I’ve just visited for the first time The White House Blog, watched the video, and read the transcript of President Obama’s Weekly address in which he gives details of his American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (ARRP), which, he says is to “immediately jump start job creation as well as long-term economic growth.”
Wow. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But the more I hear about our overall financial situation, the more I become worried. And, I’m worried that as a nation we are not worried enough. It seems likely we are only at the beginning of an era of dangerous economic turmoil. We’ve been pushed out to sea by powerful forces we can’t control.
I heard a good comparison to our current attitude to this economic crisis to the attitude of the Richard Dreyfuss character in Jaws — before he actually saw the shark up close — concerned, but not properly reality based terrified. After he saw the shark, the Dreyfuss character gasped, “We’re going to need a bigger boat.”
We need bold action, and I wonder if the steps Obama outlines in his ARRP, really are bold enough. The crisis we find ourselves has not yet focused our attention. In this economic crisis, I fear, we’ve not really seen the shark, yet. And, I wonder if, when we do, Obama will have the capacity to take the bold actions that might be needed.
Obama finished his address with these words: “If we act as citizens and not partisans and begin again the work of remaking America, then I have faith that we will emerge from this trying time even stronger and more prosperous than we were before.”
I had to laugh out loud when I heard the Republican leader, John Boehner, on Meet the Press say, “Somebody has to be looking out for the taxpayers. And I’m going to tell you what, Republicans are going to be there to look out for American taxpayer.” Considering the Republican record of outrageous profligacy under George W. Bush — spending bushels of money, borrowing oceans of money, sinking the country into $4 trillion more debt — Boehner’s tears for the American taxpayer are a hoot. As a Republican leader who empowered Bush’s every incompetent act, Boehner has no credibility. It’s obvious, he is simply being partisan.
But, Obama, himself, must guard his own credibility, his own integrity. Obama must guard against appearing simply partisan. I count three ways that, just this past week, Obama hurt his credibility.
First of all, as I wrote here, Obama, I fear, made a big error by defending Timothy Geithner’s non payment of taxes as an “innocent mistake.” Certainly, Obama can’t believe that Geithner’s non payment was “innocent.” I’m sorry, such a claim is simply not believable and by asserting something to be true that is totally not believable, Obama makes himself look like he is lacking in integrity.
Second, Obama, I fear, made a big error in his handling of the Gazan War. His comments seemed very unbalanced in favor of Israel. In my judgment, by not fairly acknowledging the reality and truth of Israel’s unnecessary violence, Obama’s comments on Gaza makes him look like he is lacking in integrity.
Third, I fear that Obama made a big error by taking his campaign organization — one that had attracted a lot of Independents and nonvoters — and putting it within the Democratic National Committee as a new group, Organizing for America.
The LA Times reports: “President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday took his first public steps toward transforming his massive grassroots political machinery into an unprecedented national network to help pass his policy agenda. Obama said the new network would be used as a tool to press for policies on major issues, including the healthcare system, the Iraq war and the development of new energy sources….That means the organization, as it grows, will be well-positioned to be used as a vehicle for his reelection campaign, to bolster the campaigns of Obama-friendly Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, and to pressure those in his party who do not agree with him. (E-mails were sent to) 13 million supporters.”
Wow. That sound pretty partisan to me. Yet, on the White House blog, in trying to gain support for his American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, Obama emphasizes that we should “act as citizens and not partisans.”
Obama’s basic instincts, expressed in the campaign, I feel, are correct: The way forward must be through a vitalization of our democracy, through invigorated citizenship, not one-sided partisanship. This president, as time goes on, will, no doubt, have hard truths to tell us. His integrity and credibility must be beyond question. Obama needs to surround himself with people who will push him to the highest levels of integrity, where partisanship is transcended.
We need a bigger boat.
On Geithner, his taxpaying warts hand a stick to the Republicans, and are an early smudge on Obama’s Mr. Clean record. Just as in Chicago politics there are plenty of non-saints on Wall Street, where the amounts involved may seem like chump change, an an aggresive approach to the tax code a badge of honor. Or it may be that no one understands the whole tax code and let he who does cast the first stone. Fortunately with the economy in such a mess and the guy is otherwise highly thought of, the guy will get in with Obama taking a few lumps. We’ll see how he does in the job.
On Gaza, since Israel had seemingly timed the invasion to get their licks in and then get out before Obama took office, it is not clear what he was to do. Obviously he had to campaign pro-Israel like every other politician does or else get clobbered by the Israel lobby and probably lose the election. Now he is in office, he is challenged to make peace in the region, which may mean not going down the Israeli line. He has some heavyweights on his side but the shark may be bigger than his boat on this one. Still I’m not sure what he was to do publicly on Gaza.
As to puttting his organization into the partisan DNC, what else was he going to do with it? One of the problems with Democratic Presidents Carter and Clinton is that they governed like the Democrats in Congress were on some other planet. For these people to govern effectively Obama will need some organizational weight behind his programs . Realistically however post partisan or at least improvement on the shrill partisanship of the last 30 years or so, I don’t see how he was going to have a private organization hanging out there outside of his party. He is not an Independent after all. Nor is he a king, and if he is going to do the things he promised, the Congress must support him. If anything he may broaden the party, or perhaps have some way to get on Democratic leaders in Congress, or perhaps people in swing districts. People did elect the guy to govern, not to be a saint, a pundit or someone above politics. It certainly isn’t an integrity issue at this point.
