What Can Obama Really Do?

following the money always shows greater truth than anything politicians say. watching what Obama did with the Health Industry Bailout bill/health spending diversion, and actively did with the Bailouts, the initial spying wiretapping bill before being elected, it is easy to see what Obama is politically. whatever you call it, Obama’s actions are pro business, pro tea party, pro controlling interests/Corporations.

no real change. merely fine tuning the Bush Cheney organization that took over Government.

so what else is new.

this is Obama as he is. Reminds me a show i saw about a black president who was compromise/coordinating the Corporate takeover. proof Business owns America, lock stock and barrel. lol business language to describe the ownership of America.

Keep the Public diverted with the us vs. them tactics. Black vs white. left vs right. while the Business loot America,
Ayn Rand style.

and Obama is helping as best he can. Watching the Right wing go ballistic (over Obama) is some passing “entertainment” to the sad story i see promulgated on the media.

I’m guessing that the subtext for this post is the argument of whether to vote for Democrats in November or not, correct?

It is two months before the election. Nothing can be done that can be seen to change the course of the economy at this time, that is, no decision that is taken will have results that can be seen by the end of September. The time for that kind of decision was back in spring or earlier. And yet, despite that, as the economy worsens, the campaigning will get louder as politicians anticipate their being fired soon. In the past, this would have been about convincing the undecided voters in the “middle”, but thanks to Obama (R) and company, the Democrats will need to con formerly Democratic voters of the (“professional” and non-“professional”) left, too. A large percentage of the population has all the evidence that they need to judge O&co to be a failure. They are living that evidence. The Democrats strategy now appears to be “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?”

I wish I could go to bed and wake up the day of the election to avoid all of the noise.

I hope no one on DKos gets wind of this post. It would be ugly.

Thanks, Ian. A great post, even if it is frustrating and discouraging, and one which echoes many of Greenwald’s criticisms.

Massive takedown. +10,000. Of course, this zombie is hard to kill, especially since so many “progressives” want to run online petitions to keep pumping blood into it….

Tom Hickey, it should have been clear to everyone in October 2008 when Obama whipped for TARP, and didn’t do a thing to rein in the banks at the point of maximum leverage. It should have been clear when in August (?) 2008 when Obama voted for retroactive immunity for the telcos. Some would argue that it was clear since the Iowa caucuses, in December 2007, when Obama put Social Security in play.

Does “‘a’ public option” mean any fixed thing? Nope, unless “some sort of undetermined amount of access to some sort of undetermined program with some sort of undetermined benefits and some sort of farcical hope of creating some sort of competition to Big Insurance” is worth a thimbleful of warm spit.

Great post otherwise, but I think it’s a serious mistake to keep propagating that infinitely slippery emperor’s new meta-policy notion.

This sort of self-defeating, pre-negotation concession has been a repeated pattern for the Obama administration (assuming that Obama does seek Liberal ends).

This is the incompetence dodge. He isn’t a bad negotiator, and, for the sake of argument, even if he was, do you really think everyone else around him is also a bad negotiator?

Stop assuming good intentions executed poorly. He and his staff knew exactly what outcomes were desirable and opened “negotations” accordingly.

You’d think the bad negotiator excuse would wear thin after a few uses.

I wonder if Obama is even aware he can do any of the things you mention. I sometimes get the sense Obama isn’t very steeped in policy, and doesn’t have all that much understanding of the levers of government. After all, he was only four years removed from his part-time job with the Illinois state leg when he began running for President.

I was busy when the mosque biz broke out and have said little or nothing on it (and some of you may sigh with fond reminiscence). Let’s just say (have I already?) that I am closely associated with the, um, “object population”, so to speak. I am strongly motivated by the fact that however bad Harry Reid and Barack Obama, etc, may be, it is objectively and materially worse to validate the Beckians and the Palinsians and their cheaper versions, the Gellars and all the Freepers, with electoral victories. It’s bad to validate that discourse. There’s a reason why these people are held up as boogeymen, and it’s not just to bamboozle frustrated leftists.

I have other countries to go to, but not everyone does. The way people talk about politics matters. Bush may have been kinder on the minority front than the current heirs to his party, but his reign still did massive long-term damage—that enabled Obama to be (predictably) as bad as he is, and will enable Sarah Palin (or whomever) to be even worse.

