Blogs and Stories
No Messiah, but a Good Swimmer
Charles Dharapak / AP Photo
Denouncing the Obama administration’s missteps or worse doesn’t get us far—it promotes exactly what the president’s adversaries seek: his political disempowerment.
President Barack Obama took office at a time defined by hope and fear in equal measure. His election marked a remarkable moment in our country’s history—a milestone in America’s scarred racial landscape and a victory for the forces of decency, diversity, and tolerance. For the first time in decades, electoral politics became a vehicle for raising expectations and spreading hope—while bringing in millions of new voters. It was a campaign built on the power and promise of “change from below.”
Around the world, the night Obama was elected one could almost hear the collective relief that the U.S. had turned its back on eight years of reckless, destructive, and swaggering unilateralism, and was re-embracing the global community. He did a great thing for peace beating Bush and McCain.
Whatever one thinks of Obama’s specific policies, he is a reform president committed to the improvement of people’s lives and to the renewal and reconstruction of America.
In many ways, the election was a referendum on an extremist conservatism that has guided (and deformed) American politics and society since the 1980s. The sharp failures of the Bush administration and, perhaps most important, the shift in public views on the economy and the Iraq War led to a watershed moment—and a historic opportunity for a progressive governing agenda and a mandate for bold action.
A year later, what’s clear is that we are a ways from building a new order and reshaping the ruling paradigm of American politics. That will take more than one election and will demand continued mobilization, strategic creativity, and, yes, audacity on the part of small-d democratic independent people, groups, activists, thinkers, organizers. The structural obstacles to change are real and, perhaps, growing.
But we now have the political space to work. Whatever one thinks of Obama’s specific policies, he is a reform president committed to the improvement of people’s lives and to the renewal and reconstruction of America. Sure, his recovery plan was too small, too deferential to Republicans and tax cuts. But it has kept the economy from falling into the abyss and what is often overlooked, it represents more new net public investment in public education, anti-poverty programs than any program since the Great Society. We still desperately need a targeted jobs program. It is hopeful that Obama is beginning to use his presidential pulpit and brilliant oratorical skills to explain that at this time, when one of every six Americans is either unemployed or underemployed, what we need to fear is joblessness—not deficits. We also need action to alleviate the crisis of unemployment, so that Americans believe this president is on the side of working people.
• More Daily Beast contributors on Obama’s election anniversaryThe president has spoken eloquently of a new and progressive role for government. He says the labor movement is the solution not the problem—and he’ll need to act on that by supporting quick passage of the Employee Free Choice Act later this year. His first pick for the Supreme Court, the first Latina justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was a strong choice (and his election saved us from a right-wing court for decades to come). He has rekindled the regulatory agencies in Washington—FDA, OSHA, FTC, the Antitrust Division, FCC, EPA, CPSC—and in doing so has, ironically, fueled a full-employment program for K Street lobbyists! He repealed the global gag rule, and restored integrity to scientific research and government programs.
His quartet of speeches abroad—in Cairo, Prague, Moscow, and Accra—began to lay out an Obama doctrine in international affairs: support for a nuclear-free world; a belief that democracy is strengthened when a country’s people fight for their rights and liberties—not through U.S.-promotion or intervention from outside; the value of diplomacy and engagement; and the importance of outreach to the Muslim world. However, the military industrial complex Republican President Eisenhower warned of grows stronger. Obama just approved a bloated Defense budget, despite the rare cancellation of several costly weapons programs beloved by Congress that even the Pentagon didn’t want; the U.S. has some 700 far-flung U.S. bases, and there is an unwillingness to rethink skewed priorities in this arena.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Bipartisan Flavor, Progressive Spine
Katrina vanden Heuvel is The Nation's editor and publisher. She is the co-editor of Taking Back America—And Taking Down the Radical Right and editor of The Dictionary of Republicanisms.
This article shows the problem with being an overly loyal progressive. One, as proven here, can not see the forest for the trees. Ms. vanden Heuvel struggles to indicate that Obama has shortcomings in his leadership. But then what was one to expect from her.
No matter how long ago you read your 1st article by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Only one thing can be said for each subsequent scribble.... the names of the players are different.
