The Awesome Obama Thread II

Much as we may have wanted it, we did prescious little to actually get it.US-based oil corporations have gotten little or nothing from Iraq/Afghanistan. As I recall, most of the oil-related money in Iraq is going to Russia and China. The federal government, of course, only lost (our) money, and lots of it.The companies that made money from the invasions were construction and defense contractors. Blackwater and Halliburton made out like kings. US oil and natural gas imports were largely unaffected.I dislike the "no blood for oil" meme, not because I disagree with the sentiment, but because it had really nothing to do with reality. If the US had wanted control of Iraqi oil, we would have it...and we do not.

If you win the winnable battles, and a few that everybody expected you to lose, and lose the ones you could never have won, I doubt you could be described as "blameless", or that you never made a mistake ever, but more importantly why would anyone go looking for your mistakes? Why would anybody be disappointed?Straggler, if you allow yourself to be disappointed every time a politician turns out to be a human being, you're going to go through life getting disappointed a lot. That's not to say I'm never disappointed by our government, either. But I don't think it makes me some kind of apparatchik to look over three years of the Obama administration, add up the "wins" column, and say "you know, a lot of good was done."And why should anyone be disappointed in that? I don't get it.

Well, they expected a pony:Now, did Obama run on a campaign of putting gas in people's cars, paying their mortgages, paying their bills? Did Obama promise that if you elected him, he'd do right by you?Isn't it just a little bit possible, Straggler, that some people's expectations were just a teeny-tiny bit inflated, in part perhaps because of the mocking reference to Obama as the "Messiah" that emerged among conservatives? Or because people, perhaps ignorant of the nature of political power in the US, assumed that the historic election of the nation's first black president meant that black people were in charge of the government, now?If it's your contention that Obama ran on a platform of sweeping symbolism, inspiring ideology, and grand promises to radically remake the American status quo, to make paupers gods and gods paupers, then why haven't you yet provided any evidence to that effect? Maybe I'm just not understanding your point. The disappointment exists because people had completely unreasonable expectations.

The single greatest factor that created disenchantment and disillusionment, that disappointed expectations and that, in hindsight, made Obama's campaign appear unmoored from pragmatic reality, is the unprecedented behavior of the Republican Party.In the past, U.S. political contests were no less hotly contested, but both parties conceded that the victor had received a mandate to govern: the strength of that mandate was often debated, but the minority party was generally inclined to compromise so that the nation's business could be conducted effectively. In addition, each party typically had diverse factions, so that a majority party could peel off more moderate members of the opposition, increasing the political pressure to compromise.It could not be more different today. "Moderate" has become a term of vituperation within the Republican Party; most Republicans in Congress who wore that badge were eliminated in 2010, and the remainder have marched in lockstep opposition to any legislation proposed by Democrats, in many instances, legislation previously championed by the very same Republicans.No previous Republican President--neither the sometimes-pragmatic Bushes nor the tax-raising, compromising Reagan, neither the China-opening Nixon (who proposed universal healthcare and a guaranteed minimum income) nor the military-industrial complex suspecting Eisenhower--could survive this GOP primary season.The Democrats won a fairly strong mandate in 2008--in another era, that would have permitted a Great Society/War on Poverty progressive period that emphasized diplomacy over gunboats and promoted general prosperity (Democratic governments have invariably brought greater prosperity to working and middle-class Americans).So, yeah, I think Obama was a bit naive, in that he expected the long-established political patterns to apply, and thus sought to move into office as a consensus-seeking centrist. But I don't think anyone expected the appearance of a rogue elephant who put political party interests ahead of national interests.In that context, Obama's achievements have been phenomenal: I believe he has the qualities to become one of our greatest presidents, and I think the GOP agrees--unhindered, his achievements would lay the foundation for another long era of Democratic dominance, and Republicans will try to block that regardless of the cost. As I did in 2008, I will donate my time, money and enthusiasm to see he gets another four years.I think Obama will win a second term, in part because the GOP obstructionism and partisanship at any price mentality is so egregiously on display. Their unseeing fury at Obama also blinds them to the political price they are paying for it. If the economy continues to improve (and I believe it will), we will see some startling results in November.Even if the economy stays as it is, I think he will win a second term--because the GOP has gone mad, and most Americans have not.