A compelling argument, but it’s ‘habeas’ (2nd person singular subjunctive vb. form) not *habeus.

Can we stop saying “unemployment” and start saying disemployment?

It couldn’t be more clear that 10% nominal (20% real) disemployment is the preferred policy outcome for Versailles, and is, in good bipartisan fashion, supported by both legacy parties, and Obama in particular.

Hostis humanis generis.

Obama, as the head of the executive, could have, and can, end torture, assasination, illegal war in Yemen, Pakistan and possibly other places, and an assorted list of crimes against humanity. He could step away from exerting undue influence on the DOJ, which at this point would imp[ly removing Holder and others for cause, and let justice take its course.

There is absolutely no point in debating the good will and/or competence – or alleged lack there of – or “spine” or determination of somebody who is the enabler-in-chief – if not the driving force – behind two drone assassination programs, a revised black prison empire, an out-of-control JSOC, compound stress torture codified per AFM Appendix M, and an illegal campaign of remote control terror bombings against US citizens and citizens of other nations that has no precedent going as far back as the mining of Nicaraguan habors.

Obama stands in the proud tradition of ‘stalishment retainers like Powell and Rice – servants hegemony in their own unashamed pursuit of naked ambition. Given the evidence – given his own words and deeds – how can any sane person still waste time trying to cast the bones to divine the “true soul of Obama”?

Ian is right on every detail;, but in a way he misses the point. If Obama had gotten health care, financial reform and other domestic concerns right – if the US economy had been restored to an armed-to-the-teeth juggernaut again – would that justify a single innocent man dead in one of the “black hole” sites established by Bygones Habeas Obama? How many dismmembered wedding parties would it be worth to you?

Going forward, what Obama still can do is not run in 2012.

How do we get these Pelosi or Grayson or Bernie Sanders or Jon Steward to ask why Obama publicly he doesn’t take all or any of these steps

Oh, and of course:

(8) End the war in Afghanistan.

Team evil? Or, team stupid?

Since I listened fairly carefully to Obama during the campaign, I wasn’t too surprised that he’s ruled to the right of Nixon. However, I’m puzzled why–even if he’s 1. calculated that he can’t fight big money, and 2. he don’t want fight big money in the first place–he hasn’t unleashed the DoJ on the Bushies and opened the books on the previous administration. Yes, a few Dems would end up as collateral damage in any corruption investigation but a couple dozen serious investigations into the wars, Wall St., the EPA, Blackwater, and so on would have taken out a zillion GOP players, kept most of the GOP tied up fighting in court, and generally given him the upper hand politically. No, he couldn’t exactly direct the DoJ from the White House but he could have carefully picked various DoJ/FBI/CIA/etc. appointments, from the top down, knowing that the appointees were highly interesting in prosecuting the Bush and Co. Obama could have stepped in here and there to say “Oh, we can’t put Cheney and Bush in jail. Let’s hold lengthy hearings instead.” or whatever, just to show that he’s fair and all but, come on, just dumping, say, the Abramoff or OSP paperwork would have crippled the GOP for a year or so. He just hasn’t used the tools he has to do the obvious things to keep power and keep his enemies on the defensive, regardless of how far to right he wants to govern.

Sorry, you actually don’t have any idea how Congress works and your analysis of the support there for “Democratic policies” is grossly mistaken. Let’s take it one by one, shall we?

The stimulus: Read Orzag’s recent article on this, have you? There was, like, zero support for even a 1.2 trillion stimulus and a 1.6 trillion proposal would have been taken as a sign that you wanted to negotiate down to a figure that even the president’s strongest allies (Dave Obey, say) wouldn’t support. Or, to put it another way, that you were posturing, not negotiating. Negotiating with Congress IS NOT LIKE NEGOTIATING IN A BAZAAR. Remember, they don’t have to anything to sell. There were plenty of Democrats who didn’t want any stimulus at all; Obama was lucky to get what he did. And he wasn’t going “bi-partisan” to do it; the final figure was made to keep Democrats happy, not Republicans. We might not like that, but one of the nasty things about having a 60 vote majority is that your caucus is a LOT harder to push. And the guys at the margin know it.

