On the Contrary

In Mitch Daniels’ Response he began by saying, “The status of ‘loyal opposition’ imposes on those out of power some serious responsibilities: to show respect for the Presidency and its occupant, to express agreement where it exists.“  What a boldfaced lie.  There is no “loyal opposition”, just a group of people who want to see the President fail.  One only has to look at what has occurred over the last three years to draw that conclusion.  There are a record number of filibusters, holding the country hostage to their debt demands, and defeating any attempt at improving the unemployment picture.  We have an ideological divide that does not allow the taking of prisoners anymore.  I wish the President would have made that point far more emphatic in his remarks.  We all know nothing is going to happen and now the critical battle is whether we are going to allow the Republicans to eviscerate government and turn us into a two-class society.  It is as simple as that and there is no middle ground.

On Republican leadership, I think we saw it at its most naked form when Rick Santorum was confronted by a woman who again raised the outrageous nonsense about President Obama being a Nigerian Muslim and Santorum pandered to her beliefs (and the amazing crowd of know-nothings around him).  Mitt shows us his leadership when he panders to positions he has rejected in the past, but anything to get by the primaries.  Newt?  Well if lying, deceit, obfuscation, and generating hate is leadership, then bring on the rope and we can call ourselves the lynch mob country.  Ron Paul at least shows some backbone on his unpopular positions on drugs, wars, and sex, but his racist comments and his zany ideas about anarchy as a way of governing lead us to wonder if he thinks deeply about complex problems.  Some leadership when you lie and pander to mob instincts to lead the nation.

I listened to Eric Cantor (ever notice that most of these people are not very bright?) explain how the State of the Union speech (before he had heard it) was just more of the same failed policies.  Really?  Eric and company have never let the President have his policies without being watered down by booby traps that make them ineffective.  But what really ought to make Americans think is that the same old policies are more tax cuts and less regulation.  That is where we have been for the last 30 years and the result is for all of us to behold.  One of the best offensives is to project your weaknesses on your opponent.  This is one giant example of calling what we have not tried except after WWII when our economy was booming, old worn out policies, while calling more of the same that has brought us down and created a two class society change.  You got to love their chutzpah.  But if we listen and follow them, well kiss you kid’s future goodbye.

The President began to throw down the gauntlet, but he should have learned something from Newt’s rise in the polls.  The rabble like clear lines and firm opposition.  Let’s hope this speech was simply a stepping off point for beginning to draw clear lines, confronting failed ideology, and not the lines themselves.  They need to be much more clear and abrupt or the middle class and the appropriate role of government will be lost.

I cannot figure out this President and I wonder if he is the epitome of the Robert Redford character, Bill McKay,  in the movie The Candidate where McKay has changed his position so many times to reflect the polls that when he finally wins, he wonders what he does now.  He doesn’t know what to do because he doesn’t know who he is any more or what he believes in.  One might say this fits Mitt Romney more than Barack Obama, but I wonder.  When I look at his seeming pin balling off issues, trying to find some middle ground instead of what his internal compass tells him is right for the country, I believe he has no compass.  He was elected to make Washington work and his only guiding principal seems to be accommodation.

Yeah, I know, we Progressives are just whiners.  Well maybe, but I think we need to consider some of his important policy stands or retreats to try to understand who he is.  So let’s lay it out and think about it.  This is important because first he is our only alternative to the loony tunes in the Republican Party.  Second, maybe there is a hint here on how we can give him a little direction.  So let’s consider first his history:

