Michael Maiello's picture

    Obama is Magic!

    By Michael Maiello on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 11:01am | Politics

    Last night, I was underwhelmed by Obama's speech but in the light of morning I think I was perhaps expecting a little too much, given the context of an extremely effective and well put together convention.  He is the president, not a cheerleader and he's trying to defend his program while showing how it will play out if he's given more time.

    The problem is that Obama is dealing with a frustrated country full of people who want things fixed right now, even if they have no idea at all what they mean by that.  I'll let David Brooks, my favorite columnist in the world, explain it:

    "The country that exists is not on the right track. It has a completely dysfunctional political system. What was there in this speech that will make us think the next few years will be any different?"

    What does Brooks want here?  Obama to order a lobotomy of Eric Cantor?  If we acknowledge that cleaning up the mess of a 25 year long credit bubble can take longer than four years, we should also acknowledge that draining the cyst of partisanship that has its origins in the later decades of the last century.

    One of the reasons that people have dug in is that they disagree about stuff.  That cannot be waved away.  Brooks accuses the Democrats of running a "defensive" campaign when it comes to government programs.  They had sure better be!  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all under Republican attack.

    Now, a big bold move might be to increases resources to all of these programs, especially for the neediest.  But that's a fantasy right now that most people aren't willing to indulge.  Right now, these programs need to be defended against bad ideas from the other side.

    Brooks says:

    "I asked governors, mayors and legislators to name a significant law that they’d like to see President Obama pass in a second term. Not one could."

    This is almost surely a lie.  I'm to believe that Brooks asked a bunch of successful politicians what legislation they'd like to see Obama pass in his second term and that they all just stammered and stared at their shoes?

    Left unimpeded, Democrats would like to restore some fiscal balance by modestly raising taxes on the wealthy while using the government's war chest to help foster a green energy economy that will likely make those very people so much richer than any extra tax they're asked to pay.  That's really the plan, the problem is that the opposition is in the way.

    It's not just Brooks... it's Friedman and Joe Klein and all the conventional wisdomers our there complaining that this is a campaign of small ideas, and blaming Obama for it.  Look what he's up against.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a vague economic plan that basically hinges on the emergence of a massive prosperity boom caused by the giant orgasm that the business community will have if they win.  They are making the incredibly dangerous claim that they know the secret to releasing capitalism's animal spirits.

    This is dangerous because some people believe it.  It is more dangerous because some people believe it and it is false.  It is even more dangerous because a big mistake could easily throw the U.S. back into a deep recession.

    The fact of the campaign is that there are two sides to the conversation and both matter.  If we're in a car together it'd be nice to discuss all of the wonderful, magical places we can go.  But it's hard to have that discussion if the driver has to convince the person in the passenger seat not to grab the wheel and flip the car into an embankment.

    Obama's first job is to convince people not to do anything crazy.  He has to deal with what's there, and he can't just wish it away.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Brilliant observations that I have not noted hearing or reading elsewhere.

    The sad fact is nearly half the voters dependably vote for the latest Wall Street Dream Team from a Party that does not want to raise taxes 1 cent on the dollar on millionaires in a nation deeply in debt, and they are willing to sink the ship of state to stop it. 

    Our form of government was built on the principle of separation of powers, when one branch would rather wreck the country then compromise, and voters put them in a position of power over and over, our democracy does not work. The British system where a Party gains full control after elections is a far better system. Even the low information voter knows who is in charge, and who to blame.

    For America and its fractured system of government, it is a major accomplishment to have a President/CIC who will "not do (or allow) anything crazy". We had the 'crazy' for 8 years with the GOP under GWB, and they are ready to double down on the crazy if given a chance.


    by NCD on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 11:53am

    For every one  of life's problems there's an answer that is simple,direct and plausible. And wrong

    Anonymous

    Keep on keepin on

    Dylan

    Suppose there isn't any one thing or any combination of things that would put us on a  path to 4 % unemployment.

    I had a seemingly  unsolvable problem once with a non functional telecommunication switch. The very experienced consultant began by doing irrelevant seeming things like cleaning the filthy  outside of the building. When I asked why not go directly to examining  the switch  he said: I fix anything that can be fixed.

    Ultimately he discovered  there was no problem with the equipment.Instead the device that showed the flow of current had been damaged by lightening and was giving false readings.

    If he'd focused on the supposed heart of the problem we'd still be there.

    Obama needs to fix what can be fixed. Starting with honoring Tim Geithner in an elaborate ceremony and bidding him farewell.A brilliant choice in Dec 08.Not now

    .

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 12:06pm

    But it is a campaign of small ideas. The key word is Brooks' line about the governors and mayors is "significant." I'm sure that the politicians he spoke to had policy ideas, but I doubt they had any policy ideas that would have much of an impact on the status quo. If so, I haven't heard 'em.

    Repealing the Bush tax cut is not a big idea. Protecting Medicare is not a big idea. A "green energy economy," insofar as that translates to more windmills and electric cars, is not a big idea.

