Barack Obama, Lacking the Leadership Character for the Job
Official photo by Pete Souza
WASHINGTON – It’s a very bad day for Obama loyalists, who are tripping over themselves at the debacle left at the feet of the Democratic party, whose leader has revealed once and for all he simply doesn’t have the leadership character for the job.
“I would say … that symbolically, that agreement is moving us to the point where we are having the final interment of John Maynard Keynes,” he said, referring to the British economist. “He normally died in 1946 but it appears we are going to put him to his final rest with this agreement.” – Sen. Dick Durbin
The New York Times eviscerates the outcome, while Paul Krugman writes that Pres. Obama has “surrendered”.
As for Congress, they’ve punted to a Super Committee, which is like admitting they can’t do their job either.
…and as much as the Tea Party extortionists are loathed, even as crazy as they are, they’re the only ones who showed character of their convictions.
As the deal floats above the swamp stench it has left around Washington, none of this fazes Obama loyalists and die hard fluffers, as they continue their fan politics parade. Whether in emails or in comments at my site and across the web, with many sites banning Obama dissenters, Obama’s reelection cheer leaders continue to be focused on defending the indefensible, without ever caring one whit about the people impacted by Pres. Obama’s craven collapse to Republican economics, which starts at the state and local level. Peggy Noonan called Obama a “loser” last week, without blinking an eye for the millions of Americans who will be hurt by the austerity fetish, as the super wealthy and corporations get a pass, because Pres. Obama extended the biggest budget buster around, the Bush tax cuts, then, so impressed by the establishment and middle mush applause, decided to double down, leaving us where we are today.
It reduces strong Democratic members of Congress and progressives stuck up against it. Because with Obama’s sights set only on a second term, the entire media establishment is either talking about the Tea Party extortionists or “over spending,” while absolutely no one is giving credence to the progressive economic model, with Keynesian economics finally put down through this deal.
All I can wonder is what might have happened, going all the way back to health care, if progressives knew how to play hardball as well as the Tea Party crazies, who ended up making Sen. Mitch McConnell the man of the hour and actually more important than Pres. Obama; this was a result of progressive Democrats caving to Obama back when they should have fought to the end. The result of the Left’s compromise from Stupak to the Bush tax cuts was the 2010 midterm results, as well as the war on women playing out across America. So no one should be surprised Pres. Obama has expanded it to economic policies that hurt the unemployed, poor, middle class, minorities, women and, potentially, even seniors.
The establishment press, new media and old has an excuse to ignore the solid ideas of progressive economics: If Pres. Obama is ignoring progressive economics, considering he’s the “leader” of the Democratic party, embracing Republican economics instead, anything having to do with aggressively making the case for growth and jobs, which in a recession can only come through dynamic stimulus spending, is now a fringe idea.
There is almost no serious discussion about growth, jobs and how badly austerity will impede getting people back to work. The stupidity is that our talking head class and Democratic zombie fan politics voters don’t get that it’s the middle class that provides the demand to inspire companies to hire. Pres. Obama won’t make that case. He won’t make any case for Democratic economics. Evidently he doesn’t understand anything but money wingnuttery, because it expands his fluffer base.
After the debt ceiling is raised, everyone will simply go back to the 2012 horse race, preparing for an embarrassing Obama birthday spectacle, while people once again start babbling incoherently about Independents and the middle, led by the Obama loyalists, who couldn’t care less about the unemployed, elderly or minorities, as long as their man wins in 2012.
Anyone thinking that Obama being reelected matters, versus, let’s just say, Mitt Romney, is too far gone to deserve serious rebuttal. Now that Pres. Obama has adopted right-wing austerity, now known as Obamanomics, whatever difference there was in the two parties has vanished, so who wins the presidency in 2012 is totally irrelevant, but also reveals the cancer of partisan politics to the health of American prosperity, but also to the average American middle class family trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their head.
But what’s been largely ignored is how the very solution to the debt-ceiling crisis could also squeeze state and local governments that are already strapped for cash. … [...] Local governments will try to raise property taxes to raise revenue, which could be yet another drag on a housing market that’s yet to recover. Those who fail to meet their fiscal obligations could see their credit downgraded, making it even harder for them to borrow money to build basic local infrastructure, while both the president and the GOP have threatened to pull funds for state infrastructure. What was once an ideological abstraction — “austerity” — will have very real effects on everyday life for average Americans. Some state and local officials are already bracing for the worst. As the Pew Center on the States notes, Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has proposed borrowing money fromthe state treasury to cover federal Medicaid funds, and the California state treasurer is considering a Wall Street loan to help the state make ends meet in August. – Why any debt-ceiling deal will squeeze the states, by Ezra Klein
Taylor Marsh is a Washington based political analyst, writer and commentator on national politics, foreign policy, and women in power. A veteran national politics writer, Taylor’s been writing on the web since 1996. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her blog.
