Dr. C: Boston and the End to the Endless War
Maiello's Book-Almost Hits the Metaphorical Stands
Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game
Book of the Month
From the Readers
- jollyroger 22 hours ago
- Wattree 2 days ago
- Richard Day 2 days ago
- trkingmomoe 4 days ago
- Wattree 5 days ago
- Flavius 5 days ago
- Another Trope 6 days ago
- erica20 1 week ago
- Another Trope 1 week ago
- Flavius 1 week ago
Creative corner
- Richard Day 1 week ago
- trkingmomoe 1 week ago
- MrSmith1 2 weeks ago
- MrSmith1 3 weeks ago
- trkingmomoe 3 weeks ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Doctor Cleveland 17 hours 50 min ago
- Michael Maiello 1 day 16 hours ago
- Ramona 3 days 15 hours ago
- Michael Maiello 3 days 18 hours ago
- Michael Wolraich 1 week 1 day ago
- Michael Maiello 1 week 2 days ago
- Doctor Cleveland 1 week 5 days ago
- Michael Maiello 1 week 6 days ago
- Ramona 2 weeks 10 hours ago
- Michael Maiello 2 weeks 1 day ago
Hits of the Day
Obama is Magic!
by Michael Maiello 9/7/2012 - 11:01 am
|
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.
-
- Michael Maiello's blog
- Add new comment
- 878 reads
In the News
-
Iran’s Supreme Leader Tightens Grip After Disqualifying Two...
By Karl Vick, Time Magazine, May 22, 2013
For the cleric who runs Iran, there’s no such thing as a pleasant surprise, especially on election day. Ayatullah Ali Khamenei was not pleased when a librarian named Mohammed Khatami was swept into the President’s office in 1997, leading a wave of reformists who challenged the status quo in which Khamenei, as the unelected Supreme Leader of the Revolution, was most heavily invested. In every election cycle since, the self-appointed portion of Iran’s government has done all it can to winnow the choices placed before Iranian voters. On Tuesday, that system tightened the screen once more, ...
-
Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills
By Eric Lipton & Ben Protess, New York Times, May 23/24, 2013
WASHINGTON — Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.
One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of...
-
China Bluntly Tells North Korea to Return to Nuclear Talks
By Jane Perlez, New York Times, May 24-25, 2013
BEIJING — The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, bluntly told a North Korean envoy Friday that his country should return to diplomatic talks designed to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons, according to a state-run Chinese news agency.
“The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and lasting peace on the peninsula is what the people want and also the trend of the times,” Mr. Xi said in a meeting at the Great Hall of the People with Vice Marshal Choe Ryong-hae, a personal envoy of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, the China News Service reported.
Vice Marshal Choe, who has been in Beijing for three days on a mission to...
-
I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River near Mount Vernon;...
A bridge collapsed over Skagit River tonight near Mount Vernon. This was on Interstate 5 both north bound and south bound, four lanes total. No word yet on how many cars went into the water. This is so sad. How many of these will we have to have before we start financing infrastructure? Most of our bridges are in sad shape.
-
Utilities for dummies: How they work and why that needs to...There’s very little public discussion of utilities or utility regulations, especially relative to sexier topics like fracking or electric cars. That’s mainly because the subject is excruciatingly boring, a thicket of obscure institutions and processes, opaque jargon, and acronyms out the wazoo. Whether PURPA allows IOUs to customize RFPs for low-carbon QFs is actually quite important, but you, dear reader, don’t know it, because you fell asleep halfway through this sentence. Utilities are shielded by a force field of tedium.It’s is an unfortunate state of affairs, because this is going to be the century of electricity. Everything that can be electrified will be. (This point calls for its own post, but mark my...
Latest Comments
-
in The voice of that woman...Aaron Carine (not verified)
-
in The voice of that woman...jollyroger
-
in The voice of that woman...jollyroger
-
in Boston and the End of the...Michael Maiello
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...rmrd0000
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...Resistance
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...Resistance
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...Resistance
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...stillidealistic
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...stillidealistic
-
in Boston and the End of the...Michael Wolraich
-
in The voice of that woman...rmrd0000
-
in What Do Conservatives...Wattree
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...Verified Atheist
-
in What Do Conservatives...Verified Atheist
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.
