home

Obama No FDR

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:23:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ezra Klein on midterm elections in the first term of a Presidency:

The pattern here is obvious: Losses, and big ones. Except for FDR's first midterm and George W. Bush's post-9/11 victory, there've been no gains at all.

(Emphasis supplied.) A commenter responds:

But the relevant comparison is FDR.

This isn't just a "slump." And he had a *massive* mandate to address it, huge majorities, huge public trust. 70 million voted for hope and change. Millions of us are having our hearts broken or watching those we love have their hearts broken by this economy. If we had any reason to think it would be much better in 5 years, maybe you'd have a point. But we don't.

Yep.

Speaking for me only

< The Substantive Effect Of The "GZM" Debate? | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama No FDR | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    But Obama never wanted to be FDR (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    Said New Deal economics were over, they didn't work.  I'm not sure where Obama got this notion of economics from, but he came into the White House with it.  Is he ever going to be capable of dealing with the Second Great Depression even if he has huge majorities?  

    He didn't want to be FDR on policy, (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    only on the optics.  He wants - badly and visibly - a place in history that would be equal to or better than FDR's (or any former president).  I think this is why he likes to attach "historic" to pretty much anything he does.

    Can he handle another Depression?  No, I don't think he can, not with the advisors he has; I mean, who just wants to keep hearing that double-digit unemployment is something that, oh, well, we're just going to have to get used to?

    And I think you can forget the "huge majorities" thing - that's  adifferent kind of "history."

    One thing's for sure: there are fewer people out here in America who will survive another Depression, and I am sorry to say that I don't think that's terribly upsetting to the elite, who just want more of whatever pie there is for themselves - and the policies of this administration seem to be more consistent with that attitude than with implenting policies and helping get legislation passed that lifts up the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

    Parent

    It makes me overwhelmingly sad (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:06:28 AM EST
    when I read your post because you key in so strongly on how Obama tries to appear and desires to be seen.  But people are really hurting.  Look up a nyceve diary where she is going to the free clinics and making video of the people waiting there for free medical treatment and it is all very clear.  But I have a President who thinks the world is his Hollywood and he's nothing more substantial than an actor.

    And I have come to treat him as nothing more substantial than an actor, but the economy is in serious trouble and families have no stability and can develop no sense of self.

    Parent

    What in his background/experience (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    said he had any notion of any economics?

    Parent
    He wrote a couple of books (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    And made a lot of money.

    <snark>

    Parent

    He made the claims about (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    New Deal economics not working in one of his books.  He must have some sort of background to base his statement on I would think.

    Parent
    Chicago School friends. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by observed on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    I wasn't aware of his comments about New Deal economics. I knew he was pro-Reaganomics and anti-hippie, but I didn't realize he was explicitly anti-SS, etc.

    Parent
    Fixing SS was part of his campaign (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    At one point during an interview, he said that everything was on the table. He backed down and modified his statement somewhat when called on it during a debate with Clinton and Edwards.

    His commission to "fix" SS does not come as a surprise to me.  

    Parent

    Nor I, but if he really said New Deal (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by observed on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    economics don't work, I would take that as a crystal clear signal that SS would be dismantled, as much as possible.
    And whatever he or anyone else says about "privatization" now is meaningless---remember that in 2006, the GOP was officially against "privatization" at a certain point.

    Parent
    Perhaps he learned it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    from "really smart peple"?

    I just can't figure out why anyone would think he was prepared for our true economic situation. . . .  

    Parent

    Remember when he opposed a (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by observed on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:36:17 PM EST
    30% cap on credit card rates (that would be too high, he said), favoring no cap at all instead?

    Parent
    ah, yes. (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:57:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by hookfan on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    whether he personally was prepared for it is irrelevant. That's what economic advisers are for. But then we get Larry and Timmy chosen over others who would have been more focused on serving others than just the big blundering behemoths.
       A counter proposal that is increasingly difficult to honestly deny is that the Obama Administration was prepared for it, and have brought about exactly what they wanted too-- wall street is booming, while the rest of us can eat dirt. Consider Timmy's past dealings with the Asian monetary crises in the 90's-- same story different players. It's a repeat performance.
       Read The Sydney Morning Herald opinion column by Peter Hartcher 3/7/09 for the sad details and how strikingly similar the situation and misdiagnosis by Geithner is. It's astounding. Now it's twice-- so it's on purpose.

    Parent
    Watch out for their next plan (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Untold Story on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:41:16 PM EST
    Some morning within the next two years, we will wake up to the news that our dollar has been devalued - much as Nixon did in 1971.

    Parent
    Banging (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    my head. anybody who didn't expect this behavior from Obama simply wasn't paying attention or looking at his record.

    Do you think Hillary would been much different? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    Corporations own our politicians.

    Parent
    Non-responsive and irrelevant. (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    Obama is the president.  

    He wanted the job - wanted it bad.

    He's had the job for 19 months, long enough to own and take responsibility for his policies, for his action or non-action, for the disconnect between what he says and what he does.

    What anyone else would have done, whether anyone else would have been better or worse or about the same, simply does not matter; but bringing it up - over and over and over - is just a way to avoid accepting the reality of NOW.

    "Hey - look over there!  Hillary Clinton! Sarah Palin!  George Bush!"

    I'm sick of it.

