Obama, Romney & Enthusiasm
by Mike Kimel
Obama, Romney & Enthusiasm
We live in lesser times. The election is coming up, and our choices for President are pretty dismal. I mean really, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? This is what it comes down to? And the third party candidates, when one scratches below the surface, are not any better. An honest person must admit ample reasons to oppose everyone on the ballot.
With that said, there is one phenomenon about this election I find very curious. Until Barack Obama came around, the only Presidents since the end of WW2 to increase the national debt as a percentage of GDP have been Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bushes. So why is it that so many people who oppose Obama, who look to Reagan as a shining light, are yelling about financial responsibility and deficits? They weren’t supporting Democrats since 1976, that is for sure, and it wasn’t that long ago that Dick Cheney told us boldly that that deficits don’t matter.
I also don’t get the economic concerns that Republicans have about Obama. With the exception of Obamacare, essentially the same thing as Romneycare and very much based on a Heritage Foundation plan, Obama’s economic plan has been to continue GW’s policies. Tax rates have been kept constant, right where GW left them. The bailout was kept the same. What exactly did he change?
Which leads to the same question for Democrats too: what exactly did Obama change? From where I’m standing, on the economic front, all I can point to is that Obama has, if anything, done less to rein in financial abuses than his predecessor did.
After the dot com implosion, there were prosecutions. After the much bigger mess from
2007 to 2009, crickets. Similarly, when the dot com implosions were played out, none of the perpetrators were given handouts. After the 2007 meltdown, not only did Obama continue GW’s bailout giveaways, he expanded them and has encouraged the Fed to do the same. If there’s one class of Americans who are doing particularly well, its the folks who were most complicit in creating the mess the rest of the country is in.
I can say about the same thing with respect to social policies, foreign affairs, etc. All of which is to say, there are a lot of people out demonizing one of the candidates, a candidate who is following their party’s prescription as well as any of their own party’s standard bearers, simply because he belongs to the other party. And there are a lot of people supporting that candidate, that candidate who in deeds stands against what they stand for, simply because he is, nominally a member of their party. The reason we live in lesser times is because, collectively, we are lesser people.
The other day I held my nose, scratched off a mark next to the name of the marginally lesser of the two evils (I originally planned to have a blank vote for President, but the other evil worries me more than I expected), and mailed in my absentee ballot. I won’t advise you on whom to vote, but I would, strongly suggest that you not kid yourself. If, like me, you are holding your nose, don’t pretend you are doing it with a lot of enthusiasm. The stakes surrounding this election are far smaller than the stakes surrounding how we, the people, behave when it comes to politics.
“So why is it that so many people who oppose Obama, who look to Reagan as a shining light, are yelling about financial responsibility and deficits? They weren’t supporting Democrats since 1976, that is for sure, and it wasn’t that long ago that Dick Cheney told us boldly that that deficits don’t matter.”
The simple answer: Starve the Beast.
Phase 1 of Starve the Beast: Massively increase the Federal debt. OC, this means massively increasing deficits.
Phase 2 of Starve the Beast: Use fear of the massive debt run up in phase 1 to cut gov’t spending, particularly on social programs.
What we are seeing is phase 2.
Those who believe that the Reps would return to their phase 1 ways if Romney is elected are sadly mistaken.
Mike
If I had to pick and choose, I’d agree with you.
I am afraid, though, that voting for the lesser weevil will just “send a message” to the powers that they have us well in hand and we will vote for the blue guy or the red guy according to the emotional issues that they use to keep us divided against each other while letting them run the country with no regard whatsoever for truth, decency, or even sanity.
You see, it’s like football. It matters to the blue guys and the red guys who wins because it affects their pay for the next year. But it doesn’t matter at all to the owners as long as the fans keep coming and paying for tickets. And it doesn’t matter at all to fans except for the emotional hit they get from winning or losing the day of the big game. Their real lives never change.
