SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Defending ‘The Unnecessary Fall of Barack Obama’

POLITICS AUGUST 25, 2010

Defending ‘The Unnecessary Fall of Barack Obama’

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

In the week since my story on “the unnecessary fall of Barack Obama” came out, I have been accused of being “hysterical” and “ahistorical,” of glorifying Ronald Reagan, of “moving away from” my “previously clear-eyed stance on the primary source of Obama's troubles,” and of relying on the same “white-working-class Theory of Everything” I have been “peddling … ever since summer 2008.” And that’s just in public. Privately, the criticism has been far more withering and has included words far too incendiary to print in a family magazine. But I’ve spent a lot of time considering some of the (quite thought-provoking and reasonable) counter-arguments to my piece, and I’d like to take the opportunity to respond to them here.  

1. You shouldn’t be encouraging populism. Or you are wrong to make populism the answer or the main answer to Obama’s political difficulties.

I don’t consider myself a “populist.” I am much more of a Herbert Croly-progressive with a touch of elitism. I wasn’t arguing for populism as a political ideal, but as the means by which Obama could have more plausibly achieved objectives that he, and I, and many Americans share: a return to a buoyant prosperity, a narrowing of inequality, and the reinforcement of the social safety net. To achieve these during the present severe downturn requires strong political majorities. And to get those, Obama—or any president—has to frame his appeal in populist terms.

I am not making the ridiculous assertion that populism is “hardwired” into the American brain. But in the course of American history, certain conceptions—or worldviews—have been passed from generation to generation, and insofar as they have not been repeatedly contradicted by events, have endured. One of these, for instance, is what historian Ernest Tuveson called the idea of America as the “redeemer nation.” When Americans have had to make hard foreign policy choices, the politicians have invariably appealed to America’s role as world savior. Another is Thomas Paine’s idea of government as a “necessary evil,” which invariably pops up as an explanation for our economic ills.  Populism—as a defense of the embattled middle class—is a similarly enduring worldview. Populist arguments don’t always carry the day, but during domestic crises, they will be heard, and politicians ignore them at their peril.

Mike Kazin, who wrote the definitive book on populist rhetoric, suggests that I am exaggerating the role of populism in Franklin Roosevelt’s success in his first two years. I disagree with Mike on this point. One can compare what Roosevelt said and did in his first months with what Obama said and did.

Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address in March 1933:

Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men…

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.                                                                                          

Obama’s Inaugural Address in January 2009:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Obama waited a year before pressing for financial reform. During Roosevelt’s first months, he helped banks survive, but he also pressed immediately for policies that reinforced his populist message. He got Congress to pass the Glass-Steagall Act, which split off commercial from investment banking and established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Securities Act, which set the stage for the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Roosevelt made it abundantly clear that he was on the side of Main Street not Wall Street. Obama did not.

Mike also suggests that Obama’s troubles did not stem primarily from his neglect of populism, but from his unwillingness or inability to develop a new vision that would justify the larger role he assigned to government. I don’t disagree with Mike that Obama needed to promote this kind of new progressivism. That’s what Obama was trying to do with the “new foundation.” But it’s not easy to do so in America because of how prevalent the anti-statist worldview is. A populist appeal—and a clear statement of the extreme danger America faces—is the prerequisite to putting forth a new politics that includes a wider role for government.

Let me put it this way: Faced with crises, people tend to look backwards for solutions. In Europe, that often means back to an age when government was more rather than less powerful. That’s why fascism found fertile soil in Depression Europe. In the United States, people look back to a past where the government was far less powerful. And that’s why it is so difficult to get across a politics that includes a larger role for government. Americans have to see an increase in government power as the only means to combat a far greater evil.

2. You exaggerate Obama’s political difficulties. Or you exaggerate the degree to which Obama—and not an inevitable economic downturn—is responsible for Obama’s difficulties.

In The Washington Post, Ezra Klein argues Obama isn’t really that unpopular and that the Democrats are not necessarily poised for a disaster in November any different from that faced by other administrations. (Klein’s colleague David Broder seems to be asserting a similar point in a blitheringly senseless column he wrote about “Judis, a man of the left.”)

As I said in my piece, and charted in another piece last fall, presidential approval can be expected to fall in tandem with a rise in unemployment and a decline in personal income. But as Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics has argued, it’s still question of how much presidential approval, and a party’s political prospects, will fall. In August 1982, Yale political scientist Edward Tufte, who pioneered the economic theory of elections, predicted that the Republicans would lose 45 House seats. By November, the economy had continued to decline, but the Republicans lost only 26 seats and broke even in the Senate.

