It seemed like a pretty good pitch at the time (to anyone unfamiliar with the last thirty years of GOP ideology, I suppose, or the revolution against such compromise that's controlled GOP operating procedure since 1992). And, for what it's worth, it seemed to be what changed the momentum, winning him Iowa, and, ultimately, the presidential race. But despite all that, and in part because of the strategy there laid out, since Obama's election in 2008 politics shifted yet further to the right, aided and abetted by the President himself, whose hands-across-the-aisle approach had the practical effect of legitimizing political positions so far to the right they are certainly not conservative, but rather are some form of mixed reactionary and Libertarian (on economic issues; Conservatives are not at all Libertarian on social issues, preferring the strong hand of government to enforce their version of morality, there. On a different note, some might mark that on an objective level, when it comes to say fiscal policy [what the government spends and takes in in taxes] the GOP 'plans' have simply been out of touch with reality: their numbers don't simply don't add up [they haven't, at times, since 1981, but of late they've been remarkably aggressive and consistent about ignoring basic math). But Obama worked with them just the same; it took the Occupy Wall Street protests to let the media, and America, know that there were any other voices but the Tea Party--and the center-right-on-economics commentators in Washington--that mattered (presumably, our choice of options lay in some sort of compromise between those former two camps, neither of which, to be frank, appears to know the damndest thing about the macroeconomics of the situation, i.e. that this is a situation tailor-made for temporary Keynesian remedies which could easily relieve joblessness in huge numbers and create a stronger recovery).
The problem, from the point of view of we genuine liberals (and I'd qualify that by stating that I'm beginning to wonder whether I, at this point, should identify as a liberal, proper, or rather as some sort of fellow-traveler who's tired of modern American Liberalism's post-LBJ naivety...their aversion to using the levers of power effectively for the benefit of the public), the problem has been that, well into 2011, most of what we saw from the President was the outstretched hand, and very little of the man from the center-left we'd been promised. Most of his rhetoric and policies came pre-compromised and pre-immunized to charges of any perceivable leftish tinge. The 2013 State of the Union, combined with his Second Inaugural speech, and following on a campaign speech from a year or more ago that heralded the return (in a very modest way) of some of the ideals of Theodore Roosevelt, that has now changed all that.
I should qualify that Obama did some fairly important center-left things in his first two years, notably a (far too small) Keynesian bill that stopped the freefall of the economy (while not restoring it to healthy growth and leaving us an ugly, lingering 8-10% unemployment problem), as well as student loan reform (no more subsidies given to useless private-sector middle-men who took on no risk on the actual loans), Health Care Reform (the most right-wing version possible, with its intellectual roots in The Heritage Foundation and 'Reason' magazine, and without nation-wide exchanges, a Medicare buy-in for those over 55, or any other sort of expansion of public insurance, especially the Public Option that was at the center of Democratic hopes and which would have, while avoided forcing consumers, by law, into buying private goods, also helped drive down prices in the health care market through central bargaining power), and a softish version of financial reform (Dodd-Frank, which managed to earn the ire of the financial sector while not being strong enough to satisfy reformers on the left or, possibly, prevent the next financial crisis; the financial sector is already at work lobbying to weaken and undo the law). Obama did this in the face of absolute right-wing opposition (those few important national figures who stood with Obama on important issues were either forced from the Republican party (Gov. Charlie Crist and Senator Arlen Specter), or decided to retire, like senator Olympia Snowe, who--notwithstanding her own love of being the rightmost marginal vote in Obama's coalition at certain times, and thus the massive power that came with her position, and its ability to extract huge concessions on any bill in exchange for that...one...final...vote...(which she was perfectly willing to withhold after said concessions were given, some say in a promise on procedural votes to Mitch McConnell), ultimately decided to quit the game rather than deal with the crazies in her own party.
But Obama always with an open hand: a carrot and no stick, always playing the inside game to get bills passed (with some success in 2009 and fairly little thereafter, notwithstanding the obligatory final passage, through reconciliation, of Obamacare in March of 2010) but without bringing along outside pressure, and rarely providing, rhetorically, an alternative vision for a country that had soured on six to eight years of 'compassionate conservative' rule: unfunded and unsuccessful foreign wars, medical benefits put on the credit card, 'attaboys' to cabinet officials in charge of hurricane relief while dead people floated in the streets of New Orleans, a financial crisis and subsequent economic collapse; but which was offered no public alternative to the previous eight years but a farther-right version of the same and a centrism without a philosophy on domestic policy (that would be Obama, who I'd note set out a clear philosophy of foreign policy in his 'just war' Nobel acceptance speech, though what version of pragmatism or amoral 'realism' he follows on certain international issues is still somewhat unclear)
Through all this, the GOP maintained that their anti-government principles were, substantively, correct, and that only deviations from 'Conservative' (I use quotes because the extremities of the modern movement create a lot of space between the US movement and Conservatism's founding outlines as laid out and practiced by Edmund Burke, as well as figures like Disraeli, Oakeshott, and Salisbury--not to mention, say, Richard Nixon, once the leader of his party's right wing but far to the left of them on many issues of governance now) orthodoxy had created the present problem. And for much of this time, there was no major figure or narrative to counter this right-wing narrative of the country's problems except Paul Krugman, who has sinned by being correct on nearly all his economic predictions of the past five years, but has not been polite enough to the consensus folks who tend to be flat wrong and impervious to new evidence or new (or old) economic theories.
While Obama seemed to realize something of his mistake--the rhetorical and policy vacuum he'd created by focusing so much on compromise--some time in his embarrassing debt-limit fight (and loss) in 2011, leading to some moderately tough rhetoric during the 2012 campaign and a symbolic speech echoing Theodore Roosevelt, it was unclear what the president's actions would be in a second term. Americans have heard attractive populist rhetoric on economic issues too often since 1966, and been too often disappointed, not to be very jaded about it, and Obama's instinct for compromise with a merciless enemy had previously seemed to overwhelm his better nature: his 'hand across the aisle'--bit had amounted, in practice, to something awfully similar to triangulation, after all; there was even an offer, after the election, to raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 that somehow made it onto the table(such a raise would be substantively horrible policy that would have not only increased America's healthcare costs in total, but left a new portion of younger seniors out in the cold). In this context, while the Inaugural speech was a breath of fresh air for those on the center-left who feel they haven't had someone even to argue their case on the public stage for forty years, with the partial exception of Ted Kennedy's disastrous campaign of 1980, certain voices did note that that speech focused, in its specifics, more on individual rights than on the reintroduction of important Social Liberal principles necessary to govern ourselves effectively in this age of corporate dominance, a stagnant economy, and a weakening middle class:
Who Are You Calling a Liberal (2013 Inaugural edition - Michael Kazin)
"If Obama is liberalism's standard bearer, liberalism's in bad shape," BY
(Excerpted)
"...But to believe that Obama has truly revived the great tradition of egalitarian reform is to neglect the distinction between two species of modern liberalism: that which promotes the equality of rights and that which works toward a greater equality of opportunity and wealth. The latter, the social variety, emerged from the class tumult of the Gilded Age and inspired such key New Deal measures as Social Security, the WPA, and the National Labor Relations Act. The former harks back to the abolitionists and early feminists; it demands that the promise of individual liberty be extended to every American, regardless of their skin color, national origin, gender, or whom they happen to love.
Most contemporary liberals support both types. But since the 1950s, they have devoted more time and passion to fighting for individual rights....
Yet the goal of economic equity for the majority of working Americans now seems farther away than at any time since the Great Depression. Anyone who follows the news knows the basics: beginning in the late 1970s, productivity has shot far ahead of wages, the lion’s share of wealth growth has gone to the one percent while the wealth of the bottom sixty percent has declined' the real value of the minimum wage is lower than it was during the Carter administation....
...In his inaugural speech, Obama wisely observed that “individual freedoms ultimately require collective action.” But in touting his second-term agenda, he has so far said little about what sort of collective action he has in mind." (endquote)
Well, now he has, and--more--he plans to take the show on the road, in an effort to get at least -some- of this desperately needed agenda passed through a Republican House of Representatives. While the media has focused, like the shallow and lazy fools they often are, on the optics of Marco Rubio's awkward drink of water, and on the 'emotional crescendo' of Obama's call for a vote on gun control efforts--mainly an effort to demand background checks everywhere, and possibly additional measures such as stopping the sale of new high-capacity magazines--the SOTU was also a call to war for center-left policies that will benefit the middle-class in myriad ways:
"Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour."“To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?”
“Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime”
“…the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.”
Not only was there a call-out for action on climate change (which came amid boasts--the first any president since the Nixon can make--of already increased energy security), and a call for worthwhile pre-K education reform (French public schools start at 3, and studies show it benefits them), this speech contained a sustained push for preventing huge cuts to domestic and military spending (the latter of which large sections of the GOP hate) which would affect domestic government operations and our ability to carry out our security commitments overseas by...a push for making up the money through closing tax loopholes for the rich--the resolution of which problem (on which he has substantial leverage over the GOP via the military cuts they hate so) will clear space for the rest of his agenda.
Friends, Americans, Liberals, it doesn't get much better than this. You wanted a Liberal cri de couer, you got it. You wanted a Liberal call for action on arenas of desperately needed policy, here it is. The best since LBJ. Enjoy it while it lasts. Some of it might even pass! And even if most of this, including the closing of tax loopholes for the rich and gun control legislation of any sort, crashes and burns 'gainst the immovable wall of House GOP intransigence (and fear of right-wing primaries)...someone has finally spoken with your voice again, while a big part of the nation listened. Too, it looks like Obama'll keep up the outside pressure for the forseeable future (he has a series of events and speeches outside Washington scheduled)--after all, the only way any of this stuff goes through, including on the all-important question of the sequester (do we cripple the government and the military or do some smart cutting and close some tax loopholes? Seems an obvious choice, no?), is if Obama keeps up his outside game, until it's clear the public is on his side and the GOP feels they have to fold.
The whole speech can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jqWrotmhEo
And here's the text: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/12/obama_sotu_2013_text_president_obama_s_state_of_the_union_speech_as_prepared.html
Marco Rubio's official response, full of false dichotomies, hyperbole, straw man arguments and other fallacies and paranoias can be found...not on this site.If you are looking for Marco Rubio speeches, merchandise, or sweatshirts, please look elsewhere.
UPDATE - Polling shows viewers had a heavily positive response to Obama's State of the Union: 53% "very positive" to 24% "somewhat positive" and 22% negatives, in total (though the sample had a fairly heavy, twelve point, Democratic party ID bias, this appears to be who was watching the speech, and even weighted by party ID, those are good numbers for the Prez. Surprise! The public likes commonsense Liberalism clearly invested in improving life for everyone and preventing the collapse of defense and domestic government!)
No comments:
Post a Comment