I want to make a couple of points today. First, let’s look at a bit from Ron Brownstein on what distinguishes today’s Democratic Party from the party of 1994.
Today, Democrats face much the same electoral challenge as they did then: unyielding opposition from congressional Republicans and a growing grassroots conservative backlash. But after some wavering, Democrats this time have mostly responded by closing ranks, especially in the dramatic drive to complete health care reform. Democrats remain divided on immigration, climate change, and some other issues, but they have united enough to make this arguably the most productive legislative session for any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson.
I don’t think it is even arguable, but if you want to find a more productive legislative session in either Carter or Clinton’s terms in office, please provide some links and justification.
Next, I want to look at a bit from Chris Bowers, who examined the size of public sector spending on social programs as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Since fiscal year 2007, the last budgetary year of Republican trifecta governance in Washington, D.C., total public sector spending on social programs (that is, public spending that does not include defense, criminal justice, interest payments, or general government administration) has increased by 7.66% of GDP. The only other time in American history where social program spending increased by that amount was from 1929 to 1939, when it increased by 7.86% of GDP. Even during the Great Society expansion of 1961 to 1972, total public sector program spending only increased by 5.11% of GDP.
Never before have the people watched with such an intense microscope the daily doings of Washington. We know about backroom deals before they can even be signed into law. We’re twittering with the White House press secretary and participating on conference calls with the president’s advisers (or reading articles from ordinary citizens who sat on those calls). We’re way deep into the sausage-making of legislation, even lobbying votes at the committee level. This is all positive for transparency and good government and responsiveness to the party base, but it has its downside. The downside is that the ugly details and the disappointing compromises and the broken promises become so prominent in our thinking that we can lose a bit of perspective. We are in the midst of the most successful Democratically-controlled Congress since LBJ left office, and the biggest boost in social spending since FDR was leading the country through the New Deal reforms. And, so many of us are still disgruntled. But Chris has something to say about keeping perspective.
Progressives didn’t get close to everything we wanted, and it sure as hell isn’t the job of progressives to be satisfied or happy. However, [David] Frum is absolutely right that conservatives have still suffered a crushing defeat that is highly unlikely to ever be reversed. Even if some of the ideas in the health reform bill came from Republicans, the idea of expanding public sector spending on social programs most definitely did not. Over the past four years, public sector spending on social programs has increased by an amount equivalent to, or greater than, the New Deal and the Great Society. We have a long way to go, but it is still a generational achievement to be proud of.
Now, here’s the thing. While it might not be the job of progressives to be satisfied, I see nothing wrong with being happy. It’s just a matter of perspective.
The tendency of “progressives” to explain that they have been betrayed, thrown under the bus, and let down by a corrupt and fundamentally worthless Democratic administration and congress is not a product of idealism or high moral standards, but is instead of product of the success of the Powell Program and right-wing indoctrination. The deliberate and brilliant marketing effort of the right to brand “liberalism” as an ineffectual and weak doctrine of whiny “elitists” is the kool-aid we all drink – it’s in the water. That’s why we see the wailing of defeat of American liberals on Obama’s drilling ploy – as if the massive public investment in green energy Obama’s team won last year DID NOT HAPPEN. Because we live in the narrative where the liberals always lose and we believe it in the face of contradictory reality just as much as right wing morons earning $50K/year are convinced that their taxes went up when they really went down.
People like you kill me. In Obama’s “Drill, Baby, Drill!!”” speech, where was the mention that the offshore oil here would only last a few years. Where was the mention of the leases that the oil companies have plenty of leases already, that they aren’t using? Where is the rhetoric of FDR? Meaning that FDR constantly talked about how the Republicans had failed. He basically drilled it into everyone that their policies were a failure and had lead to where the country was then. Why can’t Obama do that? Did you see what Atrios said the other day about Geithner’s comments on unemployment?
