Paul Glastris at the Washington Monthly:
In short, when judging Obama’s record so far, conservatives measure him against their fears, liberals against their hopes, and the rest of us against our pocketbooks. But if you measure Obama against other presidents—arguably the more relevant yardstick—a couple of things come to light. Speaking again in terms of sheer tonnage, Obama has gotten more done than any president since LBJ. But the effects of some of those achievements have yet to be felt by most Americans, often by design. Here, too, Obama is in good historical company.
He goes on to explain that a number of cornerstone social programs (Social Security, the GI Bill) were pretty weak (and criticized for being so) when first passed, until subsequent legislation turned them into the programs we see today. We’ve heard this argument before, but Glastris’ piece is the best recitation of the argument I’ve seen. His discussion of the bank bailout is worth reading, too:
In 2008, the International Monetary Fund studied past financial crises in forty-two countries and found that their governments spent, on average, 13.3 percent of GDP to resolve them. By that measure, it would have cost the U.S. government $1.9 trillion. The Obama plan got the banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government, and in historically near-record time. Let that sink in.
Part of the Monthly package on Obama is 50 accomplishments of his Administration.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I read the piece last night, and I do think that las block you quoted is very important. Imagine what 1) the economny would have done, and 2) how people would have howled if they had poured $1.9T in order to fix the banking system.
We’re going to have to give Obama another term and, if nothing else, give him a majority in the House. Rigth now, I think if I had to choose, it would be a majority in the House rather than a majority in the Senate. I’d rather have Nancy making spending bills than Harry continuing to have to block them.
Schlemizel
I think he hits the nail pretty well & it explains some of the friction between you obots & you firebaggers. I’m as guilty as anyone, I wanted more, I hoped for more but I am please with what we have so far. That we still have a long way to go is not emblematic of Obamas failing anything it is emblematic of how far off into the toilet the GOP forces of evil have dragged this country over the last 40 years.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Similar jobs report this month to last. Steady but sure improvement in jobs created, with add ons to the last two reports. And, 31,000 new manufacturing jobs that were supposed to be gone for good in this country. Voters don’t care that the UR stayed at 8.3, only that things are improving, steady as she goes. Wingnuts will spin the 8.3 number, so what, and maybe take their minds off of probing lady parts for a day or two.
Paul in KY
I’m sold! When can I vote for this Obama fellow?
shortstop
“And the rest of us”? Oh, Glastris, you’re hopeless.
El Tiburon
As much as I criticize the President, I want him to succeed. I also understand and appreciate the political climate we live in.
But it does not alter some of the egregious policies he has adopted that go against the core of our liberal/progressive beliefs.
Also, when counting his accomplishments, which I don’t poo poo, I think it is important to remember he did have a democratic Congress for a couple of years.
To me, the Big Question is, has Obama altered the course of this country from the Bush era? Or from the Reagan/conservative era? My response is an emphatic NO. I firmly believe he has entrenched the conservative and even neocon policies towards finance and foreign policy.
Even the ACA entrenches a system that does not work. Is it a path to a better system that attacks the root problem? Perhaps. I just don’t see it.
Legalize
Reaction from my professional-lefty relatives: Yeah, but BESIDES THAT, what has he done?!?!
ericblair
@Legalize:
The aquaduct?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@El Tiburon:
Did you read the article? As the actual article states, FDR didn’t become FDR during his first couple of terms in office. It took a while. And the same for Reagan, he didn’t become REAGAN until his policies had been in effect for a while.
More importantly, have you been reading some of the things they post on DK about the ACA, and how they health care industry is viewing this bill as the end of the current form of the industry?
I also liked that the article pointed out that Obama’s stimulus plan, while deridied as been too small, was actually bigger than the one proposed by the house, the body we controlled with a supermajority even though none is required.
Linda Featheringill
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I agree. Getting Nancy back in charge of the House is most important. Then we can tackle some other things.
Re: Obama’s presidency. He has actually done a lot. He is intelligent and hardworking. Bush was . . . .
