I recommend that you take a look at financier and disappointed Obama supporter Leon Cooperman’s letter to the president. Here’s the meat of it:
People of differing political persuasions can (and do) reasonably argue about whether, and how high, tax rates should be hiked for upper-income earners; whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended or permitted to expire, and for whom; whether various deductions and exclusions under the federal tax code that benefit principally the wealthy and multinational corporations should be curtailed or eliminated; whether unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut should be extended; whether the burdens of paying for the nation’s bloated entitlement programs are being fairly spread around, and whether those programs themselves should be reconfigured in light of current and projected budgetary constraints; whether financial institutions deemed “too big to fail†should be serially bailed out or broken up first, like an earlier era’s trusts, because they pose a systemic risk and their size benefits no one but their owners; whether the solution to what ails us as a nation is an amalgam of more regulation, wealth redistribution, and a greater concentration of power in a central government that has proven no more (I’m being charitable here) adept than the private sector in reining in the excesses that brought us to this pass — the list goes on and on, and the dialectic is admirably American.
Even though, as a high-income taxpayer, I might be considered one of its targets, I find this reassessment of so many entrenched economic premises healthy and long overdue. Anyone who could survey today’s challenging fiscal landscape — with an un- and underemployment rate of nearly 20 percent and roughly 40 percent of the country on public assistance — and not acknowledge an imperative for change is either heartless, brainless or running for office on a very parochial agenda. And if I end up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. The alternatives are all worse.
But what I do find objectionable is the highly politicized idiom in which this debate is being conducted. Now, I am not naive. I understand that in today’s America, this is how the business of governing typically gets done — a situation that, given the gravity of our problems, is as deplorable as it is seemingly ineluctable. But as president first and foremost and leader of your party second, you should endeavor to rise above the partisan fray and raise the level of discourse to one that is both more civil and more conciliatory, that seeks collaboration over confrontation. That is what “leading by example†means to most people.
Well worth a read.
He makes some fair points. He defends himself well, and his class to an extent. However, I do not recall his letters opposing false claims that only 50% of people pay taxes. Or a letter noting that not al people receiving Medicaid are bums. Both sides engage in class warfare, but TBH, the right is much better at it.
Can and should Obama try to make things more civil? When he came out with a health reform plan modeled on the GOP plan of the 90s and Romneycare, we got death panels. We got killing Medicare. Starting in the middle, with a moderate plan, and being laid back, not responding in kind, let the bill get demagogued. Other bills are nearly all referred to as the “Job Killing (fill in the blank) Bill” by the GOP. Not just by the loonies, but by the Senate and House leadership. ( Our congressman has shown us some of the Luntz generated buzz words they are supposed to use. Not nice.)
In this era of cable TV and talk radio driven media (not to mention the blogs), I just dont know how we get back to civil discourse. If one side backs down even for a short while, they are unable to answer the, usually, false attacks of the other side.
Steve
The guy is clueless. We’ve had 3 years of attempts at civil debate. You can’t have civil debate with people who are willing to harm the country for political advantage and who define the destruction of an American president as their primary goal.
In fact we need the opposite. We need demonstrations and strikes and recall efforts. Now we’re getting those and surprise! suddenly serious issues like income inequality and corruption are back on the table.
Th entire Obama presidency has been an attempt at civil debate with the nihilists, loons and reckless greed-heads who are the GOP.
After the election and before he had assumed office, President-elect Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel, possibly the foulest-mouthed and most virulently partisan guy in the House, as his Chief of Staff. For months after his election he refused to meet with Congressional Republican leaders. His response to requests for compromise to Republican leaders from the very earliest days of his presidency was “elections have consequences”.
The president never made a clear statement about what he wanted in a stimulus package or in healthcare reform or in financial system reform. He delegated that to the Democratic Congressional leadership.
If that indicates a desire for civil debate, it’s a very strange way of going about it. I’m not in any way defending the Republicans. I don’t believe that the American system has any room for an opposition party and their moves in that direction go back at least to the Clinton Administration. There’s a difference between a party that doesn’t hold the White House or a minority party and an opposition party.
But both of the two major political parties have decided that when out of power they’ll be an opposition party. I think that’s bad for the country whether it’s the Republicans or the Democrats.
steve & Michael,
I think you suffer some sort of memory problem. Don’t you recall the DNC cartoon that showed up on their website with Bush pushing a little old lady in a wheel chair over a cliff when he proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security?
I’m not saying, “No, its those Democrats!!” I’m saying that either party, when not in the White House, they go nuts. They suddenly espouse the craziest of things. There is a reason why the term ChimpyMcBushitler probably rings a few bells.
The notion of civil debate in politics? Bwahahahahaha…where do you guys do your stand up routine?
Or to quote Obama, “I won.”
Translation: Republicans can take a hike.
FWIW I think the GOP is comparatively worse, but that’s not saying much. It’s like saying that death by immolation is worse than death by drowning. You’re still dead at the end and frankly that’s where this country is headed.
People need to realize that Obama is only the President, he’s not a King. He can’t force Congress to pass what he wants but I do think he should have been more forceful from the bully pulpit with both sides in Congress.
steve and michael, I think you miss an underlying point to the complaint — the POTUS is a unique national figure who historically has been able to direct (though not necessarily control) the subject of debate and public policy discussions. The good presidents don’t stoop to the level where their behavior is compared with local politicians and entertainment personalities. That’s not because their saints, its because their power lies in national unity, not division.
“Th(e) entire Obama presidency has been an attempt at civil debate with the nihilists, loons and reckless greed-heads who are the GOP.”
Shorter Schuler, Verdon, Andy and PD – “Michael, where do you procure those “special” mushrooms?”
@PD- I think I get the point, I just dont think it is possible anymore. Remember Reagan having drinks with TIP? Both guys had to be willing to do that. From My POV, Obama made a fair attempt at accomplishing what Cooperman wanted for the first two years, and just got rolled over much of the time.
“Don’t you recall the DNC cartoon that showed up on their website with Bush pushing a little old lady in a wheel chair over a cliff when he proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security?”
Yes. I dont really remember the Senate and House leadership saying the same kind of stuff, but would not be surprised if they did. However, I think this is a growing problem. Just like filibusters hit new records these last few years, I think the craziness and vitriol is increasing. It will likely continue to grow when Mitt/Newt is president.
Steve