Min,
I disagree with you. Remember, black helicopters and UN bases on US soil were a cause for concern during the Clinton era, brought up repeatedly by talk radio shows with millions of viewers. As soon as Clinton’s term ended, poof, the black helicopters and UN bases vanished with not a word from Rush Limbaugh on the topic.
coberly,
I vacillate between “I did the right thing” and “I didn’t do the right thing.”
I think Hitler and Stalin were evil. This “lesser of the two evils” talk is way too hyperbolic for me.
If you think it doesn’t matter, and the real lives of real people don’t change, than you must think the SCOTUS and Citizens United are irrelevant to the American political landscape, that eliminating DADT has been irrelevant to gay people in the military, that the millions of people who now have health insurance due to the deeply flawed ACA are irrelevant.
You also have to believe that a Romney influenced SCOTUS won’t overturn Roe vs Wade, nor make any other decisions that will damage the lives of countless Americans for the next several decades.
You have to believe that Romney will not take us into another pointless war. Or, alternatively you have to believe President Gore would have.
You have to really believe that Obama = Romney either on balance, or on a majority of significant issues.
Meanwhile, there are Rethugs who would make birth control illegal. Have you noticed what Rethug governors are attempting to do to collective bargaining? Do you see anything like that from Dems?
Sure the process is severely compromised and both candidates are tainted. So criticize away. That is legit.
But – and you know I love you guys – this damned false equivalence is simply dumb.
In reality there is no perfect political party, no perfect candidate, no perfect law. But reality, so far as I am aware, is the only place we get to live.
Now, I must go hug a squid.
JzB
Republicans scream about deficits and big government and many other things to rally against programs and policies that the Dems favor. It’s seldom a literal expression of some rational conclusion, no matter how much people pretend that it is. It is important, however, to analyze it to expose it for what it is.
As for having to choose between two evils, this attitude certainly isn’t in American politics! From my perspective, the major new development has been the capture of the GOP by its right-wing combined with the strong enforcement of GOP party discipline in Congress. We’ll find out on Tuesday whether this path is rewarded with greater power over federal government programs and policies.
Anonymous, it really dismays me that there are so many people, like you, who think that Hitler and Stalin have a monopoly on evil—that is, that because those two were in a class of evil all their own (although actually I think Hitler was in a class all his own, separate even from Stalin; then again, I’m Jewish), the word “evil” doesn’t appropriately apply to anyone else. But it does. And it applies to Romney.
Romney is downright diabolical. He’s not a Hitler and he’s not a Stalin, but he’s truly evil. I also think he’s mentally ill. How else to explain a pathological adoption of lying and deceiving, and of incessant repositioning of positions, as key campaign strategies? It’s sick. And so is he.
Beverly,
I don’t think anyone will confuse me for a Romney apologist so I think I’m safe in responding to your comment to Anonymous… the flip side to your comment is, what do you call someone who campaigned on X, Y and Z and did the opposite, even during the period when his party controlled Congress? Matt Stoller had a post recently going through Obama’s speech accepting his party’s nomination for President in 2008 and noting, checklist style, that Obama didn’t even try to do most of what he promised. That to me is pretty pathological as well. In some ways, its worse than Romney’s approach. Romney’s taken so many sides on every issue so far that everyone knows he’s just going to do whatever benefits himself the most. Obama has had two positions on most issues: one while campaigning and one while in office.
You expect less from Joe Isuzu than from a guy who seems sincere.
Mike:
I believe you have answered your own question.
“Romney’s taken so many sides on every issue so far that everyone knows he’s just going to do whatever benefits himself the most. Obama has had two positions on most issues: one while campaigning and one while in office.”
#1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50. The ones I did not include I felt Obama could do more.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=1
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/the_incomplete_greatness_of_ba035754.php
“He’s gotten more done in three years than any president in decades. Too bad the American public still thinks he hasn’t accomplished anything.”, Paul Glastris
Those I did not mention I felt more could be done.
