Why shouldn't banks be limited to a certain size that would not pose a threat to the entire economy? Why shouldn't they be restricted to specific activities that support personal savings and the financial needs of real businesses? Why shouldn't banks be forbidden to gamble with depositors’ cash, also known as other peoples' money?
It doesn't happen because the government is addicted to the tax revenues from the financial services and doesn't want the banks to go overseas. Let them go overseas: they won't find another country with the cash to bail them out nor the political vulnerability to their lobbyists and cash donations.
The subprime mortgage derivatives generated trillions of investment dollars by bank professionals who failed to research the package offered, failed to assess the viability of the sponsors, and ignored the underfunded reserves. Investment banks are a lot closer to spreadbetting indexes than your traditional gambling bookmaker as they simply let everyone else take the risk secure in the knowledge that the government will bail them out with taxpayer money. At least we should separate retail banking from the pure gambling that is often called investment banking. Another alternative would be to nationalize the banks. If the taxpayer assumes the ultimate risk, he should have ownership.
If Congress actually passes a bill forbidding bailouts but does not break up the enormous banks to a reasonable size, the next financial crisis will again be called a threat to the entire economy and the bailouts repeated. Never before has the intertwined relationship between big business and big government been so obvious to so many Americans. They are demanding change and they will get something that looks like change - but it won’t be adequate to contain the continuing crisis.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Abortion and the Health Reform Bill
The advocates of a woman’s legal right to abortion under the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision were enthusiastic supporters of the Democratic Health Care Reform Bill. But they were appalled at the deal President Obama made with 13 US Representatives to obtain their votes in exchange for an Executive Order that weakens the rights of women for legal abortions.
With little fanfare, with no glaring lights or TV cameras, no East Room speeches, without a photo or a handshake, President Obama did not commemorate this Executive Order with twenty signing pens. The president of NOW, the National Organization of Women, said, “We wished he would storm the ramparts for every one of our issues. It really pains me to conclude that on balance this law is not good for women. It’s health reform has been achieved on the backs of women and at the expense of women.” Other leaders made similar statements.
The new law requires women to make premium payments on most of their coverage and a second, far smaller one, for abortion coverage. Advocates fear that the executive order will make it more difficult to achieve elimination of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. Hyde ought to be repealed because it penalizes women for a completely legal medical procedure – with the approval of President Obama.
There is another issue affected by Obama's Executive Order. In spite of the fact that abortion is legal in all three trimesters under clearly spelled out conditions and regulations, there is a national campaign of legal activities to discourage and intimidate women, doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc. from exercising their rights under the law. The systematic harassment sometimes violates laws when the “educational” efforts become threats and when doctors are murdered.
This anti-abortion campaign has been remarkably effective in making it difficult and expensive for women to exercise their right to abortion. In many communities, no doctors or hospitals will perform this service. Some women must travel significant distances to other cities and states, find a new doctor, bring along a friend or relative, make hospital arrangements, all at significant expense. Abortion services are not available in 87% of the counties of the US.
In the debate before the House of Representatives, virtually every anti-abortion speaker emphasized the sanctity of human life. Who could disagree with that principle and its application to the life and death of a child? But humanitarian and religious principles require that this principle be applied to all human activity: the life and health of the mother, the taking of life by the government by capital punishment, the existence of nuclear weapons that could eliminate all human life on planet Earth. President Obama's political arrangement on abortion has not helped to clarify these difficult issues and has encouraged the public campaign to deny legal rights to American women
With little fanfare, with no glaring lights or TV cameras, no East Room speeches, without a photo or a handshake, President Obama did not commemorate this Executive Order with twenty signing pens. The president of NOW, the National Organization of Women, said, “We wished he would storm the ramparts for every one of our issues. It really pains me to conclude that on balance this law is not good for women. It’s health reform has been achieved on the backs of women and at the expense of women.” Other leaders made similar statements.
The new law requires women to make premium payments on most of their coverage and a second, far smaller one, for abortion coverage. Advocates fear that the executive order will make it more difficult to achieve elimination of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. Hyde ought to be repealed because it penalizes women for a completely legal medical procedure – with the approval of President Obama.