    Now I've been hearing many excuses for why the Democrats are not advocating big ideas--can't be done, wouldn't be prudent, yada yada yada. But I do not buy them. I don't hear Democrats whispering about the great big bills they would pass if only the voters would give them a new majority. If they had 'em, they would be talking about 'em. Occam's razor says that the reason Obama and the Democrats aren't promoting big ideas is because they haven't got any.

    Now, if the country were on the "right track" to use Brooks' language, a lack of big ideas might be OK. We just need to stay the course.

    But I don't actually know a single person who thinks the country is on the right track. Politically, economically, and institutionally, America is shedding its glory, sometimes with a loud crash but more often with a slow drip. We actually need big ideas at this moment in history, not just because of this recession but because of the long slide we've been on for years. And I haven't heard Obama or the Democrats offer anything that gives me hope of coming out of it--even if they had a filibuster proof majority in Washington.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 12:25pm

    Here's the thing... if left alone, there's probably a virtuous cycle on the way.  A lot of the U.S. private sector has deleveraged.  This is one of the reasons why the federal government had to expand its balance sheet.  There's a lot of pent up demand for houses and cars and consumer goods.  Things can get better, and very suddenly, just by not screwing things up.  This was basically Krugman's argument this morning which is that the next four years will be better than these four years.  Obama could have done a much better (and Krugman says quicker) job.  But he didn't fail.  The eventual will probably mask over a lot of the big problems that we want solved.

    I think the ideas are out there.  But first they have to run out the clock on Romney and then make a serious run at the House in 2014.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 12:50pm

    Are you suggesting that Obama and the Democrats are concealing their big ideas so that they can spring them on us after 2012 but before 2014. Why is that necessary? If the ideas are good, why not discuss them now? If they're bad, how will they be any better in two years?

    More to the point, what evidence do you have that Obama has big ideas that he isn't willing to share right now? And without evidence, what brings you to this conclusion (aside from wishful thinking)?

    Isn't there a much simpler explanation? That is, Obama and the Democrats are not offering any big ideas either to address the short term recession or to the improve the country's long term prospects because they do not have any.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 1:38pm

    I guess we have to figure out what we're talking about.  I have a bunch of big ideas that would radically remake American finance that Obama, and Democrats as a whole, probably don't share at all.

    At the same time, Obama still supports Cap and Trade, doesn't he?  I think that's a big idea.  I think getting the insurance exchanges implemented, which will free people from being tied to their employers by health insurance, could be a very big idea (that won't happen if Obama loses).

    I'm not counting on secret big ideas.  But, Brooks wanted big ideas that would fix the broken government.  I'm not even sure what those ideas would be, and I don't think he is either.  Abolish the House of Representatives?

     


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 2:06pm

    Of course Brooks doesn't have big ideas. He's not a big idea kind of guy. I don't have big ideas either. But neither of us is running for President of the United States.

    Implementing insurance exchanges is part of the execution of HCR. That was a big idea. Obama should see it through. But as I wrote to A-man below, is that it? Is there nothing else to fight for but yesterday's big ideas?

    Cap-and-trade points in the right direction, I think. Global warming a tremendous problem, and cap-and-trade is a relatively large plan to at least begin to address it. Did anyone mention it in Charlotte? If so, I missed it. Do I expect Obama or other Democrats to champion it during the next four years?


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 2:35pm

    You seem to misunderstand what the health exchanges are, they are funded by grants from the federal government and left to the states.  And if those exchanges aren't finished by January 2013, the federal government will then step in a form exchanges where states have not. Do you even know what the ACA does? Do you know that Alaska is the only state that hasn't applied for funds for the exchanges? Do you realize the exchanges are being formed right now as I type this reply to you?


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 2:55pm

    Ah yes, Alaska's Gov. Parnell made this choice because he so wants to be embraced by the good ol' GOP right wingers, hoping he will be a chosen one much like his predecessor Palin.  He's a real chip off her ol' block - and isn't that something we're all so glad about, not.


    by Aunt Sam on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 3:09pm

    An honest plan to actually make our country independent of liquid fuels from foreign sources would be a big idea. Obama said in his speech that for the first time in some time we had reduced our dependence on imported fuel. Some may see it that way, while ignoring that the recession was the major cause,  but I see it as a misdirecting mischaracterization that approaches Paul Ryan territory. We imported 60% of the petroleum we used last year. If we suddenly had to get by with 60% less imported oil, life as we know it would change radically. So radically that it is impossible to predict how the changes would play out except to acknowledge that it would be ugly. Our form of government would not survive. Our system of agricultural production and distribution would not survive. Many, many, people would not survive. Our economy, our way of life, and the food we put on our table are, today, totally dependent on foreign oil whether we imported a bit less or not.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 3:37pm

    Yes, it would be. But I think that such a plan would have to be a major initiative, not just a few wind/solar subsidies. Maybe that's what you mean by "honest."


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 5:54pm

    G, do you really feel that there's any room for discussion of big ideas?  The polis can't even deal with facts cogently right now.  Where does the great, big national dialog about big ideas take place?  Cable news?  Talk radio?  Our subservient, hopelessly "centrist" press?  The blogosphere?  Where is it that any kind of reasoned discussion that has national impact is taking place?  I know of no such forum.