Matt Stoller is a fine writer and I was trying to get him to write for Angry Bear; But, I also believe He and the rest at Naked Capitalism are wrong. There is a huge difference between both he and Romney. Looking at what was accomplished and what was promised; do you honestly believe Romney would have tackled the things accomplished in the same manner? Romney is not for the little guy, the Hispanics, women, the 47% of the country who do not measure up to his standards, etc. At least Obama has done something while being blocked by the party of “No”rquist.
run,
A fair amount of what Obama did was while his party controlled Congress, don’t forget.
Why am I imagining Grover Norquist trying to drown the shrunken government in Sandy’s flood waters? It’s a strangely compelling image.
Mike –
You said:
what do you call someone who campaigned on X, Y and Z and did the opposite, even during the period when his party controlled Congress?
Is it accurate to say he did he opposite, rather than he didn’t accomplish what he said he would? Doing the opposite is raising taxes after saying: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Are there any actual opposites in the Obama presidential record?
Then you said:
A fair amount of what Obama did was while his party controlled Congress, don’t forget.
So you’re willing to propose that he didn’t accomplish anything, and then discount all that he did.
This is not the kind of rational thought you normally display.
Meanwhile you can be 100% certain of opposites on every issue from Romney, since he has already been on every side of every issue. Whatever he does is guaranteed to be the opposite of something he said.
JzB
Heads up regulars. A whole s-storm of comment spam tonight. I have squashed some and seem to have been beat to others by Dan, but there is an assault going on.
Beverly, I worry about you. Wow.
I would suggest some actual research on the amount of control of both houses of congress there really was. Between the illnesses of Kennedy and Byrd, the length of time it took to seat Franken and the Blue Dogs that often did not vote for Obama’s proposals it wasn’t nearly as much control as the myths would have it.
Good point Jim Satterfield. I’d also point out that Obama did, in the beginning, believe that bipartisanship was possible. Why shouldn’t it be? It took a while to learn that lesson, and if he had a little more optimism than was warranted, if there was a little wishful thinking involved, well, I don’t think I can blame him too much for that; I was kind of hoping for a little more post-racism myself.
JzB,
Its 4 AM and I’m operating on limited sleep, but off the top of my head, whether you agree with the stated policy or not:
1. Promising your healthcare plan will lower premiums and then putting your prestige and office behind a plan that raises premiums is doing the opposite. He had mentioned a number of times a public option that would have done it, but of course, no public option.
2. Putting together the catfood commission, particularly with the membership it contains, is the opposite of protecting social security. (Look for actual movement, not just talk, in Obama’s second term if he’s re-elected.)
3. Extending tax cuts is the opposite of stating you will let them expire
4. Keeping Gitmo open is the opposite of stating you will close it. (Specifically, making it essentially impossible to transfer the prisoners to the mainland is the same as keeping the prison open.)
“Tax rates have been kept constant, right where GW left them. ” isn’t quite true. Payroll tax rates are lower. Current low taxes on high incomes are scheduled to increase in 2014. There are both temporary tax cuts on low incomes and scheduled tax increases on high incomes.
In fact, unless current law is reversed, there will be a huge gigantic transfer of money from high to low income people via the ACA.
The question of enthusiasm ignores a significant systemic defect. The campaigns as currently constituted are designed to address a non democratic minority of swing state “independent” voters. How enthusiastic should I be voting for either Rmoney or Bogama in deep red TX? How critical should I be of Bogama for running for “President of Ohio” as Jon Stewart put it when that is the logical deployment of resources in the current system? Neither campaign has bothered to address voters in TX, CA, NY, IL etc. Why would they?
Once you get enough states joining a popular vote for president compact it destroys this dysfunctional dynamic. Once there is a mechanism in place to ensure the popular vote winner is elected it also significantly changes the importance of uniform voting and registration standards nationwide.
Of the two major political parties, however, only one is likely to be significantly handicapped by popular vote and uniform voter registration. It will be a difficult problem to solve.
@amateur socialist: then we get dominated by NY TX and CA, and all money gets spent in those markets, ignoring OH, IA, NV, etc.
It’s a thorny problem to be sure. Let’s look for other solutions, maybe something more like the British Parliamentary system?
Interesting podcast on the topic here:
Econtalk on the Geography of Voting
Hope the link works!