13 Responses to “Barack Obama, Lacking the Leadership Character for the Job”
I won’t disagree with the assertion that Obama is not the man for the times, but let’s not lay it on so thick that it is an insult to facts.
Any time the government is spending more than it is taking in is factually, definitionally and incontrovertibly…..Keynesian stimulus.
The deal cuts the Keynesian stimulus program from 8.5 trillion to 6 trillion to 2021.
Not only is Keynes not dead in the eyes of the Federal government but he is driving around town in a Bentley convertible.
Krugman and all the others — [snort]
(It’s perverse entertainment on lefty-talk radio this morning, already, and I bet MSNBC prime-time television is gonna be sizzlin’, baby.)
There are flaws in the plan, real flaws (not the class warfare tax increase gimmicks many on the Left have wanted, evading the odious nature of what they want or other tax increases by using weasel language, “revenue increases” or “revenues” instead).
Entitlement reform is the core of serious reform, and it’s almost completely absent here. (Other welfare programs are spared, explicitly, so so much for the Left claiming they’re getting screwed. Preoccupation with ugly tax and social policy is silly.)
As to the size of the cuts (maybe 30%-60% of what the credit agencies are expecting), and other details of the deal, the credit ratings agencies have said already that even if the debt limit is raised on time, if the budget reform isn’t serious, they may lower the US credit rating, anyway.
And there’s more, related to real world views of the budget plan:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/01/sp-moodys-await-debt-plan-details/#ixzz1TnNYGl6p
Yep. Sharper minds are looking at the annual debt-to-GDP ratio, not just the total debt-to-GDP ratio. (and spending-to-GDP each year, too)
And we know the problem is spending, even with a complication in the recent (economic slump) years in the form of those Bush tax cuts that were extended and the FICA tax cut, which was accompanied by an increase in spending to complete a nominally and temporary Keynesian plan (which was badly bungled).
The Federal Debt: Too Little Revenue or Too Much Spending?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/11/ES1120.pdf
That temporary situation with a temporary plan nominally Keynesian to soften and correct it, ideally, is the true rationale for supporting some tax increases (needed in the future, anyway, because of the swelling of retirees and of entitlements), once the economy has recovered and swung into the positive, growth, boom or increased-activity part of the cycle, at which point to prevent “excess” (in that increased activity, with boom-bubble and demand-inflation threats, among other things) higher taxes and reduced government spending and government surpluses are what Keynesian policy indicates. Yet in addition to wanting something other than true stimulus with spending, liberals and Democrats want to make permanent the spending increases for a temporary situation, while also seeking tax increases, no doubt to be made permanent and ever increasing along with spending! It’s not Keynesian, and obviously not sound, either, in addition to being blatantly hypocritical when claimed to be “Keynesian” or in the name of easing and reversing the slump.)
The credit ratings agencies are going to look at sensibility of the tax system when evaluating the seriousness of a budget plan, but the real problem is excessive spending, for which it’s debilitating to raise enough taxes to prevent deficits and more debt accrual.
C.O., it’s the alternative Keynes in the libs-n-Dems’ alternative view of the world (or universe) that’s driving around in that Bentley.
Their view of Keynesianism is the government-spending and deficit part only (they want tax increases only, part of the surpluses they don’t want, normally, either — they defend deficits and debt intrinsically), as though they view the economy as in depression and need of stimulus to revive it (to some unwordly state). (Their view also defends inflation and seeks ever more of the “right level” of it, too.) Surpluses mean not enough spending!
(That’s a statement they should frame beside their portraits of FDR and perhaps LBJ: Surpluses mean not enough spending!)
“Now that Pres. Obama has adopted right-wing austerity, now known as Obamanomics, whatever difference there was in the two parties has vanished, so who wins the presidency in 2012 is totally irrelevant . . .”
Ralph Nader, is that you?
Keynes’ real theory was dead a long time ago.
The neo-Keynesians love the theory for what it represents (central control), not for its effectiveness.
casualobserver said:
“I won’t disagree with the assertion that Obama is not the man for the times, but let’s not lay it on so thick that it is an insult to facts.”
