|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 12:58:45 -0700, "Shascade Pride" <...@us.net
Get Obama
by David Michael Green
Hey, did you notice that Barack Obama completed his first hundred days in
the White House last week?
Maybe you didn't realize that. And who could blame you? With the near
complete absence of media coverage, I'm sure most Americans didn't realize
that the magic date came and went.
But it did, and I thought I'd do something really unique and different out
there in the media, and comment on it.
It's worth doing, anyhow, because I think about enough time has gone by to
allow us to begin to see the tendencies of this new White House.
And, because it's probably not really what it looks like to a lot of people.
I use the terms "tendencies" and "probably" carefully, and not because I'm
hedging my bets, ducking and weaving, but because, among other
contingencies, so much of a presidency is determined by developments outside
of the White House. Therefore, a hundred days in, it would be an exercise in
foolishness to attempt a full characterization of this presidency. That
said, however, I do think we have begun to get a sense of its nature, and of
the reactive proclivities it will apply to any external developments heading
in its direction.
Before describing those, it's worthwhile to take a moment to consider why
Obama is largely misunderstood. There are three good reasons for this.
The first of these is that the new administration is truly multifarious in
its endeavors, trotting around the world from Europe, to the Middle East, to
Latin America, and messing about in domestic policy area after domestic
policy domain here at home, ranging from environment to economy to civil
liberties to healthcare.
The administration truly has its fingers in a plethora of pies. No question
about that. But, of course, sticking your finger in a hundred pies is a
wholly different proposition from baking them, or even one of them. And the
extended metaphor, I would argue, absolutely and unfortunately applies to
the Obama administration. I see a president acting across a panoply of
policy domains, but acting boldly in none of them.
The second reason why one might misapprehend the Obama administration is
because the foaming right, true to form, has gone so far out of its way
seeking to make that happen. Of course, their hysterical fulminations about
the president's disastrous transgressions - you know, like shaking hands
with Hugo Chavez, or bowing to the Saudi King - have now been denounced by
even perennially foolish middle America, who recognize a good bitch-slapping
when they feel one, even if it took eight years for the signal from the one
they got from the nice folks now skewering Obama to travel from cheek to
cortex.
But those are only the smarter ones, and the less existentially terrified.
Beyond that scary horizon there still remains a no-man's land where resides
about a third of this country, and who believe that any cognitive activity
above the level of the reptile brain is somehow suspicious and likely part
of some kind of communist plot. Who believe that George W. Bush was a real
fine but misunderstood president. And who believe that the Republican Party
really does have their interests at heart. These are the folks whom Rush
Limbaugh and Glenn Beck get paid millions to further stupefy (which I always
thought was kind of a dumb waste of money, since you could easily do it for
a lot less cash).
Anyhow, in just the few short weeks that Obama's been president I've seen
these professional hucksters literally label him "socialist", "communist"
and "fascist". They probably realize all too well the impossibility of these
labels applying to the same person simultaneously, but they also know that
for people stupid enough to imbibe the elixir they're peddling, it isn't
noticed and wouldn't matter if it was. When did contradictions ever get in
the way of politico-theist dogma, anyhow?
Thus a second reason that one might think Barack Obama is reshaping America
in some incredibly profound way is that fifteen minutes of listening to
right-wing radio or television will overwhelm you with that very
proposition. On the right side of your radio dial, ladies and gentlemen, the
guy is little short of the Anti-Christ, come to decimate Western
Civilization. Never mind, of course, that Jesus George left his successor
very little remaining to wreck. Why should that matter?
But the third and biggest explanation for the misapprehension of Obama is as
simple as that very contrast between the president and his predecessor.
Draw a long arrow across a piece of paper. Let's call this, as Obama himself
is fond of doing, "the arc of history". Not to be too grandiose or
determinative about it, it's fair to say that there are certain historical
tendencies, pressures and imperatives which compel societies and even
species to move in certain directions. This is our arc of history. Now take
the last ten percent of the arrow's length, and bend it back upon itself,
pointing in the opposite direction. This is the era of the Bush
administration, which sought every imaginable opportunity to reverse
history. When it came to gay rights, it was a reversal of ten years. When it
came to civil rights and women's rights, it was a reversal of three or four
decades. When it came to principles of good governance, it was a reversal of
a century. When it came to democracy, science and separation of church and
state, it was a reversal of over two centuries. And when it came to
fundamental civil liberties, the Bush people turned the clock back nearly a
millennium, to the era before Magna Carta.
And, thus, the third reason that Obama falsely appears to be some sort of
great change agent is that he walks on stage a fraction of an inch beyond
where history's arrow pointed of its own accord, but the country he inherits
was dropped off decades behind that point. The gap between the retro-America
George W. Bush bequeathed his successor and the baby steps Obama has taken
in the direction of historical development is indeed substantial. However,
it's important not to misinterpret its meaning. That gap has everything to
do with the giant leaps Bush took backwards while history was chugging along
forward, and little to do with the tiny tentative inchings of the Obama
administration. On issue after issue - from civil rights to relations with
Cuba to global warming - the world and even American public opinion was
progressing in a positive forward direction, while Bush and Cheney led
public policy screaming the other way.
