It's not that people don't like you, it's just that you're not popular
So in the course of this summer's long hot descent into madness, otherwise generously referred to as a "healthcare debate", we watch with detached fascination as Barack Obama's popularity falls to 50%, showing every likelihood of going lower. But I wonder what's really behind those sagging numbers?In my case, I always tried to be realistic about who and what Barack Obama was. I accepted he was a center-right populist out of the Clinton school, but in spite of his corporatist and interventionist instincts he'd be a vast improvement over the bush/cheney authoritarian kleptocracy, and both America and the world would be vastly better served by an Obama than by a McCain. There were large constituencies that wanted desperately to believe that he was the second coming of FDR, and others that believed he was the antichrist.
I suspect these poll numbers have very little to do with the opposition. The American Political Right has always hated and feared an Obama presidency, and the hardcore 28%ers, the bush/cheney dead-enders, have never endorsed anything he ever did or said. Indeed, they have managed to convince themselves of things he has done and will do that beyond laughable. So all their frantic shrieking and bald-faced lies might have moved a few right-leaning independents back out of his corner, but it can't be that many and he wasn't ever going to be able to sustain their support anyway.
Nope. I think it's me. People like me. Liberals who feel there is a role for government in society, and who believe that spending huge sums on the military and on wars is stupid and wasteful. I began to be disappointed when he squandered opportunities to do some easy, important things. A quicker withdrawal from Iraq, a prompt, fearless closure of Guantanamo Bay, criminal investigations of bush administration lawbreaking, an end to state secrets and national security defenses in trials and lawsuits, there were so many egregious precedents from the previous administration he could and should have rolled back, drawing a bright line between what was acceptable and what was toxic. And he didn't. In every case he hesitated. He equivocated. He tried not to offend, to take small steps that would not draw criticism. He called it bipartisanship, the press called it pragmatism, I saw it as political cowardice.
And now, throughout the most appalling demonstration of what a small band of dishonest ideologues can do to democracy, he has been in the background, careful, fearful, unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say NO! He has sought to appease those who cannot be appeased, he has put process over policy and is clearly trying to build his legacy with a political win, even if the result is horrendous legislation. The right says health care is too expensive, we KNOW it's actually deficit - neutral and he says nothing. The right says any cuts to Medicare are unacceptable and then immediately shrieks that Medicare is bankrupting America, and Obama fails to note the blatant hypocrisy. They say a public option is a trillion dollar boondoggle when it's whole purpose is to control costs. And Obama says it's on the table.
Now, granted, he's the president, and while those foreign policy and defense matters are his to control, it is up to congress to pass health care reform legislation. But it's THE cornerstone of the Obama Agenda, and he needs to come out forcefully and lead. Of course, there's, as they say, the rub. He needs to come out and lead but he might LOSE. And he very clearly is more afraid of losing than he is of implementing bad policy.
All things considered, we should remember we only had two choices in November, and I'm still glad we have Obama instead of John McCain. But any belief or hope I had that he would actually change the way politics are done is gone now. I never thought he could win over the republicans, they are all playing to their regional and local constituencies, and as a result all that remains on the American Right are fringe radicals. But first I hoped he would be something sharply different from George Bush, and he turned out to be very much the same. Then I hoped he would at least use his popularity and majorities in congress to ram through important domestic legislation, and he doesn't seem to have the stomach for that either. Now, as I watch him pointlessly escalate a useless and hopeless war in Afghanistan, I realize that once again, I am drained of hope. I wonder how bad things will have to get before someone has the courage to actually confront the real problems....
posted by mikey @ 3:39 PM
18 Comments:
That's the big question.
"Moderate pragmatists" who kick the can down the road for the next guy or first gal w/ the gig will keep getting away w/ it until the bodies in the streets are piled too high to be stepped over, if history is any indication.
You think BHO would make any serious moves if he were reëlected?
I think an Obama second term would be a pretty gross, calculated effort at legacy building.
But frankly, with the guns and the hatred and the hysteria, I just don't see him making it through another 3½ years. We're going to see some ugly things played out in slowmo hidef, and the hate and the crazy is clearly winning.
Along with autotune...
Along with autotune...
Oh, man! Now you're really depressing me!
But first I hoped he would be something sharply different from George Bush, and he turned out to be very much the same.
I am disappointed by some things Obama's done, and some he's failed to do. But that still doesn't get him all the way to the shrub.
In fact, mikey, he's following along in Joe Klein's footsteps (and vicey versy), at least when it comes to a public health care insurance option and prosecuting Bush-Cheney war criminals.