I wasn’t watching the previous presidents as closely so can’t comment on them.
But the combination of Barack/Nancy can do wonders.
Legalize
@ericblair:
It’s a lot like that, yes ….
moonbat
How many times did Jackie Robinson have to steal home plate with people in the stands calling him everything but a child of god before people started saying, “You know, that guy can really play ball!”
If Obama gets another term and fully succeeds in saving this country from its magical thinking conservative indulgences of the past 30 years, I am thinking people are going to start musing out loud, “You know that guy really isn’t such a bad president after all!”
Linda Featheringill
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
:-)
Schlemizel
@Linda Featheringill:
I wouldn’t go so far as to say wonders but at least the worst horrors of the wingnuts are not realized & today thats about the best we can hope for. We need to start getting better Dems along with more Dems & there are a lot of roadblocks starting with what is considered acceptable positions that serious people are allowed to have. The utter failure of Boy Blunder and His Super Friends started cracking that barrier hopefully the full metal wingtard GOP clown show will further chip away.
Schlemizel
@moonbat:
Look at how much better think about Clinton now that the daily assault of sludge has stopped. People look back & say hell he was no so-shall-ist loon. The ugly work done against any Dem Prez by the GOP & its might Wurlitzer can only do so much. Once it is turned at another target reality seeps back into some people minds.
redshirt
Barack is drawing the poison out, using, dare I say it, MLK like tactics of non-violence (in this case, non-confrontation).
Best President in the last 50 years; maybe 100.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Linda Featheringill: Actually, they’ll just argue that their bills would put these 8.3% of Americans to work probing lady parts.
kay
@El Tiburon:
Here’s where liberals made a huge political and strategic mistake, in my view, and I would include myself in this, while recognizing that one person doesn’t have that much clout or influence.
We should have sold the safety net, because you know what? It worked. It’s been in place so long that people take it for granted, and liberals should have not allowed that “forgetting” to happen. Liberals are responsible for the safety net. We invented it. It’s ours.
When the economy failed, and millions of people turned to it, it was there. I saw it here. This county had (at one point) unemployment over 16%. I have never seen anything like it. It was truly frightening. People got food stamps, they got heating help, they got Medicaid, and they made it.
We didn’t start at the beginning. We skipped the first argument. We were complaining that there wasn’t enough help available, but we never sold the basic premise, “the economic system has crashed, millions of people are relying on the safety net”, and and we HAD to sell the basic premise, because people do not know where this help is coming from. We lost the audience, the public, because we didn’t start where they were. We started where WE are, which is convinced of the value of the safety net, and aware of what these programs are, and where they came from. They weren’t there yet.
It would have been a hell of a lot easier to sell a second stimulus or safety net funding if we hadn’t insisted that the first stimulus or funding for existing safety net programs wasn’t working.
We missed an opportunity to remind people that when (not if, when) the system crashes, these programs that they are relying on are in place ONLY because liberals put them there, and that opportunity is now past.
I do this in my work sometimes. I know my argument so well (I make them again and again) that I skip the first part and forget to tell the judge, and people don’t know things unless you tell them.
I can fix it in my work, because I get a few days and if I’m speeding ahead of my “audience” (the judge) I can back up, but I don’t think we can go back here.
So, I reget that. 1. Sell the safety net. 2. Sell the expansion of the safety net.
We skipped number 1., and we skipped it right as millions of people were turning to it.
kay
@El Tiburon:
And, Democratic politicians couldn’t do it, they couldn’t say “actually, the safety net is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, and isn’t it so fabulous that liberals invented the fucking thing, and it’s HERE when you need it, now that unregulated markets have left you and yours by the side of the road” because that’s political suicide, and would be portrayed by conservatives and media as celebrating food stamps, or whatever.
So someone else had to do it, and we didn’t.
People knew that FDR’s emergency actions kept them going when markets crashed, because there was nothing there prior to FDR. In other words, the one and only reason they weren’t on “bread lines” in 2009 is because all of these things were in place when they needed them.