To get a sense of the true explanation for the apparent leaps in forward
motion Obama seems to represent, imagine if he had come into office on the
heels of, not eight years of regressive insanity, but instead eight years of
Milquetoast moderation of the sort that Bill Clinton perfected to such a
high degree. You know. The kinda thing where you inch a little forward on
social issues, jump a lot backward on economic issues, throw around some
cheap-but-plausible-sounding-to-the-narcoleptic ringing phrases that have
zero content, go to the mat for important stuff like the V-Chip and school
uniforms, and basically stand for nothing whatsoever but your own personal
joy ride in the White House. That stuff. Imagine how small would Obama's
forward motion seem if he came from a starting point that took the Bush
years of regression out of the equation.
If that Clinton style sounds harrowingly familiar, it's because it is. My
sense is that Obama is a lot like a Clinton, though he can be - and is -
mistaken for an FDR for the reasons given above. There is in fact a
difference between Barack and Bill, I'm pretty sure, but not necessarily
such a significant one. Where I think Clinton was in it exclusively for
Clinton, as only a quintessential Baby Boomer could fully be, and thus given
to precise calculations of exquisitely refined political safety at every
turn, I think Obama is more public-spirited. But, crucially, the
nothing-burger tendencies he shares with Clinton seem nevertheless fully
present. I suspect they are driven by his "can't we all just get along"
personality, as opposed to Bill's manic attention-craving disorder, but so
what? They still amount to a lot of nothing, delivered way too late.
Whatever the motivation, what I think is hard to deny is that, while Obama
appears to be a real go-getter, he is in fact a mere incrementalist in a
time of real crisis. Despite the fact that George W. Bush's disastrous and
regressive presidency can make Obama look bold and progressive in contrast,
he is in fact hurling Band-Aid after Band-Aid at national hemorrhage after
gaping wound. And that's just his best stuff. As soon as you get to what
really matters to the predatory regressive right - the money, of course -
Obama is almost indistinguishable from George "Enron" Bush, or Dick "This is
our due" Cheney.
Discussing Obama's three choices so far of sitting judges for appeals court
nominations, law professor Tracey George might just as well have been
commenting on his entire presidency in saying, "He could not have been more
cautious".
I'd have a problem with that under normal circumstances. There is always
plenty of work to be done in this very imperfect world, and the last thing
we need is another Clinton who wasted eight years of a presidency avoiding
risk at all costs and accomplishing nothing. I'd also obviously have a
problem with that under 'normal' post-Bush circumstances, where so much
wreckage so desperately needs to be undone. But I really object to this
embarrassingly centrist, ultra-cautious pussyfooting when there are so many
critical conditions in crisis mode, screaming out for attention.
I cannot believe I live in a world massively threatened by environmental
catastrophe, and my government is barely even talking about half-measures,
let alone moving heaven and earth with fierce urgency to save the planet.
And the oil guys aren't even in the White House anymore.
I cannot believe I live in a world where the economy is imploding and the
guy in charge of the country where the recession is rooted has hired agents
of the very criminal crowd responsible for the problem to produce a
solution, and that, shockingly, the 'solution' once again benefits wealthy
elites while doing little for the rest of us.
I cannot believe that I live in a country with a crumbling healthcare
system, and the solution being offered by the "change"
candidate-now-president - to the extent we will see one at all - will forego
the obvious model of universal coverage adopted by all other developed
countries in the world, and will instead slap Scotch Tape on the train wreck
of the existing for-profit healthcare disaster, in an attempt to hold it
together a little longer.
I cannot believe that I live in a world where the Taliban is within spitting
distance of capturing nuclear-armed Pakistan, and my government can't even
get serious enough about peace in the Middle East to show some real security
guarantee carrots and foreign aid sticks to its client state in the region,
forcing it to end an illegal and deeply antagonizing annexation masquerading
as a forty year occupation.
I cannot believe I live in a country where individuals who knowingly broke
the law and ruined the national reputation by torturing are exposed by the
president, only for him to then turn around and deploy magical powers which
supposedly allow him to exonerate them in advance.
This is Obama's America? This is Obama's America.
Historians and pundits have long debated whether history makes the leader,
or the leader makes history. Bill Clinton obviously believed the former. As
if to prove what we already knew - that he was possibly the most
narcissistic human on the planet - he lamented shortly after his presidency
ended that he hadn't been 'lucky' enough to have a major crisis on his
watch, so that he could go down in the books as one of the greats, like
Lincoln or Roosevelt. Amazing. Only someone so completely absorbed with
himself could be so astonishingly lacking in concern for the mass victims of
such a legacy-enhancing catastrophe as Clinton craved for his own benefit.