There is another issue affected by Obama's Executive Order. In spite of the fact that abortion is legal in all three trimesters under clearly spelled out conditions and regulations, there is a national campaign of legal activities to discourage and intimidate women, doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc. from exercising their rights under the law. The systematic harassment sometimes violates laws when the “educational” efforts become threats and when doctors are murdered.
This anti-abortion campaign has been remarkably effective in making it difficult and expensive for women to exercise their right to abortion. In many communities, no doctors or hospitals will perform this service. Some women must travel significant distances to other cities and states, find a new doctor, bring along a friend or relative, make hospital arrangements, all at significant expense. Abortion services are not available in 87% of the counties of the US.
In the debate before the House of Representatives, virtually every anti-abortion speaker emphasized the sanctity of human life. Who could disagree with that principle and its application to the life and death of a child? But humanitarian and religious principles require that this principle be applied to all human activity: the life and health of the mother, the taking of life by the government by capital punishment, the existence of nuclear weapons that could eliminate all human life on planet Earth. President Obama's political arrangement on abortion has not helped to clarify these difficult issues and has encouraged the public campaign to deny legal rights to American women
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
No More Bailouts
Americans have had enough of the nightmare of irresponsible big institutions getting bailed out by the US government using their tax dollars. The average citizen on Main Street should not pay for the risky and reckless behavior of corporate giants on Wall Street.
Bailout is the most unpopular word in the language today. In Texas, the Republican nomination for governor was decided when the heavy favorite, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, was derided as “Kay Bailout”, for her vote in the U.S. Senate.
Now, the Senate Democrats have proposed legislation to overhaul financial markets by establishing government scrutiny and regulation to almost any financial product, from payday loans to workers to derivative trades by investment bankers.
The bill's prospects are unclear. So far it has no Republican support and the lobbyists hired by financial interests are already on the attack. But their defense was destroyed when they took the bailout money to remain solvent. When they begged the US government to loan them trillions of dollars to save them from bankruptcy, they put themselves in the hands of the federal government obligated to make sure it never happens again.
Hence the absolute requirement for regulation of trading, for adequate capital, for consumer protection, for mortgage regulation, for transparent records, etc. When an institution needs a rescue to survive, it gives away part of its independence. If they are too big to fail because their failure will have negative consequences to the entire American and world economies, they must be restrained in conducting business in a manner that increases the risk of failure.
We all know that financial institutions and big business have enormous power in Washington. They will resist most serious reforms and effective regulation or at least try to weaken them. The battle will be a serious test of American democracy. If serious regulation does not establish controls over outright gambling with other people's money, over deceptive practices, over risk-taking for bonus payments, the nation will have capitulated to practices that could bring down the Republic.
We can't have anymore of this business of, heads I win, tails you lose. The national interest must be protected. No more gambling with depositors’ money with the assurance that the government will bail out the losses and a fat bonus will await the gambler if the house wins.
Bailout is the most unpopular word in the language today. In Texas, the Republican nomination for governor was decided when the heavy favorite, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, was derided as “Kay Bailout”, for her vote in the U.S. Senate.
Now, the Senate Democrats have proposed legislation to overhaul financial markets by establishing government scrutiny and regulation to almost any financial product, from payday loans to workers to derivative trades by investment bankers.
The bill's prospects are unclear. So far it has no Republican support and the lobbyists hired by financial interests are already on the attack. But their defense was destroyed when they took the bailout money to remain solvent. When they begged the US government to loan them trillions of dollars to save them from bankruptcy, they put themselves in the hands of the federal government obligated to make sure it never happens again.
Hence the absolute requirement for regulation of trading, for adequate capital, for consumer protection, for mortgage regulation, for transparent records, etc. When an institution needs a rescue to survive, it gives away part of its independence. If they are too big to fail because their failure will have negative consequences to the entire American and world economies, they must be restrained in conducting business in a manner that increases the risk of failure.
We all know that financial institutions and big business have enormous power in Washington. They will resist most serious reforms and effective regulation or at least try to weaken them. The battle will be a serious test of American democracy. If serious regulation does not establish controls over outright gambling with other people's money, over deceptive practices, over risk-taking for bonus payments, the nation will have capitulated to practices that could bring down the Republic.