Anonymous
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
.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
Universal health care is a huge idea that was elided last night. You have to win the election to keep it. Of course sometimes big ideas require silence and tiptoeing. FDR may have wanted to lead us into WWII. He didn't say so in November 1940. Leading isn't government by direct referendum. Destor is right, and, Babbling Brooks, not so much.
Health care was a big idea. Brooks said so, and so did I in my comment to DF on the open threads. But is that all she wrote? HCR is done, so Obama and the Democrats are fresh out of big ideas? Now our job is just to protect what we've got? That's not "Forward!" That's "Stay Put!"
If there are other secret "WWII" action plans out there, then please share the evidence. Otherwise, it's just empty speculation--what some might call babbling.
Actually, babbling was not what came to mind for me, what came to mind is ye olde "he's playing three-dimensional chess" argument for Obama. (To be clear, I am not accusing articleman of bringing it in, just that it came to mind for me.) That meme is kind of a minor obssession with me, because I read his books, I listen to his speeches, and the guy is almost always basically saying that incrementalism is the way life works; it almost seems like he takes pains not to put himself across as a three-dimensional chess player, WYSIWYG.
That was just a dumb jab b/c A-man's dismissal of Brooks' argument and by extension mine irritated me.
I agree with you that people frequently ascribe complex motives to Obama, both positive and negative, without much basis. He seems to attract such treatment, maybe because he's so intelligent that people assume there's a more brilliant (or sinister) master plan.
But Obama has always struck me as a very straightforward guy--highly unusual in a successful politician. If people listened more to what he actually says instead of what they think he really means, there would be less disillusionment and fewer conspiracy theories.
Zactly on Obama! I'm with ya 100% here.
I agree with this as well. I think the game of trying to guess what "Obama is really thinking," isn't really worth playing and that's at the heart of your critique here -- you can't assume super secret big ideas. And, as others have said, Obama is an incrementalist.
But I think what Brooks asked for is unrealistic. He wants a "big idea" to solve an unsolvable problem. People disagree with each other and have organized into two parties to express that disagreement. Brooks might as well ask Obama to dissolve a tornado. Which, of course, he can do, because he has a super secret weather control device.
I think you're reading Brooks a little narrowly. Maybe I'm projecting my own views, but I don't think that he's asking Obama to propose solutions to all of our problems. Why don't we start any of our problems. I don't mean that problems that we had in 2008; Obama did a pretty reasonable job with a few of those. I mean the problems that we have today.
For instance, Obama promises to protect the middle class, which certainly needs some protection. We all get that he will stop the Republicans from further reducing benefits. But the middle class is shrinking even without Republican predations, and it will take a immense effort to return it to the health of decades past. So how does Obama plan to get us there?
Or if that's too big, how about something else? What problems did Obama actually propose to solve and what were his solutions?
You are going to hate this, but now you sound like the WaPo editorial I just read. They call it a "hazy agenda," problem and are also sorta ribbing him for hypocrisy as far as criticizing the GOP for having no plan. The NYTimes, on the other hand, felt he "clearly laid out a vision for governing" and in a nuanced argument, generally praise what they see as great progress on his part from the naive first termer
I have no problem with the WaPo jumping on the Genghis bandwagon.
The NYT loves loves loves the status quo, or maybe circa 1993 with a little more health coverange and gay rights--before HuffPo and friends started making trouble. Point is, no shocker. The Gray Lady has a thing for technocratic boys.
What? WHAT? Me? Read Brooks narrowly? You're probably right. But don't tell him!
HCR hasn't even taken effect for how "done" it is. I guess by your way of constructing it, repealing HCR is a big idea, and "protecting what we've got" (e.g., not repealing it) and actually paying for it in a more sustainable budget is some kind of school-uniform smallball. That seems self-refuting, but that's just me.