I am well used to politicians not living up to expectations. You are talking to a man who voted for Tony Blair. What I don't really understand is your position that Obama has met every expectation that anyone who was inspired by his previous election campaign could reasonably have expected.His previous election campaign fostered a great deal of false hope. False hope which you seem, frankly, in denial about. Well finally a chink in the Obama defenders armor!! What personally disappointed you specifically about the Obama administration? Well because more was expected and hoped for. Are ALL of those expectations and hopes completely unfounded and able to be blamed on various personal misconceptions about political realities?Or did Obama and his campaign team bring some of this present disillusionment upon themselves? Either through failing to deliver what they thought they could or giving the impression that they could deliver more than they knew they would be able to?Whilst your staunch defence of the Obama administration is eloquent and in many ways persuasive it is just too frikkin all-encompassing to be realistic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think it's important to understand that Republicans don't think they're doing that; Republicans actually see it very much in the nation's interest to oppose Obama's policies. They're dead wrong about that, but even our most cynical opponents don't go to Washington saying "I'm going to do everything I can to preserve my power for power's sake."The problem, as I keep saying, is systemic. A legislature where action is only possible with the permission of the minority party cannot function sustanably, especially a low-information electorate doesn't give the minority any credit at the polls for compromise. For better or worse, Americans associate the actions of "Congress" entirely with whatever party has the majority. Had Republicans and Democrats come together to pass a truly biparisan health care reform bill, for instance, Americans overwhelmingly would have considered it an Obama victory. Hence Republicans have taken every legal action to deny the President a win. Why shouldn't they, when, for them, political and national interest aligns in doing so? They have no reason not to take every legal option. So, we need to change the laws.We need majority rule in the Senate. We need an end to a single Senator's ability to place any Senate business on indefinite hold. We need an end to the filibuster. We need an end to the enormous number of veto points that give the representatives of 2% of Americans veto power over the wishes of the other 98%. Frankly, I think we need an end to states as a whole; all government in the US should be either municipal or Federal.

Combine that with the false hope and inspiration that his last campaign fostered and I am willing to agree. As I said back in my initial reply Message 16

I agree with you about the need for systemic reforms, especially re the Senate, which has become a House of Rural Lords, but here... I think you're wrong.

I think he's close, at least in many cases.I think many Republicans run to oppose the "leftist agenda," at any cost. It doesn't particularly matter to them what the "leftist agenda" is, as demonstrated by the simultaneous worship of Reagan while opposing policies he would have approved of, such as raising taxes.American politics is often like a bunch of soccer hooligans. I oppose policy x because my opponent supports it; I endorse policy y because my opponent opposes it.I don't think this is the case for every Republican, of course. But the Tea Party and anyone with a passing resemblance to our own Buz who honestly think Obama and the Democrats are the Antichrist and the army of Satan will oppose Obama, full stop, regardless of the policy he supports. Looking at the recent political past, you'd think the Republicans would try to block a Democrat resolution condemning the kicking of puppies.

Your agreement is not required, Blair Boy I don't think Obama created false hope; he created real hope.That taking more than two years to realize that hope had an election impact ("disillusioned" Democrats handed the House of Representatives to the GOP in 2010 by staying home) is testament to the attention deficits and lack of sophistication of the American voter.Obama calculates compromise like an adult.Can I get any of what I want without compromise?
No.Can I get something better than the status quo with compromise?Yes.I like populist, bully pulpit Democrat politicians, and I'm glad that Obama's tone has shifted in that direction. But his calculated compromises have been shrewd and worthwhile.

Isn't that the problem? He did create real hope. And those hopes have not been met? But when those he is compromising with (i.e. the Republican crazy element) are not adults why would this strategy work?

I don't doubt Buz's sincerity. I think most Republican voters are genuinely patriotic and vote from that perspective.I don't grant the same concession to the GOP members of Congress. They are not defending and preserving their vision of America, they are defending and preserving their class and its power.Their political philosophy is contrary to a United States constituted by "We the People"--they serve "We the People Who Count", and the essential qualities that count are money and power.I'm sure they do enjoy an envelope of righteousness, though. People who beat their partners often see it as the only reasonable course. I don't think I need to acknowledge the purity of their motives, either.

Because the result of the compromise is superior to the status quo.

Some of them have, or at least we can see clear evidence that he's trying.Much as I've criticized Obama, he's done an awful lot of good, too. The healthcare bill didn;t go nearly far enough in my opinion, but it's Obama who made it enough of a national issue that we actually passed some sort of reform. And while it's lacking, it does force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, outlaws lifetime maximums, and corrects many other egregious flaws in the private healthcare system. Thanks to "Obamacare," even if I lose my job or change to a job that doesn't offer immediate healthcare, my fiance will continue to receive the medication she needs to survive with a terminal illness, and I'll never have to worry that the thousands of insurance dollars spent on her care every month will overrun our lifetime maximum.Obama has been right on with taxes as well, even if the legislature has had too many Republicans to pass what he proposes. The Bush tax cuts should expire for Americans making over $250,000 in a year, and should be extended for the rest of us. And as I recall, he's also talked about the "Buffet rule," suggesting that capital gains taxes should be adjusted such that Mr. Buffet should no longer pay a lower tax percentage than his secretary...and so that Mitt Romney should no longer pay a percentage roughly half that of an upper-middle-class American.He's far from perfect, but compared to Bush, he may as well have been a Messiah.

But how much better? How much can one compromise before betraying the founding principle at stake? That is surely the source of disappointment and disillusionment that many legitimately feel?