We can't have anymore of this business of, heads I win, tails you lose. The national interest must be protected. No more gambling with depositors’ money with the assurance that the government will bail out the losses and a fat bonus will await the gambler if the house wins.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Military Influence in the US
In this period of American military dominance, generals and admirals have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Four-Star General David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, oversees US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of the greater Middle East. He is the likely choice to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he will again be in the public spotlight. His recent lower profile was suggested by the Obama White House.
His extensive wartime experience and proven ability to negotiate on Capitol Hill have made General Petraeus a formidable political personality should he choose that venue after retirement. He regularly denies interest in becoming president of the United States, sometimes without being asked. He invokes the famous remark of William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War general who made the stunningly clear response to presidential ambition: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." Other notable generals found the call irresistible: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight David Eisenhower, so far.
However, that is not the end of the matter. The ascendancy of Petraeus has come during a period in American history in which military leaders have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Petraeus and his counterpart commanders in the Pacific, in Europe and in Latin America meet regularly with the politically powerful in foreign capitals, as well as in Washington, DC. Some observers point to their clout as evidence that US foreign policy has become militarized under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is difficult to deflect this argument when the US is engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is intervening in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, is authorized to chase Al Qaeda militarily into any or all of the 192 countries on earth, and operates 761 military bases in 147 countries.
His extensive wartime experience and proven ability to negotiate on Capitol Hill have made General Petraeus a formidable political personality should he choose that venue after retirement. He regularly denies interest in becoming president of the United States, sometimes without being asked. He invokes the famous remark of William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War general who made the stunningly clear response to presidential ambition: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." Other notable generals found the call irresistible: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight David Eisenhower, so far.
However, that is not the end of the matter. The ascendancy of Petraeus has come during a period in American history in which military leaders have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Petraeus and his counterpart commanders in the Pacific, in Europe and in Latin America meet regularly with the politically powerful in foreign capitals, as well as in Washington, DC. Some observers point to their clout as evidence that US foreign policy has become militarized under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is difficult to deflect this argument when the US is engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is intervening in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, is authorized to chase Al Qaeda militarily into any or all of the 192 countries on earth, and operates 761 military bases in 147 countries.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
America's Soft Power
The United States cannot solve the problems of the world on its own, and the world cannot solve them without the United States.
As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.
During his first year in office, Obama followed through by launching negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs, searching for common ground with Russia on arms control and missile defense, and softening economic sanctions against Cuba.
The jury is still out on whether the Obama initiatives will bear fruit, but it is a start and a welcome improvement from the George W. Bush reliance on hard power. But much more must be done to translate Obama’s effective rhetoric into a softening of policy, a softening more likely to increase the security of America and the rest of the world. If President Obama were to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, then reduce the enormous US military budget, close some of the 761 US military bases in 147 countries, he would set the stage for America to inspire and lead the world by using the panoply of its soft power.
As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.
During his first year in office, Obama followed through by launching negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs, searching for common ground with Russia on arms control and missile defense, and softening economic sanctions against Cuba.
The jury is still out on whether the Obama initiatives will bear fruit, but it is a start and a welcome improvement from the George W. Bush reliance on hard power. But much more must be done to translate Obama’s effective rhetoric into a softening of policy, a softening more likely to increase the security of America and the rest of the world. If President Obama were to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, then reduce the enormous US military budget, close some of the 761 US military bases in 147 countries, he would set the stage for America to inspire and lead the world by using the panoply of its soft power.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Dick Cheney’s Path to Bipartisanship
President Obama has finally achieved the bipartisanship for which he has been virtually begging since his agenda collapsed in Congress in the first year of his term. And the Republican partisan who showed him the way was former Vice President Richard Cheney, the meanest gun in politics. In his recent exchanges with Vice President Joe Biden, Cheney opposed virtually every Obama policy except for one: Cheney approves Obama policy in Afghanistan.