-J
Jazz et al
i think you miss a point… at least my point… those items about which you agree with obama and are afraid of romney are more or less the artificial points created by the powers to keep us at each other’s throats instead of theirs.
i would admit that all this is arguable. and i will admit that if Romney wins I will be more afraid than if Obama wins. But I think you are in danger of forgetting the real danger from the top while concentrating on what may be only rhetorical danger from the R’s.
I think you underestimate Obama’s crimes abroad, crimes against constitutional protections, and crimes against social security.
jazz
i think the “differences” you find so important are simply the differences between the good cop and the bad cop.
pjr
i don’t think the R’s have been “captured by the right wing.” What the R’s are doing is following the “logic” of their own successes. They have used “right” rhetoric to win elections. It works. So they do more of it.
But they don’t do (as oppose to talk) more of it than their real bosses want… same as O.
Beverly
I worry about you.
Hitler killed the Jews. Stalin killed the kulaks.
For you that seems to make Hitler more evil than Stalin.
Obama only kills people standing too close to “terrorists.” And that makes him Roy Rogers?
@anonymous: Yes. Where the voters are. As a democratic system might expect.
I might be inclined to support other schemes to include less populous states once we get the democracy problem fixed. But maybe you think the current anti-democratic emphasis is a feature rather than a bug.
I’ve seen too many elections overly concerned with what Iowans and (help us!) New Hampshire residents think to worry about what might happen if TX, NY and CA get included.
And just to circle back to the main poster’s topic, I would submit this is a key systemic issue that suppresses voter enthusiasm. Leaving the most populous states out of the campaigns.
Robert
“payroll tax rates are lower”…
oh, good. trying to destroy Social Security counts as a good thing Obama has done for us.
I have learned over the years that it is futile to argue about this, but I have also come to feel that at least Bush offered us “private accounts.” All the liberals are offering us is “welfare.”
And for those who don’t already know, I will only say, Social Security is not welfare. Go and find out what this means.
Of the many disappointments of Obama’s tenure, it’s hard for me to discern what part is due Obama’s failures, and what part is due to systemic corruption and the right-wing’s brilliant, but utterly immoral, strategic organization. His most evident stumble/betrayal was in failing to anticipate the corporate-sponsored propaganda machine/public backlash about health care reform, climate change, etc., and his failure to engage in productive counter-propaganda.
The right-wing succeeds only as long as, and to the extent that, they are able to brainwash the American public to vote for plutocratic interests by an amazingly extensive disinformation operation. I am trying to think more about long-term strategy for winning public opinion back from disastrous belief systems. To me, it’s clearly more important to elect Obama than to advance 3rd party candidates at the risk of a Romney presidency. It’s not only about the absolutely critical issue of future supreme court nominations, or social issues, but it’s also very much about public perception. If Obama wins, it signals an overall movement toward the left–whether or not that is actually true. It allows for more left messaging, more momentum, etc. At the same time, I hope that grassroots organizing increases to pressure Democrats into moving toward the left, and to advance progressive candidates like Jill Stein. Mostly, people need to get educated about reclaiming a functioning democracy.
Yet, since I am in Massachusetts, I was thinking about voting for Jill Stein, as it wouldn’t pose any real risk to Obama. Is that true? Voting for her in a “safe” state would send a message to Democrats…a threat from the left would move them to the left. If I lived in a swing state, I would totally vote for Obama, without holding my nose, but I would also stay very active in progressive politics.
I would rather have Obama make the next SCOTUS appointments, otherwise not much different with Romney in short run.
I expect Romney will blow up the debt faster than Obama! GOteaparty economics is W Bush with a weaker economy and no plan for help anyone but wall st.
GOteaparty is the party for the heirs to Henry Luce and the anti New Deal millionaires of the China lobby cold war era. Included are free staters, and anti sustainable economies which are accused of the UN taking over the fatherlandt.
A lot of the attraction of the democratic party at the state and local level is to challenge local GOteaparty serfdom to the billionaires. One issue for me is keeping tax funds away from bible schools.
