Obama’s Shameful Presidency
by: Eli Zaretsky on May 15th, 2010 | 14 Comments »
Charles Blow in today’s New York Times has most of the story right. According to Blow, each day brings “more news of unconscionable conservative tilts in the electorate.” The string of bad news compounds “an already palpable sense of loss and longing on the left, an enveloping fear of the inevitable: rejection…. By most accounts, Nov. 2 is going to be a blue day in blue America. That is in part because of a sizable enthusiasm gap that favors Republicans.” Nevertheless, Blow concludes, “the right may win the day, but the left will win the age. That’s because the right is running an intellectually bereft campaign of desperation and disenchantment, amplified by a recession. Great Recessions don’t last. Great ideas do.”
Bravo to Charles Blow. Everything in his article is correct, including his explanation for the Republicans’ enthusiasm. What he fails to do, however, is explain the sense of “loss and longing on the left.” The explanation is simple. After living through twelve years of Reagan and his Vice President, the first President Bush, then eight more disappointments from Bill Clinton, then eight nightmare-like years under the second President Bush, liberals, progressives and, if you will, leftists, hoped that the country would give its core liberal and progressive tradition a chance. And it had every reason to believe that with Obama as the nominee, it would have that chance since Obama positioned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton, as the anti-war candidate, as the candidate who had the most liberal voting record in the Congress, and as the candidate who was looking not just for a changed policy but a changed mindset.
Once he got the nomination, however, and especially since he became President, almost everything Obama has done has been aimed at sending the message that the difference between left and right, progressive and conservative, even Democrat and Republican, is an outmoded “partisan” or even “ideological” stance, and that what we need are people who will “solve problems,” not people who will “strike poses.” I grant his supporters the occasional populist outburst, but look at his Presidency overall. The core stance he has adopted — bipartisanship, anti-ideology, pragmatism — has only one purpose, and that is to get a few more percentage points for Obama when he runs for reelection in 2012. Even losing the 2010 elections will help Obama, because he has positioned himself as the man who will work with the Republicans, the “outsider” who is above petty politics, the “brain,” the man of reason who thinks through problems and doesn’t act from the “gut,” as the previous President did.
I doubt that there is anyone who still believes this fairy tale about our President, but if there is anyone they should consult Jonathan Alter’s forthcoming book on Obama’s first year, as reported by Michiko Kakutani. The test case of Obama as a thoughtful ratiocinator and not a partisan is the new war he began in Afghanistan. Supporters of Obama claim that leftists “just weren’t listening” when Obama ran for President, and that he clearly said he was going to expand the war there. In fact he said he would send two brigades to Afghanistan, that is five or ten thousand troops. As I have frequently written here, there is a big difference between strengthening America’s presence and launching a new war.
Alter’s book makes clear that when Obama became President he had no idea what he was going to do about Afghanistan and was in the hands of the Pentagon. Within a few months of taking office, they got him to fire the general in charge, McKiernan, and put in McCrystal, one of the chief torturers in Iraq. They got him to expand the troops, and then they started a new campaign for more troops. After a while, Obama realized that he was being trapped by the generals. What Obama did then was to call the generals in and ask for their assurance that they would accept whatever decision he came up with. Can you imagine? When the generals said they would — what else would they say? — Obama did what they had wanted all along, namely expand the war, more or less along the lines that McCrystal had called for. Many inexperienced Presidents get trapped by officials already in-place when they take office, the best-known example being Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. But Kennedy didn’t go so far as to give the CIA (in that case) what it wanted, which was follow-up troops, and Kennedy didn’t do what Obama did, namely organize a many months long decision-making charade aimed at giving the false impression that he was making up his mind, when the decision was already made.
This is only one example of how this Presidency works. It is not simply a matter of managing the news, which all Presidents do. Obama stands for an apolitical world view that gives the established powers what they want and that defines “change we can believe in” as an individual we can believe in, a biography and not a politics. We have to tell Obama that while we were fooled once, we will not be fooled again. Great ideas — and the left is a great idea — deserve better.