~
He's perpetuating a war, he's perpetuating the surveillance state, he's resisting accountability for wrongdoing, and he's assisting/protecting corporations at the expense of consumers (do you remember him doing ANYTHING to push for Cramdown or EFCA?). At it's core, these were the base of the bush agenda. Obama's not as ignorantly, blatantly evil as bush, nor as selfishly compassionless, but from a political standpoint there are deep similarities.
Thunder. I know you have a problem with Joe Klein, but let me help you out here. Barack Obama is the president of the United States, Leader of the free world etc. Joe Klein is a political writer for Time Magazine. One of these things is NOT like the other. You DO see that, right?
I'm just pointing out the many ways that they are alike, mikey.
It's not an accident, you know. D.C. is owned by the tycoon class (and I lump our mega-corporations into that label).
Same as our media, which is the point of my post.
~
You like to call attention to the symbiosis between politicians, journalists and corporations. And I agree with you, this is a toxic relationship that is dangerous on many levels.
But journalists and the President of the United States are not the same. Nothing a journalist can do, no matter how passionately he or she wishes for a particular political outcome, can have the impact on human beings that a single action by the US President.
There are apples and oranges.
Then there are apples and air hammers.
There is influence.
Then there is power.
It is neither rational, nor is it healthy, to attribute, confuse or conflate that level of power to someone with a small, but measurable amount of influence.
Frankly, it just sounds obsessive...
...actually, autotune, as a metaphor for the effect of power on politicians, is disturbingly accurate...
It is neither rational, nor is it healthy, to attribute, confuse or conflate that level of power to someone with a small, but measurable amount of influence.
Frankly, it just sounds obsessive...
Tell Al Gore. He'd of been president without our corporate media's fingers on the scales back in 2000.
And please don't tell me you're missing my point by focusing solely on my criticism of Joe Klein, when he's just an example how our corporate media functions as a whole.
~
Honestly?
I think I was missing your point because of the whole "joe klein is the most evil creature in the universe".
A lot of the time it seems like you mostly just hate joe klein. And I shake my head, squint my eyes, and I think about O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity and I say KLEIN? REALLY? I mean, sure, he's out of the Broder school, but he's not THE problem.
And no. Sorry. I cannot be convinced that Bush v Gore went the way it did because of Klein.
Seems like you need to revisit the actual history of the 2000 recount. Cause that was played, rigged and run, but it had NOTHING to do with journalists. They were just like you and me, watching from the outside trying to figure out who had the leverage...
mikey
I think I was missing your point because of the whole "joe klein is the most evil creature in the universe".
Mikey, I read your long post and commented.
I also made a long post, (I left the link at 2:23 PM link here on your blog), that would explain in lengthy detail what I think of Joe Klein and his role. I didn't think it right to blast that whole thing in here, and bloogger wouldn't let me anyways.
And I shake my head, squint my eyes, and I think about O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity and I say KLEIN?
Right (conservative) side of the Overton Window, left (liberal) side of the Overton Window.
Both sides said invade Iraq, and in we went.
Both sides now say no public option. Both sides say let Bush-Cheney go on torture.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States, Leader of the free world etc.
Ah yes. Remember when Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, Leader of the free world etc, and he and his wife passed health care reform back in 1993-1994? No? Perhaps he spent much of the rest of his presidency dodging what turned into a four year long bj investigation instead?
Seems like you need to revisit the actual history of the 2000 recount. Cause that was played, rigged and run, but it had NOTHING to do with journalists.
Okay, that's a whole other argument, even setting aside that by 2000 I meant the election campaign and not the recount alone.
~
Waitaminute.
Klein is Liberal??
By who's standards??
No, I mean by who's standards that are respectable?
Look, all you need to do is watch the sunday talk shows and you very quickly GET that the media has an interest in the outcome.
But to be so weirdly focused on klein when there are people who do what he does for a living who's agenda is to essentially rip apart the fabric of our community is, well, I can't find another word than obsessive.
You've got to get rid of Hannity and Beck and Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Drudge and all the accumulated dishonest evil that is TOXIC to the conversation before you EVER need to start thinking about Klein.
Don't you see? You're shooting the sappers while their artillery destroys your firebase...
M
But to be so weirdly focused on klein when there are people who do what he does for a living who's agenda is to essentially rip apart the fabric of our community is, well, I can't find another word than obsessive.
Mikey, I have to hand it to you. When you want to ignore the point, YOU REALLY IGNORE THE FUCKING POINT!
No, I mean by who's standards that are respectable?
Klein is the most liberal common tater at Time, that liberal magazine.
I'm making the point that Time is a right-wing, corporate friendly publication. Just like the Washington Post these days.
But in our national discourse, the one that is anything but respectable (why are we even arguing about reforming an obviously broken health care system?), TIME and the Washington Post and NBC are "liberal". FAUX and the WSJ are "conservative". This is the range of mainstream media that is publicly available to most of our country.