Using reconciliation: Actually, the rules here – enforced by a non-partisan congressional employee – are pretty strict. Only measures that concern taxing and spending can be considered (which is why the Bush tax cuts could be considered this way) and the Byrd rule makes it pretty hard to gloss that over. That is another way of saying that you could not have passed the “public option” by reconciliation. And, we might add, there was never strong support for a substantial public option in either house. The proposals that were either passed in the House or vetted in the Senate would have had a marginal effect on the entire bill and would have cost, as they almost did, support in the Senate. What we got is actually much better then what I feared we would. And, remember, this is a Madisonian democracy: the way you get things done is you pass legislation then you fix it over time. Take a look at Medicaid in its original form and how it works today to get a good idea of what I mean. This is another way of saying that if you want instant gratification from the legislative process, you are living in the wrong country. Republicans understand this and are in it for the long haul. Why Democrats don’t has always puzzled me.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Sure, Obama could hand the Republicans a campaign issue right before the election, but I doubt he will. People who get upset about this tend to forget that Congress could overturn any decision he makes on DADT and that it would be a very uncomfortable vote for even its strongest supporters to cast. Remember, most members of Congress don’t live in communities where there is strong support for gay rights. I don’t doubt that the administration has its head in the right place on this, but, again, when you are president and you are trying to do big things (health care, reforming the financial system, ect.) you have to weigh your actions carefully and try to keep Congress behind you as much as possible. After the election, the Democratic caucuses in both houses will be more ideological coherent and the Pubs will find themselves with numbers of new people from swing districts; i.e. they’ll be less coherent. At that point, executive action will be more plausible.

HAMP (the program supposedly intended to help homeowners, which hasn’t): Here we agree. I would have re-upped the RFC and put a new floor under real estate prices. I can see why they didn’t with the financial sector in such a fragile condition, but it would have been the one thing that could have been done that would have wrung the toxic waste out of the banking system and kept people in their homes. The downside risks – collapse of the smaller banks (you know, the ones that are really vulnerable) and of the real estate industry – were as substantial as the possible benefits, however. This was crap shoot and I would have rolled the dice, but it’s easy to see why the decision was different.

Habeas Corpus: Yes, the administration could give all the “detainees” at GTMO a day in court. Problem = then it would be almost certain that some of the really bad actors – and there are some down there – would have to be set free due to tainted evidence. The easier (and messier) course is to release as many of them as possible, give some a day in court (which they are trying to do and have been), and try the rest before the re-constituted military commissions. The Military Commissions Act of 2009 got rid of many of their objectionable features, but I doubt the MC trials will be pulled off. Still, it would be political suicide to let some of the detainees who are slated for MC trials free before they go through the process. If they have to be let go on procedural grounds (as I suspect will happen), then the releases have a sound legal basis and little political fallout. KSM and the guys who have confessed will be tried sooner or later, and, I have no doubt, will get the sentence they deserve. Then GTMO will be closed. Probably a bit late.

Social Security: Uh, dude, you don’t understand why the president did this, do you? It’s so he can present a plausible plan for long term budget restraints and, as a consequence, ask for more debt obligations; i.e. more stimulus money. Will this get him Pub votes? Could be. Remember, some of the Senators who are up for election in 2012 will be very interested in doing more to stimulate the economy after the election. (If the Pubs take the House all bets are off, of course, but that, I think, is a bridge too far. They’ll be close, but not close enough.) The administration knows that any proposal these clowns come up with that even smells of major SS reform will be DOA in Congress anyhow, no matter who’s in control. They can look good by supporting some proposals – they’ll be, like, so in favor of SS tax reforms – and tsk, tsk about the rest.

As for the bank proposals: Well, it ought to be obvious why this isn’t going to happen now. Here, again, I would have done something like what you have in mind (at least the nationalizations) at the first. But, like re-upping the RFC, there were and are substantial risks to doing this. And, really, do you think Congress would stand to one side and allow the president to run roughshod over the independence of the Fed? I can’t think of a single issue that would galvanize a bi-partisan majority to restrict executive power faster then that. Even if the president could remove Fed governors like you suggest. Which, by the way, he can’t; the “cause” can’t be “political differences”. If Obama tried to remove one of the governors because he wasn’t doing things his way (who, pray, determines whether the Fed is fulfilling its policy goals?), he’d get sued at once and, imho, he’d lose.