    What I do see is morons like Tom Friedman trying pump up some mushy "independent" pie-in-the-sky third party stuff instead of advocating for real campaign finance reform.  That's a big idea, IMHO, and it's no big secret either.  No one talks about it not because they've never had the idea, but because it looks impossible.  SCOTUS isn't behind it.  Congress isn't behind it.  Obama could have made it a point in his speech.  Would that have changed all the rest?

    I'm inclined to think it wouldn't have changed anything, but that's because of what I wrote in my first paragraph here.  I don't see a culture that has any interest in fielding big ideas.  Paradoxically, now is apparently the moment of small ideas as big ideas.  The status quo sucks, but who's really willing to get behind shaking it up?  Anyone you know?  Almost no one I know really is.  Most folks I know are focused on keeping what they have.

    Most people in the country can't even reckon with the fact that healthcare costs are swallowing budgets at every level and that healthcare reform was an absolute necessity because of this.  We could quibble about whether or not it's a big idea, but it's actually worse for the case of big ideas getting traction if we consider this to have been a small feat.  It nearly didn't happen at all.

    I have to say, I find it hard to imagine that someone as smart as Barack Obama has no big ideas for the country.  It takes no special genius to imagine one or two.  I am willing to bet, for example, that if it were up to him he would probably make some pretty bold reforms to drug laws and our criminal justice system, but we know those things are considered impolitic.  Obama doesn't want to give the GOP an opportunity to Dukakis him.  Look at what they're already trying to say about him with respect for welfare.  It isn't hard to imagine the rapid Willie Horton-ization of this election.  Romney knows he only wins if he wins big with white.

    I guess what I'm saying is that I think it's a case of there not really being a conducive environment for big ideas.  Part of that is the structure of the system and the incentives therein.  The need to win politically remains essential, lest all your policy remain theoretical.  I think that another part is simply the people - the culture.  Why is there only one party talking up ideas as simple as community and citizenship?  This is just one part of the dysfunctional culture we have at present.

    I'm just not sure I buy that there really aren't big ideas among some of the smartest, most ambitious minds in the country.  I can, however, buy that they're not talking about them because they see no margin in it at present.


    by DF on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 5:05pm

    Call me naive, but I think that if you have a really good idea and you push it long enough and hard enough in a democratic nation, you'll get there.

    Of course, we have had periods of stasis in our history, and this is one of them, but the answer to stasis is not to wait it out. Momentum does not self-start.

    So if Obama has bold ideas for reforming criminal justice, then hell yes, he should be championing them, and he should have started championing them right after he passed HCR if not before.

    I don't ignore practical considerations. If Obama has some big idea up his sleeve, but he's just waiting for the election to spring it because he can't get it out right now, fair enough. But I highly doubt that's going to happen for the simple reason that I have no evidence whatsoever to support such a prediction.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 6:04pm

    I guess I just don't see the venue for it.  Where does this take place?  Where does one gain traction presently simply by being loud?  Or, to phrase the question in a different way, how does one become loud enough to be heard over the likes of David Brooks?  Over Limbaugh and Kochs?


    by DF on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 6:48pm

    Look at HCR. It was the topic of the 2008 primary. It was in the platform, in the acceptance speech, in the SOTU, in the press, everywhere. The Democrats put it out there and said, "This is what we believe in and what we stand for!" Sure, the Republicans shouted too, and maybe they shouted a little louder. But isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 6:57pm

    I'm not so sure that is how a democracy is supposed to work, even our brand of it.  Sure, sometimes there's a big yelling match over this or that, but I thought that generally the way it worked was that what most people want is what happens.  One way to read the current moment is that nobody really wants anything big.  There's absolutely no legislative support for it, legislators being the people we select to handle that sort of thing for us.  Perhaps we're getting exactly what "we" really want right now.


    by DF on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 9:32pm

    It's not about the yelling. It's about the selling. If you want to pass some legislation, you have to convince the people that the legislation is worth passing. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

    To hear people in this thread discuss it, it's sounds like Democrats have to either sneak it past the ignorant masses or sit tight until they become less ignorant. That makes no sense to me.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:03pm

    To me, your argument is too, ahem, vague on the specifics to entertain to that extent.  Obama should apparently have some unnamed "big idea."  He should be using his re-election campaign to sell said idea as loud and as hard as he can.  Obviously, this poses some inherent risk to his re-election prospects.  After all, if the idea were already known to be wildly popular, it would not need to be sold.  Rather, it is likely that both candidates would already embrace said idea, no?

    So Obama rolls the dice in a neck-and-neck election on selling his "big idea."  Hopefully he's really good at making that sell, because if he's not we end up with President Romney.  That sounds like a pretty big risk for an idea that is as yet unspecified.