Finally, Obama knows how to get bipartisan support: concentrate on military intervention abroad, For generations, the presidents of both parties have unified the nation by fighting undeclared wars all over the world. The parties draw together to support the US troops sent abroad to fight "Just" wars and to establish American military bases, a Roman strategy without the pizza.
Cheney's approval arrives just in time to help Obama replace his failed agenda to reform health care, to regulate financial institutions, to solve the crisis in unemployment. With the Congress in total gridlock over domestic matters, Obama will gain political approval from Republicans and Independents by concentrating on Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran waiting-on-call followed by likely insurgencies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Priorities determine bipartisanship. Cut Medicare but capture Osama Bin Laden.
By the November elections, the Obama Administration will have united the nation against the Taliban. After overwhelming force has pacified Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will design governments for other foreign nations. They will not fret at military occupation accompanied by the rebuilding of their homes and factories at US expense.
This scenario should satisfy American voters for at least the next two elections, keeping us safe abroad but shaky at home. It is likely to gain the support of those who believe America should use its incomparable strength, the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Cheney will encourage Obama by his grudging approval. The Congress will provide the necessary trillions with only a rare dissenting vote. And President Barack Obama will have achieved his ultimate goal, the unity of the nation in support of the bipartisan goals of "Just" wars to rescue humanity and to persuade everyone to love him.
Finally, Obama knows how to get bipartisan support: concentrate on military intervention abroad, For generations, the presidents of both parties have unified the nation by fighting undeclared wars all over the world. The parties draw together to support the US troops sent abroad to fight "Just" wars and to establish American military bases, a Roman strategy without the pizza.
Cheney's approval arrives just in time to help Obama replace his failed agenda to reform health care, to regulate financial institutions, to solve the crisis in unemployment. With the Congress in total gridlock over domestic matters, Obama will gain political approval from Republicans and Independents by concentrating on Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran waiting-on-call followed by likely insurgencies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Priorities determine bipartisanship. Cut Medicare but capture Osama Bin Laden.
By the November elections, the Obama Administration will have united the nation against the Taliban. After overwhelming force has pacified Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will design governments for other foreign nations. They will not fret at military occupation accompanied by the rebuilding of their homes and factories at US expense.
This scenario should satisfy American voters for at least the next two elections, keeping us safe abroad but shaky at home. It is likely to gain the support of those who believe America should use its incomparable strength, the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Cheney will encourage Obama by his grudging approval. The Congress will provide the necessary trillions with only a rare dissenting vote. And President Barack Obama will have achieved his ultimate goal, the unity of the nation in support of the bipartisan goals of "Just" wars to rescue humanity and to persuade everyone to love him.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Soft Power vs. US Military Budget
President Obama has proposed a freeze on 17% of the discretionary items in the federal budget over the next three years. These cuts affect domestic social expenditures that improve conditions of living in the United States. They are regrettable because they diminish US standard of living and reduce part of the government stimulus to our faltering economy.
At the same time, the President increased the US military budget significantly. His budget request for defense is 708 billion dollars but this number does not include spending for nuclear weapons and other military expenses tucked neatly into the budgets of other departments. In addition, every year the Congress makes supplemental appropriations to pay for current wars. The grand total for the year will be at least $1 trillion, spending more on the US military than all other nations on earth combined.
Since September 11, 2001, the Pentagon's budget has more than doubled in just nine years and a significant portion is spent outside the US to finance two unpopular wars and 761 American military bases in 147 countries. The size of America’s armed forces is about one and one-half million (1,500,000) and about five hundred thousand (500,000) are stationed overseas The people of every nation dislike military occupation by foreign soldiers. But American soldiers in foreign countries can give the rulers of these countries, dictators or democrats, a sense of security in the implied promise of US military support in crises. Is this an involuntary commitment to intervention? Does the American military presence inhibit those seeking change?
.
With President Obama's 2011 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. Foreign investors are lending us about half of our national debt and China and Japan provide half of that sum. China’s share is growing faster.
Some at the Pentagon are worrying that America's destiny, financial and political, may be in the control of a potential rival - and all without a shot being fired. Can we afford to be the policeman of the world? Are we overextending ourselves financially and militarily? Or do we believe that we can take unnecessary risks because we are too big to fail?