El Tiburon
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
No. Did not have the time and it sounds like material that has been covered numerous times before. I get it about FDR. I get it about Social Security. I get it. I really do.
And let me state emphatically again about ACA: I hope I am wrong. Perhaps it is the opening shot across the bow in transforming our broken healthcare system.
But it doesn’t alter Obama’s stance on so many other issues that are horrendous.
@kay:
You mean keep your government out of my government policies that help sustain us? I understand. It is tragic that so many can’t understand we would have seen the Great Depression X 100 if not for the policies instituted by FDR et al because of the stupid policies that predated them.
Everyone keeps saying FDR wasn’t FDR until later on with the implication that Obama will be/can be the next FDR with some time? Again, I sincerely hope so. I am afraid, though, that he lost his opportunity to begin the path to transformation by not being more forceful his first minutes in office. It is precisely at that moment when he should have taken the bull by the horns. Time will tell.
kay
@El Tiburon:
Right, but “it could have been worse” is a terrible loser of a political argument, so I’m not suggesting that.
I’m saying we should have started at the beginning, with: what are you relying on right now to stay afloat?
There was probably a six month window to make that argument, and it has to come before advocating for expansion or additional funding, and it can’t come from elected Democrats.
We got lost. We were saying this, to non-political junkies: “the stimulus sucks! More stimulus!” , or, “the safety net doesn’t work! More safety net!”
We skipped a step.
Montysano
One day fairly soon, one of these GOP clowns is going to have to get on a debate stage with the real Obama, not the clueless gotta-have-a-teleprompter radical Kenyan soshulist that they’ve created in their minds. That will be must-see teevee.
Schlemizel
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
at the risk of stepping over the line . . . WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!?!
sorry, couldn’t resist
Schlemizel
@kay:
You preach it sister! We have allowed the people who were saved by liberal programs to forget why they were saved. We apologized for saving them for christ sake! That can never be repeated enough. The country was saved from the very worst by programs liberals fought for for 40 years & that conservatives fought the last 40 to undo.
arguingwithsignposts
@El Tiburon:
Does anyone remember the Japanese interments? The court packing scheme? FDR looks good because we only remember the good.
If only he had done something like, i don’t know, tried to close Guantanamo, or discontinued enhanced interrogations or something as one of his first acts in office.
And then there are those other two branches of government he has no control over.
I swear you emoprogs live in a bubble.
kay
@Schlemizel:
Except, I don’t like the “saved/savior” formulation, because I don’t think it’s at all appealing, and worse, I don’t think it’s true, as a practical matter, for most people (outside wingnuttia).
“They” fund these programs. “We” didn’t save “them”, from on high. We relied on programs that we should support, and are supporting (financially) when we hit bad times. The programs we pay for (or vote for, if we’re liberals) were there when we needed them.
We, they and us, kept these programs in place, and lo and behold, the economy crashed, and none of us were on bread lines, so that’s good. For us.
MomSense
@El Tiburon
Could you please give me some specifics to explain what you mean by “being more forceful” or “should have taken the bull by the horns”.
I sometimes feel like poor Scotty from Star Trek when I say “I can’t push it any faster, Captain”
When I go back and look at how much we accomplished–and so quickly it is amazing. And I can tell you as someone who kept organizing for OFA and with HCAN that we never stopped. I really never stopped with the phone calls to supporters to call their Congress critters, the house parties, rallies, etc.
And when you look at the list of legislation that passed the House but stalled in the Senate, including kick ass climate change legislation, you realize that we could have accomplished even more if we had had just slightly better numbers in the Senate. In just the case of the stimulus, Snowe and Collins only voted for it after cutting another 100 billion from the total. Ironically some of that was for pandemic preparedness just before H1N1 hit.
Linnaeus
The way I see it, I have multiple disagreements and frustrations with this administration, but in spite of all that I still think that in 2008 the president was 1) a good choice in general and 2) far and away the better choice relative to any conceivable opponent. I still think that’s the case now.
