There’s something of a kerfuffle going on in the major media, extending into the blogosphere. First, Harvard history prof Niall Ferguson wrote a Newsweek cover article, “Hit the Road, Barack”, stating his case that President Obama doesn’t deserve a second term and, indeed, a second Obama term would be harmful to the U. S.
Paul Krugman lost no time in countering, charging Dr. Ferguson with a breach of professional ethics. Ferguson rebutted, here. At this point, the intellectual content of the dialogue is about at the level of “Oh, yeah?”
I find it revealing to read these articles and posts in the context of a Politico piece outlining the conflicts within the Obama re-election campaign. The essential message of the piece is that the president, himself, is setting the tone for his re-election campaign. Here’s the part of the cited post that I found most telling:
The e-book, produced as part of a two-month reporting project that included interviews with two dozen current and former members of Obama’s team, illuminates how the mood and character of the 2012 reelection effort is flowing from the top — with Obama’s own personality and values shaping his campaign just as powerfully as he did four years ago.
This has produced a campaign being animated by one thing above all. It is not exclusively about hope and change anymore, words that seem like distant echoes even to Obama’s original loyalists — and to the president himself. It is not the solidarity of a hard-fought cause, often absent in this mostly joyless campaign. It is Obama’s own burning competitiveness, with his remorseless focus on beating Mitt Romney — an opponent he genuinely views with contempt and fears will be unfit to run the country.
Obama is sometimes portrayed as a reluctant warrior, sorry to see 2012 marked by so much partisan warfare but forced by circumstance to go along. But this perception is by most evidence untrue. In the interviews with current and former Obama aides, not one said he expressed any reservations about the negativity. He views it as a necessary part of campaigning, as a natural — if unpleasant — rotation of the cyclical political wheel.
The emphasis is mine.
I have a question. It’s not just rhetorical. I’d really like to hear the case. Can anyone tell me why Barack Obama wants to be president without using the words “Republican”, “Mitt”, “Romney”, or circumlocutions for the above? As a follow-up, why isn’t he doing it now? And, as a second follow-up, what conditions will change that will make that possible when it isn’t now?
I don’t much care for Mitt Romney but I think I have a pretty good idea of why he wants to be president. Not so for President Obama. He really doesn’t seem to like the job very much.
Black man given nation’s worst job, indeed.
I’m also reminded of George Santayana’s wisecrack “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.” Have we become a nation of fanatics?
an opponent he genuinely views with contempt and fears will be unfit to run the country.
And at this point Drew, and many others, will fall out of their chairs in shock. Once the initial shock wears off, they’ll start laughing maniacally before eventually being reduced to pained gasps as they desperately suck air in a last ditch effort for oxygen.
I’m donning my harpoon chest plate. There, in place.
One. I always thought Bill Clinton just pretty much wanted to BE President. However, he was a policy wonk, and loved the debate and the politics. That’s a debate for another time. But I feel it made him a pragmatist, and because of his experience as an executive, up to the task.
Two. Hold on a second, let me make sure the harpoon plate is secure….as I’ve said for 4 years running, Obama was just an arrogant and ambitious guy who is basically a redistributionist philosophically, and thought his sweet tongue and clever debating style would carry the day for an agenda. But he has neither the experience, the talent nor the temperament to be an effective executive. Not even close. To anyone who does not now see this as I did 4 years ago, I simply do not know what to say.
Three. I’ve seen this so many times in my career. Reasonably smart staff men who thought they had all the answers, because, well, being a staff man is easy. Just waltz in with your sweet sounding stuff, but execution is a bitch. Leading is a bitch. He has floundered. He is no executive.
Four. I know you asked that the name Romney not be invoked. But please humor me because this is crucial. Like him or agree with him or not, Romney is an executive. In the line of fire. Further, he has been on both the fix it side and the growth side. He knows how to pick executive talent (seriously, how big a bozo is Obamas Chu?) he has no weird academic bull session illusions vs hard headed finance.
I think Obama took his own BS seriously, and when he opened up a couple guys divorce records and won elections to gain national prominence he thought he was a stud.
GE has a handy dandy, if too stylized, term for managers: caretakers, undertakers and growth makers. Banks have a similar quip: minders, finders and grinders.
The allusions should be obvious. Obama would be a grinder.
Shorter: Obama = The Peter Principle.
Romney has seen what a turnaround guy is made of. Obama may hate him, but it’s only because he will look like a fool if Romney turns things around. He’s scared.
I think when you have two very educated men, one with a doctorate, arguing about the future in the language of “facts” and “truth,” then that is fanaticism too.
I think it’s doubtful the ACA will actually reduce the deficit, but we don’t really know. And we’ll probably never know since changes over time will result in a very different world than what the CBO models can predict.
Obama wants to be President so he can order Holder to prosecute the most dangerous man in America for a felony in his SEC reportings.
I dont think Obama or Romney is really especially ideological. I think they both just want to run things, like Clinton. If Romney is elected, he wont be able to hire and fire his Congress. He wont be doing his turnaround during the longest bull market in our history. His ability to affect our domestic economy will be about the same as Obama’s, very small.
However, as I have said before, I think Romney has one significant advantage. We know that supposedly principled deficit hawks like Ryan will vote for anything, and I do mean anything, if it will keep their guy in office. TARP, auto bailouts, unfunded spending bills. You name it. I think this gives Romney a degree of flexibility a Dem pres does not have. OTOH, he does have the Tea Party.
But, back to the original question, I assume Obama would like to finish health care reform, name judges, conduct a foreign policy that does not seek war with Iran, reform the tax in a way other than just cutting taxes for the wealthy, just to name a few things.
Steve
steve, by what means has Obama suggested he’s going to initate additional health care reform?
As to the rest, Obama certainly would want to name judges; I don’t think he’s terribly interested in foreign policy, other than avoiding anything that would harm him domestically; and he’s not said anything about tax reform, just repealing the Bush tax breaks on the “wealthy.” I would go more with stuff like the Dream Act and repealing federal law on same sex marriage.
Icepick
As you will note. I donned my harpoon vest. I never gasp for oxygen”…………
PD- It has been a constant theme among the health care writers on the left. He clearly reads them. IIRC he has noted in the past that the ACA was more about coverage than costs, but I could be conflating his ideas with someone like Cutler’s or Gruber’s.
Steve
Gentlemen and women
Please see the zerohedge link in the balls, er, Bollocks, post…
Gentlemen and women
Please see the zerohedge link in the balls, er, Bollocks, post…Comments