Thanks to Obama's efforts in 2009 and 2010, HCR is now the status quo. If the Capitol gets frozen in an impenetrable ice block tomorrow (would we even be able to tell the difference?), HCR will still go into effect. A big idea is one that would substantially change the status quo with new legislation.
But if you really want to call HCR Obama's big idea of 2012 b/c it's not implemented, then fine, Obama and the Democrats have one big idea. Mazel tov.
PS Calling a position "self-refuting" is much like calling it "babbling." It's a condescending way to dismiss a point of view you disagree with without bothering to present an argument against it.
No, HCR will exist and be entrenched once it's 2014 and it wasn't already repealed. Saying it's the status quo does not make it true.
A fairer characterization of my view is that this election is a difficult one which is largely about the big idea. The GOP runs to end it, which is enormously consequential, and Obama runs to keep it, which of necessity is equally consequential. Given the economic headwinds, and the modest popularity of the bill, it both is at stake and something he avoided discussing except by cheerful, uplifting examples. So yes, now I have more fully explicated why it is silly to act like it is a big idea one way and not the other, so yes, there is a big idea on the ballot this year.
So I called David Brooks "Babbling Brooks," lighten up, dude.
Again, Brooks' thesis is stupid. In a world where Democrats are champions of social programs constituting a safety net, large incremental gains in social welfare *are* the idea. And the Tea Party is its refutation. Who thinks that isn't a major conflict of ideas? Brooks' romance about "big ideas" is like Romney picking Ryan not for his thoughts, but as a symbol of thinking, which is precisely what Ryan is and precisely what happened. It is fatuous and superficial.
To be specific using an example you raise, Democrats need 60 votes for cap and trade. They got nearly 60. Right now they have ten more Senate races to win to get back in that ballpark. Democrats promoting cap and trade today into 2012's economic headwinds would be idiocy. Thus, it's dumb for Brooks to lament the lack of Democrats doing that, because it would be dumb to do that. This is why Destor is right and David Brooks is wrong, and one waits a bit, you will see that Democrats actually do have big ideas, but should be losing this election by 5 points and the Senate by 10 seats. Democrats aren't intellectually bankrupt, they're whistling through the graveyard on the strength of their past achievements and Tea Party radicalism. So they need to take back the Congress.
Now if David Brooks means big ideas that make everything perfect and unemployment very very low and raise productivity and reduce pollution and eliminate war, yes, we don't have those big ideas, but Western civilization has been working on that for several centuries without success. I find his lament, to the extent it trends that direction, as vacuous and inane as most of his columns, which is why Destor amazes me, I can't even read them. The two great parties are locked in a major struggle of ideas -- socializing benefit, and attacking government and desocializing benefit.
Call Brooks whatever you like, but I put up an argument both on this thread and the other that was essentially identical to Brooks', so if he's babbling (or self-refuting) then so am I. Call me uptight, but I when spend time putting together a coherent argument, it's highly irritating to read a one-word dismissal from someone I respect.
On to the topic. My point is that HCR was the last big Democratic idea. Whether you want to call it done or almost-done is just semantics. The point is that when I look beyond HCR, I see a whole lot of nothin'. The best I seem to be able to hope for is that the Republicans don't gut existing programs, the unions don't get demolished, and Medicare/Medicaid doesn't run out of money. It is, in Brooks' words "a protective agenda, not a change agenda." What kind of hope is that? What kind of forward is that?
Cap-and-trade is interesting. It may well be the only big idea the Dems have left on the table (other than HCR, as you would have it). But it's an odd strategy run a national convention without mentioning the party's only big idea. And if it's so unpopular that we dare not speak its name, I don't see how it can pass even with a 60-vote majority. The Democrats had enough trouble passing HCR with 60 senators, and that was an idea that they were actually proud enough to promote to a general audience.
Cap and trade probably got within two votes of passage in the Senate, and passed the House. Look back at the Clinton years, and tell me Obama's term didn't try more big ideas than Bill did in two with better economic fundamentals.
You're going to get all mad again, but isn't it *internally contradictory* (e.g., self-refuting) to complain about a lack of ideas when the critique can't even frame what kind of ideas it's talking about? Like, what the hell does David Brooks want people to think of? If the thinking is so evidently deficient, why can't he articulate what this or these big ideas are?