There are so many ways that we could be a better nation. But we’re at where we’re at right now, and that means doing things like organizing and building movements, promoting ideas and policies, and getting the right people in office. That’s going to take a lot of time. It would be nice to be where our peer nations are on a lot of things, but we aren’t there yet.
gwangung
And it sounds like you’re just knee-jerking AND NOT THINKING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
This was in the material you didn’t read. And the history books you apparently didn’t read.
Is it any wonder you get branded as an idiot and get ignored?
Frankensteinbeck
@El Tiburon:
You have just demonstrated the premise of the article beautifully. Instead of measuring Obama against other presidents, a standard that shows he’s kicking twelve kinds of ass, you’ve measured him against an idea of what he ‘should’ have done that exists only in your imagination.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@El Tiburon:
Obama never will be, and cannot be, FDR. Only FDR can be FDR because FDR’s accomplishments were extraordinarily contigent on his time and the state of the USA and the world when he was in office.
FDR harvested the low hanging fruit of the creation of a social-democratic welfare state in a nation which had almost nothing at the time, and was able to do this with a domestic economy much simpler in structure, less developed, and less entangled in the larger global economy than the one we have now. And his work came to full flower after WW2 during a time when the US enjoyed an overwhelmingly dominant 50% of global manufacturing capacity and was the beneficiary of an immense transfer of human capital and intellectual talent because of the flow of refugees (many of them very highly educated) into the US from war-torn areas of Europe and Asia which almost overnight vaulted the US into first place in many fields, both in science and engineering and in the humanities.
FDR was able to leverage for political purposes the way that the Democratic party of the time straddled the different sections of the nation with a solid base of support in the South, mitigating opposition to a more activist govt which that region has served as a bastion of ever since FDR. And he could do this because the South was at the time a virtual Third World colony of the rest of the US, crying out for a flow of investment into the area to develop infrastructure and improve the economy. Ditto for much of rural America in the other sections of the country, especially the Western US which at the time had little in the way of the water resource management infrastructure which was so crucial to the explosive growth of agriculture, industry and more urbanized population which this section experienced during the 40s, 50s and 60s.
FDR was the wartime president during WW2, the “Good War”, arguably the 3rd most crucial military conflict in US history after the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, putting him into the same stratosphere as George Washington and Lincoln in the pantheon of great American leaders.
FDR had 3 and 1/2 terms in office to get his work done, and a politically astute VP to finish out his 4th term and be re-elected to a 5th consecutive Democratic term in the WH. If Obama not only wins this year, but his successor is elected in 2016 and then re-elected in 2020, and then a further Democratic president is elected yet again in 2024, all while remaining largely loyal to Obama’s policies and priorities for a period of two decades, with all the attendant knockover effects thereof (such as refashioning the dominant ideology of the mainstream press), then we can talk about comparing him with FDR ex the other considerations listed above.
Hankering after another FDR is only going to cause progressives immense frustration. There will never be another FDR.
redshirt
Yeah but I still want my magic pony!
mistermix
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Also, too: FDR had a Democratic Congress for his entire time in office, including a Senate that didn’t filibuster everything.
thehersch
To be fair, George W. Bush got tons of stuff done too. It’s just that it was all shit.
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: FDR didn’t have 3 1/2 terms. He died less than three months into his fourth term.
Herbal Infusion Bagger
Err, not wanting to spoil things, as Glastris’ article is a good one, but wasn’t TARP passed under Shrub? Obama did vote for it, but if we’re doing a victory lap for TARP, surely Pelosi, Shrub, Reid, O’Connell, Bohner, Paulson and even (shudder) Geithner deserve more credit than Obama.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@mistermix:
Not just a Democratic Congress, but during his early years an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress with huge majorities in the House especially. And that in turn reflects both the regional straddle I referred to, and the depths to which the economy sank during the Great Depression, a depression which began midway thru the term of the Republican President who came before FDR, placing the blame squarely on the GOP in ways that Obama can only envy.