From the dawn of recorded history, no nation has surrendered its preeminence – and the United States shouldn’t and wouldn’t. Is there an alternative to our current outrageous waste of lives, money and resources? Joseph S. Nye Jr, Professor at Harvard University with hands-on experience in statecraft, advocates Smart Power, combining hard and soft power. "The United States can become a Smart Power by once again investing in global public goods - providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain on their own. Achieving economic development, securing public health, coping with climate change… all require leadership from the United States. By complementing its military and economic might with greater investments in its soft power, the United States can....... tackle tough global challenges.”
At the same time, the President increased the US military budget significantly. His budget request for defense is 708 billion dollars but this number does not include spending for nuclear weapons and other military expenses tucked neatly into the budgets of other departments. In addition, every year the Congress makes supplemental appropriations to pay for current wars. The grand total for the year will be at least $1 trillion, spending more on the US military than all other nations on earth combined.
Since September 11, 2001, the Pentagon's budget has more than doubled in just nine years and a significant portion is spent outside the US to finance two unpopular wars and 761 American military bases in 147 countries. The size of America’s armed forces is about one and one-half million (1,500,000) and about five hundred thousand (500,000) are stationed overseas The people of every nation dislike military occupation by foreign soldiers. But American soldiers in foreign countries can give the rulers of these countries, dictators or democrats, a sense of security in the implied promise of US military support in crises. Is this an involuntary commitment to intervention? Does the American military presence inhibit those seeking change?
.
With President Obama's 2011 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. Foreign investors are lending us about half of our national debt and China and Japan provide half of that sum. China’s share is growing faster.
Some at the Pentagon are worrying that America's destiny, financial and political, may be in the control of a potential rival - and all without a shot being fired. Can we afford to be the policeman of the world? Are we overextending ourselves financially and militarily? Or do we believe that we can take unnecessary risks because we are too big to fail?
From the dawn of recorded history, no nation has surrendered its preeminence – and the United States shouldn’t and wouldn’t. Is there an alternative to our current outrageous waste of lives, money and resources? Joseph S. Nye Jr, Professor at Harvard University with hands-on experience in statecraft, advocates Smart Power, combining hard and soft power. "The United States can become a Smart Power by once again investing in global public goods - providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain on their own. Achieving economic development, securing public health, coping with climate change… all require leadership from the United States. By complementing its military and economic might with greater investments in its soft power, the United States can....... tackle tough global challenges.”
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Barack Obama - The Bipartisan President
Barack Obama is back in his campaigning mode where he is most comfortable, demonstrating his unthreatening personality, his good looks, his oratorical skills, this time not directed at his own election but to offer bipartisanship to the nation as a substitute for problem solving.
Some might say that his administration has been bipartisan from inception. How else can he explain that the most powerful positions in his government are filled by holdovers from the George W. Bush administration, Republicans all, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Central Command General David Petraeus, to name only a few.
These appointments are easily understood if we listen to Obama's rhetoric. In his State of the Union address, his most pressing theme was an appeal to Congressional Republicans for bipartisanship help, this from a president with the greatest political power since FDR, controlling the White House, the U.S. Senate, the US House of Representatives by wide margins, soon to control the US Supreme Court with the next vacancy, the prime recipient of political contributions from Wall Street and corporate America.
This young and popular president finds it necessary to confess to Congressional Republicans at a meeting he requested, that he was not an "ideologue," that his health reform bill was not a "Bolshevik plot", that "the American people...... didn't send us to Washington to fight each other....., they sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done....."
Quite a defensive statement from the elected leader of Earth's only superpower.
President Obama knows that it is virtually impossible for the Congress to pass controversial legislation in an election-year, especially year 2010. Republicans, Democrats and independents are already complaining about failures to solve domestic and foreign problems in 2009, assigning most of the blame to the Democrats, the party in power and especially to the new and inexperienced president.
President Obama’s answer is bipartisanship, that the country's problems require unity of purpose and action, that he is ready, willing, even anxious to forgo political advantage to obtain the cooperation of the Republicans. And he can prove this by his unprecedented outreach to the rival party, his continuous praise of Ronald Reagan, and above all by his appointment of key Republican leaders to key administration posts.
