 |
|||
|
|
|
 The Contradictions of ObamaismPosted on Jan 20, 2010It turns out there were core contradictions in the promises Barack Obama made to the country in 2008. They caught up with his party on Tuesday in Massachusetts. Things will not get easier. Republicans in Congress will be empowered to hold to their course of obstruction by Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s victory. Washington will remain the object of scorn as a dysfunctional capital and, absent a new Obama approach, the GOP can act with the confidence that only Democrats will pay a price for the failure of comity. This problem goes directly to the tensions in Obamaism. As a candidate, he pledged to change the tone in Washington and restore amicable relations between the parties. But he also promised to accomplish large things, including a substantial reform of the health care system, major action to ease global warming, and a reshaped and more responsible financial system. At some point, Obama’s ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both. As a result, he found himself leaning entirely on support from within his own party, forcing a strategy of inside deal-making. This alienated Democrats from the many rank-and-file Americans who don’t like the looks of such arrangements, however necessary they are. Advertisement In practice, this meant trying to reform the financial industry while avoiding an open battle with the bankers. As a consequence, Obama is now viewed as coddling Wall Street by those inclined to populism, and as anti-business by the titans of finance. This also involved pursuing a health reform plan that his political base came to see as too soft on the insurance companies, even as many of the heath care interests tried to bring it down. And by avoiding arguments over philosophy and ideology—by failing to offer a pointed and running explanation of why he was reversing the policies of the previous administration—Obama left independent voters confused about his goals. They saw expanding deficits and high unemployment. Absent a coherent Democratic narrative, they were open to a Republican story that linked the two and blamed the Democrats. Brown’s victory is also a rebuke to a United States Senate that acted as if it had unlimited time to pass health care legislation and ignored how foolish its listless ways appear to normal human beings. Like a bottle of milk kept out of the refrigerator too long, the health bill came to look curdled and sour to a public that felt it never heard an adequate explanation of what was in it. In the short term, Democrats have to make a quick decision on health care. The obvious path is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill and send it to Obama’s desk, while reaching agreement on certain changes that, under existing practices, can get through the Senate with fewer than 60 votes. It would be the equivalent of a political crime for Democrats to have invested so much in health reform only to let it die because of one election in one state. But Obama does not have the standing simply to force this result on a reluctant House. Many of its progressive members are angry that he took them for granted and assumed that the Senate—whose delays placed health care in jeopardy in the first place—would write something close to the final bill. Working through this thicket of dysfunction will be Obama’s first post-Massachusetts test. It’s true that one special election in Massachusetts is not a world historical event. Brown’s five-point victory was made possible by Democrat Martha Coakley’s poorly run campaign and a colossal strategic failure to see early on the danger she was in. Yet the flight or demobilization of so many of Obama’s former supporters—Coakley received roughly 850,000 fewer votes on Tuesday than Obama did in 2008—cannot be blamed on her shortcomings alone. Obama needs to resolve the contradictions that are plaguing him, and to come out fighting. The president may not be entirely comfortable with this, but now he’s fighting for his political life. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group  Previous item: Losing the Health Care Battle Is Not an Option Next item: No Obama Obituaries, Please CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Santorum Staffer Links Obama, Islam Via ‘Slip’
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By christian96, January 24, 2010 at 10:38 am Link to this comment
Robert—-What you propose has merits providing:
1. Obama is not a member of the ruling elite.
2. Obama does not have dirty underwear he doesn’t
want exposed.
3. He has the courage to do what you propose.
I don’t like sounding a pessimist but I don’t see
Report thisextant conditions changing. Money is power. I’ve
got the guts to do what you propose but I don’t have
the money. I couldn’t get elected anyway. I’m too
honest.
By dihey, January 24, 2010 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
“It turns out there were core contradictions in the promises Barack Obama made to the country in 2008” says Dionne.
Report thisThat’s rich! This slavish pundit supported a candidate which was selling us “core contradictions” without noticing them! How then can I believe anything that this sycophant writes today and why does Truthdig continue to publish articles by this deeply flawed prophet?
By Robert, January 24, 2010 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What people want from Obama is a FIGHTER. Someone who will play political hardball to get things done.
He should pick up the healthcare fight and say “no health care reform without a public option” and then name names, go to the states of Republicans AND Corporate Democrats who stand in his way and denounce them publicly. Its a relatively simple 3 step process:
1. Simplify the message as much as possible down to easy to understand PROGRESSIVE values, and translate those simplified progressive values into healthcare legislation HE writes and sends to congress.
2. Draw a line in the sand that states the core values he will not compromise on. That means the use of the veto.
Specifically, a public option available to all, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions to health insurance conglomerates, no anti-trust exemption for health insurance comglomerates, importation of ANY drugs from Canada or anywhere else as long as they meet the same FDA requirements that domestic drugs do, required minumum coverage by health insurance conglomerates, and a requirement that any company involved in health insurance cannot vary their premiums according to patient demographics.
3. Go fight for those non-negotable points by doing it the way Lyndon Johnson did to pass medicare.
This means use all the power of the presidency AND the bully pulpit to cajole, intimidate, expose, embarass, blackmail, threaten, and cower anyone who tries to oppose the core principals mentioned above.