How convenient to caricature Obama as standing “for an apolitical world view that gives the established powers what they want” and is “not a partisan,” presumably, enough. Obama’s “bipartisanship, anti-ideology, pragmatism ” allegedly “has only one purpose, and that is to get a few more percentage points for Obama when he runs for reelection in 2012,” despite Obama’s notorious admission that he’d rather have one good term than be a two term president.
Let me suggest that Zaretsy read Howe’s MARGIN OF HOPE where he discusses at length the consequences of zealotry on the left. He notes that after all the political efforts in the 60′s little was accomplished, because its leadership insisted on the whole loaf instead of compromise and got crumbs.
The demagoguery on the right that smothers mainstream mass media is enough to prompt disgust. Yet it is no less distasteful when mimicked by the left. That may explain why the left is currently intellectually bankrupt and reduced to raking over the Keynesian coals hoping to stir a flame. In the current context, Zaretsky’s boast borders on the absurd with, “[g]reat ideas – and the left is a great idea….” We do “deserve better” and from the left, but here it is apparent why we do not get it.
Reading this thread two weeks late….
I totally agree with Eli Zaretsky here. Obama’s moderateness and bipartisanship is dangerously strengthening the right wing and causing the progressive movement to weaken and lose its willingness to project (or even believe in) our vision.
I have read Rex’s comment above: “Let me suggest that Zaretsy read Howe’s MARGIN OF HOPE where he discusses at length the consequences of zealotry on the left. He notes that after all the political efforts in the 60′s little was accomplished, because its leadership insisted on the whole loaf instead of compromise and got crumbs.”
I couldn’t disagree more. I think this is a completely inaccurate reading of politics and of history and, frankly, dangerous. Our society underwent strong changes as a result of the 1960s, and one of the major factors involved in that was the radical, emotionally passionate nature of the protest movement. On the other hand, the reason the liberals and the Democrats are so ineffective now is exactly because the leadership does virtually nothing but compromise and lacks even the slightest radicalism or passion or ‘zealotry’.
Likewise, the right wing generated major changes in society over the last generation (and particularly during the Bush era) exactly because of their strong radical vision, their refusal to compromise and their ‘zealotry’. When you have a broad vision and push it hard and don’t let go, you create change.
Consider the BP oil spill in the Gulf. The Minerals Management Service has been ‘compromising’ with the oil industry for decades and has lacked the slightest bit of ‘zealotry’ in pursuing any vision of reasonable protection of our natural resources. All that really worked out well for us.
I can’t think of an idea that has been more disproved by recent history (or that has any chance of taking root in people’s hearts and minds) than the notion that changes happen when you compromise and lack zealotry.
Main Street – No Matter what color of politics – Is basically United in one Fact – What if we throw out all the bums – in washington – states – and Make them stop supporting the – elitist’s – on wall-street and the church’s !!!! What if we follow in the Foot-Steps of the Founding Fathers? and Get rid of the Monarchy – Once And for all ??? The Halls of These United States – are for the People by The People !!! Not a secret power for the Elitist – Get It ???? The Gardians Watch ….
Eli, Yes, Obama is a shameful presidency. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!!! I received a Democratic Party survey and I gave Obama all poor ratings. The United States of Hell’s policies are continuing under Obama. The only difference between Bush II and Obama is the name. Birds of a feather flock together.
Gerald,
Do you think Bush would have passed a stimulus package? Health care reform to cover 30 million more people? Finance reform? None of the above. It is disturbing to me that so many on the left dismiss these legislative accomplishments that were (or remain) extremely difficult to pass, even with democrat majorities in Congress. Do you really believe that there is another democrat out there who could have gotten more progressive legislation passed? Just who might that be?
Obama warned us. In his “coming out” speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he told us that there was no blue state America and no red state America. I was furious at the time. There were and are very real, and very important, distinctions between the “red state” view and the “blue state” view. He was dissing us all, a convention center packed with the party faithful.