And that is what manufacturing consent is about.
I'm not "weirdly focused" on Joe Klein. I could use other examples, and I do (Howard Fineman), plus there are plenty more. But the Swampland blog is not blocked where I work, so I can see what Joe Klein has to say all day long.
You've got to get rid of Hannity and Beck and Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Drudge and all the accumulated dishonest evil that is TOXIC to the conversation before you EVER need to start thinking about Klein.
You've managed to avoid addressing the fact that these people, including Joe Klein, offer the same opinions about a public health care option and prosecuting Bush-Cheney officials for torture.
Just as they all agreed that we had to invade Iraq.
~
I'm making the point that Time is a right-wing, corporate friendly publication. Just like the Washington Post these days.
Yep. Sure is. And in other news, the sky is reportedly blue.
TIME and the Washington Post and NBC are "liberal". FAUX and the WSJ are "conservative". This is the range of mainstream media that is publicly available to most of our country.
Again, because a whole bunch of apathetic, uninterested people think so doesn't make it true. We KNOW what the words "liberal" and "conservative" actually mean, and we know the American media sold out whatever integrity it has. I do NOT understand why you think it is necessary, or even important, to repeatedly shout at me and people like me about joe klein. On the mendacity scale, he's about a four.
You've managed to avoid addressing the fact that these people, including Joe Klein, offer the same opinions about a public health care option and prosecuting Bush-Cheney officials for torture.
Just as they all agreed that we had to invade Iraq
Yes, I've also managed to avoid addressing the fact that water is wet. Why would I address what is completely fucking OBVIOUS to anybody who reads this blog? It would be pretty hard to miss that, now wouldn't it?
I'm not sure how you could have missed it, but I'll point out that you and I agree on just about everything you've said. So it feels kind of weird that you seem to want to take me to task over it.
That said, there are two things that need to be said with clarity. First, if Joe Klein was the worst of our media problems, we'd be in damn good shape. Thugs like Hannity and idiots like Beck make him look like Chet Huntley. Second, you can shout about them all you want, but at the risk of stating the obvious, it is POLICY MAKERS who are ultimately responsible for policy, not the media. Why is that even controversial?
mikey
Second, you can shout about them all you want, but at the risk of stating the obvious, it is POLICY MAKERS who are ultimately responsible for policy, not the media. Why is that even controversial?
Because that's wrong. Policy makers lose elections when the media is owned by a few large corporations who all tell various versions of the same lies. And they know it.
Health care reform was killed in 1993-1994 that way. We (not we on this blog, mikey...we as in this country, which features a whole bunch of apathetic, uninterested people) went to war in Iraq that way.
And right now, we (this country) are getting fed the same line about health care reform that we were fed back in 1993-1994. By the same people, for the same reasons.
The same folks who told us to let bygones be bygones when it came to Elliot Abrams and Iran-Contra now say forget about prosecuting Bush-Cheney people for torture.
You're mad at Barack Obama for not accomplishing these things (health care reform with a public option, prosecuting Bush-Cheney officials for torture) himself. Hey, so am I.
So why do you want to give Joe Klein a pass for advocating against these things?
As I said, I can make these same arguments picking another 'liberal' commenter at another 'liberal' MSM outlet.
And why are you taking what I say about J.K. personally? If you like, I'll delete my comments and darken your doorstep no more.
~
I swear I'm not taking it personally, and if it sounds like it I apologize. I'm delighted to have the conversation with you. And like you, I wish there were people in the media with the integrity and the motivation to be honest. But we didn't invade Iraq because of joe klein. We invaded iraq because of bush and cheney.
Yes, your point is that politicians LOSE elections at least in part because of (frequently skewed) media coverage. But politicians who lose elections, like the media that cover them, ALSO don't make policy.
It just seems to me that you spend way more anger on a guy with a column in a magazine than on the people who are doing this. Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi - these are the people who are killing investigations and health care. NONE of this is up for a public referendum. It is up to the elected representatives to make policy. And yeah, if the media is against it, it takes more courage, but it's still ultimately up to them, not to the press or the pundits.
For that matter, who has done more to poison the healthcare debate? Rush Limbaugh or Joe Klein? Sean Hannity or Joe Klein?
I think it's good that you have so much passion - its mostly missing from "our" side of the debate and that's why the other side gets all the coverage - they generate all the noise.
I just have to say that I disagree with your target prioritization, is all...
But no bullshit. Thanks for coming over here and saying what you think. Please continue...
Thanks, mikey.
I was thinking about responding to the comment about the 2000 recount with a link.
And then, you know, How about this?
~
Thanks for that Thunder, I'll be scrubbing my eyes for 2 or 3 hours now.
Post a Comment
<< Home