Obama had no such large majority ca 2009-2010 (and the Dems lost the House in the 2010 midterms) both because of these structural factors and because the 2008 recession never sunk to the depths of the Great Depression, and this happened precisely because of the work done by FDR, et. al. to create our current safety net, combined with the expansionary monetary policy pursued by the Fed in contrast with the contractionary policy which they used in Hoover’s day. FDR was politically powerful (some of the Village pundits of his day openly speculated in early 1933 on whether or not it would be a good thing for FDR to suspend the Constitution upon taking office and rule as a benign dicator) because the country was in such bad shape in 1933. Thanks to the work of FDR we did not reach this nadir again, so of course neither Obama nor any other liberal president can be swept into office with the sort of overwhelming mandate that FDR enjoyed. You only get to supervise the rebuilding of the nation from smoking ruins once, assuming that the rebuilding in question involves installing firewalls to prevent a recurrence of the disaster.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@thehersch:
My bad, thanks for the correction.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
@Paul in KY:
i am still holding out, i need to see how his brackets shape up this year before i know if i can trust him.
/shitnobodymeanseveniftheysayit
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
@kay:
i agree, but until you are sure zombies like supply side are dead, its hard not to, in my over reliance on sports metaphors, hear footsteps.
i think the reason the case wasn’t made for bigger, or, as it happened, a second stimulus, is that no one was quite sure if they were going to have to fight against the trickle down true believers and the “bootstrappers”.
maybe you are being to hard on yourself, and the left in retrospect, because its hard to imagine knowing how crazy the gop would come to sound to most people, in just the short time since.
nellcote
@El Tiburon:
Please stop pushing this rightwing meme.
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/myth-of-progressive-majority/
Jay C
I think Paul Glastris is correct in his fundamental thesis: Barack Obama has been a far better President – even in his so-far-one-term – than a lot of folks (both the public and the punditariat) give him credit for. Especially in his Administration’s economic policies, and in how they have dealt with the immense crisis of 2009-10.
However, too many Americans (unfortunately enough) don’t – despite Bill Clinton’s famous watchwords – vote on purely (or even mainly) on economic grounds: hence the GOP’s recent shrieking about “culture war” issues: shrieks which get ever louder and shriller as the economy improves.
Like it or not, there is a non-trivial percentage of the electorate out there who would vote for a Republican candidate who will work to disenfranchise every single one them into legal serfdom – as long as he promised to call down drone strikes on Planned Parenthood offices, and require the Ten Commandments and Dinosaur Jesus to be posted in every schoolroom in the country.
Sly
@El Tiburon:
Not quite. The modern progressive view of FDR is an invention. It is hagiography. It is the result of a process through which a political leader is extracted from the circumstances of his time, strips away or ignores inconvenient facets of his personality, beliefs, and actions he took, and places him on an impossible pedestal. Obama cannot be FDR in the practical sense because FDR wasn’t FDR.
The only way Obama will be “FDR” is in the myth-making of political culture. That there will be a time, quite likely after Obama is dead (as happened with Lincoln, FDR himself, and, for conservatives, Reagan), when American liberals and progressives will gripe about the their current liberal resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as being a thrall to monied and/or imperial interests, and wonder why the United States can’t have a genuine “man of the people” like Barack Obama as President anymore.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Sly:
Start the office pool now. Assuming that a Democrat wins in 2016, put me down for 2 minutes and 37 seconds after Obama leaves office.
kay
@Marcellus Shale, Public Dick:
I’m a plodder, trudge, trudge, trudge, so I rarely do this, say: “golden opportunity, missed!” but I think it’s true in this case.
The public has been told for 30 years that “other people” use these programs, and we don’t need them ’cause….free markets!
We had an opportunity to say to people “this is what they’re FOR” and we didn’t.
David Koch
DOWN WITH BARRY!
UP WITH RON PAUL!
Xenos
@nellcote: thank you for that. It was just a couple years ago, and everyone seems to have forgotten what it was like under bluedogs/mainers. The shit that somehow manages to get turned into Obama’s fault…
Kilkee
@ericblair: I love that the first comment there on You Tube is “First Tea Party meeting.”