One reason the Republicans cut their losses was because Ronald Reagan and his White House advisors developed a populist narrative that they repeated from January to November urging voters to “stay the course.” While Reagan remained somewhat unpopular, his relentless campaign convinced a majority of voters that his policies would eventually work. Obama has not developed a narrative; and as a result, voters have far less confidence in his economic policies than they did in Reagan’s. That could make for a big Democratic defeat in November.

But let’s suppose that the Democrats lose 20 rather than 40 seats in the House and three rather than seven in the Senate. Will Obama have then achieved political success as president? That would be true if Obama faced the same kind of challenges as president that Reagan or Bill Clinton did; but he faces challenges much more similar to Roosevelt. In order to meet these, a president would require the same kind of majorities that Roosevelt enjoyed.

The recession of 1981-82 was severe, but as economists recognized at the time, it was merely a deeper dip than usual in the business cycle precipitated by the Federal Reserve’s attempt to halt double digit inflation. Today’s “Great Recession” is much more similar structurally to the Great Depression of the 1930s. The similarity lies not just in the precipitating role of a financial crisis, but in the downturn’s global reach and its longterm national and global impact. As Richard Florida has suggested, the Great Recession is going to reshuffle the deck the way the Great Depression did. It will change the nature of production, how and where people live, and it will alter global balances of power.

What the government does during Obama’s presidency will dramatically shape how the country fares in the future. To restore employment, the government is going to have spend, and run greater deficits. To promote a transition to a green, post-industrial economy, it also is going to have to spend—and do so wisely. An electronic smart grid and high-speed rail—to name two of the kinds of investments widely believed to be necessary—would run in the hundreds of billions. And it will also have to tackle the global economic order, as Richard Nixon did in 1971.

But if Obama and the Democrats lose seats in November, they are not going to be able to meet these challenges. It won’t be like Clinton and the Democrats losing the Congress in November 1994. At that time, the economy was already beginning to surge on its own. If Obama can’t move the country forward, it is going to move backward. The administration may even be forced to accede to the kind of Republican regressive tax cuts and deregulation that earlier wrecked the economy.

So, viewed from the challenges that the country faces, it is not enough for Obama to lose only 20 House seats and three Senate seats. He needs to maintain, or even expand his majority, as Roosevelt and the Democrats did in 1934. Any loss in seats will potentially paralyze his administration. Is this asking the impossible? Perhaps now it is, but in January 2009, the Democrats’ prospects were very favorable. Democrats were going to be defending 17 seats and the Republicans 19 in the 2010 Senate elections. By my own estimate at the time, the Democrats were poised to increase their margin by two or three seats. That would have created a filibuster-proof majority.

To get that majority, however, Obama had to be as bold and as politically attuned as Roosevelt was in 1933. He was not. There were many reasons why, but as a result, Obama and the Democrats—and the United States of America—find themselves in very dangerous waters. Think for a moment of what would have happened to Roosevelt’s New Deal, and to America and the world, if Roosevelt had restrained spending in his first years as he did in 1937-38 and if the Democrats has consequently lost as many seats in 1934 as they did in 1938.

When Obama took office, there is some evidence that he and his White House advisors recognized the extraordinary circumstances in which he was taking power—that they represented an opportunity for success, but also for abysmal failure. I don’t get that same feeling from them any more, especially with the departure of the resident Cassandra, Christina Romer, the head of the Council of Economic Advisors. What I hear instead is complacency about November 2010 with a focus on November 2012. Believe me, this is a huge mistake, and if my critical piece accomplishes anything besides making it even less likely that the White House press office will respond to my emails, I hope it is to disrupt this complacency in the highest circles of our government.

3. Yes, Obama made mistakes, but in comparing him to Jimmy Carter, you are forgetting that he has accomplished more in two years than Carter accomplished in four.

As any grammar teacher will tell you, a metaphor or simile is not a statement of identity. The dawn isn’t really “rosy-fingered.” As my colleague Ed Kilgore notes, there are dramatic differences between Carter and Obama, but there is also a line of political descent from Carter to Dukakis to Gore to Kerry to Obama, all of whom had difficulty framing their message in populist terms.

But what about Obama’s accomplishments, including national health care reform? The memory of Bill Clinton’s incrementalism seems to have obscured what is a persistent fact of American politics: the presidency is an enormously powerful office. Many of our presidents have been extraordinary bold and can be credited with enormous legislative and international accomplishments. Leave aside whether you agree with what they did. Think of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. So there is nothing unusual about a bold president. The question about Obama is whether, giving the circumstances of this recession, he was bold enough. And the evidence so far is that he was not.