• Financial Crisis -  Okay this was a tough one and he brought in experts.  But he never seemed to grasp that he had a big lever and he could force some very needed reforms as he carried out the bailing out of the banks.  This was not only a failure of leadership, but a political failure because without real concessions, this was a political loser even if it was necessary to keep us whole.  I will cut him some slack here as he was feeling his way into the world of high finance, but who he choose to listen to raises some questions about his leadership.  Worse, look at the problems he is having today trying to implement reforms to the banking industry and it tells you all you want to know about missed opportunities
• Stimulus Package – This was the first sign that he really did not understand or believe in Keynesian economics.  As the cliche goes, you can’t be a little bit pregnant.  Either you understand that you must stimulate the economy to the tune of the lost revenue, or it is not going to work.  Help, yes, work, no.  So on an effectiveness scale, it was destined to not bring the economy back.  On the political scale, most would say it was what he could get in the political environment.  But here is where you really have to wonder.  He and his team sold it as the answer with all sorts of statistics about where the unemployment numbers would be today and of course they were wrong.  It is interesting to note that today they are trying to reinvent history by claiming that at the time they did not know the real loss in GDP on the economy.  Au contraire, Paul Krugman and others were pointing out that this stimulus was way too small when the package was introduced.  In the end, it is another political loser because the right can claim it didn’t work (which is true based upon what the Obama Administration claimed it would do), and it is hard to convince suffering Americans that it could have been worse
• Gitmo and Torture – On Gitmo he was clear.  He was going to shut it down.  Still going strong today and we hear nothing about it.  Why is that?  Politically difficult and more probably, he did not want to waste political capital on it when he wanted to take on health care.  On torture, he issues a executive order but then decides that we need to be looking forward instead of backward in examining violations of national and international law.  On the politics this was a winner.  It would have tied him down and been divisive.  On leadership it was a real loser.  He knows that Gitmo and torture are true violations of our political origins and the Constitution.  Worse, by not ripping off the scab of torture, the next Republican President will probably re-institute it.  Instead of exposing what was done, he looked the other way as expedient and again one wonders what he stands for?
• Healthcare Reform – Once again he was the political gamer.  As the bill evolved, he was nowhere to be seen leaving the details to Congress.  It was also clear that he had made deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical industry to not upset their apple cart.  That meant no public option.  Once again you have to wonder what does he believe in?  Does he really think that the market place will solve our medical cost problems or does he understand as the rest of the industrialized world does, that does not work?  In leadership it is a mixed bag.  He got a health care plan in place that does at least put a band aid on a gaping wound, but the whole thing could be undone if we go Republican.  Already they are blocking funding of major provisions.  Maybe he thinks baby steps are what it is going to take, but he has never said that.  Does he think we should be moving toward a public finance system?  He did during the primaries back in 2008, but since then, we don’t have a clue and he refuses to lead on this.
• Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – Well you could say he has ended the Iraq war, but the reality is he is living up to the agreements negotiated by George Bush with the Iraqis to be out by the end of 2011.  He is taking credit for it, but it really isn’t his policy.  In Afghanistan, we continue to slog along in a civil war that has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and he does not have the moral courage to end it or define a reasonable exit strategy.  He is being politically safe in withdrawing slowly and not ruffling any hawks or military feathers, but it is a moral failure in that there is no point to continuing there.  I find our continuing mission there morally outrageous.  How many more or going to die for what?  If we have a strategic interest there, define it, defend it, and put in place a strategy to achieve it.  Right now we are holding on “till the Afghans can support themselves” which will be never.  Should I even bring up Pakistan here and our failed policies there?  Where is the leadership?  It is politically safer not to make any waves right now.
• Secrecy and Rights to Privacy – Here is a real failure in leadership.  I will make this short.  Obama has carried on the Bush policies only more emphatically.  In trial after trial they have used the State’s Secrets Act to deny any fact finding or even a proceeding, defending their unlawful activities.  They have gone after whistle blowers with a fierceness not seen in the Bush years, and they are making more and more decisions and processes secret.  Who decides who gets a drone strike up their ass?  Why can’t we see who the Treasury Department gave loans to and at what rates?  Isn’t it our money?  Is it just easier and more politically comfortable to hide things instead of stand up and defend things?  Where is the leadership?
• The Deficit – Here is another failure of leadership or maybe just of question of what does he believe.  The Republicans started hammering the country with be afraid of the deficit.  Economists like Paul Krugman, Jeffery Sachs, Simon Johnson, pointed out that while the deficit is a problem, it is a long term problem and the short term problem is growth and jobs.  But our President let the Republicans set the agenda around the deficit and he made it his number one talking point.  So once again you are left with the question, what does he really believe?  Is the deficit our number one problem or is it jobs?  If you really cared about the deficit, why would you have extended the Bush Tax Cuts?  Remember a year ago when the Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits, but extend only the tax cuts for those making under $250K?  When you look at this package and you understand what was given away to get it, you have to wonder, what does he and the Democrats stand for?  Even more important was the question asked by a reporter in the press conference after the signing.  He asked the President why he did not also address the extension of the debt ceiling because assuredly the Republicans will come back and want more for that.  The President did not understand the question and then explained that the Republicans would honor their commitments.  How wrong can you be?

So what have we seen recently?  This is really the scary part:

• He gives us a speech on Tuesday in Osawatomie, where he finally states that he gets it, Republican economic ideology is what got us in this mess and he rejects it.  This would seem to close the door on further compromises with the GOP on more of their cut taxes, don’t tax the rich, reduce regulation, and less government intervention.  It was a refreshing piece of leadership.  But my fear is that it is a political product of the 99% movement.  Does Obama really get this or is this a move to pander to what his political handlers think is the populist approach he needs to take to win back independents.  The difference here is a biggy.  If it is just political pandering, then he will compromise with these failed policies if he see a political advantage even though he stated that he understands they won’t be effective.  If it is a real stand on principles, he won’t make those compromises because he understands the country needs to move in another direction.  It will be interesting to see what happens with the extension of the payroll tax because the issue is how to pay for it.  If he stands on principles, it will be on a tax for the rich.  If he caves, meaning he is once again pandering to politics, he and the Democrats will buy into some Republican gimmick that hurts the economy or which shifts the costs to the poor
• His Health Secretary overrules the FDA on over the counter sales of the morning after pill.  After a careful study and recommendations by almost everyone that this is safe, they ignore it with concerns about 11-year-olds.  This reeks of political posturing for 2012.  It reeks of a political calculation instead of doing what science tells us is right, to allow women the right to prevent a possible pregnancy without government intervention.  If you can ignore panels of scientist, how is that any different than ignoring the data on Climate Change?  Unnamed sources in the White House said that the White House left the decision to the Health Secretary.  Really?  Or is that an abdication of leadership?  And while we are on morality issues why can’t the President support gay marriages?  It is either a rights issue like don’t ask don’t tell, or it is a religious issue?  Which is it Mr. President and why don’t you state clearly where you stand on principles such as equal rights?  It is just this mixing of personal religious beliefs with Constitutional rights that is opening the door to religious conservatives
• Then there is the military budget bill which is an attack on the Constitution.  It allows for unlimited detention of an American citizen (or anyone for that matter) if labeled a terrorist.  It transfer interrogation and trails to the military which they don’t want.  It allows the President to decide who to assassinate by drone in a secret process.  So I piss him off with this blog and I, like the Count of Monte Cristo, can spend the rest of my life in obscurity in a prison?  As the NYT opined, “Vetoing the military budget would pose political risks for Mr. Obama. Signing provisions like the ones in the House and Senate versions into law would do lasting harm to the country.”  Will we see leadership or political pandering on this one?

