In 2005, the de facto Democratic leader was Nancy Pelosi. And she never bought into either the crisis-mongering or the Beltway desire to prove oneself “serious” by courageously agreeing to hurt ordinary Americans to make the nation safe for high-end tax cuts. She maintained a steely resolve: this privatization shall not pass.At every step Obama has "compromised" by giving the Republicans what they wanted only to have them demand more. This isn't "compromise". It is abject abdication to Republican demands. But that seems to be Obama's idea of "leadership".
Pelosi is still there. But Barack Obama is now the party’s leader. And let’s be frank: Obama still, after all that has happened, seems devoted to the dream of transcending partisanship, a dream he tries to serve by being nice to Republican ideas no matter how terrible those ideas are.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Leadership
Here is a bit from a post by Paul Krugman on his NY Times blog pointing out that the current US fight over Republican Ryan's plan to "reduce the deficit" will probably result in Obama being suckered into selling out ordinary Americans:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I keep thinking of Franklin Roosevelt and how he was willing to stand up to the wrong headed ideas that only come from the interests of the rich who always want more and don't see the folly of their ways.. But, Roosevelt was a leader and I don't know if these kind of leaders are available anymore. Even the hardline conservatives are merely puppets on very tight control. And, Obama's bipartisan dream is only a disguise to keep us from seeing the strings..
Thomas:
You are right about FDR as a leader. He had the advantage of wealth. People born back in the days of servants and great wealth were used to having their way and being treated with deference. The real key to FDR's success in the 1930s was that he understood the ultra-rich of his day. He was born into that class. During the 1930s he was actually trying to save the system for the ultra-rich (while giving a better deal for the bottom 90%). The rich hated him for saving the system. I find this so amazing.
FDR made his mistakes but he was always full of ideas and was willing to keep trying new stuff until something worked. Obama plays with his cards very close to his chest. He seems enamoured of the rich and defers to them. This is typical of those born with very little. Somebody with money, self-assurance, and a raging ego is very dominating. Obama has a big ego, but he keeps a low profile and does a lot of back room dealing to get what he wants. He is a born politician. But his "compromising" is driving everybody crazy. He needs to be more assertive, be a leader. But given his background, it is hard, and of course, all that money under the table from Wall Street and banks means he is compromised in what he can do for "the little people". (These are "the strings" that you refer to. Sadly they mean he isn't working as hard for people as he should be. He doesn't realize, like FDR did, that the path the US is on will cause grief for everybody, including the ultra-rich.)
RY:
I was watch Rachael Maddow last night as she showed scenes of the republicans attacking the postal service and Rachael also showed the polls that indicate that Americans like the postal service by about 83% of those polled and then she went on to say that republicans seem to be attacking the popular parts of the government. Evidently a lot of people think some parts work and like the way these parts like medicare work. Its almost like the republicans want to break the machine that feeds them..
Thomas:
I didn't see that Rachel Maddow show.
In the 19th century the postal service was seen as a vital communication service. Today there are private alternatives, but I'm one who believes the government should provide a stripped down "basic service" for those who can't afford the fancy private stuff.
The problem with private companies is that they won't operate if it isn't profitable, so they would shutdown postal delivery in small towns or in sparsely inhabited rural areas. But that isn't fair to those people.
A government service can make sure that everybody gets at least a "basic level" of service. But Republicans have the crazy idea that "private enterprise" is the cure for the common cold and everything else. They are ideologues and don't recognize that private companies wouldn't service profitless areas.
The Republicans suffer from the Marie Antoinette syndrome. When she heard that mobs were rioting in Paris because there was no bread, she just couldn't understand that. Her tables were always overflowing with bread and cake and all kinds of goodies, so she said "if there is no bread, then let them eat cake" as if the poor didn't realize that when they couldn't afford expensive bread, then they should go and buy expensive cake! She had no clue of what poverty was and of what hunger was.
That's the problem with the idiot Republicans. They don't know and they have no empathy. Their ideology tells them that everybody would be rich as a king if only they "worked hard". There is no such thing as a medical problem with no medical insurance which bankrupts a family. There is no such thing as a family losing its breadwinner. They simply have no clue.
Worst of all, their ideology blinds them to other points of view. They simply can't accept that other people prefer a society of laws with rules that are enforced instead of the "free for all" of laissez-faire capitalism. If you watch this video you will see that former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, a libertarian, who was supposed to regulate Wall Street and the banks, simply didn't believe that there would be or could be fraud. He thought that bankers and investment houses were "wise about risk" and could take care of themselves.
He had no clue that these banks and investment houses would conspire to cheat their clients or do something as stupid as to buy "insurance" (derivatives) from a firm like AIG that had no real assets to cover the derivatives if the system crashed. He was a believer in the economic theory of "rational choice" that argues that everybody constantly is doing an infinite calculation pricing everything not just for today but into the infinite future using "interest rates" that the theory doesn't explain how they could possibly know so that they can discount choices to "present value" and weigh them properly. A complete idiocy of a theory. But this is what 90% of all economists "believe" and build their theories on. That's why they had no clue that the Great Recession could occur and that they have no idea of how to fix the economy!
Post a Comment