    Parent

    My point was not to excuse Obama's shortcomings. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:15:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Then (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:30:38 PM EST
    why did you ask the question?

    Parent
    It was rhetorical, stating that Obama'shortcomings (none / 0) (#32)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    would probably exist with someone else based on how our government is currently being run.

    Parent
    interesting choice (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    of "someone else"

    Parent
    If you think you're (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    a some sort of starry-eyed political fan site, you're barking up the wrong tree, Ohio. :)

    Parent
    It was rhetorical, stating that his shortcomings (none / 0) (#33)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    would probably exist with someone else based on how our government is currently being run.

    Parent
    I think at this point (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    I would have done a better job.  Not a perfect job, but a better one.

    Parent
    That's some kind of hubris. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Realleft on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    My own sense is that no one can be a good president anymore.  It is too much for any one person.  There hasn't been a highly successful president since....?  Not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush, not Reagan, not Carter, not Nixon, not LBJ, etc.  I don't think it is possible anymore.

    Parent
    Clinton wasn't a good president? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Untold Story on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 06:04:02 PM EST
    Wow - sure wish he were back in the WH!

    Parent
    He wasn't highly successful in the end. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Realleft on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 07:18:00 AM EST
    Kind of obvious.  He pissed away his opportunity.  Ridiculously strung up for indiscretions, but still.  Regardless, still my favorite president in my lifestime.  Yet, things have gotten enormously more difficult since even then, IMO.

    Parent
    Yes he was (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    But I guess it depends on where you set the bar - i.e. whether by "highly successful" to mean closer to very good/effective or you mean perfect.  If you mean the latter (impossible) standard, of course no one would meet it.  If you mean the former, a large majority would disagree.

    BTW - jbindc's original standard was not "highly successful", but "better than Obama".

    Parent

    It takes hubris (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    To run for office.

    Parent
    Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    But it's not hard to do better than Obama. That's kind of like saying Obama is better than Bush.

    And if all the politicians are owned by the corporations then why not just vote for the GOP if you think that? At least they admit that they are owned lock stock and barrel by the special interests.

    Parent

    Complaining about Dems not responding to the (none / 0) (#15)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    people but responding to corporations too much does not mean I think the GOP would be an improvement (or no worse).

    Parent
    Which is why (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    The Dems are counting on the "Where else are you gonna go?" come Election Day.

    Parent
    Its just hilarious the degree (none / 0) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    to which you denigrate Obama's accomplishments and play up his shortcomings.

    Parent
    What accomplishments? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:04:42 PM EST
    Job number one is the economy. Nobody cares about some exchanges that may or may not happen in 2014 except maybe the apologists like you. As a matter of fact, the majority of legislation that he has passed has probably hurt more than it helped.

    Parent
    Hillary's avenging angels (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    hell hath no fury.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    but you have to admit that Obama has done such a piss poor job that you could put an X as another choice and say they would probably do a better job.

    Parent
    nothing to do with it. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    o.k. :)

    Parent
    As is so often stated, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Untold Story on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    we have gone from capitalization to corporatization!

    Parent
    Breaking news (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    Obama no FDR

    I think the attached piece is an interesting take (none / 0) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:16:03 AM EST
    on why Obama has "not been liberal enough."  He may not have been able to since the legislature was too conservative (just because there are a lot of Democrats in Congress does not mean it is liberal).  The American public were screaming for action, perhaps just not progressivism.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/08/what_went_wrong_with_obama.html

    That is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    but I have a few questions.  For example, Sen. Lincoln won re-election in 2004 by something like 10%, even though the state went for GW.  So it's not  like a "Republican state" exists, exactly.  They do vote for Democrats.  And in his last 3 paragraphs I have no idea what Jay Cost is smoking - the GOP is the party of NO.  He is fantasizing as much as he believes Reich to be with those last 3 paragraphs.  

    Finally,

    As for health care, Obama's goal was an FDR- or LBJ-style comprehensive, systematic reform of the system

    Really?  I don't recall Obama directly guiding health care to any particular goal, the approach was more like "give me what you can."

    Parent

    I think the reason Obama has struggled to (none / 0) (#27)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    deliver an FDR type Presidency in spite of big Democratic majorities in Congress is that there are too many Lincolns in the house and senate (Democrats winning in states that voted conservative).  In FDR's congress, the American voter not only voted for a Democratic congressperson/senator, but also FDR.  The Democrats they voted in were also very liberal.  That did not happen with Obama.  There are a lot of Democrats in congress presiding over districts/states that voted for McCain.  That coupled with unified Republican opposition makes driving a progressive agenda extremely difficult.  I am not saying all his arguments hold water, just that when you look at the map and consider some of his arguments, it could be that Obama did not have the mandate for progressivism we may have thought he had.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    I dunno.  I tend to believe it has more to do with framing (and then special interests and all that stuff).  For ex., the public option was popular in Nebraska.  Why not take advantage of this?  Sen. Lincoln even said she supported the public option on her website for a time.  And then BTD documented here the slow, stabby killing of all variants of the public option, and the poor negotiating that led to that fate.

    Parent
    url won't load (none / 0) (#18)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:21:36 PM EST


    Parent
    This statement (none / 0) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    Obama No FDR

    wins the prize for understatement of the year!

    Obama No FDR | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment