Last week President Obama gave a much-heralded speech on the economy. The complete text of the speech is here.
The president’s speech met with a variety of reactions. E. J. Dionne was jubilant. He saw the speech as a sign that the president would “go big”:
In the long history of the country, concentrations of wealth and income always have created perverse effects. Broadening our nation’s winners’ circle, on the other hand, has always been the best strategy for sustainable growth. We need to acknowledge this once again.
There is more Obama needs to do to make his case for the specific steps Washington can take to restore shared, robust prosperity. He will have to beat back the forces that would continue to shrink government through a sequester that is making the recovery slower than it should be.
But this time, he cannot let himself be sidetracked. With 1,276 days left in his presidency, he chose to draw a clear line and start a big argument. His place in history will hang in large part on whether he can win it.
Kevin Drum was mystified. This is big?
The reason Obama should be bolder is not because it might “break through the resistance.” He should be bolder precisely because it wouldn’t make any difference. If you’re going to meet an adamantine wall no matter what you do, why not shoot for the stars? At least that way you’ve made it clear whose side you’re on. Obama’s speech got in some good shots at the Republican Party’s continuing economic derangement, but he needs more than that.
Raise the minimum wage to $12! Split up the big banks, tax hedge funds at regular rates, stomp on derivatives and commodities trading, and increase capital requirements to 20 percent! Raise Social Security payments! Guarantee universal pre-K/childcare starting at three months! Invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure! Mandate four weeks of vacation for all employees! Eliminate software patents! Increase the capital gains tax to 40 percent!
None of this has the slightest chance of passage. But when you’re competing with a party whose message is about as subtle as a blood-and-guts slasher pic, you need something equally dramatic to show everyone what your party stands for. Dana Milbank still wouldn’t be happy, of course. He’d call you crazy. But that’s better than having him call you lifeless, isn’t it?
Dana Milbank found that the speech indicated that the president just didn’t know what to do:
I admire Pfeiffer’s pluck in trying to generate enthusiasm for what is largely a news-free initiative. And it’s smart politics for Obama to keep his emphasis on economic matters. But it would be easier to rally enthusiasm if he gave supporters something big, bold and new to reach for, rather than leftover proposals coupled with lofty ideals.
“It will be a pretty good speech,†Obama told activists this week at a gathering of Organizing for America, an outgrowth of his campaign. “But as we’ve learned, I’ve given some pretty good speeches before, and then things still get stuck here in Washington, which is why I’m going to need your help.â€
True, but with three years to go in his presidency, Obama needs to help his supporters help him — by giving them the power of fresh ideas.
Megan McArdle thought the speech reflected the president’s impotence in doing anything about the economy:
If you listened closely, the speech seemed like a confession that the president knows he can’t do much. The deep problems afflicting America — social and economic breakdown in inner cities and rural areas; rising economic insecurity; widening gulfs between ideologies, regions, and socioeconomic classes — are simply far beyond the president’s reach.
But we don’t like to feel like our president isn’t even trying. And presumably, Obama hates to feel like a do-nothing. And so we get speeches that ultimately tell us what we already know: that we’d like to get to a better world. If we only knew how.
My own reaction to the speech was, I guess, despondency. I thought it was both weak on policy and on politics for reasons very much along the lines that Kevin Drum outlines. You may as well be hung for a sheep as a goat. Why make such limp proposals?
In the speech the president touched on a number of areas: income inequality, immigration, education, infrastructure, and jobs. In a series of short posts I plan to explain why I think the president’s approach to each of them is inadequate.
I feel as if I’ve been repeating this for five years now: Obama is not a radical. He doesn’t do big and bold and sweeping. Which is why all the socialist-communist-Muslim-radical attacks have been so ineffective. The attack has to have some relationship to actual vulnerabilities. And it’s why on the other side all these inflated hopes for transformation were misplaced. But people who can’t see past skin color – on both sides – can’t accept that what we have here is a moderate, incremental kind of guy. He’s black therefore he simply must be radical.
In fact, he’s a slow-moving, cautious, conventional guy. He fiddles at the margins. He is, as Andrew Sullivan has been saying for five years, a conservative by temperament. Sometimes the black guy is also the boring guy. Yes, he’s suave and cool, but also, intellectually, kind of just conventional.
Being incrementalist doesn’t preclude being wrong. Taking small steps in the wrong direction is still going in the wrong direction.
I absolutely agree. Just as being radical isn’t necessarily a bad thing. LBJ was far more “radical” than Obama, and often right.
@michael reynolds
…He’s black therefore he simply must be radical.
President Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. I doubt his skin color played any part in that action. If he had really been the “first black president”, I suspect that it would have been blamed on his skin color. President Obama’s skin color is the only thing that keeps him from being impeached.