Obama didn’t say there is no blue state and no red state America. He said that we are all Americans who should want the best for America. He was trying to bring us together and he still is trying to, in whatever way he can, in spite of the extreme right and far left that insists on trying to pull us apart. It’s not an easy task and can’t be accomplished by trying to push through legislation that keeps one side happy. He plays the center from the left, trying to move this country forward to greater stability and greater prosperity for all. Don’t give up on him; keep working with him. The worst thing would be to let Republicans (Tea Party?) win.
What bothers me the most about articles like this is their limited perspective. Obama is a rational, erudite, brilliant man, and certainly a liberal. The fact that he didn’t come in to his presidency slashing and burning things in order to promote a progressive agenda seems OK to me. He has had to steer a sinking Titanic away from the iceberg.
Contemplating the Presidency to me is like contemplating G-d. I cannot fathom the responsibility and the daily decisions Obama must make. But, I TRUST that he is making the best decisions for me. I have not felt that way in many years regarding this office.
Another offshoot- I’ve started working on campaigning with some new African American friends. At the age of 56, I finally feel as if I am on an equal footing with them. They seem to feel liberated and comfortable. Thank God African Americans have finally “won the prize.”
Let’s not be naive and think that politicians don’t have to be cunning and manipulative. It’s part of the game. However, I do not feel as if Obama deceived me in any way. He is transparent about his intentions and he has accomplished an amazing amount in one year. Next on board: financial reform! Thank G-d. Imagine if we were now living under McCain and Palin!!
People like you who write such critical articles are also misguided in another sense. Instead of spending your time writing this kind of cr*p, why not write about what YOU are doing to help the progressive agenda. I’m sure you volunteer and do Tikkun Olam. Why not tell us about that? It would be a lot more edifying.
I’m reading the comment above criticizing Zaretsky:
“People like you who write such critical articles are also misguided in another sense. Instead of spending your time writing this kind of cr*p, why not write about what YOU are doing to help the progressive agenda. I’m sure you volunteer and do Tikkun Olam. Why not tell us about that? It would be a lot more edifying.”
I have a different view. To me, doing critical intellectual work DOES help the progressive movement. It is part of what our movement needs. It IS Tikkun Olam. At a time when so much of the progressive movement is being lulled to sleep by Obama’s centrism and moderateness, strong critical analysis is invigorating and energizing for so many of us. It helps us feel that we’re not alone.
In general, I don’t agree with this strong separation of critical analysis on one hand and ‘doing political work’ on the other.
Obama joined the Democratic party establishment when he won the nomination in 2008. He
has made many decisions that were unnecessary, cowardly and wrong- in choosing most of his Cabinet,
in insisting that Single Payer not be discussed in the health care debates, by using Rahm Emanuel to
discourage and undermine progressives attempting to run in Democratic primaries. the case of New York’s Senate
seat that Hillary left to be filled by unelected Gov David Paterson- who chose Kirsten Gillibrand- an ambitious
person lacking principles– pro-gun and anti-immigrant when that seemed necessary to win her seat in Congress-
a person with zero rights to incumbency– and Obama’s lackeys pressured all possible challengers to give up challenging
Gillibrand. Now that Jonathan Tasini- the courageous progressive who was trying to run in this primary– and being treated
as if he did not exist by the NY Times and other mainstream media– dropped out, Gillibrand is perched to waltz into the Senate seat. Her stances on some issues are to the right of Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman- that’s who Obama wants in the Senate?
Sure, he’s better than Bush, there’s more sense of possibility, but he is not an ally of progressives, and won’t be
until we mount a strong challenge to every wrong policy he favors– Afghanistan, energy, the economy– how can a ‘centrist’
stance from the President accomplish anything but allow the debate to skew right of center?
The best way to ‘support’ him is to confront him when he’s wrong, or timid.