    To go one further, why is it necessarily Obama's job to invent and sell big ideas?  What happened to the other 330 million brains in the country?  What happened to the FDR era "make me do it" spirit?  Instead, apparently the thing to do is lay the hefty task of grand sweeping vision solely on the one guy who has to play it right down the middle at present.  It's pining for something grandiose, yet unnameable, and demanding it from the guy who isn't doing anything of the sort right now for obvious, pragmatic reasons.  What's up with that?

    For Obama, the time for selling big ideas starts after he's re-elected.  Not sure why that isn't completely obvious to you and Brooks.  Maybe if we could talk about a specific idea, we could actually look at whether or not Congress would support it.  In absence of that, I'm forced to rely on recent history and say that they wouldn't support anything you might name.  Selling a big idea as simple as you make it sound.  For anything truly "big," you're going to need to not only shape national opinion on an issue, an issue that perhaps they've never even been introduced to before, but you're also going to need to put enough cooperative legislators in office to make it law.  Obama's best possible contribution to something like that right now, especially with respect for an initiative with no name, is to become President for another four years.


    by DF on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 10:24am

    "For Obama, the time for selling big ideas starts after he's re-elected." You must love Romney then - the 'put me in, then I'll do great things and give you a plan' candidate.

    " What happened to the FDR era "make me do it" spirit?" - it's bullshit. Presidents are supposed to lead, inspire, help find the cream of the crop. Sure, they don't do everything, but they consolidate the idea. What's this, put in Obama, and then tell him what to do? Wish I had that kind of top executive job - 'here are your instructions for first 100 days...

    The President has to overcome adversity to get done what he wants to and has pledged to get done. Yeah, he might need some help but then he should ask for it, plead the case, wrangle, persuade, threaten, trick, whatever's necessary. Not just wait around for 330 million to step up - this ain't Godot.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 12:58pm

    I think those really good ideas that you're talking about rarely come from politicians inside the political system. Lobbyists wield far too much influence for that. Sometimes a national elected official has a big idea, but they don't rise to the presidency. Just ask Paul Tsongas. You said on another thread that it's depressing. I agree, but our whole society and culture as it currently stands depresses me. When we seem to have lost all interest in solving the most basic of problems, how can we possible entertain the notion of systemic change? 


    by Orlando on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 9:47pm

    I'm not saying that they invented the ideas, but they championed them. Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ...These guys all promoted big ideas, big legislation to move the country "Forward!"--in Obama's words.

    But yeah, the problem goes deeper than our presidential candidates. It's just that in this particular election year, the smallness of the ideas promoted by the Democratic Party and its nominee seems particularly stark.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 9:59pm

    Agreed that good ideas need champions. Enter gay marriage. If Obama is know simply as the president that advanced gay rights, permanently changing the face of civil rights for gays and lesbians, I think I'd consider his legacy successful. That's something that I didn't even expect from him, so again, as a member of his base, I'm content to just roll with it. His speech wasn't for me though. I agree with DF that there's no way somebody as smart and as checked in as he is doesn't have some big ideas of his own. 

    I know "Reelect me and maybe without a second term to worry about I'll come out with something really spectacular" doesn't work as a bumper sticker, but there is a chance you'll be pleasantly surprised with big ideas if he gets a second term.


    by Orlando on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:06pm

    And of course, there's a chance that you won't be surprised. Obama is nothing if not a careful steward.


    by Orlando on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:07pm

    O, why do you think that? Does Obama have any history of surprising people with spectacular ideas? Do you have any evidence that he's got some spectacular ideas up his sleeve? This seems like wild speculation and wishful thinking of the kind I was discussing with AA somewhere else in this thread.

    Sure, anything can happen, but without evidence to infer that something in particular will happen, I wouldn't lay any money on it happening.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:17pm

    I think that it's possible because you could have knocked me over with a feather when he came out in support of gay marriage--and I am seriously gleeful at the number of times it was mentioned as a basic civil right at the convention. I'm not expecting, nor really jonesing, for the kind of big ideas you're talking about. I'd actually rather they all just focused on slogging away at solving problems. What I'm saying is that there are things that happened in the last four years that I didn't expect. Good things. Big things. So, I'm not ruling out that more could be on the way.


    by Orlando on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:30pm

    Well, you probably could have knocked Obama over with a feather when he heard what Biden had done.


    by DF on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 10:04am

    Even the lackluster Presidency of George W. Bush latched onto a "big idea" after his re-election, at least if policy that would have some seriously big impact is the criteria for a "big idea."  I think his quest to turn Social Security over to Wall Street whole hog qualifies.  Do you really think that Barack Obama has no idea what he might do during a second term if the opportunity presents itself?  I get and appreciate that your argument is more about creating that opportunity through salesmanship, but nothing about that excludes this possibility.  To insist on hard evidence for this seems a bit silly to me.  Obama is smart, ambitious and has proved himself able to take a longer view than many of those around him in service of attaining his goals.  To me, it seems far less likely that he has not one idea that you would grant is "big," though he has obvious reasons not to necessarily barnstorm over it right now.  Dubya didn't run for re-election on reforming SS either.