The racists who hate President Obama hated President Clinton. The Republican partisans who hate President Obama hate him because of his party affiliation. Some Republican partisans are also racists, but that does not make all Republicans racists.
Either President Obama is a hothouse flower who cannot withstand racial opposition, or he is a man who can withstand any opposition. I respect him as a man, but I disagree with many of his policies. You choose.
I’m not so sure that installing a ‘great society’ mentality was the right direction to head. Whether it’s big or small missteps, going the wrong way still ends up producing negative results.
BTW, the last I heard, Obama’s mother was white, his father was black, and he was primarily raised by white grandparents. I originally thought such a bi-racial heritage would be a plus in getting beyond skin color rationalizations, and more into MLK’s content of character focus, rendering a racially neutral report card based on overall performance.
However, even though Obama has been elected twice, to the highest job in the land, criticism of his performance continues to hit the social progressive turnstile of ‘can’t see past his skin color,’ as reasons why so many are disappointed in his policies and governance. The sad fact remains, though, that until people can be equally praised and equally criticized, despite any differences in their outer appearances, true racial equality will be denied — mainly by the vise-like grip liberal white guilt has on the black community of ever moving beyond a stilted, repressed past into a non-handicapped ‘now’. Shelby Steele articulates, what is described as ‘painful truths,’ about our racial problems, in his book “A Dream Deferred:”
It’s very clear the President doesn’t think anything can be done. He’s made no secret in the last five years he completely believes the false-narrative of government’s finances being analogous to a household budget, he’s desperately seeking a surplus and he thinks the key interest rate is controlled by markets. Within those parameters of course anything he says on the subject will be an enormous disappointment.
Jan:
I don’t know why I’m bothering to explain anything to you, but what the hell. Once more into the breach.
I wasn’t talking about his performance. I was talking about expectations. And it would be absurd of you to argue that the left’s expectations of a messiah and the right’s expectations of a radical Muslim/Socialist are not a function of skin color. In fact I wasn’t talking about policy at all, I was talking about character, about personality, and people’s inability to judge same rationally.
The left assumed he would be transformative because he’s black. The right assumed he would be transformative as well, because he’s black. In fact, the only transformation was that he was the first black president. So for five fwcking years It’s been “He’s a communist Kenyan Muslim!” or, “He’s Christ re-born!”
In fact, in reality, while he’s certainly black, he’s actually more a Harvard lawyer than anything else. (And yes, I say that with a sneer.) From my perspective he’s the ‘B’ grade president I’ve said he was from the start. Neither radical nor wild-eyed nor messianic, but intelligent, competent, likable, definitely cool in both senses of the word, better than s0me presidents I’ve endured, worse than others. There’s the usual mix of strength and weakness. He actually is the proverbial guy who “just happens to be black.”
All due respect, some of you people don’t see anything beyond politics and judging character may be better left to fiction writers.
Michael:
My complaint about Obama has never been that he’s too radical. It’s been that he’s wrong.
I voted for him in 2008 among other reasons because McCain was just too bellicose for me.
Michael,
You’re parsing words again. When you talk about ‘expectations,’ it’s married to actions and one’s performance. For those who thought of Obama in terms of a Messiah, they expected his performance to produce grandiose things. The idea that you think it’s absurd, though, to not think the left/right ‘expectations’ were not tied into race, was not the point I was making. To me what’s absurd is to keep the racial flag alive and well when justifying or rationalizing another’s actions — no matter what his/her ethnicity is. However, it tends to follow that if people are white they are judged one way, and if black another, mainly by liberals. For, they are the ones, like you, who bring up the topic. Just review your own posts and where the introduction of color arises. It was not in Dave’s thread. And, my response was only generated by your comments.
Sure, you then wove your “socialist-communist-Muslim-radical attacks” and “people who can’t see past skin color – on both sides” and “Sometimes the black guy…” into more benign conclusions of Obama being moderate, incremental, suave, cool and so on.
\
As for me, I like or dislike a leader through given accomplishments, his/her ability to lead, consolidate partisan perspectives so they reflect the needs of the people, rather than their own so-called historical legacy. I see none of these attributes in Obama. And, when I disparage his lack of legislative adroitness, his inability to see beyond partisan attacks, the economical malaise produced by his policies, and the cultural divides encouraged just so he would win elections, then often people will bring up the racial card as a defensive shield from his own incompetence to handle the job, decently and honestly, for which he has incessantly campaigned for!
I really don’t know what to think about President Obama anymore. It’s as if he thinks these speeches will somehow change the fundamentals on the ground. How many times has that been proven wrong?
