With the election over, you’re seeing familiar corporate media advice about the need for Obama to move to the right and learn to compromise with Republicans.
Some of this is based on a frankly nonsensical view of the polarization that accompanied his first term. Matt Bai of the New York Times writes (11/7/12):
NYT‘s Matt Bai (photo: Nicole Mays)
There are, of course, plenty of explanations for why Mr. Obama’s election did not usher in a less contentious political moment. Republicans say he squandered his opportunity to remake the political climate by adopting a traditionally liberal agenda. They point to his first big initiative, the stimulus package worth more than $700 billion, and the healthcare law that represented an expansion of government rivaling programs from the 1960s.
Democrats, meanwhile, point out that Republicans seem to have made a conscious decision, beginning with the stimulus, to oppose anything the president put forward, dooming any chance of renewed cooperation between the parties.
One side says X, the other says Y. Of course, a reporter might also want to compare those claims to reality.
The Obama stimulus plan was hardly a matter of pursuing a liberal agenda; in fact the White House spent considerable time trying to attract Republican support, winding up with a package that some prominent liberal and progressive economists thought was too small and put too much emphasis on tax cuts.
Obama’s healthcare plan, once the public option was removed, was essentially Mitt Romney’s plan from Massachusetts, inspired by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. So what Republicans say doesn’t really line up with reality. What Bai has Democrats saying is that Republicans vowed to block Obama at every turn. Which is what they said, and what they set out to do.
Karen Tumulty (photo: CAP)
Going forward, according to some reporters, Obama should pursue a far-fetched vision of national consensus. Karen Tumulty in today’s Washington Post (11/7/12):
If he hopes to achieve anything significant in his final term in office, the president must first forge the kind of national sense of purpose that the election failed to provide.
It’s hard to know what that means, other than a vague sense that Obama must do something that Republicans will support.
Also in the Post, Dan Balz was offering similarly gauzy advice for the second term:
It will now be left to him to create a true mandate for his agenda and then through leadership that combines compromise with conviction, produce a political consensus in Congress and the country to put that agenda into place.
Obama will now have the opportunity to show his true colors, in terms of both his ideological convictions and his ability to produce the kind of cross-party consensus he said he yearns to create.
So Obama should show his “ideological convictions”–so long as they produce “cross-party consensus” with Republicans who have vowed, on several fronts, to oppose him. (The great exception would seem to be foreign policy, where Obama’s expansion of the drone war, escalation of the Afghan War and Iran policies are acceptable to the Republican opposition.)
The clearest take, perhaps, came from NPR‘s Cokie Roberts, who explained on Morning Edition (11/8/12) that the election showed that the country is divided. (This is, in a sense, what elections are supposed to do.) She explained the task for Obama:
NPR‘s Cokie Roberts
It is a divide where he’s lost whites, he’s lost Southerners, he’s lost people of a certain income and age, and he’s really got to do something fast to deal with that.
This is a curious notion of how politics work. After winning an election, the victor should immediately…do what his or her opponents want to do. It’s something the press has done before–especially when Democrats win.
I’m not certain in which solar system Balz’ planet resides, but hear on Earth, Dear Misleader’s “true colors” and “ideological convictions” have been on open display from day one of his presidency.
And it hasn’t presented a very pretty picture, has it?
As for Roberts’ prattlings, speaking as a white Southerner, he never “lost” me.
He never had me to begin with.
Because it really wasn’t difficult to know just who he was, and just who he served, was it?
(And yes, I do realize I’m an anomoly among that demographic.)
Do I sense sour grapes, Doug? Not sure what point you are trying to make, but I would agree that Obama’s efforts to be conciliatory toward, and to compromise with, Republicans did bring about a very ugly picture due to the obstructionism of those same Republicans.
Obama’s big mistake was in trying to seek compromise with the right-wing rather than fighting for the people who voted for him. It cost Democrats dearly in 2010, and came very close to costing him — at least — the popular vote last night. Americans want strong leaders. That’s why they re-elected Reagan even after he trashed the economy. That’s why they re-elected Bush, Jr., even after he lied to get us into war and everyone found out he was an idiot.