    Come to think of it, Dubya and crew were never really short on the "big ideas," were they?  Trouble was that they had a slew of really shitty ones.  Do we really need more "big ideas" right now or do we need to, much as I loathe the phrase in a post-Bush world, "stay the course"?  The case for Obama now is basically the same as the case in 2008.  The GOP policy mix proved to be disastrous on multiple fronts.  The GOP solution was a purer, more concentrated form of that same mix.  That didn't work.  The Obama mix is not as potent as we might like, but we're getting some positive deltas from it.

    The GOP solution has not changed at all in four years.  Living in a world where the choice we've been presented with is right direction versus wrong direction, it seems to me that right direction is a big idea.  There's no competition in the field of good ideas right now.  There's insane and sane.  That means, among other things, that sane doesn't have to work to hard to look good.  That might not be as grandiose as we'd prefer at the moment, but that's the world we're in.


    by DF on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 10:02am

    What big ideas do you think the dems should campaign on and do you think they can get elected on them?

    There are lots of progressive experts in many fields that have big ideas. First we need to put people back to work so I'd start with a massive stimulus bill totally focused on building new and rebuilding failing infrastructure. The American society of Civil Engineers have been telling us for years our infrastructure is crumbling. They give America a grade D. The private infrastructure is crumbling as well. Government agencies have allowed companies to allow our electric grid, poles, and substations and gas and oil pipelines to deteriorate. While company profits have soared. I'd have goernment agencies demand they rebuild their failing infrastructure. If they claim they need a rate hike to do it well we can discuss that after they cut soaring CEO pay.

    The problem I had with the stimulus bill is it was heavily weighted to tax cuts to stimulate spending. We could have hired people to build things in this country and their paychecks would have been used to buy things to  Whether the cause for that was Obama's unwillingness to fight or the best that could be gotten from intransigent republicans is open for debate.

    The difficulty is this solution is counter intuitive to the average voter. A family sees personal debt and lowered income and decides to stop spending, pay down debt and seek more income. To tell them that the government is loaded with debt while tax revenues are falling and the solution is a massive increase in the deficit to put people back to work rebuilding our country is just not a winning campaign.

    You can hear anything you want with this convention. Worried about the deficit? I give you Simpson-Bowles. Want a big jobs program? I give you Elizabeth Warren or Obama saying we need nation building in America to rebuild our roads and bridges.

    What's going to happen if Obama wins? Who knows? My bottom line, unfortunately, is while I expect little good from Obama I expect nothing but bad from Romney..


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 4:49pm

    I'm not sure I agree with you, G. I really liked the theme of moving forward, because I think that's what the Democrats truly aim to do--and look at some of the evidence that it's been happening for the last four years. First of all, the economy is adding jobs. Not fast enough, but that is, in pretty much every way, the fault of the Republicans in Congress. Second, there have been all sorts of things going on that have moved us forward: the Lilly Ledbetter Act, health care reform, the Dream Act, renewal energy, the auto industry bailout, landing Curiosity on Mars, restoring America's reputation internationally, going after Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If we were living in a normal time, with normal partisanship and a normal economy, Obama's election would be a slam dunk. 

    Yeah, there are things that haven't been fixed yet, but Christ, how many things can the guy do with disagreeable Republicans and a country that was pretty much falling apart when he started? 

    I'm good with the notion that we'll continue to move forward and I'm good with incremental progress, because at least it's progress.


    by Orlando on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 7:06pm

    My critique is not so much with Obama's last term. He hasn't been the most visionary president, but he worked on some big issues, namely HCR, the Iraq War, and the financial crisis. That's a reasonable enough record.

    My complaint is that he offered no significant policies to pursue in his second term.

    (I have left out ending the war in Afghanistan, which is probably the most significant project that he has proposed for the next term.)


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 7:13pm

    Hmm. I think he might have a credibility issue there. The Republicans have been going after him for doing the wrong things or doing nothing, and while those accusations are, in my opinion and, in some cases, in reality's opinion, completely false. However, as Clinton said on Wednesday night, even though the economy is moving in the right direction, people aren't feeling it yet. I think if Obama went out on stage and tried to make it a night of grand ideas, it might have fallen flat with all those millions of people who have been struggling for years just to get by. I really thought the message of the entire convention was pitch perfect. Let's just keep putting one foot in front of the other, relying on each other to each do our part, and we'll get there. 


    by Orlando on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 7:18pm

    I'm not really addressing the messaging. For all I know, this was the right message to get Barack Obama elected in 2012. But my question is what the hell is Obama going to do in 2013?


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 7:26pm

    I've been trying to put into words why Obama's speech, as familiar as some parts were, worked as a whole, and you nailed it here.  He did not make promises he now knows he can't possibly keep, but he did do his best to give comfort to people who are hurting.  He didn't necessarily take the blame, but he did acknowledge that things didn't work fast enough, and he laid part of the blame on the other side for a change. 

    "We're all in this together" sounds a lot like "We can do this!" only more grown up.  The DNC was a remarkable example of how it can work if we work together.

