20110914

ddt

Does any of this sound familiar?

Shilling for big oil:

Quote

The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster…

Shilling for the banks:

Quote

Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.

Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.

But Mr. Donovan and others in the administration have been contacting not only Mr. Schneiderman but his allies, including consumer groups and advocates for borrowers, seeking help to secure the attorney general’s participation in the deal, these people said. One recipient described the calls from Mr. Donovan, but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.

Not surprising, the large banks, which are eager to reach a settlement, have grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Schneiderman. Bank officials recently discussed asking Mr. Donovan for help in changing the attorney general’s mind, according to a person briefed on those talks.

The administration's true constituents:

Quote

The conversation next turned to housing and HAMP. On HAMP, officials were surprisingly candid. The program has gotten a lot of bad press in terms of its Kafka-esque qualification process and its limited success in generating mortgage modifications under which families become able and willing to pay their debt. Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole. Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least. There were murmurs among the bloggers of “extend and pretend”, but I don’t think that’s quite right. This was extend-and-don’t-even-bother-to-pretend. The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks. Policymakers openly judged HAMP to be a qualified success because it helped banks muddle through what might have been a fatal shock.

I could go on (about multiple subjects), but it's late, and if people have time to spare, I'd rather they watch former regulator Bill Black's lecture on banking fraud at Lewis & Clark College, and ask "where are the prosecutions"?

Hey, as you might have noticed, I'm not disagreeing about that.

But what I did say, and perhaps wasn't clear enough about, is that I think you're doing a disservice to your point, to your own intelligence, and to any potential solution, by relying on the simplistic "great man"/superunitaryexecutive theory of history. That is, "Obama wanted to do it and did it" is probably not only factually incorrect, but worthless when trying to find a way to change things.

Is he culpable to some degree for giving in? Of course, and I think I've expressed my disappointment on this elsewhere as well as here. But that crap you listed has been creeping and systematic for many years, and stopping its momentum would be (though hella worthy, and I wish someone would) something that'd eat up 150% of available political resources. Do I blame Obama for being weak on this and giving in? Hell, yes. Do I think he sought this out and caused it? Beyond the "I can't take this on too so I'll keep Berneke and Geithner", that's counterfactual and works against solving the problem.

That's all I'm saying. Sin of omission more than sin of commission (ooh, I bet there's a pun about work-for-commission and congressional commissions in there).

ddt

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how anyone can say, in the wake of the worst downturn since the Great Depression, that Obama has done everything he could to improve the situation. Instead, I'd say he's done everything he can to maintain the existing glide path. When unforced errors become standard operating procedure, you have to wonder whether they're truly unforced or erroneous.

Quote

This seemed to me to miss the important point that all that a President ever does is throw rhetorical bones (and veto laws, and deploy troops). Congress passes laws and in response agencies spend and the Treasury taxes. The Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy. the Treasury conducts banking policy. If the President talks about how we need the government to spend less and tax more, Congress is unlikely on its own account to pass laws that spend more and tax less even in the short term of dealing with the Lesser Depression. If the President talks about how the time for stimulative policies have passed, the Federal Reserve is less likely to put the pedal to the metal. If the President is talking about the importance of debt reduction, the Treasury is unlikely to focus on expanding the set of potential future government liabilities by intervening in financial markets to encourage investment by taking tail risk onto the government's books. The Presidency is a bully pulpit, but to a remarkable extent that is all that it is. And for Senior Administration Officials to dismiss what the President does is to mistakenly think that you are playing eleven-dimensional chess when your actual job is to roll Sisyphus's boulder up the hill.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2011 09:01AM by James DeBenedetti.