Um, Mack …
I voted for the bastard.
And I ask you what picture he paints for the family of a drone victim in Pakistan or Yemen
Or Bradley Manning’s parents
Or the victims of the BP blowout, and what will assuredly be those of its doppleganger in the Artic.
Yes, I voted for him.
We’re going to have to fight whomever takes his morning dump in the immaculate can just off the Master Bedroom at 1600 Pennsylvania AV.
I made what I thought was the best choice to give us the best chance to win that fight.
And I hope to holy hell I was right.
I could never understand why people who voted for Obama call themselves progressives, particularly when Obama calls himself a Blue Dog Democrat.
Americans are a strange breed indeed.
I’m not a progressive because of who I vote for, I vote for who I vote for because I’m a progressive. Obama is not a progressive, but his election is certainly better for the progressive cause than the alternatives.
I agree with Kirk. I vote as a progressive. I take elections seriously. Although I listen to NPR almost exclusively, of the regular ‘analysts’ reports, I consider Ms. Roberts’ to be the least accurate and relevant. They sound phoned in and not researched. I would love if this once-stellar reporter returned to practicing serious journalism. Quite simply, the majority wants him to finish the job and stay the course. it is that simple.
kirk, the problem is that your vote didn’t elect Obama. Your vote made no effective difference. All you did by voting for Obama was put your seal of approval on his crimes, rather than voting for someone (Stein, Alexander, Barr, whomever) that you actually believed held the same values that you do.
Why should Obama listen to your ideas on the issues, now that you have essentially lied and said you’re okay with his policies?
I wish that Obama would tell the repubs to kiss his arse. They haven’t changed and they never will. They have become so addicted to political power that they will lie, cheat and steal to get their fix.
There are a lot of things I don’t like about Obama, especially his (hopefully former) belief that Republicans are patriots who also wish to do what’s best for the country. Obama wasted four years vacillating to a party that borders on fascism, and despite this election, the GOP will use its majority in the House to exact MORE concessions. Still, I voted for Obama, rather than go with my heart and vote for a true progressive from some third party. I have no illusions, but maybe a strong showing of newly-elected progressives in the new Senate will afford Obama a backbone.
He can’possibly do what all those brown-skinned people want him to do. That would be democracy.
During the President’s first term in office, he repeatedly tried to compromise with his “opponents” and got his hand bit for his good will efforts. Throughout the last four years they have tried to bully him. There is only one proven way to respond to bullies. He needs to do that clearly and immediately.
I am not interested in “bipartisanship”, but in the RIGHT policies to be implemented. It is ludicrous to ask Pres. Obama to “compromise” with the Republicans, that’s what he did in his first term and invariably, his ideas were either watered down or Republicans’ bad ideas were incorporated. To be effective, Pres. Obama should take a page out of the Republicans’ book and use his mandate to implement his own policies; in other words, he should play hardball .
Only time will tell what Obama decides to do with his new-found (or re-found?) power. We can speculate until there’s no tomorrow, or opine over what he should or shouldn’t do. But that’s all just a waste of time.
What WE need to do is use our people-power to influence what Obama does. Voting is just the first step. Now, we must organize, write letters, sign petitions, protest, donate, etc. to influence Obama to do what we so desperately need him to do… for us, the people; NOT the corporations or Wall St.
Get to work, people.
It is interesting that after Bush’s election in which he won 286 electoral votes and Kerryreceived 251, Bush maintained that he had a mandate to proceed with his policies for his country (whoops I mean our country). So how is it that Obama who currently has 332 electoral votes (with Florida) is perceived as not having a mandate. I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. The Republicans always have a different set of rules they want us all to abide by. When their candidate wins, it is a mandate, when our candidate wins, the president does not.