Nixon wanted a War on Cancer, Reagan Star Wars, there are lots of ideas to which government commits that don't work out. We need fiscal sanity, a social safety net, some equity, voting rights, equal rights, fewer wars. People thought of these ideas. They need doing, not imagining.
I am unfamiliar with the part of the Constitution in which the government is supposed to do Things That David Brooks Finds Interesting and Worthy. I thought it was supposed to tax and spend and that kind of stuff.
I can't speak for David Brooks, but here are a few big ideas that our government has implemented that I can happily recommend:
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
PS No, I don't think that Clinton had many big ideas either. I think Democrats ran dry a couple decades ago. But "stay the course" didn't ring quite so hollow when things were less crappy.
I get the idea that it's easy to define things that already happened. I still don't understand how a person can stand in a frame of criticism of others not thinking of ideas they themselves are not naming. Or I guess I can understand it but find it uninteresting and contentless.
Because it's not David Brooks' job to come up with big ideas to solve America's problems. He's a columnist, not a leader of the Democratic party or a candidate for president.
If you find the critique uninteresting and contentless, than there's really no need to even address it, is there? I find it devastating, and I believe that it underlies the difficulties of the Democrat Party in making a case for why its nominees should lead the country.
You're willfully avoiding the point, and exhibiting the affect you so kindly imputed to me earlier.
The Democrat Party will probably have more votes in the 5th of 6 consecutive Presidential elections 60 days hence, which seems to refute your comment fully. Indeed, it suggests that there is apparently a negative correlation between big ideas and winning Presidential elections. The only big idea Brooks or you see on the Democratic side is HCR, which handed the GOP enormous majorities in 1994 and 2010. The Democrats may be one big idea away from becoming liberal Barry Goldwaters. We don't have an LBJ-majority to spend on the secret big idea.
Your litany of big ideas consists of mostly laudable elements of a flourishing liberal-democratic society that are important to conserve (the extension of equal rights to LGBT being another one Obama greatly advanced and is advancing though you both don't seem to credit it as a big idea even though it is).
This is why your response seems to me to be avoiding my point on purpose. Of course you or any other critic like Brooks should be able to point to a necessary but absent constituent element of our social order. You're buying Brooks' illusion that you can reasonably complain that there's some big policy out there we utterly need, that 55% of America will vote for and accept, but that is too elusive to articulate. That deserves to be called self-contradictory, and complaining about my style of speaking doesn't make it a reasonable critical frame.
The best serious answer to what are our best issues seems, as Destor implies, to be green issues. Indeed, Obama referenced doubling fuel efficiency in the US auto fleet, which is important. But in this economy, coming out hard against fossil fuels and for presently more expensive alt-energy, while a great policy end, is not a reasonable expectation politically. The Dems need to win more to get back the stick to do that. Which Destor said. Announcing that now isn't logical, and indicting this week for not doing that is a heavy-duty straw man, which is a Brooks forte.
If I'm avoiding the point, it's not willful. Perhaps we have different ideas about what the point is. This seems to be nub of it...
There is no illusion here. If the leader of the country--or any institution for that matter--lacks ideas to change things for the better, it is not only reasonable but essential to criticize him, even if you don't know how to do it better. Consider the issue by analogy: if I'm a stockholder in some flailing company, I may not know how to fix the company myself, but I can sure as hell hold the CEO accountable to come up with some way to fix the company. That's his job.
I suspect that you think it's an illusion because you don't believe there any big ideas out there, that Obama is doing the best job possible under the circumstances, that even Steve Jobs can't turn around this flailing company. If you believe that, I cannot disabuse you of it. I cannot prove that there are solutions out there because I do not know what they are myself.
But I do believe that there is a way forward out there, that some future president will find it, and that Obama's second term--if he has one and if he does not find a way to change things for the better--will pale by comparison. My belief may be wrong, and you can reasonably disagree with it, but that belief certainly is not "self-contradictory" unless by "self-contradictory" you mean "not what Articleman thinks."