The sad thing is that he could make a lot of real, substantive changes without Congress. The executive Departments are a mess and could use some real reforms. He’s done a few things at the margins which haven’t amounted to much. His own bureaucracy isn’t able to meet the timelines of two signature pieces of legislation – the PPACA and Frank-Dodd. The VA is a scandal that no one talks much about.
It’s like he’s not even trying anymore. I dunno.
Andy,
When has Obama ever rolled up his sleeves and gotten into the mix and distaste of give and take political debate or productive brain-storming? When has he sat down in a room (except for the show and tell visual, dealing with the PPACA at Blair House), holding both sides of the political spectrum accountable to meet in the middle and actually accomplish something outside of ideological demands?
In the election of 2012, there was no overwhelming mandate for Obama, His election margin was similar to the now disposed Morsi — the former 51.1% Obama to 47.2% Romney, and the latter 51.7% Morsi to 48.3 Shafik, with the 2012 U.S. election having less participants than in 2008. People are flat in their response to Obama’s government overreach these days. They feel like nothing they do or say makes a difference anymore. Obama, is neither inspirational nor creative in growing the economy — only growing an agenda which didn’t work in his first 4 years of rule, and blaming Bush and/or the Republicans for his lack of ingenuity and foresight. Nevertheless, he continues to hold himself in a bubble of fawning advisors, doing the occasional political road trip to rev up his base, throw out deceptive economic numbers, deluding himself and his herd followers that all is well — just look at the stock market!
Keep up the talking points jan. See em all on Drudge every day.
Steve
So you read Drudge, Steve. Hmmm, I don’t recall what I just posted as being anything gleaned from his site. However, I guess you must have a diversified reading list to include the more conventional, conservative Drudge Report in your daily reading menu. Nice to see that!
@michael reynolds
All due respect, some of you people don’t see anything beyond politics and judging character may be better left to fiction writers.
I expect no respect from you. You are disrespectful of anything you disagree with. Hence, the accusations of racism being thrown about over anything anti-Obama. You will not address the impeachment of President Clinton involving a blowjob. There is not much political gain there.
Let me guess, racists Republicans got into a time machine, went into the future, saw ex-President Clinton supporting a black man, went back in time, and impeached him using a blowjob as a pretext.
President Obama is of no use to you, and many like you, except for his skin color. If he were to reveal himself as a white man masquerading as a black man, you would drop him like “a hot potato”. With few exceptions, you have no use for any black man. The exceptions being: guys on your publisher’s loading dock, the guys cutting your grass, certain dead black youths, and certain black politicians.
If you are really concerned about black youths being shot by white guys over potential burglaries, google “Merritt Landry”. The local newspaper is “www.nola.com”, and they should have the best coverage. It has some attention in the black blogs, but “concerned” white people are unsurprisingly not concerned. The reasons for the lack of concern are: no dead youth, shooter arrested immediately for second degree murder, and no racial angle, yet.
NOLA has real racial issues, but these are not recognized by people who know about racial issues only from what they read. You would be astonished to learn how the importance of skin color is a factor in many aspects of life, and you would soon learn that your understanding of racism is a cardboard facsimile of actual racism.
None of this excuses the racism of your political opponents, and many of them would like to change the subject of racism. How many conservatives will still be concerned about black-on-black crime next week? Not many.
The shootings are important, but I suspect there are other issues which are of more day to day import. Mass incarcerations, lack of jobs and still facing difficulties getting into the political process.
“However, the greatest impact of Shelby County will likely be at the local level—in places where media scrutiny is minimal, and litigation resources meager. You will hear less about these local cases. But I think that’s a problem; they are really where the action is. And so, via the excellent Texas Redistricting blog (which has links to all the filings and so on), today I bring you the following report from Beaumont, Texas, a small city of about 120,000 in the southeast corner of the state, on the Gulf Coast south of the piney woods. The population is about 45% black; four out of seven school board members are black. Voting is pretty racially polarized. This is a convoluted tale, as these tales often are. But in brief, three candidates who lost in the last election to three of the four black school board members are trying to get a state court to oust those three black incumbents and install them (the losing candidates) instead. The losing candidates pulled off a sneaky, and rather brazen, subterfuge: they filed candidate papers for a special election that had not yet been announced, and then subsequently convinced a state court that state law required ordering the election, with a retroactive filing deadline that had already passed. Since the three black incumbents did not file candidate papers—understandably, since no election had been called for their seats, and they are only halfway through their terms—the non-black challengers say the court should just install them, the challengers, as winners by default. The Beaumont situation provides a particularly clear case of a local shenanigan that could occur only because of the demise of Section 5”
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/07/and-shenanigans-begin.html