Soooo … is it hard out there when you really try to change things? You bet. Are the prospects for change improved by not realizing that and asking for the president to “fight” or “stand up for principle” or other similarly mystical actions that are supposed to make things all better? No. Our government works slowly and incrementally. Even the most successful legislative session for liberal causes in the last 50 years (you can check) only resets the ground rules for future conflict. Get used to it. The Republicans have.

In the second paragraph, “Negotiation 101,” I believe the author intended to say “trillions” where he said “billions” and “billions” where he said ~”thousands” ($400K). Negotiation 099: Make sure your numbers are accurate. ;^)

@ Ian Welsh (in his response to “dudette” Tracy Lightcap):

The point of your article, what Obama can do, is interesting and good as far as it goes, but it does ignore much of the political landscape that can’t be quantified quite so easily as a list of potential rules and laws that may be employed. Sure, Obama could have passed health insurance reform through reconciliation, but that would have created an even greater backlash than what we currently see. It seems that Obama may be calculating what can be passed ALONG WITH the electorate of 2010 and 2012 in mind, with an awareness of how the corporate media influences things. The right-wing is already planning on how to dismantle the Health Care Lite version that did manage to get passed.

See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437271015655924.html
&
Various other Google links

What good is passing something in reconciliation if it’s dismantled by a new Republican majority two years later? I’d like stronger health care reform myself, but wishing and getting are often two different animals. Likewise with your article. Yes, there are a number of things Obama COULD do, but the question of SHOULD is also different, particularly when considered in context of the current political (and media) landscape.

Regarding Habeas Corpus, I agree 100% – It’s The American Way™. I believe that Bush released scores of GITMO prisoners even w/o a trial. Why should Obama worry about releasing them after a trial?

Regarding your comment, “Stimulus: bullshit. Sorry.” Is this a confession on your part, or a comment on Tracy’s take on the stimulus? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I disagree.

As for the “People like you…” remark, well, you’re assuming that Tracy is just “making excuses.” But even though she disagrees with several of your points, her remarks seem well-reasoned and thoughtful – at least as much so as your original post. She even agreed with some of your criticism of Obama’s approach. Hardly a knee-jerk defense of all-things-Obama. While there are plenty of those out there, Tracy doesn’t appear to be one. Your knee-jerk response of putting her in that category doesn’t bolster your case at all.

Finally, thanks for the post. It’s good to know what you have in your arsenal, even though using each and every weapon at your disposal is most likely NOT the best option.*

iLarynx

* We COULD have nuked Iraq, but even the dim Bush bulb realized that politically, that was not something that SHOULD have been done. Etc.

Mandos writes:

Don’t like it? You can, as some of you have promised…not vote. Then you will have effectively voted for (R) government and stand a chance of getting what you voted for. After 4-12 years of slightly-but-noticeably worse, enough people will run back to the (D)—who will have moved even further right, unless the (R) somehow move left—that you will have another (D) government. And so on.

The behavior of doing as you suggest, voting for these Democrats despite the abysmal job they’re doing, is exactly why politics keeps moving to the right in this country. Progressives don’t matter, because they never demand that their party do the right thing. They always vote based on fear. Ironically, conservatives are the ones who demand that their party toe the line, and it does.

And, of course, the Republicans will keep moving to the right, which will make them all the more scary.

The Democrats are given no motivation to move left, so they don’t. Progressives will vote for them anyway. The Obama Administration have said that the Left will “come home”, and they’re probably right, for the most part. We’ll get to do this all over again, because, like you, most progressives don’t understand that politicians won’t bother satisfying people who never demand that they do something.

iLarynx writes:

In the second paragraph, “Negotiation 101,” I believe the author intended to say “trillions” where he said “billions” and “billions” where he said ~”thousands” ($400K).

Here I was about to write “Shouldn’t that be $400M?”. It should actually be $400B ($4.0×10^11). At least, if we’re talking about a $1.2 trillion ($1.2×10^12) stimulus, we would. I’ve read that other English-speaking countries refer differently to those kinds of quantities.

