I just watched this clip of Bill Maher (who I think is outrageously funny) and found his critiques of President Obama to be dead on.
First off, I like President Obama in a way I could never have liked President Bush. Bush turned me off for all of the reasons listed in Jonathan Chait's article "I hate President George W. Bush" - which I would have linked to, but there is something wrong with TNR's archive search function. Note, by the way, I did not say that I hated George W. Bush - just that he turned me off in every conceivable way from the first few times I ever observed him, and virtually everything he did in office deepened my visceral dislike of him.
Obama, on the other hand, is very likeable. Good for him.
However, I once remarked to a friend during the Bush years that, for all the bad ideas and constant lying, Bush did have one quality I admired - force of will. He got what he wanted time after time. There's simply no denying that. The trouble of course, is that nearly everything Bush wanted was bad for the country.
But be that as it may, Bush did what he had to do to, no matter how dishonorable, to keep the country from realizing this until he was reelected. And even after becoming extremely unpopular, he still achieved legislative victories like getting rid of Habeus Corpus for detainees (which the Supremes revived by a 5-4 vote) and bestowing retroactive immunity for allowing illegal government spying on the telecoms.
I was always amazed at this. For a long time I thought of Bush as the Michael Jordon of legislative politics - he simply wouldn't let himself lose. True, the country payed a terrible price for letting Bush win for so long - our only comfort being that Bush's determination, combined with the "drink the cool-aid" herd mentality within the Republican party, allowed him to illustrate precisely how wrongheaded his ideas were. But still, judged simply in terms of implementing his chosen policies, President Bush may have been the most effective president we've ever had.
It turns out that Bill Maher noticed the same thing.
Now Obama has done a number of things related to suppressing evidence of Bush administration criminality that I think are deplorable. I can understand his motives, but I think his actions on these matters are unpatriotic, unlawful, and unwise. Previous entries on this blog will confirm this. However, on most of his domestic agenda, I am in complete agreement.
And Like Bill Maher, I have been wondering why, with all Obama's personal popularity and huge congressional majorities, Obama and some of the other Democrats are watering down their domestic proposals - for example, like wavering on a public option for health insurance, or on passing employee card check? It makes no sense politically or policy wise.
Come on Obama. Grow a pair! Your ideas are good. Ram them though! Be more like president Bush. Show some inflexible certitude and ruthlessness.
As Bill Maher aptly put it, I'm not interested in the audacity of hope. I'm hoping for a bit more audacity.
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
4 comments:
The RealPolitik of W's success is that the GOP in his years was ideologically and structurally in Congress more uniform and admirably more disciplined than the Democrats -- the wide tent strategy to bring back "moderates" and "conservatives" (Southern Democrats and other like-minded folks who had cultural and traditional links to the Democratic Party who had drifted to Reagan and his heirs) has succeeded in increasing numbers in the House and Senate but ideologically the party is pretty diverse on many issues (I don't think Speaker Pelosi is in the mainstream of a good-sized wing of her caucus, or in easy consensus with with her Senate counterparts). "Taking the Hill",
a recent Matt Bai article in the New York Times Magazine is instructive in that regard. As we liberals agree with the Bill Mahers of the talking head world, we may applaud Michael Douglas in "The American President" for standing up to Richard Dreyfuss when Dick dissed the Prez' girl friend, but the movie ends before the Stanford-educated incumbent has his agenda destroyed and his re-election lost.
Hey Joe and Bilbo,
Can it be a good idea, in the midst of a financial crisis for just about every level, to go ahead and push through every possible idea in the first year, no matter the cost?
I don't disagree with things like fixing the health care system, etc., but the overwhelming concern right now has to be addressing the economy. To shoot a wounded moose while it's recovering is a grave mistake, I think.
Bilbo, on the health care issue, its pretty clear that compromising congressional democrats are simply being bought off. I think Republicans had more discipline because their corporate masters (excuse me, "supporters") wanted what the congressional Republicans themselves wanted. Discipline in that kind of environment is easy.
I think the analogy with the American president is only partly apt. If Obama would lead (as Bush did), he would create a fear of opposing him. Everything he wants to do is popular. He's popular (and trusted). His wife is popular. What better political opportunity is he ever going to have?
Joe
Jim,
My concern is that the proposals Obama campaigned on are being seriously compromised in the run up to congressional consideration.
I don't think he should try to do everything in the first year. But he should try to do fully progressive things. We're not going to get a better chance (politically speaking) to reform health care for decades. Waivering on the "public option" provision is a near complete cave in regarding what is at stake.
The current health care insurance system is analogous to a private school only system that 1/5 of the country was too poor to access, but where the private school lobby opposed the availability of a "public option" to protect their own bottom lines. The only good reason for a progressive politician to listen to the private school lobby is campaign contributions.
Joe H.
Post a Comment