Kilkee
I’m completely serious when I say that in 40-50 years, after the redneck curse has been lifted, there will be very strong discussions about adding Obama to Mt. Rushmore. Not like the stupid claims for Reagan, but substantive ones that recognise the fundamental nature of his accomplishments in terms of the nation’s very survival.
Pat
What a load of crap, FDR got 15 bills passed in his first hundred days, Obama played pattycakes with Congress during his.
Bruce S
I have lots of criticisms of Obama, mostly around his handling of the financial crisis and the “deficit scare” and most of which are grounded in a ton of empirical evidence and brilliant hindsight. It’s important for anyone who cares about issues not to sink into the comforts of “fanboy” of a sitting President, because it’s a problematic job and he’s not your designated savior. Social movements and reasoned, critical discourse matter. As does practical politics and party allegiance. That said, President Obama is the best president in my lifetime, overall – and I still have memories of Eisenhower. In positive accomplishment he’s the best since the domestic LBJ, but thankfully not saddled with LBJ’s disastrous foreign policy side. And although national security is mired in horrible compromises, he hasn’t rounded up American citizens en masse and put them behind barbed wire like St. FDR who is one of the “Obama should be more like!” Nor does his health care reform exclude classes of people, mostly on the basis of their subjugation within the labor force because of racism and sexism, which was true of social security when it was enacted. Selective historical memory is a hell of a drug!
Also, FWIW President Obama is one of maybe three Presidents in my lifetime who isn’t a creepy, horribly flawed human being (Ike, Carter and Obama IMHO.)
David Koch
wE sHOULD hAVE lISTENED tO oUR pROGRESSIVE bETTERS aND pRIMARYED bLACK jIMMY cARTER!
Bruce S
Also, just as a matter of historical record, if people like us were building social movements with the potency of the labor and populist movements of the ’30s, and the civil rights movement of the ”60s – along with the full strength of the Democratic Senate and House – Obama’s Presidency would be another story. Social movements give pols space and a push. If the dominant social movement around an issue is crazy people in funny hats spouting white, right-wing populism, rather than liberal voices pushing serious alternatives, don’t expect one guy to turn all of the bullshit around single-handedly – or for the Democratic party professionals to become a different kind of animal. Or that blogs and internet rants are a form of organized protest. Ain’t gonna happen. Frankly, the folks who worked hard to get Obama elected, including myself, dropped the ball and mostly failed to take the next necessary steps, given the scope of the crisis that the President was facing once he actually took office.
Pat
This is getting really old: If Obama knew all along he could never achieve the Change he championed while campagning, then what exactly was his point? Why make dismantling Bush’s unitary executive so appealing to a majority of voters if it was something he never intended to implement? Well we now know the reason is because Obama never believed in a lot of these things he campaigned on despite how popular the positions may have been with his voters. It was a clever way to win over a voting bloc who knew very little about the guy until 2007, but he probably underestimated how popular turning back the Bush debacle was with more than just far left voters. His repudiation of attempts to reconcile the misdeeds of his predecessor – even doubling down on many of those misdeeds in some instances – has lessened the enthusiasm for him among many less dedicated voters. Lucky for Obama he’s got a nutty assortment of potential opponents and is probably he’s safe, but he absolutely took the wind out of his own sails by walking a far different walk than he talked before 2008.
Pat
As for TARP “working”:
arguingwithsignposts
@Pat:
Thank you, mind-reading emoprog.
Pat
I’ll go with it.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Personally I prefer:
Emoprog: A tag dreamt up by actual liberals to refer to people who constantly disparge a Democratic President no matter what the time of day or topic at hand is, or what the preponderance of evidence weighed by a fair minded observer suggests, in such a persistent and obsessive manner as to suggest that either the commentor in question is motivated by intense personal hatred, or is a Republican ratfucker in disguise, but being good liberals with a healthy respect for diversity of opinion, we are too polite to call you that to your face.
But YMMV.