I think you still need to fix the “$400K”, Ian. You could use scientific notation just to be sure. 😉

Ian,

Thanks for the clarification of your interpretation of TARP authority. It is still wrong, however. You write: “Obama has complete control of the TARP funds, the majority of which have not been spent. (We’re talking over $500 billion in slush funds.)” Dodd-Frank reduced this amount to $475 billion ($454 billion of which had been committed under contract as of July 31, 2010). Any money that gets paid back goes into the general fund for deficit reduction. Treasury cannot engage in any more bank assistance through the Capital Purchase program (the TARP program used to inject capital into banks) because any additional bank capital purchases (which wouldn’t have the desired stimulative effects anyway) would be considered new programs. Buying distressed debt would be a new initiative or program and is therefore prohibited by Dodd-Frank. What Treasury can do is to complete payments committed under programs initiated prior to June 25, 2010. And then try to find a way to use the remaining $21 billion under the guise of some existing program or initiative. It is earmarked for Treasury Housing programs…

In short, the pot of money is smaller than you suggest, and the authority to use it is tightly constrained. I wish that this were not the case because I am very much in favor of using this money where it would do some good.

I am in no way an apologist for inaction. There is a lot these guys could have done if they had an understanding of the magnitude of what they were facing, and had the courage to do something about it. I’m not entirely sure they had either. They certainly didn’t have the latter. It’s maddening.

The Obama apologists are in a panic. They know their emperor is standing naked and they’re rushing around with a toga.

“Our government works slowly and incrementally.”

No, it doesn’t–not when the people in power want something, that is , really really want it. Bush got us into two wars with no problem, and Obama has had zero problem expanding those wars and expanding his executive power into areas far exceeding Cheney’s wildest wet dreams. The Nobel Laureate Peace Loving Candidate has also murdered more Pakistanis, Afghanis, and other assorted raghags than all the dreams of the Teabaggers and Neocons put together. He’s done this at breakneck speed too, and with almost no opposition. He bailed out the banks faster than you could say “Jobs program.” And this all in under two years. Next up: Kill social security, and invade Iran–both of which prospects I can guarantee you are coming very, very soon to a theater near you.

A quick look at FDR’s and Johnson’s record will show a government acting quickly and in huge, sweeping gestures to fix the country’s problems. For that matter, Bush and Reagan took big, sweeping gestures that they said were for the country’s betterment (even if we don’t believe that). Bill Clinton was able to pass bigger, better legislation than Obama ever could, with a hostile Republican congress and an even more hostile press to contend with 24/7.

“It’s not just about money; it’s about organization, culture, and institutions. The American Right not only has money, it has an understanding of the other three.”

Yes, and one of the things the American Right has done very, very successfully is threaten meaningfully to withhold votes (and money and support) when it didn’t get its way. The GOP never took its votes for granted and indeed, as we’ve seen, has moved increasingly rightward because it is afraid of that clout–which the right has wielded when necessary. The GOP knows this and acts accordingly. The left, meanwhile, has never used its clout in modern elections and as a result, the Democratic Party has nothing to fear. Fear is the only thing that keeps politicans in line if you don’t have money. That you consistently miss out on this key element of American politics indicates that you aren’t really paying attention and/or (as is most likely) still think that the Democrats deserve to govern because “the other guys are so much worse and it’s all so hopeless.” You need to study up on the actions of groups like the religious right and the NRA to see how the left so desperately gave itself up to be used and abused by con men. The right has one thing right: It knows that politicians need to be afraid of the voters. Your prescription keeps voters as the cowed and beaten ones. I’m no rightwinger but I know which side of the beaten/beatee divide I’d prefer to stand on.

The right-wing is already planning on how to dismantle the Health Care Lite version that did manage to get passed.

Maybe the good bits, but do you think the insurance industry will let them get rid of the individual mandate?

The Federal Reserve used to target quantity (e.g. money supply) but now targets price (that is, interest rates), likewise, instead of targeting the stimulus package quantity, they could have instead targeted as their price level, the unemployment rate. Whether stimulus was $200 billion or $2 trillion would be irrelevant as long as the targeted “price level” was met (let the Fed worry about inflation, they sure as heck aren’t worrying about their “maximum employment” mandate).