There is less reason for supporting the dems at the national level, less clear differetnials.
It is slightly more likley that Americans will die in the streets and the US will have cities like Calcutta under the GOteaparty.
So you did the same you have been doing for decades, and you expect things to be different. How much lesser evil does it take to change a light bulb?
We have been witnessing the take over of the “lowest common denominator” representation in the Congree. The executive branch is not far behind, a la Dubia. And the scotus completes the circle of incompetencies. The incompetency is one side of the issue. The common denominator is voting intelligence. Ignorance regarding electoral self interest is pandemic in this country. Maybe in the world. Half the voters are about to vote for a guy whose primary organizational experience was wealth extraction. There is little evidence that Romney created any wealth, but plenty of it demonstrating that he and his co-workers transferred a great deal of corporate wealth to them selves. And a $35,000 a year worker cheers Mitt on to that worker’s own disadvantage. As I said, lowest common denominator.
That doesn’t make Obama a great choice. No DLC democrat is a good choice unless you’re hoping for the rebirth of Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javitz, etc. Progressive political thinking is woefully under represented in our government. The fact that Obama is so often labeled a socialist is the proof of the issue. We have disproportionate ideological representation, distorted income distribution and maybe 75 % of the electorate unable to analyse these problems to their own best advantage. So what’s all the bull shit about US exceptionalism? Maybe the neo-cons have a point. Ours is an exceptionally dumb electorate.
Mike:
It is apparent you did not receive a healthcare insurance rebate. I know one person who received nearly $1,000 and I came in at $179. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot; but, it is better than what we had. Over the long run, it will lower healthcare costs and decrease the growth in our costs which has exceed inflation for a long time.
Back to your original statement on Obama’s lack of success after controlling Congress up to 2010. 17 of the 50 success came after 2010. This is probably reflective of the Party of “No”rquist stonewalling everything.
Dale –
i think you miss a point… at least my point… those items about which you agree with obama and are afraid of romney are more or less the artificial points created by the powers to keep us at each other’s throats instead of theirs.
There is nothing artificial about any of the points I mentioned, not the 50 accomplishments in run’s link.
How many of these things would Romney or McCain have done?
On you pet issue, SS, I put the chances of BHO doing something destructive at about 20%, and the chances of Romney at least attempting to do something destructive at 80-90%.
The differences are stark and not at all trivial.
JzB
Mike –
Yes there have been fuck ups. And I agree that BHO made mistakes that look naive in dealing with the Rethugs. I think he’s smart enough to learn.
But with McCain we would still have torture and DADT; the tax issue was temporarily compromised and has not gone away; the great arc of shitty foreign policy has been pretty constant since WW II, until Shrub made it a whole lot shittier. Do you seriously believe that Bomb-bomb-Iran-McShame or Romney would not make it worse than BHO?
I am not defending the man. I am saying that false equivalence is a profound conceptual error, and not characteristic of the way progressives generally think.
JzB
I think either one of them is more or less going to end up doing what most people want done. So there is no sense getting worked up about it. Americans don’t want to live in a country like Switzerland that minds its own business, so we’re going to have an interventionist foreign policy no matter who is in charge. Most people want to buy now and pay later, so we’ll have lots of benefits paid for with debt and inflation no matter who is elected. Don’t you think? To me it’s like Coke vs. Pepsi.
Oh nice job Mike. You voted for evil, but did so with your hose held. Good for you. I’m sure that will show up in the final tally: “Mike Kimel voted for assassination without due process, war without authorization, and handouts to the super-rich, but he did it with strong reservations, so let’s reign in our terrible acts.”
Obviously, this post hits a nerve. I’m a leftist progressive who voted for Obama, so I suppose I should give an account of myself.
You seem to be imagining an ideal system in which we choose between the candidate who holds all our views and the one who doesn’t. I feel secure is saying that this is never how it works, and that a progressive might find things to criticize in the records of laudable presidents such as FDR or Lincoln. I imagine you withheld your vote in 2000, choosing between the known (Gore) and unknown (Bush) evils? Similarly, in the current election there’s a fairly clear difference in positions and goals between the candidates, although obviously neither will deliver on all his claims.