     


    by Ramona on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 7:35pm

    Genghis, the nation has the prospect of trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, Obama has proposed restoring the upper bracket income tax rates closer to Clinton levels in a balanced approach to raise revenue while also cutting spending (he proposed a $4 trillion deficit reduction package last year), is that a:

    a. big idea

    b. small idea

    c. no brainer

    d. a + c

    e. b + c

    Since this idea is DOA in a Republican Congress, which will never raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, it rather limits 'new ideas' that involve the necessity for federal funding.  The Republicans 'big idea' is to cut taxes but likely not spending.

    The difference in those 'ideas' is an example of what Destor is talking about.


    by NCD on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 8:57pm

    e


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:03pm

    The GOP would rather put the nation into default than surrender on this 'small no brainer'. That's the crazy.


    by NCD on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 1:24am

    It's all part of the mindset for most who don't believe and/or are unwilling to acknowledge that, as he stated:

    As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

    Those pesky two little letters u-s, which represents the United States and the 'us' noting the citizens of same. 

    Most do not want to acknowledge that the hard work and ongoing effort required to truly succeed requires us to be participants, not just the audience for the show.  Unfortunately, the majority chooses to watch and critique as their sole contribution and the only dues owed.  

    I'm not sure I agree that 'Obama's first job is to convince us not to do anything crazy ...'. When you consider certain segments of our society, is that even a realistic possibility?

    He We has have to deal with what's there, and he We can't just wish it away.

    Without us willing to do what is needed there will be no positive and productive future for our US unless a real magician waves the wand that could suspend the reality of too many of us. 


    by Aunt Sam on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 12:31pm

    I hated that line. I'm not sure what it is We're to do. We need about 130,000 jobs a month to stay even. And an additional 12 million to 23 million to make up for how far down we fell. Its a crisis and really, nothing else can get done until we make some substantial progress on this.

    There's three possibilities.

    The government can't do anything. We just have to wait for the free market to fix it.

    Gigantic tax breaks for the "job creators", with a few bucks tossed at everyone. See, everyone gets a tax break. End regulations that strangle business. Cut spending drastically to balance the budget.

    A big stimulus to put people to work rebuilding the infrastructure.

    I don't see what we can do no matter which of these ideas you believe. Except vote for the politician who believes the same one we believe.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 10:31pm

    ocean-kat,

    A big stimulus to put people to work rebuilding the infrastructure.

    If done properly (and therein lies the issue) I just don't see the downside to this.  Our infrastructure has some serious and even life threatening weaknesses in need of fixing.  It would provide jobs and yes, deliver benefits to all segments of society. 

    What's the downside?

    Of course, all are going to vote for the candidate who we believe to possess the same core values and views we hold dear. 


    by Aunt Sam on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 1:15pm

    I am pretty sure Mr.Cantor's had the lobotomy Des! But if not that would be a great start.  What is a big idea? Well Universal Health Care was huge, a big damn deal, a big idea that Dem's have been pushing for 70's years, but now it is time to just sit back, and go for reform, incremental reforms. Because all the big ideas in the world don't get better without incremental reforms backing up the big ideas.

    I like your blog buddy!


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 2:07pm

    It seems to me that just accepting a framework of big idea vs. small idea is a concession because it means playing on their turf, which we usually do and with bad results. And, proposing a big idea in the form of another government program is a trap, given the public's dim reaction to "big" government.

    To me, removing the country from political grid lock is, for example, a big idea, one repeated during the convention. By distracting us with their conceptual frameworks, our opponents divert us from our own best strategies.

    The failing of Progressives may be the lack of big ideas which involve participation with companies, finance firms and the community, but do not require large government outlays. One idea which comes to mind is a kind of bond issue sold to the general public which would allow students to refinance loans over a longer period of time. There must be precedents around somewhere in the 30's and 40's or before. No one can earn money on fixed income today, so if one could get an extra 1 % over a five or ten year period and allow students to save a point or two, why not try it. It's not even so much about the money, it's the idea that the community is pulling together in a creative way, and what's that new term----exercising "citizenship" responsibilities.

    The manner in which the pundits develop and push frameworks is frustrating. Like CNN for the entire week intent in every interview to advance the Republican framing---are you better off, etc. Let's see the roof of the building just caved in, let's get some reactions---Senator, can you honestly say you are better off than you were 4 years ago?

    I do think along your points of a second term, Destor, that the psychology changes, or will change. The blanket obstructionism was intended to deflate the economy and make Obama fail and that particular gig wouldn't have the same payout as it has had during the last four years. (Assuming  it still won't work).


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 2:17pm

    Hate to throw in a negative counterpoint, but a second term didn't stop the "vast right wing conspiracy" from distracting nearly the entire country with nonsense for most of 1998 and early 1999. Mho, Hillary was using misplaced hyperbole when using the term "vast;" it wasn't "vast," it just required a few rich guys like Scaife Kochs to rile up the 1/4 of the country that's conservative nuts Tea Partiers.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 2:26pm

    Brooks is a lot of fun.

    I mean no one should take him too seriously.

    He somehow felt (at sometime anyway) that he was personally chosen to carry the conservative mantle from his mentor Buckley.