When Obama came into office, he could have asked for any damn thing he wanted and gotten it. What’s sad is he probably DID ask for every damn thing he wanted. Of course healthcare reform done right would itself have been a stimulus package more than twice as big as what was enacted. The Democrats could have passed a simple law giving the President authority to modify by executive order Medicare’s: (A) eligibility (from the day you’re issued a Social Security number, retroactive to birth for newborns), (B) benefits package (mix and match from Medicaid, Tricare, Champva; for starters, no premiums) and (C) funding source. Fund it out of general revenue like other entitlements by adding three clauses:

1. ” The Secretary of Health & Human Services shall not require that programs under this subsection be budget neutral with respect to expenditures under this title”. (none of this paygo nonsense; that language is from Baucus’s Libby Montana Medicare section).
2. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the general fund of the Treasury (from funds not otherwise appropriated) to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Program Management Account such sums as the Secretary of Health & Human Services determines is necessary.” (this is a mod of the “automatic appropriation” that student loans and other entitlements use).
3. “31 US 5115 (b) is hereby repealed.” (Tsy could fund deficit spending with US Notes without limitation– sect (b) currently limits the total to $300 million and doesn’t allow banks to use them as reserves– US Notes are interest-free bearer bonds and are not included in the statutory debt limit).

That would redirect private (employer, employee, out of pocket) health care spending of a $1 trillion a year to other uses, while Uncle Sam itself would pick up the tab via Medicare. Like Teddy Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet halfway around the world before asking Congress to pay for it, only after Medicare for All was a fait accompli would Congress be left to figure out how to pay for it, once stimulus spending was no longer needed. Actually, just dropping 31 US 5155(b) gets you halfway there. Over the next decade, the CBO projects the US paying $5 trillion in debt service.

Among the benefits of this would be that states would no longer be faced with their share of Medicaid costs; worker’s comp, liability and auto insurance policies would suddenly get less expensive (no medical bills to cover); employees would be much cheaper for companies to hire or keep on the payroll with no premiums to pay; oh and 45,000 Americans wouldn’t die every year because of lack of healthcare.

Quiddity makes a great point–the fact that Obama is STARTING at the compromise position on all of these issues is even working against his desire to be seen as a bipartisan. If he started at the extreme left and then moved right, he’d look a lot more bipartisan than starting at what he perceives to be the compromise position and not budging. I’ve just come to the conclusion that either (A) he’s an awful leader and doesn’t know what he’s doing, or (more likely) (B) he’s getting exactly what he wants and would rather have liberals believe he’s weak and ineffectual than conservative. You want someone who’s demonstrated actual liberal leadership in the past couple of years, I’d look at Nancy Pelosi, who did more to get HCR passed than Obama ever did.

increasingly, i don’t care so much about getting people to vote. i know i’m not supposed to say that…

Instead, say that people should vote, but not for the two-party duopoly. Vote for a Green Party candidate, if one is available, or write in the name of someone, preferably someone you would like in office. I like Abraham Lincoln.

The Left or Progressives need to make themselves heard by producing a 10 to 15% result at the polls. Individually, we won’t be heard. (And being apolitical is not an option.) Organized people are heard. We need a write-in campaign for every congressional district that does not have a progressive-party candidate on the ballot. (If there is a progressive-party candidate on the ballot, vote for them.) This could tell the country that progressive/left voters do not support what the democrats have been doing the past two years.

In some states, a write-in vote automatically goes to the candidate of the party you’re registered with.

Thanks for that information.

What won’t the duopoly do to game the system?

(“Why haven’t we outlawed all other parties? It’s fucking retarded (TM) for anyone to vote for any other party. Everyone knows that third parties never work, so why even allow them on the ballot? Those people aren’t Serious (TM). You have to be Practical (TM).”)

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/24-4

“California Enshrines the Duopoly” by Ralph Nader

I’m pleased to be in agreement with Nader. He was the most prescient candidate in 1999/2000, although I expect that, like Ian Welsh, he would say that he wasn’t prescient, he was just stating the obvious.

Julia Williams writes:

“Not voting? Hmmm..I call that “how to be disenfranchised with my permission”.

Generally speaking, I agree. What I mean by “not voting” is in specific races. I don’t mean not showing up. If we still had the opportunity to vote third party in a general election out here, that’s what I’d do. We don’t, though. I don’t even think we can vote write-in. So, in this case, I say don’t vote if the choices are unpalatable. I won’t be voting for my Democratic incumbents, but when the only choices are people who are at least as bad, I don’t think I really have a choice.

The famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So, you can go with mandos and vote for a legacy party, or do something different.

increasingly, i don’t care so much about getting people to vote. i know i’m not supposed to say that…

Instead, say that people should vote, but not for the two-party duopoly. Vote for a Green Party candidate, if one is available,

sorry, should’ve been more clear. i meant “working to get dems elected,” cause that’s what i’ve mostly done in the past. habit of speech, i can see why you thought i was saying ‘don’t vote at all,’ but that’s not what i meant.

I haven’t been back since my original post which seems to have upset Ian a bit. I looked over the posts here again, however, and I think I see what most of the posters – including Ian – want.

They want Obama to be a liberal George Bush.

Take a look at what’s been said above. Is there really any difference, except for the direction of the policy, in what many of you are calling for and how Dubya ran the presidency?

Calls for use of unilateral executive power to achieve policy goals, despite their uncertain popularity and their lack of Congressional support? Check. Spend the TARP money any old which way, greatly extend federal power over private institutions, do foreign policy our way. How? Unilateral presidential power, of course. And be sure to threaten Congress and reduce their role in policy making as much as possible. If you don’t you won’t get what you want.

Calls for standing foursquare for progressive causes and similar ideological stances, no matter what the consequences? Check. The president either a) isn’t a “real progressive” (sound familiar?) or b) lacks spine or courage or something, or c) isn’t really all that smart. But what if he had been a full scale progressive ideologue and got into trouble with Congress over it? That’s easy. We’d be more supportive and, if push comes to shove, refer to the above.

And what’s the result? Many of you would feel better (sort of like the Pubs did about Dubya) and get “enthusiastic” because you have a paladin for progressive causes and that, in some magic fashion, will turn the electorate further toward the left. Sort of like that worked (?) for Bush.

I have an idea what Obama would say to all this if he were here. He’d get that slightly quizzical look on his face and say:

“No.

The country doesn’t need another four years of a unilateral presidency that makes extreme partisans feel good. What it needs is four years of a president who is willing to recognize executive limits and work to govern on the basis of legislation passed by solid Congressional majorities. We need to get used to a government that governs again.

That’ll take awhile. There will be setbacks; indeed, we might not succeed. But if the government is to change course and if we are going to get back to sanity in how we conduct our affairs, someone has to start the process by modeling how it can work. That’s what I’m trying to do. If you can’t help me or the party right now, that’s ok. Good policy is good politics over time. See you in 2012.”

Now, I’m not sure he’s right. I’m not sure the country can grow up in time to get over the constant campaign and the unilateral use of executive power we’ve become used to (Clinton did it too). And God knows he’s made some mistakes (no RFC, no bank nationalizations, stimulus too small) that a more ideologically stalwart approach would have avoided. But long run he’s right. Imho, we can’t keep a democratic country with a Madisonian constitution by continually calling for increases in the power of presidents to avoid the necessity of actually governing. A liberal Dubya, iow, isn’t the solution; it’s part of the problem.

I’m not sure it’s the just the banks that are responsible for the difficulty getting loans. We have good credit and are trying to get a 15 year fixed for our house, but I understand the banks are stingy because Freddie and Fanny, who buy these loans are being super, ultra picky.

And on the other side of things, the American right and American liberals do not face the same challenges. It’s a huge flaw in the Overton Window metaphor, which makes it seem like two sides playing a tug of war trying to move the window. It’s not true.

It’s really an Overton Floor. The American right is trying to lower the floor, and that is something for which they get assistance from political gravity. The point of the American Right is ultimately to accelerate the increase in “social entropy”. That’s why the literal purveyors of entropy, the Koch brothers, fund it. But when they walk away from the table, they know that entropy continues to operate. They stand a chance of gaining even if they were to walk away and do nothing. For that and other reasons, the American right is extremely cohesive compared to the American left. It is precisely the opposite for the American left.

The solution to the problems in the USA reside partly in dealing with the susceptibility of 25% of the population to the blandishments of the right. Yes, it all goes back to the Southern Strategy. This does not mean: fantasize about making common economic-populist cause with them, as though the cultural conflicts were any less important in their minds than the economic ones.