Keep it up, Katrina! Your voice is loud and clear and there are many of us who agree with and applaud you. Your comments are right on target and a reminder for our country of the things worth fighting for. I am hopeful that Afganistan will not become "ours"! I am very hopeful President Obama will begin a drawdown and continue to work toward peace throughout our world.
Ah, you're both so very clever. At least one of Tina Brown's writers actually makes an attempt at genuine objectivity--which is a tall task on this particular site. See, Ms. Brown's m.o. is especially not objective on all things Obama. First: Tina Brown was and is an ardent Hillary Clinton Backer. This means she's still quite bitter that America chose a black man over the woman. Second: the New York publishing world is not especially fond of intellectually capable black men. In fact, within this industry, the so-called "liberals" are worse than conservatives. They love them some black folks as long as they're poor disenfranchised, and come from the hood and need to be "championed" by the crusading white liberals.
Obviously, Obama, an accomplished person doesnt fit that mold. This is why the white liberals hate him as much as the conservatives. Ms. Brown seems to be of this ilk, which is why we wont find any prominent black male writers on the site.
Something to think about...
But back to Ms. vanden Heuvel. Her piece was sincere, intelligent, and insightful. The tone was, like Obama, objective and hopeful. For those of us who are committed to living--who are not resigned to juvenile sarcasm and doom--there's always a place for well written stories.
Hey Noontime..... Clearly your race baiting only serves to prove how sad a person you've become. I doubt your kind of bigotry is welcome even in Tina Brown's "Dogpatch".
Spartann:
"Bigotry?"
Really? Is that all you got? I mean, based on your witty critique of the story I thought you were actually looking for some more substantial conversation. I've outlined some basic aspects of the publishing industry. But dont take my word for it. Ask your closest, most respected black friend. Engage him in conversation, ask him about some of the nuances of american life.
Noontime..... No I didn't stutter and Yes you spelled it correctly "B-I-G-O-T-R-Y"...
Though you may be surprised to learn, by jingo...I am not nor have I ever lived in a cloistered environment. That being said, I find your suggestion invidiously narrow-minded. I have many friends of every race, color and creed.... however, there ain't a damn thing nary a one can tell me about the man, I don't already know..
One day I hope you'll see, the dinner table isn't the only place you'll find Salt n Pepper together in harmony.
Katrina is so hyperpartisan. Well-meaning, I don't doubt, but she's no different from folks on the right 2000 - 2008 that would prop up any Bush decision no matter how ludicrous. Progressives think they're different because they went to "smart" colleges, but they fall prey to exactly the same take-a-bullet cheerleading as foes on the right. Katrina seems laughable here. I never take her seriously, for exactly this reason. No nuance, no objectivity.
subframer:
Interesting points all. And my question is this: how does one define "objectivity" in today's print media? I ask simply because once upon a time I think it meant holding up two sides of an argument and intelligently dissecting each. But now, "objective" journalism is defined by a writer who overtly attacks ( almost cartoonishly) whatever or whomever he or she believes in.
I suppose the goal is to mollify those readers who hate whatever or whomever the writer believes in. While Im not opposed to discussing controversial issues with people who hold opposing views, I do have a problem with 'pandering' to those folks. Such writing strikes me as insincere.
What are your thoughts?
I think ultimately these folks are all "in business", and I don't blame them. But Katrina, somehow, through her words, strikes one as a simpleton, a cheerleader with an elevated command of the english language. Put another way, reading her is like reading a communication from the DNC, or the RNC for that matter. In paying attention to "pundits", I'm looking for additional insight, and the sense that the writer has the ability to have some "variety" of opinions, albeit within their "slice" of possible positions. But Katrina, EJ Dionne, etc... Essentially worthless, unless you like a totally predictable response to everything that happens.
subframer:
Thanks for responding. Extremely well put. And youre right. Everyone is "in business." As such, editors arent into nuanced argument as much as they are "predictable responses." Maybe this will change. Maybe it won't. But I'm encouraged that you recognized it.
Thanks again.