I appreciate that you do not see the tension and contradiction in Brooks' critique. DF seems to appreciate that my saying that is valid and thus not simply a tautology for what I think. It is not.
Contradiction is not a matter of perspective. If you see a contradiction in what Brooks is arguing or in what I'm arguing (which is what I care about), then please articulate it. What are the two contradictory principles that Brooks and I have espoused?
Umm it took us 70 years to get that Big Idea through congress, 100 years if you count Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party platform, seems like we can take a break and try to protect that bill and improve it, to make sure all people are covered, seems like we aren't quite finished with Health Reform yet, you seem to think we are done, and we aren't. Seems like that is still pretty big, just because the bill is passed doesn't mean we are done yet.
You for some reason are ready to move on to other things but you don't know what those are, well we are trying to preserve what was passed and make it better. That's big, even if you don't recognize it.
Every time I think of David Brooks and the phrase "big ideas" I keep thinking of the first few seconds of "Lollipop" by Mika, where someone yells out, "What's the big idea?!"
Yep, it's like, hey guess what, we need more Big Ideas even though we don't have any of our own. It isn't as if Republicans have introduced anything but tax cuts, more tax cuts, and maybe some de-regulation, they haven't had a big idea since, well, since the Civil War when Republicans were for preserving the Union, they aren't for that anymore however. Democrats pass Big Policies, and then get lectured for not having more, it's kind of weird that everyone let's Republicans get away controlling the conversation.
Here is to lollipops with a chocolaty middle.
We need a second layer of equal protections, repeat moon landings, and definitely, some re-emancipation. The end of history is almost as bad as running out of column ideas.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
In our culture, the Dems get supermajorities sporadically. 1933-1946, then 1964, then 1993, 2009. Most of the modern big liberal ideas get passed then. These majorities were not, as your theory of doing politics suggests, the result of pushing big ideas. They were the result of economic failures on GOP watches, and in 1964, war and fear of it.
Except for the anomaly of a 70/30 split in our polity during the Great Depression, each Dem supermajority big idea wave gave way to large and significant GOP victories --Nixon's Southern strategy, the Contract With America, and the Tea Party. In the moment after each such retrenchment, liberal politics become more marginal/incremental and less sweeping and programmatic.
Like some other fool asked during a bar room brawl, Is this a private fight or may I join in?
If I am understanding Genghis correctly he keeps saying that he wishes there were 'big' ideas being promoted by the Democrats for the purpose of dealing with the big problems we face as a country. You, again if I am understanding you correctly, keep responding that the horse race isn't won that way. The evidence supports your response but your response is not to what Genghis is saying. And, ideally, [there's that word again] politics should be about more then just helping a chosen team win. There should be a positive outcome for the nation to look forward to if that chosen team does win.
We do have big problems and the solutions need be on a national level and thus it could be, should be, wished that a national political party was pushing ideas to solve those big problems. The ideas to solve big problems would almost surely be correctly called "Big Ideas'. I would like to see some too.
Genghis: don't they have any big new ideas?
Everyone else: of course they do, holding on real tight
Genghis: but holding on isn't a big new idea
Everyone else: of course it is - health care would go away without holding on
Genghis: but that was last election's big idea??!!?
Wash, rinse, repeat.
No, there are no big new ideas this election. Yeah, protecting ACA will be required, but does it have to take up all the oxygen for 4 more years? As for Afghanistan, I'll believe it when I see it - no one seems real interested in talking about it. We'll end up with our residual force that we couldn't arrange in Iraq. Cutting Social Security eligibility? not really a great new idea.... we'll see. What economic initiatives to expect? More holding on real tight, praying for rain, not even a cloud seeder around.
1. The big programs that were passed in the 1930s, 1960s, and 2009 were not stealth operations that Democrats sprung on the public once they gained power. They had been publicly championing most these programs for years if not decades.
2. There are many factors that go into a winning election campaign--ideology, personality, economics, etc. To suggest that elections are only about the economic failures of the previous administration is perverse, and I cannot imagine that you believe that. If you actually believe that policy agenda simply doesn't matter in elections, then we are so far apart that I think there can be no agreement.