Obama may even believe in bipartisanship rather than the political clash of economic and social interests expected in a democratic society. However, confronted with expectations greater than he can satisfy, Obama’s turn to bipartisanship may help the Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections and Obama when he runs for his second term in 2012. He may not be able to solve the nation's problems with bipartisanship, but he may be able to convince the voters to reassess the blame and to spread it broadly
Some might say that his administration has been bipartisan from inception. How else can he explain that the most powerful positions in his government are filled by holdovers from the George W. Bush administration, Republicans all, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, Central Command General David Petraeus, to name only a few.
These appointments are easily understood if we listen to Obama's rhetoric. In his State of the Union address, his most pressing theme was an appeal to Congressional Republicans for bipartisanship help, this from a president with the greatest political power since FDR, controlling the White House, the U.S. Senate, the US House of Representatives by wide margins, soon to control the US Supreme Court with the next vacancy, the prime recipient of political contributions from Wall Street and corporate America.
This young and popular president finds it necessary to confess to Congressional Republicans at a meeting he requested, that he was not an "ideologue," that his health reform bill was not a "Bolshevik plot", that "the American people...... didn't send us to Washington to fight each other....., they sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done....."
Quite a defensive statement from the elected leader of Earth's only superpower.
President Obama knows that it is virtually impossible for the Congress to pass controversial legislation in an election-year, especially year 2010. Republicans, Democrats and independents are already complaining about failures to solve domestic and foreign problems in 2009, assigning most of the blame to the Democrats, the party in power and especially to the new and inexperienced president.
President Obama’s answer is bipartisanship, that the country's problems require unity of purpose and action, that he is ready, willing, even anxious to forgo political advantage to obtain the cooperation of the Republicans. And he can prove this by his unprecedented outreach to the rival party, his continuous praise of Ronald Reagan, and above all by his appointment of key Republican leaders to key administration posts.
Obama may even believe in bipartisanship rather than the political clash of economic and social interests expected in a democratic society. However, confronted with expectations greater than he can satisfy, Obama’s turn to bipartisanship may help the Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections and Obama when he runs for his second term in 2012. He may not be able to solve the nation's problems with bipartisanship, but he may be able to convince the voters to reassess the blame and to spread it broadly
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Aftershocks from the Massachusetts Earthquake
The Democrats in the White House say that Martha Coakley's political mistakes were the prime factors in her impossible defeat. There is some truth in that - but not a lot.
The Democrats in Massachusetts say that the Obama administration’s political mistakes were the prime factors in Coakley's impossible defeat. There is some truth in that - probably a lot. Scott Brown's prime issue was Obama’s health care reform bill.
During the campaign, Scott Brown said repeatedly that he approved and advocated water boarding of prisoners, a technique of torture that was dropped by the Bush administration after it was used for years. Neither the Boston Globe nor Martha Coakley passed this important information on to the voters.
Many Americans express their regret that there are so few women in the U.S. Senate. This was an issue in the Democratic Senate Primary but disappeared in the January 19 election.
Another disappearance was the viability of Ted Kennedy's legacy. He surely would have campaigned and voted for Coakley as his widow Vicki pointed out repeatedly. Yet the Kennedy endorsement was virtually ignored by the voters. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
Obama, Bush and Clinton all promised to end hyper partisanship but the votes on health-care reform show that Obama is the latest president to fail to achieve reconciliation. American government is dysfunctional even when a party has a strong majority.
The US war in Afghanistan was not an important factor in the Massachusetts election although Brown supported the invasion and Coakley opposed it. When there is no draft or a tax to pay for the war, there is a tendency to pretend that we are not at war at all.
President Obama's approval rating is down to 46% but the White House has an idea to get it back up again. Just bring back Bush and Cheney for a week.
The Democrats in Massachusetts say that the Obama administration’s political mistakes were the prime factors in Coakley's impossible defeat. There is some truth in that - probably a lot. Scott Brown's prime issue was Obama’s health care reform bill.