Friends don’t let friends give away the store.
What is so disconcerting about Obama (and what card players call a “tell”) is how often this former law professor passes up key teaching moments to mount public support for liberal and progressive causes in the name of bipartisanship or post-ideological politics. Such a posture is ideological and every political card player knows its a prescription for maintaining the status quo. There is no need for Presidential leadership to head this kind of platform. Never one to pass up the most inane teaching moments, Reagan constantly and disingenuously fed red meat to his constituency and his party with a constant barrage (almost weekly for 6-7 years of his Presidency) of how the democrats, liberals, et.al on the left were thwarting liberty, the free market, and bankrupting taxpayers etc. etc. We hated him, but he did have a sense of how to lead and execute his agenda. What a shame that an intelligent, articulate communicator like Obama is not doing the same for his electoral supporters, and even for his party, especially when the Republicans are militantly standing for nothing but reaction. But as others mentioned, we may not have listened carefully enough to him during the campaign. He is executing his agenda. My Obamaphile friends say “read his books and you will understand his game plan.” I did but what I see in him is Bill Clinton redux- an emasculated second term President with a weaker party, a disillusioned base…but a lot more boring than Bubba. I hope I’m wrong.
All things considered, for whom should we have voted? For Grandpa “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain and his genius running mate from Alaska? While I agree that Obama is coming down on the corporate side, remember that progressives like Kucinich couldn’t even get off the ground. It’s as though every candidate has already been checked out by the oligarchy that runs this country before we ever get into the voting booth. And make no mistake about it. We are, as Sen. Bernie Sanders has stated, an oligarchy. When the Senate can’t even pass a bill to break up the big banks (vote: 33-61 with a few of those big banks left controlling 60% or more of GDP) or can’t restore Glass Steagal or when government policies have led to a collapsing middle class and poverty at home is rising, what can you conclude? Is this the democracy we’re trying to export to the world?
When today’s conservatives are just as willing to embrace imperial wars and run up big trade and fiscal deficits to promote their own agenda and yet still pass as “conservatives” in the public’s eye, one has to wonder if they remember what the conservatives of yesterday were like. They weren’t like this.
My question is: “What do we do about it?”
The article is on spot. The issue, per Disaster Capitalism, is that Obama has fumbled the ball. We had a chance for real reform, but he has cut off the left at every turn. He preempts every position that makes sense in the complex world we live in with some watered down solution that will win a couple of votes. His pragmatism is political calculation, but it isn’t what we need. We need the honor and integrity restored to our country and our democratic processes. The judicial system has been corrupted and he has reinforced this travesty. That he would address this issue was the one hope I had. His centrist tendencies were not obscured during the campaign. That he was the lesser of two evils is not strong support.
So we on the left are resigned to get what we can. The problem is, if his “cultural reforms” fail, we will be stuck with the pendulum swinging back to the right when it didn’t pass the half way point: another 20 years of conservative drift.
What do we do about it? My plan is to strengthen third parties and to prepare for the coming crises that our existing political structure is incapable of addressing – see global warming and peak oil for details. Within the existing structure I will fund candidates that will challenge the Senators that are blocking progress on real solutions for our country and world.
I’m also working hard to keep my hope alive. Thanks to everyone for letting me know I am not alone on this stuff.
I’m getting really bored with these hyperbolic assertions that President Obama is as bad as Bush or worse. We all know about the things he hasn’t changed, even tried to change, and sometimes actively fought changing from the previous administration. But even though they outnumber what he has done right, the positive changes are still too many to list here and too well known to have to. Ask yourself an honest question and give yourself an honest answer: Obama’s presidency is shameful compared to what? What he should do? Probably. What he could do? Maybe. What someone else with a shot at being elected would do? Highly doubtful, and you can take shoulda, coulda, woulda, and 5 bucks and getta cuppa latte. Considering the real world alternatives, I’m actually proud to have voted for the guy, even when he’s pissing me off.