We learned our lesson the first 4 years. You cant compromise with republicans, they don’t vote for it anyway and the resulting legislation ends up being crap. Might as well propose a law that will actually help people.
TeeJae, maybe a first step in your plan would be to keep the following information before the citizenry at all time, and to insist that POTUS use it in his dealings with the GOP:
Percentages by which past presidents have raised the debt, courtesy of the CBO:
Reagan–186%
Bush I—-54%
Clinton—41%
Bush II— 72%
Obama —23%
Jdavidson this is a liberal canard.Reagan in effect raised the debt ,but payed it out a thousand times over with inflow of money into every aspect of the economy.And remember ,when asked what was his chief regret he said”that I could not halt the spending of government to the degree i would of liked”.Tip Oniel was a tough man in a tough fight.Spending went on.But think of it as a loan, to build a company that makes billions.Same thing with all of them except Bush 2 and Obama.There it became money going out out out.That has sped up to the point that if you were holding onto a debt clock and it was not nailed down ,that helicopter would you fly away to the moon.Also your percentages are based on a faulty numbers.In effect Obama has spent more in his first 18 months than all the presidents combined.Our debt is not a reflection of market and financial manipulation by the Fed as you would have us believe.Parsing percentages to over to our GNP or our Budget(if we ever actually get one again)It is a real number.Crushing.Nation destroying.23%?????????Sir our debt has ballooned to a non sustainable level/parse that however you will.Blame who you want.Obama is chief of this country now.The buck stops there.This is his economy.Yesterday he said if the Rs dont give him everything he wants he will be forced to raise middle class taxes in a crushing way.First BS shot across the bow??????
Michael E, I’d appreciate the data you have to back up your claim that my post is a “liberal canard.” I don’t find a quote from Reagan and a characterization of Tip O’Neill to constitute a convincing argument.
Marshall Im pretty sure Ron paul never agreed with Mr rove on that one.And you are taking him(Rove) out of context anyway.No one believes this nation killing- world destroying debt doesn’t matter.But let me put it to you in a better way.Raise taxes to 100% on everyone and the problem will not be resolved.Like a grain of sand in an ocean.Take every cent from every corporation …..another grain of sand in an ocean.Sell everything not nailed down in this country and times it by 5 ….just a third grain of sand in this ocean.Now are you getting an idea of the level of debt we have that you are trying to say does not matter?Cut the defense budget to zero….end the war and you still are broke broke broke without a hope in hell of ever seeing the sun again.Invest in infrastructure and environment are noble causes.A nice shuffling of money.Helps us little.Marshal get clear on this.This ship is going down.J davidson I just explained to you that Obama has spent more than ALL the presidents added together.You retort no …..only 23% when compared to three or fore of them..What the hell do we make of that number?I would put the number at 100% more than every president….COMBINED!Math games.People we had one hope to extend our life beyond the next few years.We voted to give the give aways,the borrowing and spending a whole new life.Marshal called it government getting active.Active……hell of a word.Today one of our main financial groups announced it is moving its entire business to Canada.Remember last week I warned you about this.That great sucking sound you hear is from massive money transfers to our neighbor in the North.I have heard our government wants to build a firewall to stop our rich from running.OUR OWN BERLIN WALL.HORRIBLE.Just horrible.
J Davidsen: Thank you for your list of percentage increases in the national Debt by administration. I am also interested in how much PERSONAL debt increased during each of those administrations. Supply-side economics has a tendency to enslave workers by saddling them with debt.
n
I dont know what to say anymore to people who believe( “marshall”)that any of this is sustainable.On any level.”Fabrication that we are drowning in debt”?????God bless you -your a tweaker.A person who believe that by tweaking this or that ,that all will be well.When I was a kid I loved Peter pan.But Damn it all i got older.Good luck peter
No Difference, I don’t have anything on how personal debt fared during comparable administrations. Anecdotal: during the Reagan administration, I lived at first on a tiny inheritance, then on credit cards and graduate student loans. I finally got a job, through acquaintances, and got laid off under Bush Sr.