During the campaign, Scott Brown said repeatedly that he approved and advocated water boarding of prisoners, a technique of torture that was dropped by the Bush administration after it was used for years. Neither the Boston Globe nor Martha Coakley passed this important information on to the voters.
Many Americans express their regret that there are so few women in the U.S. Senate. This was an issue in the Democratic Senate Primary but disappeared in the January 19 election.
Another disappearance was the viability of Ted Kennedy's legacy. He surely would have campaigned and voted for Coakley as his widow Vicki pointed out repeatedly. Yet the Kennedy endorsement was virtually ignored by the voters. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
Obama, Bush and Clinton all promised to end hyper partisanship but the votes on health-care reform show that Obama is the latest president to fail to achieve reconciliation. American government is dysfunctional even when a party has a strong majority.
The US war in Afghanistan was not an important factor in the Massachusetts election although Brown supported the invasion and Coakley opposed it. When there is no draft or a tax to pay for the war, there is a tendency to pretend that we are not at war at all.
President Obama's approval rating is down to 46% but the White House has an idea to get it back up again. Just bring back Bush and Cheney for a week.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Political Decline of President Barack Obama
The election in Massachusetts to replace Senator Edward M. Kennedy may turn out to be not as close as advertised. But it does highlight the political decline of President Barack Obama, only one year into his term. The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, is an inexperienced State Senator virtually unknown in Massachusetts and the nation only a few months ago, just like Obama was when he began thinking about running for president.
Obama is a gifted politician and he knows it. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”
Right now, he is disappointing all of them. Let us count the ways
Obama has failed in his courtship of the Republicans despite his appointments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, two Bush Republicans running the most important sectors of our government. Obama’s concessions to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, his bailouts of the nation's banks and auto companies have not gained him a single GOP vote in Congress.
The progressives/liberals in the Democratic Party are disillusioned by the priority given to saving the big banks, the failure to control corporate bonuses in bailed out companies, the military surge in Afghanistan, the compromises in health care reform, the failure to close the notorious prison at Guantanamo, etc.
The independents are also slipping away from Obama. Their perceptions are dominated by his inability to solve problems, his predilection for talk over action, the lack of a serious plan to reduce unemployment, a seemingly endless series of wars without resolution, and above all the failure to get things done in Washington. The bewildering complexities of health-care reform and the long period of indecision on the Afghanistan War have caused a decline of confidence in Obama and his administration.
In this political crisis, Obama has significant loyalists: African-Americans, Latinos, liberals still hopeful. And many Americans are personally bound to Obama by his personal attractiveness, his remarkable powers of oratory, his intellectual capacity, and the symbolism of his election as a break through for racial equality. His charming personality, attractive appearance, and likability, all help to keep him afloat in this political storm. But we chose a new and gloriously different president out of hope for serious change. And he hasn't delivered that - yet.
Obama is a gifted politician and he knows it. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”
Right now, he is disappointing all of them. Let us count the ways
Obama has failed in his courtship of the Republicans despite his appointments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, two Bush Republicans running the most important sectors of our government. Obama’s concessions to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, his bailouts of the nation's banks and auto companies have not gained him a single GOP vote in Congress.
The progressives/liberals in the Democratic Party are disillusioned by the priority given to saving the big banks, the failure to control corporate bonuses in bailed out companies, the military surge in Afghanistan, the compromises in health care reform, the failure to close the notorious prison at Guantanamo, etc.
The independents are also slipping away from Obama. Their perceptions are dominated by his inability to solve problems, his predilection for talk over action, the lack of a serious plan to reduce unemployment, a seemingly endless series of wars without resolution, and above all the failure to get things done in Washington. The bewildering complexities of health-care reform and the long period of indecision on the Afghanistan War have caused a decline of confidence in Obama and his administration.
In this political crisis, Obama has significant loyalists: African-Americans, Latinos, liberals still hopeful. And many Americans are personally bound to Obama by his personal attractiveness, his remarkable powers of oratory, his intellectual capacity, and the symbolism of his election as a break through for racial equality. His charming personality, attractive appearance, and likability, all help to keep him afloat in this political storm. But we chose a new and gloriously different president out of hope for serious change. And he hasn't delivered that - yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
