A War Criminal Writes a Book

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What happened to Obama?

One of the most erudite appraisals of the past couple years. From the NYT (read the whole thing, but I'll borrow liberally):

... Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.” A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative — and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it — would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn’t tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit — a deficit that didn’t exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

What happened in 2008 was clear evidence to anyone paying attention that Bush de-regulation and Laffer economics was a complete failure. Despite ultra-low taxes and deficit spending we never really recovered from the 2000-01 recession. Job growth sucked, wages stagnated, deficits soared. The fall of 2008 was the crowning blow to allowing markets to self- govern. The election of 2008, IMO, represented the starkest differences in worldviews of any elction in my memory, yet now I cannot imagine how a McCain presidency would be substantively different than the one we have now. Wars, tax cuts, anemic stimulus, lack of accountability for the banksters, even more wealth concentration... this is an effectively Republican administration.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

The Democrats tell us that government can solve our problems, yet our current president signs on to defeatist appeasement from the GOP, a party that has always rejoiced in the failure of government. WTF? To paraphrase the Rude Pundit, Obama could never have been elected as a Republican, so if he is a Democrat, if he believes in government, he should start acting like it.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

Maybe it's because Obama is not a child of the civil rights movement, is not progeny of slaves, but if blasted with a firehose or chased by a K-9 force, I could only imagine Obama apologizing for not getting out of the way fast enough. Maybe unfair, but my truthful thought.

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts.) But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling.

[snip]

Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

Double ouch. I'll refrain from psycho-analysis, but... ya.

The average voter is far more worried about jobs than about the deficit, which few were talking about while Bush and the Republican Congress were running it up. The conventional wisdom is that Americans hate government, and if you ask the question in the abstract, people will certainly give you an earful about what government does wrong. But if you give them the choice between cutting the deficit and putting Americans back to work, it isn’t even close.

And I'll add that the average borrower of US debt is little worried about our deficit-- given the record lows in US Treasury interest rates. If our lenders are concerned, as S&P ratings would have us believe, then why do they keep buying our debt?

But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

And then we get true class war. I'll add that FDR's New deal likely saved us from bloodshed and eventual communism, ala a Bolshevik-type revolution in 1930's America. This next collapse in the US economy is occurring in a nation angry and fully armed. read the whole NYT piece, or better yet, forward it to the President.

FDR: "I welcome their hatred"

No compromises, no "hoping that they'll do the right thing." No 12-dimensional chess.

When presidents were presidents and not faux Jedi Masters.