    He is cute.

    All the way thru his twenties I am sure folks wished to pinch his cheeks.

    Every year or so he pretends to look for truth and apologize for something he wrote even though he always waters down his apologies.

    His prose is different but his real position is taken from some 'what, what, what' sentiment held by aristocrats in Europe a hundred and two hundred years ago.

    If W. Bush rushed into some war he had been planning a year before 9/11/01....well that was very unfortunate.

    If some members of the repub party decided to bus 12,000,000 folks out of this country like Hitler giving transfer papers to millions of Jews, Brooks might write that the aristocratic Texan might have gone too far.

    If the economic plutocracy were responsible for the 2nd depression, Brooks might write how depressed he was over the matter.

    But Brooks would never even imagine voting for a dem.

    And he personally wins by sticking with the plutocracy.

    That is the body that pays him.

    I do not think this pundit has broke a sweat in thirty years over anything.

    And if he were in the 8th grade; I would steal his lunch money.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 4:00pm

    You'd steal his lunch money.

    After I stuffed him into his locker.

    :)


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 5:11am

    hahhahahahaahahahah

    FIVE IN THE FRICKIN MORNIN?

    hahahahahahahah


    by Richard Day on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 6:37am

    It is really easy to say the country is on the wrong track; many people agree on that. The problem is that some of them think we need to be headed much more in the (fill in the blank) direction, and just as many want us to go in the opposite one. How is someone supposed to come up with an idea that will get everyone pulling in the same direction? How can you possibly get people going in diametrically opposed directions to all of a sudden go the same way?

    The near fall off the cliff the end of 2008 SHOULD have woken us up to the need to work together, but instead the repubs are telegraphing their willingness to go right over that cliff rather than let Obama be successful. I'm old, and I've never seen anything like it. The very idea that Romney can get away with refusing to say HOW he would do things differently than Obama (for instance, which tax loopholes he'll close) is pretty scary! Basically he's saying "I know you don't know me, but I'm not Obama so vote for me." Exactly "the President that has enough digits to sign the bills the Congress sends him" that Norquist is orgasmic over.

    My fear is that unless or until we either DO have the Great Depression II, or another even worse attack from the outside, this country is doomed to rotting from the inside out.


    by stillidealistic on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 4:19pm

    Good points. Considering some of the representatives we have in Congress, even a Depression would not change their inaction, or ideology. They will have to be voted out for 'big ideas' to be acted on.

    Teddy Roosevelt, after his loss in 1912 as the Progressive Party Presidential candidate, commented on the "astounding virulence and hatred' directed at him and noted:

    "the great mass of ordinary commonplace men of dull imagination who simply vote under the Party symbol are almost as difficult to stir to action by any appeal to higher emotions and intelligence as it would be to stir so many cattle".

    (from Edmund Morris-three volume biography of TR)


    by NCD on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 1:41am

    I keep reading posts here and I'm blown away. We damn near had a great depression and we are still deep in a recession. If it weren't for 99 weeks of unemployment, food stamps, and several other subsidy programs we'd see once again the pictures you can see on line of the great depression. That's almost two years of unemployment and people are getting kicked off the rolls still without finding a job.We'd be seeing lines of men at the soup kitchens, billboards on the edge of towns saying, "Jobless men keep moving we can't take care of out own." We already have numerous tent cities of men, women, and children across our nation.

    Am I the only one here who hangs out with factory workers, construction workers, people with no more than a high school education? Nearly half of the population doesn't have a college degree. They are hurting and even those with college degrees are in bad shape, especially recent college grads. Fortunately they are young enough to move back in with their parents. For many people the great recession never ended.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 2:19am

    "Am I the only one here who hangs out with factory workers, construction workers, people with no more than a high school education? Nearly half of the population doesn't have a college degree."

    Answering only for myself... Yes.  My suspicion is that, for the most part, the white and blue collar economies of America are joining and have a lot more in common than is typically discussed. 


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 5:21am

    Am I the only one here who hangs out with factory workers, construction workers, people with no more than a high school education?

    No, you're not, Ocean-Kat.  I write what I write because I'm one of them.  But I think everyone here, even those with degrees up the kazoo, can see the misery outside and understand what has happened to workers in this country. 

    We're all frustrated by the slow comeback, mainly because we do know people who are drowning out there.  Spending time lashing out on a forum may seem unproductive, but sometimes it serves to clarify our thoughts, which, considering the shit being thrown around out there, can't be all bad.


    by Ramona on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 5:46am

    When I hear "big idea" I reach for my ...........................................(insert favorite weapon of mass destruction.)

    The big idea that Obama should implement is to not have any big ideas. Just keep R & R away from Obamacare and use the coming cliff hanger to obtain Republican agreement to fix the 971 (or whatever) Interstate bridges which are unsafe for normal vehicles which is what I drive.

    We don't need a big idea . We need to implement the old idea that bridges don't fall down.

    For the sake of clear understanding 'fixing bridges" should not be taken literally. It's an example of that literary  device called something like Schenectady where the part stands for the whole.