In reading this article, I couldn't, try as I may, ignore the old slogan from the 90's screaming in my head. "It's the economy stupid!" It was the economy last year and it is the economy this year. It's almost always the economy. Keep believing last year's election was a referendum on "progressive" views and you will be rudely awakened.
No offense, Katrina... but your points are whacky.
Bad performance is bad performance... and no amount of spin, bias, lies, or Kool-aid can cover bad performance up.
Your man Obama is dividing the nation up, introducing Class Warfare, and promoting policies that will destroy the Middle Class. The only people who's lives are improving are his loyal supporters in the union, and wealthy Elites that can spend their way past his mistakes.
The REAL price of your blind Obama-love will not be felt for a few years.... it takes a while for the dictators of the world to get positioned for evilness when there is NO effective America around... for Big Gov to run out of money... and for destroyed hope, spirit, and optimism to finally die.
So, live it up and feel good, katrina. Things are crashing already, and you are to whacky to see it.
When I began to read this article, I thought that Ms Vanden Heuvel's statement about structural issues blocking the President's agenda meant that, for once, I could agree with her.
I thought that she might be referring to problems with the agenda or the world view that allegedly supports it. I thought that, at last, someone from the left might be addressing the issues which have driven many of us Democrats to claim to be independants or to, shudder, even vote for the other side. Silly me.
Its the intellectual structural problems of the self-defined "Progressives" that keep us from moving in their direction. These problems lie in the fantasies of the left as well as the left's refusal to accept reality when it contradicts its ideology.
From 50,000 feet these fantasies include the refusal to accept that big government leads to corruption because, with apologies to Willie Sutton who deserves better, that's where the money is. Witness ACORN. Similarly, "Progressives" look for big government solutions even after big government has all but destroyed lower income familities. Government, along with teachers and government employees unions have severly damaged public education and have crippled California. Despite such demonstrable failures, Ms. Vanden Heuvel and her ilk continue to support programs based upon Unions and Big Government which are not only guaranteed to fail but to lead to deleterious results for the voter.
Specifically, in this article she praises the President's stimulus program by pointing out how the money was spent. Even someone with minimal economic training who looks at the spending praised by Ms. Vanden Heuvel will realize that those types of spending will not create any jobs beyond those directly created by the dollars spent. The spending will not have the velocity or structural impact to create private sector jobs which are necessary to pay for the government jobs.
She goes on to state that labor unions are the solution to our economic problems but doesn't acknowledge that they are part (not all) of those problems. Witness the auto companies, Michicagan and California. Only someone who has been living in a cave could make this type of statment without addressing the role of organized labor in creating our problems.
She praises President Obama's speeches abroad while failing to address the fact that even after these speeches, the President cannot get any cooperation from our enemies, neutrals or even our friends. Since she can't acknowledge the reality, she can't learn from history.
She referrs to the Military Industrial Complex and the problems it can cause. However, she ignores other complexes such as the Governmenet/Union Complex, the Government/Press Complex and the Government/ Environmentalist (Al Gore) Complex. Each of these is functionally identical to the Military Industrial Complex and has the same corrosive effect on government policy. However, since those complexes are part of Mr. Vanden Heuvel's faction (in the sense meant by the Founders - a band of self-interested politicians and other "powers" joined together to feather their own nests at the expense of the Nation), she can't see that they represent problems.
If Ms. Vanden Heuvel is really concerned with solving the problems of the US, its citizens and especially its poor, she would address these structural problems with her ideas and world view which doom our efforts to improve the lot of the average citizen. I suspect that her failure to do so is either the result of ideological blindness or wilfull ignorance based upon her loyalty to her section of the alledged intellectual elite. For the record, they ain't intellectual or elite.
If Afghanistan and Iraq were so reckless why are Barack Obama's choices for Vice President (and asserted foreign policy expert), Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State, the foreign policy team, all avid supporters of the Iraq War in 2003 ... they were not misled by corrupted intelligence ... that is a laugh. And even Obama did not distrust the presence of WMD at the time; he merely would have tolerated Hussein's Iraq with nuclear weapons. In truth, George W. Bush did the right thing given the facts at hand and everyone knows it.