PS The most prolific era in American politics is arguably Wilson's first term. The economy was doing quite well when the Democrats swept into power on a platform of progressive ideas that had been gaining prominence and popularity for decades with the help of determined politicians who championed them year after year--even when they had little hope of passing them.
Although he pushed many progressive causes, Woodrow Wilson was an old fashioned Democrat in regards to African Americans. He promised them a 'fair deal' when running in 1912.
Once in office however, he took harsh measures against African Americans to satisfy that still present American voting faction: racist white southerners. Now of course, it is the GOP that gets that vote. In the early 1900's blacks usually voted Republican. The white southern vote helped Wilson beat the more progressive Roosevelt in 1912.
The Wilson measures included the wholesale firing of black postal workers, adding photos to federal job applications to allow discrimination in hiring, and segregation in work assignment and in the workplace. This not so cheery history of the Wilsonian era has all but been forgotten.
(Under President Wilson) - Segregation was quickly implemented at the Post Office Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Many African American employees were downgraded and even fired....The segregation implemented in the Department of Treasury and the Post Office Department involved not only screened-off working spaces, but separate lunchrooms and toilets. Other steps were taken by the Wilson Administration to make obtaining a civil service job more difficult. Primary among these was the requirement, begun in 1914, that all candidates for civil service jobs attach a photograph to their application further allowing for discrimination in the hiring process. Smithsonian National Postal Museum
I cited Wilson as a counterexample to A-man's argument. That does not mean that I support every aspect of his presidency. He also got us into WWI and signed the Sedition Act of 1918. Moreover, he was a late convert to progressivism, having adopted it not long before he ran for president. He was not so much a visionary as an executor of visionary ideas that preceded him, such as those of William Jennings Bryan (who also had a fair share of political warts).
Good points. I was frankly shocked with Wilson's treatment of African Americans, it was mentioned in the recent biography of TR 'Colonel Roosevelt' by Morris.
Morris said Wilson's action in this regard particularly grated on Theodore R. who had brought prominent African Americans into the White House and appointed them to important positions, forgoing the white racist vote, which went for Wilson, for his efforts.
The Republicans were still more or less the party of Lincoln back then, while the Democrats were still more or less the party of the South. Many of the diehard laissez-faire champions of big business were much more progressive on race relations than the anti-corporate populists. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, for example, fought the bankers and the trusts but also defended lynch mobs.
Fwiw, TR's race record was not spotless either.
PS Morris is very readable, but you should take him with a grain of salt. His history lacks a little rigor.
PPS If you like Morris, you'll love When the War Began by Michael Wolraich. More readable, more exciting, and better history to boot.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
And of course, there's a chance that you won't be surprised. Obama is nothing if not a careful steward.
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.
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.
Well, you probably could have knocked Obama over with a feather when he heard what Biden had done.
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.
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..
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
e
The GOP would rather put the nation into default than surrender on this 'small no brainer'. That's the crazy.
It's all part of the mindset for most who don't believe and/or are unwilling to acknowledge that, as he stated:
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?
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.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/07/2989311_p4/text-of-obamas-acceptance-speech.html#storylink=cpy
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.
ocean-kat,
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.
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!
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).
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
ScaifeKochs to rile up the1/4 of the country that's conservative nutsTea Partiers.People don't tend to get as alarmed over tiny conspiracies for some reason. :)
Is this why nobody gets exercised when I tell them that Cap'n Crunch and Chef Boyardee are actually the same person?
NOOOOOOOOOOO! One is obviously Italian and the other is obviously a pirate of peanut buttery goodness... they aren't the same... I've seen the birth certificates!
Search your feelings. You know it to be true. Just think about it: you've never seen them both in the same commercial!
You and Tmac just won the Internet!
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
You'd steal his lunch money.
After I stuffed him into his locker.
:)
hahhahahahaahahahah
FIVE IN THE FRICKIN MORNIN?
hahahahahahahah
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ....
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.
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.
Sooner or later, Poland is coming home.
To America.
I love this one - great idea: