Why Obama Falls Short

Here is the key bit in a blog posting by Brad DeLong that identifies the problem with Obama:

Of all the senior members of the Obama administration, [Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christine] Romer has by far the least experience with practical legislative politics and also has the job that’s the least concerned with practical legislative politics. And I think that it was in a lot of ways a masterstroke to appoint a very policy-focused academic with no practical legislative experience to the CEA job. When people work too long in Washington, their notions of what would be good policy in principle tend to become unduly corrupted by their knowledge of what’s possible in practice.

But what Lizza is telling us is that on the two biggest pieces of macroeconomic management, the Obama administration is pursuing policies that its in-house expert on macroeconomic crisis management believed were far too timid. He’s also telling us that this was done primarily not because people disagreed with her analysis, but because they felt it wasn’t possible, legislatively speaking, to do what was objectively necessary. It’s a bit of a scary situation.

Obama promised "change you can believe in" but he's delivering "same old, same old". He may end up as a "typical" American President, but he has fumbled the opportunity to be the Abe Lincoln figure that he teased the electorate with during his campaign. A great historical moment for fundamental change has been lost. I am bitter about it. I won't mince words because I'm a nobody sitting on the sidelines. I've already been kicked around by history, so I know how cruel and indifferent history is. For too long I've had to watch the cynical manipulators with the air-brushed appearances strut on the stage and fool people. It is a great tragedy.