Exactly my point: Obama’s administration has in reality kicked Wind and Goethermal and photovoltaic industries in the US into high gear. In 2009, when US business as a whole was in the freezer, installed wind power reached 10gw with a record breaking pace – due 100% to stimulus money. So the reality on the ground is changing, and you want to weep about what points Obama didn’t mention in his speech. Weird
And for the record, Atrios is a fucking idiot who has not had the honesty or decency to revisit his grossly wrong and essentially defamatory coverage of Giethner’s handling of the bank crisis because it would force him to eat flocks of crows.
He’s not an idiot.
I think he’s been right more often than wrong on economic matters. I agree he was unfair to Geithner, but I don’t disagree with many of his criticisms.
I’m sorry, but Duncan argued that the Geithner plan was OBVIOUSLY going to fail, that we’d be forced to nationalize anyway, that TARP money was coming back only in the dreams of naive idiots, that Geithner’s policies were based on his support of “bankster” looting, that Obama was fecklessly naive for keeping “Timmeh” on staff, that PPIP was rigged to make money for banks at public expense (via a moronic “expected value” argument), and so on. On the other hand, he never examined the use of TARP money to save the auto industry and the unprecedentedly strong line that Ravitch/Obama took on bondholders, he has ignored the strong line on TARP repayment and warrant sales, ignored the tax fairness implications of the stimulus tax cuts, ignored the way PPIP actually played out, forgot to mention that the terrible Maiden Lane “bankster giveaway” is going to make the Feds a profit, and on and on.
Duncan took ride on a stupid narrative in 2008 and he forgot to get off.
TARP includes a lot of things, not just Citibank and J.P Morgan. Just because the Big 6(as I think they are called) paiid their TARP money back doesn’t mean it’s that great .. also .. Atrios has been saying all along that people needed principal mods on their mortgages .. and only now does it seem like Timmeh!! and Co. have even thought about doing that .. so Atrios isn’t as wrong as you think
Geithner, despite Atrios predictions and nasty remarks (unthinkingly repeated from Luntz, BTW) has gotten most of our money back from the banks despite the reckless way Bush/Paulson doled it out.
As for the mortgage mod, I don’t buy it either as economic policy or political tactic. One of the many flaws in Duncan’s shitty economics analysis is his continued assumption that reinflating the real-estate bubble is a great fucking idea.
For the record.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/26/news/economy/tarp_profit.fortune/index.htm
Nobody could have predicted this January 20 2010 without being called a starry eyed fool.
And given the mountain of attacks on “Timmeh” from people like Black since then, it’s a disgrace, a confession of vast dishonesty, that they have not discussed the implications of this massive change in the balance sheet.
2008 is what I meant.
Atrios isn’t for re-inflating the bubble .. so I don’t know where you get that idea .. his point about principal mods were for people who could otherwise remain in their homes .. not of people that got laid off .. or otherwise can’t afford the homes .. it’s Obama and by extension Timmeh!! that want to re-inflate it because then all the bank problems would be solved .. speaking of your hero Timmeh!!:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/3/853806/-Uh-Oh:-Robert-Reich-on-the-Federal-Reserve
The day I trust NAFTA Reich is quite distant and, as usual, he has no idea what he is talking about or he is lying. There was no secret deal
Here is JP Morgan’s 2008 press release describing Fed funding of the deal.
http://www.jpmorgan.com/cm/cs?pagename=JPM_redesign/JPM_Content_C/Generic_Detail_Page_Template&c
id=1159339104093&c=JPM_Content_C
The usual crappola – one does not have to even know anything about it to see it’s crap. All you have to do is see that Reich, the putz, is quoting Jim DeMint approvingly. I don’t understand the appeal of being a patsy for Republican scams, but apparently there is something in it that appeals to you.
Not to mention that Jefferson’s worries weren’t about that, it was just that Jefferson hated banks: he was constantly in debt.
Second, Hamilton’s vision of a banking system has more or less been vindicated as the proper way we should have done it. Canada modeled their system on Hamilton’s views, and they have the best and strongest banking sector in the world. Their conservative party attempted to take away a lot of those regulations in the 2000’s, but were stopped (thankfully).
