Comments on: Thinking about Obama on MLK Day: Governing with Republicans?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:36:00 +0000

A recent article in the New Yorker entertains an analogy between 1968 and 2012. While this analogy might be a strain, the author quotes Jesse Jackson, who noted the significance the the Civil Rights movement had in influencing Lydon B. Johnson: “Civil Rights Act of 1964—LBJ. The Voting Rights Act of 1965—LBJ. Medicare—LBJ. Medicaid—LBJ. Child Nutrition Act—LBJ. Jobs Corps—LBJ.” While the climate of the country at the time was much more favorable towards progressive legislation, I believe much of what was accomplished by LBJ may not have been had their not been a social movement pushing for such progressive leglislation. And the point Jackson was to suggest what might be possible if OWS applies pressure to Obama directly rather than trying to appear “apolitical” (as if that’s somehow even possible). The same thing might be said about FDR: activists had a significant impact on shaping New Deal legislation (more so for what was termed “the second New Deal”).

We could be heading towards a period where Obama does in fact put his money where his mouth is (as opposed to Goldman Sachs putting their money there). So I’m inclined at this point to focus more on the possibilities rather than Obama’s shortcomings (although the latter are certainly evidence for the neccessity of pushing Obama to become a better president). If the criticism if constructive, yet firm, I think he’ll respond, especially if he wins re-election, and the pressure continues well after that.

By: Andrew Perrin

Andrew Perrin — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:34:00 +0000

What else could have been accomplished domestically?
– A public option, at a minimum, could have been a part of the ACA, likely if Obama had begun negotiations calling for single-payer.
– The ARRA could have been larger.
– A systematic rollback of unitary-executive claims made by the Bush Administration (this would have required NO congressional approval)
– The Bush tax cuts could have been retired, either as a quid-pro-quo for the debt ceiling or on their own.

I’m sure there are more. And, as you suggest, the record on torture and foreign policy is particularly problematic. But the fact that he has accomplished some important feats even in the face of enormous economic and political hurdles–which is certainly true–does not excuse what could have been.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:37:00 +0000

Jeff, you have made me see Obama in a new light consistently— you always push us to think about Obama again and not write him off as (basically) weak. I think we see a stronger politician now and as a friend pointed out tonight, let’s not forget where he started, how fast he went from being basically a community organizer to the leader of the world. He is not Bush lite on foreign policy— he is a hard core realist. He has handled a lot of situations with savvy and real political, diplomatic and military might. I agree that comparing him to MLK is just silly—- these are two totally different positions or sites in the discourse. MLK was never going to be president— he was a revolutionary, a charismatic leader. We know that revolutionaries really don’t make (usually) good presidents and vice versa. He is the least of 5 evils.

By: Jeffrey Goldfarb

Jeffrey Goldfarb — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:40:00 +0000

Andrew, If we agree that the accomplishments are real, we together recognize that most of these happened at a time that Obama had to work against a completely united Republican opposition and a Democratic Party that included many so called Democratic moderates. Nonetheless, Obama achieved healthcare reform and put together a significant (if not completely adequate) stimulus package and saved the auto industry. I am not sure what else could have been accomplished. Here on the domestic issues and the economy. Let’s wait to discuss foreign policy and issues of security and human rights, about which I am much more critical.

The past year, which I focus on here, was less consequential.But could have been accomplished? One big blunder was putting off raising the debt ceiling. I think Obama’s critics don’t take into account the opposition he has faced in Washington and also in the country at large in the form of the Tea Party.

Now with a new social movement pushing, I think the game is changing and suspect Obama is too. Obama will try to use the Presidency in the way you imagine had been possible. A post on Wednesday by David Howe will illustrate this.

Could Obama have been tactically more astute, as you suggest? Yes. Would it have led to different consequences? I am not as sure as you and many of his critics claim. Do I hope he will be more forceful and resolute? Yes.

By: Andrew Perrin

Andrew Perrin — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:49:00 +0000

Jeff, with due respect, I think you are wrong as to the implications of these capitulations. The first time, sure, it made sense to understand compromise as a principled stance. But the behavior is repeated to the point of pathology, and the objections proffered by the Republicans are increasingly outlandish. One can only infer that they have noticed that this administration will articulate a firm, principled stance for no policy position!

I, too, have a 2012 sticker on my car and plan on voting for him, not only as the lesser of two evils but because I genuinely respect him. His accomplishments are many, but they are fewer and smaller than they could have been because he has mis-estimated the power of the presidency. He took the role of the president as essentially constrained by the rules of a game, the rules themselves being exogenous. But the president is one of the few offices to which game-changing is part of the job, and by refusing to seek to change the game he surrenders one of the most important tools he has.