    A newly elected President Romney, whose mind  works perfectly even though his mouth spouts nonsense,  would immediately start the program of bridge fixing (remember Schenectady) which he would fund by extracting the cash from the middle class-including the million new bridge builders.

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 9:23pm

    Destor23 channeled perfectly my reaction to Brooks' even more irritating than usual column in today's NYT.  Indeed, I wasn't even fully aware of precisely why it was so irritating until Destor23 pointed out how how Brooks blames Obama for the Republicans' absolutist brand of obstructionism.


    by HSG on Fri, 09/07/2012 - 9:46pm

    Ryan Lizza: Obama Goes Vague, September 7, 2012

    ....  It certainly might be the right strategic move. But there’s a danger in winning this way ....


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/09/2012 - 2:36am

    Some big ideas that are already out there....

    - Come up with a fancy name for it, but then implement a nationwide Graduate Tax system that enables people to pay for their post-secondary education. Time to get out of this incredibly complex - and doubly costly - nonsense system of grants and student loans and collection companies and the banks and such. Set it up so you pay for tuition etc. through a tax on your future earnings. Study longer, or in more expensive programs or colleges, and that % rises. So, for instance, you might pay for your college tuition by having an income tax rate 2.5% above what it otherwise would be. Voila, the upfront cash barrier is eased... as is the difficulty of repaying loans when you're unemployed or in low-paying work. 

    - Elimination of the small business income tax. Completely. 

    - Creation of a national Green Energy Works company/utility that will pay for energy efficient retrofit work upfront, including solar installations and heat pumps and such, which expenditures will be repaid on the utility bill. Interest rates will be rock bottom, promotion will be enormous, and quality control standards high.

    - Another education big idea is fully-fledged support to a national system of online learning that can produce formally-recognized diplomas and degrees. I call it the US-E, for the United States of E-merica. Cos that's cool.

    - Open up 10% of the taxes you pay to be Earmarked for specific projects, which you get to choose from a pick 'em list. NASA versus Ballet versus Archaeology versus... the Afghan War. Ok, maybe not the war. But maybe. Anyway, start there with the earmarking, and see how it grows.

    - Tax any and all income over $300,000/year at a minimum of 30%, any over $400,00 at 40%, any over $500,000 at 50%, any over $750,000 at 75% and then cap it. 

    - Bring in a Financial Transactions Tax.

    - Knock some sense into a financial sector that is still bat-shit insane, and make the bastard owners take haircuts, don hairshirts and inhabit prison.

    - Seriously, commit to sending the criminals in the financial sector to prison. That's a small idea, funny enough, just one we happened to have missed.

    - Bring in a wave of Support for the Share-It economy. Auto-shares, house-shares, food-shares, energy-shares, cottage-shares, you name it. 

    - Tax the hell out of junk food. Start with pop. Work from there. Then put every single goddamn penny raised into locally-raised school food programs. Save the smart, hard-pressed parents time and money. 

    - Add a minimum of 3 new National Holidays. Full days off, no pissing around. Rua national poll on who they should be named after. Get the fanclubs of Elvis, Marilyn and James Dean competing. 

    - Open up full-scale job-sharing, flex-hours, reduced workweeks, sabbaticals and so on across the entire Federal Civil Service. Provide tax breaks to every organization that follows along. 

    - Raise the minimum wage, cut maximum hours and enforce it.

    - Bring in a law stating that Corporations are not people.

    - Repeal Citizens United and bring in public funding of elections. 

    - Raise standards in the Senate and House high enough to require the removal of numerous members from office. Start with David Vitter. Do not stop there.

    - Introduce a nation-wide public automobile insurance program. 

    - Invade Poland.

     

    These are all viable I believe, in some form or other, are all being done in some place or pother, and had they been given some major air-time, might have blossomed into doable, publicly-understood, Big Idea programs.

    P.S. Please do not comment on this comment by telling me how these things were already tried... because we have to look forward, let bygones be bygones, and move on. etc.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/11/2012 - 3:27pm

    I like the whole list and would naturally peck around the edges some. For instance, I would make the break points on the progressive tax somewhat higher but would also add one more at the high end which would be very, very steep.

    The first of all those ideas to really grab me was the ten percent of tax that could be directed. I won’t even try now to list the ways I think that might be not only beneficial but highly appropriate and possibly even a thing which could be implemented. I hope that idea starts a conversation of its own.

     I don't expect your last idea to get serious consideration for at least a few more years.


    by LULUDUDE (not verified) on Tue, 09/11/2012 - 4:10pm

    Sooner or later, Poland is coming home.

    To America.


    by Q (not verified) on Tue, 09/11/2012 - 6:09pm

    I love this one - great idea:

    Open up 10% of the taxes you pay to be Earmarked for specific projects, which you get to choose from a pick 'em list. NASA versus Ballet versus Archaeology versus... the Afghan War. Ok, maybe not the war. But maybe. Anyway, start there with the earmarking, and see how it grows.


    by Aunt Sam on Tue, 09/11/2012 - 4:13pm

    Latest Comments