I am afraid that this President does what is politically expedient, not what is right, because I don’t think he has decided yet what is right.  That is the primary reason why people are tepid about him.  If we just knew what he stood for and had any confidence he might actually draw a principled line in the sand, he would be a shoe in in 2012 and he probably could change the direction of this country.  But he is what is and we have to work with that.  I am fairly certain that the 99% brought on Osawatomie.  So the lesson is that if we are going to keep him on track, the 99% cannot let up.  Let me know what I can do, because change will only come from outside Washington and we can’t just turn the government over to one man and assume he (or the Democrats) will do the right thing.

Let’s face it.  America is floundering.  Saturday on CNN I listened to David Gergen. discuss the fact that people want Medicare and Social Security, but they have also been sold on the fact that they don’t need to pay taxes.  The reality is we lack leadership that will tells us what we need to do, only what we want to do.  That is the reality of why we are floundering.

This came to mind as I was reading an op-ed in the New York Times about our misguided corn policies (The Great Corn Con by Stephen Rattner).  Yes, Virginia, sometimes big government does really stupid things and this from a very liberal Progressive.  In this case it is the impact of the government ethanol subsidy for corn.  Forty percent of our corn production now goes to ethanol with marginal if no help to our energy problems and the federal government pays roughly $6 billion a year to subsidize the production of ethanol.  This on top of the world food shortage. So there is a real political pressure to pander to those who are profiting from this government program even though it really is not good for us.  Here is how Stephen Rattner framed it:

“To some, the contours of the ethanol story may be familiar. Almost since Iowa — our biggest corn-producing state — grabbed the lead position in the presidential sweepstakes four decades ago, support for the biofuel has been nearly a prerequisite for politicians seeking the presidency.

Those hopefuls have seen no need for a foolish consistency. John McCain and John Kerry were against ethanol subsidies, then as candidates were for them. Having lost the presidency, Mr. McCain is now against them again. Al Gore was for ethanol before he was against it. This time, one hopeful is experimenting with counter-programming: as governor of corn-producing Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty pushed for subsidies before he embraced a “straight talk” strategy.”

And there it is.  Our leaders are not leaders, but panderers to whatever will get them elected.  It is not enough to be for something that you feel is right and will get the country moving again.  What is important in the world of political success is to be for something the public wants, damn if it is bad for them.  It is all about getting the office, not about what is good for America.  Sadly after a while they start to believe their own BS.

Here is the real problem:  There is no counter argument, the seed that might germinate a new idea.  Prime example is how the Republicans have used the deficit as a tool to decimate government.  People understand debt so they start to focus on it.  But private debt and government debt are two very different things.  But that is an argument for another day.  The point is that the Democrats bought into Republican framing with statements like, “We all know we need to cut spending”.  That is what the polls tell them people want so that is their new position.  President Obama led the way.  Now we are looking at a double dip recession/depression and there is no counter argument that says, “Hey wait a minute!  Maybe the real issue is jobs and revenue and if we could get the economy going and give people real jobs, this deficit thing maybe isn’t such a big problem”.

That would take political courage and we have none today.  Just politicians scheming about how to better appeal to their base and get re-elected in 2012.  That is why you still hear Democrats talking about being reasonable and bipartisan when it doesn’t exist on the other side.  They read the polls that tell them people want cooperation so they talk the cooperation nonsense while the Republicans run over them with a bulldozer.  Oh how I miss Franklin Roosevelt’s  “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Maybe that kind of political courage doesn’t exist anymore.  Maybe we won’t either if things keep going the way we are going.  But they are giving us what we asked for.

UPDATE:  In the New York Times was an op-ed about why President Obama cannot get off the fence about gay marriage.  It shows that he is a crafty politician who sucks as a leader.  Winning may not be everything and maybe what you stand for may be more important than how many marbles you end up with.  Gay Marriage – Where’s Mr. Obama?