It’s also an illusion that Obama is beholden to you as a president. Most Obama supporters–and the American population as a whole–don’t mind ties to finance, drone strikes, or an inability to roll back the Bush tax cuts. Not even the New York or Illinois senator opposes any of these policies. So you are basically expecting a president–who was elected at a national level and is fighting electoral battles in Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire, to be somewhere to the left of the senator of the bluest state in the union? I think this is something that get’s lost in the criticism of Obama–he’s more liberal than the senate/congress as a whole, and may even be more liberal than the average Democrat senator.
Eric Titus
actually, you miss the point.
at least that is you have your point and it is adequate for you.
but (some of us) are not complaining because O differs with us on some issue or other
but because he is the clearest example we have had that it doesn’t matter who you vote for because the democrats and republicans all work for the same boss.
the “liberal” vs “conservative” issues you and jazz find so compelling are issues chosen and worked by the politicians to, first, keep Americans divided and conquered, and second, of course, to have a hand to play in the poker game they call politics.
they play for real money, and they may even hate each other. but they are all gentlemen members of the same club, and they all know the difference between “members” and “the help.”
Wow, the default position here seems to be hatred of Obama, albeit with grudging admission that he may be the lessor of two weevils, as Captain Aubry would say.
My take is that Obama is the son of a white mother and black father who was raised by the white side of his family but whom society in general considers black. As the first “black president” he was hoping to please everyone hence the giveaways to the Republicans on policy and the toughness on terrorism and the lack of prosecutions for war crimes and financial malfeasance. I count these as mistakes, some of them big, but not evil. As president, you make as many mistakes as the average human but they have bigger consequences.
Romney I see as the typical sociopath who rises to the CEO position naturally in any for-profit organization – Jack Welch being the prototypical example whom I suffered under.
Of course these pop-psychology speculations are worth what you paid for them, but so are some other strong opinions here. In the end, it’s like Soylent Green – people, just people.
@coberly
Is this a troll? Some specifics would help. Is there any president (now or in the past) that you would have voted for?
Of course both parties are heavily influenced by corporate interests. But claiming that there isn’t a difference between the candidates is so 2000.
If you accept that neither candidate is going to overturn corporate influence, it’s still worth thinking about which candidate will improve the lives of Americans–by not cutting unemployment, food stamps, and health insurance, for example.
Jim V,
Hmmmm….Bears are divided on this issue as to voting behavior, but in my estimation there is reason to remain in campaign mode after the election by us for things we care about…austerity hysteria, war and defense issues, foreign policy, trade policy for things other than capital flexibility, a grand bargain on social security…
Also forgot financial regulation, property/MERS and mortgage considerations, follow up on health system issues…and those are the ones that made the news a bit.
You know, liberal/progressive/moderates cannot consider the job don…don’t waste the organizing efforts by kiscking back and relaxing…local and state issues also need your energy and money.
Titus
it’s hard to guess what you would consider a troll.
just that i disagree with you?
coberly does like the moat under the bridge.
just saying.
Bear
please pay troll before crossing.
i get a little frustrated because people like Titus think they have refuted you when they just repeat the statement you were arguing against. It has something to do with frame paralysis.
I never argued there was “no difference,” or even that “the differences are not important.” I was merely hoping to direct your attention to the fact that the real rulers of this country (nothing paranoid here, just an observation about where the real power is) don’t find the “differences” as important as you do. In fact they use those “differences” to keep you and your political enemies from realizing that your real enemy is “the real rulers.”
probably nothing can be done about this, but we still like to point reality out to people in the wild hope it will begin to teach them how to solve their real problems.
Kimel has noted the effect is particularly obvious with Obama. I am not sure if he feels that this is because of some failure on Obama’s part to be a “real” Democrat, or if he agrees with me that it was never in the cards.
As I like to say, politics is a poker game between the gentlemen members of the club. They play for real money, and they may even hate each other. But the know the difference between the members and the help.