I haven’t read much into this Fed story, but I suspect that it’s more than likely a load of bullocks. All of this anti-Fed fomenting on the left worries me. I hope it doesn’t pick up enough steam to actually carry into policy decisions, but the House has already passed their bill to audit it and essentially put Congress in charge of setting policy. That’s dangerous.
You think The Fed doesn’t do politics? And is always neutral? Look up Arthur Burns and the Nixon years. Putting Congress in charge of policy? What policy? I guess you haven’t noticed that the Fed’s balance sheet has exploded the past two years. That has an effect on policy.
Did I say that they’re always neutral and don’t play politics on occasion?
You implied that. Besides, you know what the mandate of The Fed is, right? They sure don’t seem to care about one part.
My worry isn’t even necessarily politicization, it’s the constant gridlock of Congress not wanting to do anything, mixed with their lack of any economic knowledge. Putting Congress in charge of monetary policy is about as sound as allowing the American people to vote on what the Fed does.
They couldn’t have done all of the lending that they’ve done with Congress in charge. I’m aware that they’re supposed to be concerned with employment, and I wish they did more about it, especially with QE. However, I’m not convinced that they have that much control over employment right now when it’s obvious that the lack of demand is what’s driving it.
Here’s my belief, just as Mark Thoma believes:
Congress is in the way right now; they’re the ones most responsible for the part of the mandate that’s not being accomplished. There’s not much more that they can do, especially without forcing the balance sheet to balloon even more than it already is.
I would like Obama and Geithner to stop pussyfooting and just tell us what they want Congress to do. They told the bloggers in that off the record meeting that they know what to do but Congress is in the way. They never take this to the public, though. So if Congress is in the way, let us know! Stop telling us “well we want to do something, but Congress…” Tell us what you want to do so we can aptly apply pressure. We don’t have any direction.
Stop telling us “well we want to do something, but Congress…” Tell us what you want to do so we can aptly apply pressure. We don’t have any direction.
Which is something Atrios has been advocating. But anyway, it just further highlights the problem with Obama and his economic team.
Patsy? Who is the patsy? Quoting a J.P. Morgan press release as gospel? Now tell me who is being the patsy?
beep beep
Are tiresome. He’s a member of the subset that had their utility in opposition. They suck in the political and policy debates of actual governance.
I suppose the shakeout was inevitable. Uncomfortable if you know and like the principals, but I don’t, so whatever.
Showing up in Harlem for that all white blogger conference with the Big Dog was pretty damn tone deaf.
It’s really hard to reconcile the bleating about the MSM and the Village (or Wall Street banksters) with that kind of access.
They were on the TEAM and it went horribly wrong. Shit happens. But it makes for an easy excuse when bumping up against their own limitations. A couple of thoughtful paragraphs against the politics and/or policy of a particular issue? That’s outside of scope.
Toss out another Obamarahm snark bomb. Any idiot can do that.
I think Obama could do more to highlight how badly the Republicans governed the country, but FDR could not get away with what he did in today’s America. There’s less deference to the president, Obama has many fewer seats in Congress to work with, you have the 60 vote threshold now, and the right-wing media is dominant. Plus, after living through the Reagan Revolution, a lot of right-wing crap is ingrained in the minds of people. So, yeah, Obama is probably too accommodating, but he can’t just go out and bash corporate America like FDR did and think he’ll win that argument.
FDR had a constituency of independent farmers, unionized workers, and local small businesses to talk to. All of the above are now decimated. Unions need corporate bandits to thrive if they want their pensions to survive. Independent farmers are essentially extinct. Small businesses largely suck at the corporate teat, and the rest buy into the corporate propaganda spewed by their own “associations”. Even the most lefty middle-class worker anxiously watches the stock reports for auguries of job security, pension outlook, and housing values.
We are living under new rulers following a successful coup by the very worst cabals in America — see John Thain if you need a posterboy. Which may help explain Obama’s strange pingponging between populist rhetoric and accommodation with the parasite class. It took the Great Depression to get the stables of finance cleaned out for a while. Obama probably headed off a similar cleansing moment, one which would have been far more painful for the people who least deserve the consequences. Revolution hurts. Did we really expect any president elected under a corrupt system to overthrow it? Did we really expect a cowed and dependent populace to follow him if he tried it?