That is 110% accurate. And I really feel that many in Congress aren’t the men/women for the times. American people are going to lose regardless. The ONLY reason I have respect for the Tea Party is their line in the sand mentality (which contrary to popular belief isn’t easy when it will affect your constituency as well). This was the the time for real and visionary leadership from the Executive and Legislative branch. To look at this issue and use it to attack the systemic issues that are pimp-smacking our economy. Instead we get a wishy-washy whatever thingy that made markets around the world and here say “back to business as usual”.
In all due respect Taylor, you needed to include many more people in your title. I understand the bucks stops with the President but no one REALLY fixed anything. We just got to see pure made-for-television politics around the horn.
By the way, HSBC and Merck about to layoff a combined 55,000+ workers (with a large amount coming from here in the States):
HSBC, Merck Announce Massive Job Cuts
But hey, the Executive and Legislative branches got us covered…. in bulls–t.
Is it wrong of me to want our elected leaders to concentrate on what matters mostly to the American people: jobs. You mean NO ONE in our Executive and Legislative branches could look at this from that standpoint WITHOUT worrying about politics? Apparently not.
I agree with T-Steel in his assessment. I like Obama and consider him to be a decent and highly accomplished person. I also believe he genuinely wants what is best for the country. That said, he has shown himself to be unable or unwilling to take the strong leadership position needed to help provide a rational, forward thinking, and decisive solution to this crisis. This deficit of vision and spine IS of course shared by the rest of congress who I think are mostly a bunch of losers. The big losers of course will be the American people (again), especially those who can least afford such a namby pamby solution. Apparently all branches of the government are republican now.
T-Steel wrote:
I had called it “exploiting the public to test their reaction to various stances to employ in the 2012 elections, as well as to draw more attention to ourselves in Washington — we really like that. More is better! We love it when the public makes us feel so important!”
D. Duck wrote:
Or more than that, not just according to Hazlitt, but recently:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vczrAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PP7&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false
How can you tell if Obama is a good leader or not? He’s got essentially a stalled economy with a GOP so against him there are parts of the GOP against itself for not being more against him. And what does Obama have to work with? A democratic party so spineless they couldn’t even repeal the bush tax cuts that have turned out as messed up as the worst predictors back in 2001 said they would be. Frankly I’m happy we’ve been able to make what little forward momentum we have economically these last few years. If we’d truly elected an incompetent, we’d have slipped into a full on Depression back in ’09. Man, what those people could accomplish if they weren’t worried about getting re-elected. Anyone ever floated the idea of 6 years each for Senators, Congressmen and Presidents, with single term limits? We could rotate them every 2 years one of them would be up for election.
@DLS
If that guy is half right, then I’ve got to take that back. According to your link, $0 savings and 0% interest were his goal. We’ve been living in Keynesian paradise!
Maybe his theory isn’t quite dead enough.
I would say the guy is at least half right. (He’s an apparent Austrian school critic of Keynes. The same could be argued about Hazlitt. It may be of passing interest to know that Hazlitt’s critique of Keynes is called “The Failure of the New Economics,”* and among a great number of books he wrote was one about converting our federal government to a parliamentary system, “A New Constitution Now.” He wrote it in part from FDR’s abuses and a later edition naturally included additional concerns about the presidential system after Nixon’s Watergate scandal.)
* I recall even small details like this gem Hazlitt wrote about Keynes: “Nothing he said that is true is original, and nothing he said that is original is true.” I also first became disenchanted with “purist” libertarianism when I heard him decry government’s “such Buck Rogers stunts as putting a man on the moon.”
Slamfu:
1. Americans want term limits! (They want a balanced budget, too.)
2. Yes, many have thought of that, including what you’re writing about. When discussing term limits someone objected with the one single valid counter-argument, that technically or theoretically it is anti-democratic because it prevents offering all the choices that could be offered to voters. My response was that the incumbency problem in particular is so bad that it trumps any desire to see someone offered for re-election, which has corrupted our system all by itself (there are other corrupting influences or “factors” as well, obviously). I suggested rather than a two-term limit (the traditional customary limit Americans still want, not only for the Presidency), why not simply ban re-election? That’s exactly what you are asking about: Make it illegal to run for the office you currently are occupying. End of problem, yet the person can run for election again as often as he or she wishes, too. (and be offered to the voters just as often, too)
An elaboration or refinement of this would govern whether the person finishing a term in a given office could run for another term in the same government (typically, the legislature), or run in another representation district, or in a bicameral legislature run for a seat in the other house. I suppose that’s worth considering.
(So is the somewhat arbitrary rule of alternating or changing functions: legislative-executive, or legislative-executive-judicial.)