Obama needs to turn politics into a bloodsport to advance a progressive agenda. And that means identifying Corporate Democrats with the Republicans.
Now there are those who might be horrified at the thought of Obama going back on his promise to “change the tone” in Washington. But the fact is that historically no real change for the better has ever occurred without making politics a bloodsport.
There are others who might say that Obama is a Corporate Democrat at heart. I have to believe that Obama would rather be a successful president enought to jettison the corporate leeches around him and the corporate viruses infecting him. Because Obama has no political choice if he wants to save his presidency.
Report thisBy christian96, January 22, 2010 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
Wildfire—-The WHOLE nation is in a state of confusion. We elect one liar and deceiver after
Report thisanother and nothing gets done. That’s the way the
ruling class wants it. I don’t see it changing.
By neil fabricant, January 22, 2010 at 4:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The murder by the CIA and/or another intelligence unit of three prisoners at Guantanamo and a cover up by the Pentagon, Justice Department, FBI, and who knows who else, is the watershed event of this administration—more important than the Massachusetts election.
Many were willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt knowing how difficult it would be to do anything useful, but his looking forward not backwards on Bush torture policies strained his moral authority.
The populist banking posture is necessary but probably too late. It makes him appear like another politician. Now, unless he steps up forcefully and deals with the torture and killing of prisoners, his administration is dead—morally and politically—and it should be dead, and with it, probably the last nail in the coffin of our own innocence.
Report thisBy smitty8, January 22, 2010 at 4:31 am Link to this comment
AN OBOMINATION
Report thisObama did NOT “lean entirely on support from within his own party.” He relied on an absurdly misguided hope of bipartisanship while alienating those of us on the left who were sucker enough to believe in him as he sold out to big pharm, the insurance and banking industry and the military industrial complex. We had at least hope that he would defend and support the constitution - ha!
By rollzone, January 21, 2010 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment
hello. the union support they relied so heavily upon in Massachusetts got it right when they said the loss was simply a public revolt. if this President does nothing for the rest of this term, except, perhaps, astonishingly lower taxes: he may be reelected. he has great ambitions, strong determination, lossa goddam pertenshial (Richard Pryor); why does he not understand this is not the time to be spending? work on the grand plan, and try to implement it when the economy is better. the money already spent, was more than any President should spend during an entire term: in less than a year. many people are working just to see him fail. giving them more and more reasons, is detrimentally counter productive. vacations to Chicago and Camp David are fine. take lots of them, until the mess is clearer. let others step up and fill a vacuum of common sense to clean all the turkeys. sober up this intoxicated capitalistic madness on the Hill. get transparent. nothing went as easy as it could have. counter all the naysayers with leadership representative of failing businesses all across these United States. get the economy back in gear. take a vacation. take another vacation. then come back and try again. this is not the time to be spending money or growing government. save the small business man, and everyone will beat a path to your door with praise. they are America.
Report thisBy wildflower, January 21, 2010 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
RE Atico: “You forgot to mention that Scott Brown was put into his hew Senate seat by all political persuasions in the State of Mass.”
Yes, but remember Massachusetts is in the state of confusion at the moment because they just lost one of the best Senators in Nation. I’m confident they will wake real soon and realize they were just looking for leadership in the wrong place. The reality is “Barbie’s Massachusetts Ken” is no Ted Kennedy.
Report thisBy christian96, January 21, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
Following last Feb.2nd truth-dig report “It’s Not
Report thisGoing To Be O.K.!” after reading many comments I
made the simple comment on Feb. 23rd. “TT’S NOT
GOING TO BE O.K.!” Seems like I’m turning into
quite a prophet. Move over Nostradamus. Today it
is time for my next prophecy. Not only is it not
going to be O.K. it’s going to get much worse!
Globally!
By wildflower, January 21, 2010 at 11:38 am Link to this comment
Re Dionne: “Democrats have to make a quick decision on health care. The obvious path is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill . . . It would be the equivalent of a political crime for Democrats to have invested so much in health reform only to let it die because of one election in one state.”
Mark Kleiman in “Procedural Ethics and Health Reform” presents a well thought out argument for doing just this:
“On what plausible account of respect for democratic procedures is a newly-seated Senator owed a redo of a floor debate that has gone on for months?”
“ . . . there is nothing at all inappropriate or disrespectful of democratic procedure for the House to pass the Senate bill as is. This would be so even if Scott Brown would have been the 51st Republican vote to defeat the bill itself, not the 41st to prolong debate, and this would be so even if a 60-vote supermajority were a Constitutional requirement, rather than a Senate rule that, as employed, arguably undermines the actual Constitutional requirement of a simple majority.’
“The Senate bill, despite its flaws, is the most important contribution to social justice since the Voting Rights Act and Medicare. House Democrats would be acting entirely appropriately, and with proper respect for democratic procedures, if they pushed ahead and enacted the Senate bill. There may be considerations of strategy that counsel against, but not ethical considerations.”
http://www.samefacts.com/2010/01/health-care/us-healthcare-reform/procedural-ethics-and-health-care-reform/
Report thisBy Night-Gaunt, January 21, 2010 at 11:06 am Link to this comment
Virginia777 you do live up to your name. (Virgin in this case about people.)
“A mole AND a plant? and a snake (in a suit) and a wolf…”
You have never heard of a mole placed in an organization? A plant in this case is the same thing, not botany. A snake in a suit is a metaphor look it up. Also a wolf in sheep’s clothing same thing. Do you understand metaphors? Or are you just playing dumb to attack my criticism without actually addressing it. So transparent. But you can have another chance at it. As for me being a troll? I will let others decide that not just you. I am making valid points—-trolls just attack in partisan fashion, I have no allegiance except for the truth. The truth is sometimes ugly. Obama is one of the enemy just as Clinton is either bought out or just joined the winning side of the theocratic corporate Dominionists .
“Jeez, we are onto animal references here today, aren’t we?”
See above. [Note: Democratic or Republican they will be mostly the same.]
but if you have valid criticisms of me then lay them out, simply condemning them is nothing.
Report thisBy Virginia777, January 21, 2010 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
yet more “insight” from Night-Gaunt:
“even the most die hard fans are seeing that the One has no clothes and is a snake in a suit. Or a wolf in sheep’s skin. A mole, a plant, an agent of the ConservaDems who are with the ConservaRepubs.”
a mole AND a plant? and a snake (in a suit) and a wolf…
Jeez, we are onto animal references here today, aren’t we?
This is sounding very troll-like to me, something is up here on Truthdig with some of the Obama-bashing commentators,
Freaking unacceptable, Truthdig.
Report thisBy Virginia777, January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am Link to this comment
the “contradictions” lie squarely with the liberals,
who have proven (right here on Truthdig) they are unable, unwilling and dead set against uniting and forming a base to defeat Republican candidates with.
No, they are much happier with their bitching,
which has allowed a Neocon exhibitionist to sit in Ted Kennedy’s chair.
(now thats what I call a contradiction!!)
Report thisBy Atico, January 21, 2010 at 8:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
You forgot to mention that Scott Brown was put into his hew Senate seat by all political persuasions in the State of Mass. The whole Nation is fed up with Obama’s far left pandering and his arrogance. It appears he has surrounded himself with a bunch of far left close minded advisors; Axelrod and on and on… I for one hope the Democrats, and many are very good people, got the message from the Scott Brown victory. If not they had better start sending out resumes, as their current positons in the DC are over.
Report thisBy jackwbarnes1, January 21, 2010 at 7:07 am Link to this comment
I WILL WORK WITH BOTH SIDES FOR THE WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY. I
Report thisWILL ELIMINATE ALL THOSE CRAZY PERKS. I WLL RID THE COUNTRY OF
ALL THE CROOKED POLITICIANS AND GET RID OF CORRUPTION IN THE
GOVERNMENT. DOES ANY OF THESE SOUND FAMILIAR? THESE AND MANY
MORE PROMISES WERE MADE DURING OBAMAS CAMPAIGN , WHAT A LIAR
HE TURNED OUT TO BE! IT MAKES ME WONDER IF WE WILL EVER GET A
LEADER THAT COULD HAVE SOME INTEGRITY AND HONESTY.
By bozh, January 21, 2010 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What wld a pol or priest say if s/he wld not be allowed to make promises? Along, the usual vacuities?
In a democracy [if we had one anywhere?]people wld decide what shld be accomplished. An administration wld be set up as executors of people’s will; expressed in an referendum.
Alas, in asocialist countries,we find a rule by a tiny minority.
An agha, amir, rich shareholder, king, ceo can get/stay rich only by asocialist [facsist] policies.
And it is all legal; since they only write ‘laws’.
This differs only slightly from how any biker, street, cosa nostra gangs behave.
Of course, US gang, being by far larger and stronger does much more iniquities than any smaller gang.
Gangs are always at war or killing peole.They swear to secrecy and obedience to their particular form of rule! tnx
Report thisBy glider, January 21, 2010 at 4:45 am Link to this comment
E.J.Dione is being ever so gentle with our “snake in a suit” (thanks for that metaphor N.G.!).
“Obama’s AMBITIONS were destined to collide with Republicans..opposed to..everything HE WANTS to do”
O.K., E.J.Dione, let us analyze this statement, which to me signifies you are still lost in the “hope a dope” campaign strategy. Given your presumption that Obama truly has noble ambitions and is only being thwarted by evil forces please explain why Obama immediately ejected his progressive advisors after winning the election and appointed the likes of Geitner, Sumners, and Gates? Please correlate your contention with these facts or stop writing such nonsense. Do you seriously think it was just a coincidence that Obama received heavy financing from the Corporatists that would want these operatives appointed? Please explain yourself.
Report thisBy Night-Gaunt, January 20, 2010 at 10:09 pm Link to this comment
Yeah, even the most die hard fans are seeing that the One has no clothes and is a snake in a suit. Or a wolf in sheep’s skin. A mole, a plant, an agent of the ConservaDems who are with the ConservaRepubs. No joy all foul here. A SNAFU but by design.
Report this