I fear that Obama made a big error by taking his campaign organization … and putting it within the Democratic National Committee
Yup.
The organization ought to be advocating “21st Century Citizenship Skills” if President Obama is serious about a post-partisan, post-racial, post-ideological American future. His actions tell us, “Winning elections is more important to me than America’s future.” As for 2010, now we all know: A vote for an Ohio Democrat is a vote for Nancy “We won” Pelosi.
What Would Leo Do (WWLD)? “We do not strut, ever.” President Obama just failed the West Wing test.
I confess I don’t get it.
1. Putting his campaign organization inside his party is bad because they should be advocating 21st Century Citizenship skills instead of winning elections? Like Presidents shouldn’t want to win elections? Or need to win them if they want to accomplish anything?
2. Nancy Pelosi. What has she done that’s so awful? Conservatives talk about her like the mention of the name is supposed to induce immediate frothing of the mouth. Maybe that’s the point, it’s like some kind of secret handshake. So maybe if you don’t get it, you don’t belong. OK.
Same with the negativity toward Obama. Conservatives feel that if they lost the election, the winner has to be some sort of criminal, who hijacked their election. They felt that way about Clinton too, even before Monica and in fact before they even counted all the votes in 1992. Somehow they see Obama is some kind of cult leader. People on some conservative websites refer to him as the “Obamassiah” and similar things almost straight out of the play “The Emperor Jones.” Or “the most pro-death President in history.” Like he’s Darth Vader or something.
I’m not sure what kind of president they think he is supposed to be. Some sort of guru detached from how things get done? I guess they are not comfortable with Obama’s mastery of the high end of rhetorical politics, about hope and diversity and even real family values, to say nothing of lowering the ugly side of partisanship. Now of course he has to actually govern, and when he screws up they can have at him. But it’s like that’s too long for them to wait. Or it doesn’t have anything to do with whether he screws up or not. There is a visceral reaction against everything that has happened.
Some Republicans seem to admit that Obama didn’t bewitch the voters, but Bush’s administration lost the election for McCain, either for the incompetent cronyism of Katrina and Halliburton, the unsustainable and oversold wars, or ignoring the middle class in favor of the wealthy, or for having the economy go to hell as the climax of his term in office as a result of abuses he did nothing to restrain. They seem to accept that Republicans have to deserve to win elections, or at least that they can deserve to lose them. Some, particularly the small government conservatives, have turned on Bush and hope to capture or recapture the Republican party.
But at some emotional level, it seems that to them Obama can only be a fraud, a charlatan, an interloper, and English Judge in an Irish court. You have to wonder why we have this level of emotionality, where it comes from and what it means, particularly as to having a country that can function as some kind of community.
In the meantime Obama is a gifted orator and smart politician who ran a good campaign at a good time and now he is President. Rush Limbaugh wants him to fail, and probably so do many others. The rest of us may hope that he can bring his soaring rhetoric to fruition, and in fact may have to help him do it.
Anyone who wishes to criticize Geithner’s failure to pay a few thousand in taxes (I’m not privy to his tax return, but I imagine it was a small percentage of his total) ought first to provide a concise, three-hundred word summary of the U.S. tax code.
Can’t do it? Nobody can. Until we require our representatives to clean up the income tax laws by eliminating all deductions, rebates, credits, AMTs, repayments, etc., will we be able to unconditionally condemn someone who misses a detail.
Quick, without looking–which taxes specifically did Geithner fail to pay–self-employment, income, social security, or something else?
Repeated studies have shown that not even IRS auditors are able to answer all tax questions accurately. One report claimed that Geithner took his returns to a CPA who told him he wasn’t liable for those unpaid taxes.
I appreciate that there are many who want absolute right or wrong in all cases. That sort of concrete-operational thinking is a bit too facile when considering the labyrinth of federal taxes.
How are we in a crisis that needs bold action?
Government has one object – ensure that the people are fed. All this other crap is meaningless, cyclical and hyperbole so people can pretend that their era in America is worth something more, a unique snowflake.
We have been in crisis mode since the creation of this Nation. Isn’t about time we said the sky isn’t falling and thought rationally about “growth economies” and job loss.
What would we get if we thought rationally about growth economies and job loss?
It may be true that every economy is different than previous ones. People look for understanding to the great depression, similar business cycle booms and busts, and previous irrational situations liek the great Tulip bubble, Or other wars. However we have a much more global economy beyond the control of any country, let alone a president. We have a different set of energy and environmental constraints, different immigrant communities in developed countries, different sorts of colonial relations with other parts of the world, different norms on how people view others and get along with them, different technologies and communication systems, different weapons and ability to spy on people, different understandings of how the universe works. So maybe the snowflakes are all different. And while there have often been crises perceived crises and the emotional state of crisis, these crises are also different.
In any case people want and expect that society have rules that are rational and fair, even as we also know irrationality and unfairness.
So where does this get us?