I suppose we should also be happy about Obama’s Afghanistan surge “ploy” and his imprisonment sans trial “ploy” and his insurance company friendly health bill “ploy”.
Strokes of genius.
Reality is what it is. Feel betrayed if you want to.
“Change you can believe in” indeed.
Absolutely. I think record setting growth in wind power industry is actual change.
I notice you didn’t address what Ed J. actually noted.
If the argument is that Obama’s policies are to the right of what we want, sure. If the “argument” is repetition of a Republican spin point – the sneering “change you can believe in”, then my response is to stop being a chump. Many substantive things have changed during this administration – more than we had a right to expect given how things are. People who want to pretend otherwise are either Republican propagandists or chumps.
don’t like the “change” quote is that it makes your idol’s clay feet a little too visible.
My idol? Listen to yourself- you are repeating Luntzian spin points. Obama is far from perfect, although I have yet to meet anyone who disagrees, but his election has made a huge positive change in America. The reasons I do not like your Luntzian sneer are that it reinforces the Republican idea that no success is possible and also it is fundamentally a lie. Some things have changed for the better – important things.
And as for that “your idol” stuff – fuck off. I’ve grown as impatient with that bullshit as I have with the equally stupid “socialism” taunts of the Republicans.
Repeating spin points?
I was repeating Obama’s campaign slogan.
Yes, just like Sarah Palin.
And repeating your timeworn “idol/fanboi/cultist” meme. How do you view what you’re doing? Just venting? Preparing the ground for Nader or Kucinich or somebody? Forcing Obama and the Dems leftward? Accelerating the final dissolution of the empire?
I wouldn’t oppose any of the above, but entirely fail to see how you constant and predictable sniping advances any of them. So what’s you point exactly?
a tremendous disappointment and hasn’t lived up to the advertising. “Change you can believe in” has become Bush III on too many fronts.
Do you think we all have to toe the line and praise anything the President does? And if my “sniping” doesn’t force the Dems leftward how the hell is your lockstep support of their policies gonna move them ANYWHERE?
Oh yeah, repeating Sarah Palin’s theme is going to “force the Democrats leftward” because there is nothing like calling the people you helped elect corrupt liars to make them want to listen to you or to attract more people to your point of view.
You keep calling it Palin’s theme. It’s Obama’s CAMPAIGN SLOGAN.
Also, please point out who I called a corrupt liar. Or are you just making stuff up?
Bush III.
Done.
As I said over at TGOS .. it’s interesting .. the people that bashed Bush for what he did .. and just sit and accept when Obama does the same thing .. and I am talking about specific things(like Guantanamo) .. and you are telling me I have no right to expect him to be better than Dubya on this issue? .. this is supposed to be his area of expertise .. he’s a freakin’ con. law scholar for cryin’ out loud .. and yet he’s thinks he can cut a deal with Huckleberry Graham and that Graham acts in good faith? .. it sounds like you are what you claim others are
You don’t have a right to expect anything. If your intent is to try to limit US non-judicial trials, then maybe you could do something with a chance of being effective – and sneering about “change you can believe in” is not such a something.
Unfortunately, enough liberals play into the stereotype that the half truth become accepted reality and guides liberal strategy. Such as:
Now do you see how the “ineffectual” and “elite” and “weak” and “whiny” gets partially validated.
What would counter the stereotype? A group of black and white and Latino working class looking folks, young to middle aged, showing up at a Tea Party rally in an open carry state and standing on the sidelines with their assault rifles by their side. Just exercising their first amendment and second amendment rights. Behaving lawfully and quietly. With “America love it or leave it”, “Obama is Our President”, “Proud to be a Liberal” and “It’s our Constitution too” signs. And looking like they really know how to use those assault weapons (liberals are veterans too).
Now write the media narrative for that one.