Meanwhile, he never seemed to understand that he had the capacity to lead,
to legislate, to act, and to make history, himself, and that playing it safe
and selling out the American public in the welfare bill or the Defense of
Marriage Act or NAFTA or WTO treaties was not the way to do that. Clinton
got himself elected, then re-elected, but he never actually did anything
with his presidency, because he viewed the two objectives as
mutually-exclusive. Maybe he was right, albeit once he won his second term
he certainly had nothing left to lose (and he sure never cared about the
fate of his party). Regardless, if that's your approach, you sure don't get
to bitch about being ripped off by history because the 300 million people of
your country were relatively safe and prosperous during your watch. Great
leaders take great risks for great purposes. Small presidents watch out for
themselves and work tirelessly to fulfill their own personal aspirations.
For a year now I've wondered what Obama would turn out to be - a Bill
Clinton or an FDR. I think we have a pretty good answer at this point.
Indeed, ironically, Obama now seems to be out-Clintoning Clinton. He not
only has the very national crisis that Wild Bill craved, he's got about six
of them. But always the response seems to be incredibly tepid and
conventional and, well, conservative - as the above examples show.
Even when it's a slam-dunk policy choice, he is still the Cautious Kid to a
fault. This week he made a big announcement about how he will be shutting
down the rip-offs of the American treasury (and therefore of the American
taxpayers, who have to make-up the difference) by closing loopholes that
allow US corporate pirates to off-shore their profits and thus protect them
from taxation. Pretty safe bet, right? I mean, who besides kleptocrats and
conservatives (and what's the difference, after all?) could oppose that? And
yet it turns out that, on closer inspection, Obama left out of the plan a
technique known as 'transfer pricing', the tax-avoidance tactic that
actually accounts for most of the scamming.
This is classic Barackoism: Let's move real slow. Let's not offend anyone.
Let's find the most half-way possible measure, and then cut it in half
again, just to be sure. Maybe we can bring the Republicans along, even
though we don't need to. Is Wall Street okay with this?
Even in crisis, he's all incremental, all the time.
It is true, of course, that a bold leader risks getting in serious trouble
if he or she gets too far out ahead of the public. I don't think that's such
a great problem here, as the public is really in the mood for - what did he
call it, during the campaign? - oh yeah, "change".
More importantly, even when that is not the case, presidents have a remedy
for this conundrum. It's called selling your policy. Sometimes you have to
create the demand for the product you're offering. Sometimes you have to
educate people about problems and threats they're not seeing, before you can
get them to subscribe to your solution.
Obama has all the conditions necessary to be a bold and historic president.
He came to office at a time of great and multiple crises. He promised change
and the people gave him a mandate for precisely that purpose. The opposition
is in complete disarray, and is rightly blamed by the public for the mess
Obama has inherited. People are frightened and hurting, and looking for
relief. And, for the first time in a long time, they're overtly looking to
government for that relief.
To be honest, he really doesn't have to market bold changes on the
environment or healthcare or foreign policy in order to win the support of
the public, but he could surely increase that support significantly if he
did. Ironically, it seems to me that this president, who has the most
effective potential bully pulpit skills in a generation if not a century,
has been largely AWOL from the stage. He is much more popular with the
public than his policies are, and that's because he really doesn't advocate
for his policies much.
The biggest irony, however, is that the fate of his presidency is tied to
the fate of those policies. If half-measures produce half-solutiuons or
non-solutions, it's Barack Obama himself who will be punished by voters. I
mean, how hard is it to imagine that by 2012 not much has changed in America
besides the size of the national debt? The economy is still anemic, the
military is still stuck in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is still
stagnated, there is no national healthcare system, nothing has been done
about global warming, etc., etc.? Does that seem so completely implausible
at the rate this administration is going? Indeed, does it even seem
improbable?
And what would be the outcome of such a scenario? Most likely it would be a
presidential election pitting a vicious Republican candidate against a
mealy-mouthed incumbent self-saddled with a lousy performance record to
defend before a dissatisfied electorate. Even if Obama only cares about
winning re-election for himself, he should really consider turning his
boldness quotient up to eleven (or at least three, for chrissakes), before
it's too late.
Because, I take it back, after all. The biggest irony may just be this: That
Barack Obama's instinct for the capillary could be the one thing that has
the capability of reaching deep down into the toilet bowl, down through the
pipes and into the sewer system, and dragging the shit-encrusted Republican
Party back to the surface, miraculously offering it a magical elixir of
renewed viability despite its own immensely successful attempt at party
suicide.
And, come to thing of it, given where the GOP is today, an accomplishment
that huge would represent a historic and monumental achievement for this or
any other presidency, after all.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra
University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his
articles (mai...@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time
constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be
found at his website, http://www.regressiveantidote.net.
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/
"... a no-man's land where resides about a third of this country, ... who
believe that any cognitive activity above the level of the reptile brain is
somehow suspicious and likely part of some kind of communist plot. ..."
Best belly-laugh line in the essay.
|