But now this is great; we can remember what disasters these Regressive Boss-Tweedists were in the late 1970s preparing the way for a Romney or Giuliani or whomever and a truly progressive and reformist GOP government to indeed fix the USA.
And the banking crisis/real estate collapse was cased by socialism, i.e., socialist interferennce in the market to make it too easy for Democrats (overwhelmingly) to over-borrow with bad credit to buy a house or a house bigger than they need/earned, that is, in those instances where Democrats (overwhelmingly) were not commiting loan fraud to get loans.
PD
It is so nice to read an encouraging positive piece on the difficulties that President Obama has faced in the nine short months that he has been in office.
Yes, Katrina is absolutely right. The rest of the world did give a collective sigh of relief upon his election. I for one, am still, for the first time in my life,happily supporting and defending an American president.
Cannot we all just give the man a chance? In 2012 you will have an opportunity to evaluate his administration based on his actual track record, although I think that it will take far longer than four years to clean up the mess that Cheney and Bush left.
Cheers.
Ms Vanden Heuval can worship at the altar of the Obama all she wants, but Obama is lucky his name wasn't on the ballot tonight in VA or NJ! His progressive policies have given us 9.8% UNEMPLOYMENT and more debt and printed money than in the history of the world, the country clearly doesn't want Obamacare! If Obama remains the progressive radial left winger and pushes Obamacare through the Democrats can kiss goodbye to the House and Senate in 2010. The country desperately needs the arrogance and Elitism of power limited by restoring checks and balances to our nation.
All of a sudden, Harry Reid is walking very slowly and conservatively, and no longer willing to rush Obamacare through. Add to that the electoral results from Virginia and New Jersey.
I hope, Ms. Vanden Heuvel, that you have plenty of pain-killers to assuage your Kool-Aid hangover.
Reading anything Katrina vanden Heuvel has written makes having needles stuck into my eyeballs seem fun.
Seriously,whether liberal or conservative, I think the one thing that should unite us all is not the fact that we are all human beings but rather the fact that we can all agree that Katrina vanden Heuvel is the most humorless, strident, self-righteous twit that has ever been given a public forum from which to espouse her hackneyed rhetoric.
Let me get this straight ... We aren't supposed to criticize the president when he errs, because it is counter-productive? What about errors escapes you? If it is wrong, it is counter-productive. Governance is supposed to be about getting things right, not about "grand schemes of things", or supporting an individual, unless the grand scheme or individual happen to be right. And a grand scheme that includes flaws is ... guess what? Flawed. Backing or failing to criticize flawed or erroneous policies and actions simply because doing so doesn't detract from the political capital of the one pushing those policies and actions is wrong on two counts. First, those actions/policies do direct damage, and thus create even more problem. Second, the lack of resistance to the person responsible for them teaches that person nothing about what he or she is doing wrong.
Good Swimmer?
I thought that was Ted Kennedy's nickname.
Come on-REALLY!! you still believe this lying empty suit? You say we should give him some credit? How much credit did anyone in the liberal media give George Bush from the time he entered office to the time he left, in spite of the fact that the most amazing accomplishment of his or any other administration was to stand up to the world and do his sworn duty to serve and protect the US and thereby you're right to bitch?? Give me a break-the phoney we have in OUR WHITE HOUSE now never had any credentials to serve even as a senator (which he proved) let alone as president!! He's an outrage and the dems by nominating him and then forcing him upon us, have driven an enormous wedge into America in race relations and the sovereignty of our nation. Give him a break? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
"This is in the interest of the Democratic Party..." Who cares what is in the interest of the democratic party? Both dems and repubs put the interest of their party before the interest of the public. They also put corporate interest before the public interest. The clearest message is that we need a viable option to these 2 corrupt parties. Aren't we tired of the way they play good cop bad cop while they both stick it to us.
There is something rather pathetic about Vanden Heuvel's illusions in Obama. If this was only an issue of her own abnormal psychology, I suppose it wouldn't matter much. But with her control of the Nation Magazine and her access to countless cable news shows, her impact on innocent and idealistic youthful minds is most baleful. If I had to choose between "lesser evil" folly and binge drinking on campus, I am not sure which is a worse social ill.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.