Here’s the best example: tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of words have been written on blogs and in magazines about the Texas Board of Education. A lot of those words have repeated a lazy snotty attitude about dumb Texas rednecks. And yet, the worst members of the Texas Board of Education ran for office WITH NO OPPONENTS in 2008. And today, many of the condescending articles about stupid wingers on the school board don’t even bother to mention that there are two candidates who could win and change the balance of the board. Who is stupid – the right wing activists who run for every open seat and tirelessly organize their voters or the left wing “activists” who write articles about how stupid the public and the Democratic administration are?
Btw
http://www.voterebecca.com
http://www.votejudyjennings.com/
Very true, but I think we use the “expenditures” thing too much. Seems to me the more tragic consequence of letting wingnuts run unopposed is that there is no challenge to their lies, no perspective on their insanity. So they become the “authorities” whose word is conventional wisdom for the media. Somebody, some UN official, maybe, once said something like “The madman rants in the marketplace and no one stops to argue. Thereby his point is incontrovertibly established.” That pretty well describes unopposed elections involving wingnuts.
Yeah .. but also .. you get people like Rahm pushing Tammy Duckworth instead of Christine Cegelis(I hope I spelled that right) .. or maybe BooMan can flll you in on how the local Democratic party where he is .. is pretty weak(at the County level especially .. as I am pretty sure he lives in the same county as I do)
Oh the evil Rahm again. If Cegalis was so popular and such a good politician, why didn’t she beat Duckworth in the primary?
And what was wrong with Duckworth? She’s a good solid Democrat.
Not to mention all the “progressive” candidates that we supported who turned out to be crap.
Local dems are weak at county level because “progressives” don’t show up at meetings. It’s boring, but the wingers always show up.
Calvin, do you dream about Rahm in your sleep?
I’d be all for that – and would be one of the first to join such a action – but it would take a VERY disciplined group to keep that from turning into a turkey shoot, preferably ex-military.
Carter’s First Year from The American Presidency Project. They lack a parallel piece about Clinton.
Clinton’s First Year from Google News Archive (Tom Raum, AP, in Gainesville Sun, November 24, 1993)
And the Clinton piece compared Clinton to LBJ.
Notice that in both the Clinton and Obama cases, Republicans went after his first jobs bill with a filibuster and as a result both adjusted their direction. In Obama’s case, the filibuster was one of Harry Reid’s silent filibusters until he (Obama? Reid?) could get the bipartisan gang together.
We know the dynamics of the Democratic Party. You go to local school boards and town councils and move up the ladder. At each step the Democrat in office drifts further to the right. The constituency hasn’t changed from dogcatcher to President, but the selection process has. A large part of this is that Presidents and Senators, and to a lesser degree Representatives, are beholden to Big Money. Not only how it’s raised but how media reports politics, and media is owned by wealthy people, so each message is honed to its audience.
So we have a process where the Democratic candidate for President is always much farther to the right of the Democratic constituency. He is often presented as a radical, in this last cycle to the extreme, but look at what’s going on within the Executive Branch. Many of the same appointees in Justice are Bush holdovers, and key legal positions supporting the criminality and civil rights shaving of the last group running things. Many of the same federal prosecutors are still in place. It’s worse in the DOD. The same military strategy to impose America’s will and secure the oil in Central Asia is going forward. Many of Obama’s economic people are the same as Bush’s.
In 2008 people wanted real healthcare reform. The insurance companies got a guaranteed captive market. The average person on the street can’t even explain why we are in Afghanistan, much less support it. They just presume “we” have to be “over there”. They want out.
The average Democrat didn’t get what she wanted. The Congress was constantly undercut by an Executive Branch that did little to nothing to push real change. We already know that universal care isn’t going to happen with this legislation. We know that there is no real protection against rate increases. Washington DC is operating under the very same dynamics where Clinton and the Republicans gave us NAFTA and GATT and broke Glass-Steagall.
Yeah, I’m happy today. It’s not raining here and I’ll take a nice long walk with my girlfriend, and then I’ll go over to hear a local band play a song of mine about a factory being closed and people losing their jobs. I wrote that song back in 1980s. NUMMI closed on Wednesday.
“The Congress was constantly undercut by an Executive Branch that did little to nothing to push real change. “
Sorry, but to me that seems completely delusional.
That’s because the fired-up candidate who got that school board position finds out what hard work it is to read all that material, answer the hateful telephone calls, and still work a day job. And the constituents think that the candidate’s friends are sufficient to fund the next campaign. And the candidate would rather ask a few people for a lot of money than a lot of people for small donations.
As the cost of the campaign rises, the big money has more and more of an edge in buying access. Until in the Senate, if you aren’t a large donor, you don’t have access on policy; you have to come in through the constituency services door.
You don’t change that without re-empowering the small donor. ActBlue and BlueAmerica have not succeeded in cracking that nut. What happens is the sponsor of the bundle becomes the one who has access and in some cases members of Congress blow off bundling of small donors entirely.
And of course the empire has responded with the CitizensUnited decision.
The TARP program was the acme of Bush looting economic policies – a $700B donation to the biggest financial superpowers right from the taxpayer. And Paulson managed to dole out $350 billion of it before leaving office. In the last year, however, the much maligned Tim Geithner has
(1) Recovered most of the money
(2) Diverted tens of billions into an emergency investment into what’s left of the heart of the unionized industrial economy
(3) directed tens of billions into small business loans via thrifts and credit unions.
This is truly a historic accomplishment – and one which “progressive” blogs/magazines have entirely ignored because it conflicts with the stupid narrative that Luntz gave them and they have so happily inhabited.
Whether you feel happy or not is up to you. But it’s important at least to act happy.
Why? Because if you’re not happy when you win, then people won’t want to join with you in the next campaign.
Any community leader (or organizer) knows that the most common tactic used by the opposition just after you win a major victory…is to claim that your victory wasn’t that important. And further, to claim that the work your organization did to win that victory (whether it’s national health care legislation or getting street signs put up in your neighborhood) really didn’t matter, because the powers that be were going to do it anyway.
This happens all the time. It is a conscious tactic by the power-that-be to deflate, demobilize and deactivate those organizing for change.
As a result, leaders and organizers have learned the importance of claiming and interpreting their victories. That’s why it’s a good thing that Obama is flying around the country firing up the Democratic base, and tweaking the Republicans about the new health care (and college loan) law.
We act happy about victories—even though all victories come at a cost and all victories are partial—because recognizing what we’ve accomplished can help re-energize us for the next fight. (It’s also deflating for our opponents to constantly be faced with the fact of their losses.)
Anyone who’s worked to change our government from where it was in, say, November 2004 can legitimately be happy, should legitimately feel proud, and yes, should not be satisfied—because there’s more work to do.
Excellent points. I guess I’ll never understand how some lefties actually think that calling Obama names (and I’m not spotless on that score) and diminishing Dem victories somehow improves our prospects. The intent of the Reps is easy to figure. The apparent belief that unrelieved Obama/Dem bashing, no matter what, advances a left agenda is incoherent. I’ve never gotten anyone to explain how they reconcile the fact that they sound exactly like the right wing of the GOP, yet claim to be supporting an opposite goal. Seems like that should be cause for some introspection, but it doesn’t seem to ever be.
on blogs, they often are the right wing of the GOP, but they ensnare some well meaning lefties
I suppose this could be said for the “whiny liberal” side: If we’re scoring field goals while the other side is scoring touchdowns, then we’re losing by greater and great point differentials over time.
The problem I have with this post is that it assumes that social spending is the uber-issue that should determine progressive evaluations of this administration or session. There are other issues. I care more about indefinite extra-judicial detention than about social spending, and on this the Obama administration has been horrific. Social spending is more likely to directly affect me personally, but the rule of law is more fundamental to the nature of the society, and likely to be more important in the long run in my opinion. Now, one can dispute that opinion and hold that social spending is more important, certainly, but it needs to be argued. I cannot accept any framing that holds social spending so important relative to other matters that is can be treated as a proxy for the entire progressive agenda.
you already happy progressives would chip in and pay my $800/month health insurance bills that Obama has stuck me with until 2o14
otherwise I a frikkin pissed off progressive, further infuriated by
Happy Easter.