In a column last January, I compared Obama to Herbert Hoover. Okay, he was not from Iowa, nor trained as an engineer, but like Hoover, he could have his really significant accomplishments overshadowed by his inability to manage America’s successful transition out of the Great Recession. Who remembers now that financial reform and government spending to create jobs started with Herbert Hoover?

John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 60 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

60 comments

Yeah, well... However right you may be, Mr Judis, this is a very backward-looking piece. It's all about what Obama and the Democrats could have done and didn't do. But that's all water under the bridge. What do you reckon Obama should do now? Is there anything he CAN do? Maybe if you come up with some concrete suggestions, the White House will start answering your emails again.

- AaronW

August 25, 2010 at 2:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since Judis expresses the same concerns as I in my comments in TNR in the past year and a half (though Judis does so much better than I), I must agree with his sentiments in this and prior essays. Judis makes the important distinction between being a populist and populist framing of issues. Obama is not a populist and he isn't going to change. But that shouldn't prevent he and has advisors from populist framing of issues. While little is to be gained by considering what might have been (other than not repeating the same mistake), much can be gained with a change going forward. Starting with tax policy. By framing the proposed tax cuts as a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts, Obama makes two mistakes: One, he concedes that the Bush tax cuts (or at least some of them) are a good thing. Two, he adopts somebody else's tax policy rather than proposing his own. Thus Obama loses the debate before it even starts by extremely poor framing. I have my own idea about tax cuts offered in a populist frame, but smarter people than I are available and ready to take on the task as an advisor to Obama. I'm just not confident that Obama wants to hear what they have to say. And from Judis' comment at the beginning of this essay, it appears that many on the left don't want to hear it either.

- rayward

August 25, 2010 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I, too, agree with Rayward and Judis. As to what to do going forward, do what should have been done in 3/09. Break the filibuster. Now. NO needed legislation will get passed otherwise. If it is the case that the Senate Dems now don't have 50 votes to do so (they would have had in 3/09), then I agree the situation is hopeless. And a strong argument can be made that if the Dems and Obama continue to be politically ynept, then the coming disasters in the next two years might preferably occur under Repub control of Congress with Obama as toast for 2012. Obama is then perhaps more like Hoover than Carter-- a nice guy, great humanitarian, and a failure as President due to inherent flaws in his political views. Obama, like Hoover, will continue to have his strong "Cult of Obama as President" acolytes -- as does Hoover even today in many conservative circles. Hoover was an excellent organizer and Stanford engineer -- and has a Tower on the Stanford Campus, affectionately known to students as" Hoover's last erection". Obama will always have his Nobel Peace prize. And probably a library on the Harvard campus. Hoover, ironically, was nominated five times for the same prize, of which to date he was more deserving.

- drofnats1

August 25, 2010 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's a lot like Hoover. Smart, wonkish, progressive-tinged (Hoover was at one point a potential Democratic presidential nominee), overwhelmed by a financial disaster not of his making. Obama needs to open up the class warfare barrage. Period. Us against Them.

- Mikelawyr22

August 25, 2010 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The infamous speech in Philadelphia in response to Rev. Wright's rant was a perfect straw man. The Republicans could now mention Obama's spiritual mentor without being seen as racists and the Democrats were like a deer in the headlights. Obama's anti-Semitism was swept under the rug. Nothing pleases me more than the American public joining me in not voting for him. I almost voted for McCain but didn't because he chose Palin as his running mate. I had no one to vote for so I did not vote for the first time in my life. In November I will vote for anyone that is against Obama. 2 years later I will vote even for Palin if that is what it takes to get rid of anti-Semite Obama. A survivor of the Shoa who will never vote for anyone who once belonged to any anti-Semitic organization in the same way I would never vote for anyone who once belonged to an organization not accepting Black people.

- Poupic

August 25, 2010 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Populism" unfortunately has become something of a scare word among some liberals--they practically equate it with right-wing demagoguery. But I would ask Judis's liberal critics: how many of you disagree that inequality has become a major problem in American society and deserves to be made a major political issue? If you don't disagree, then you favor a "populist" approach to current politics. I also want to strongly second drofnats1's point about the filibuster. I don't understand how progressives fail to see that breaking the filibuster should be their no. 1 issue: no significant progressive legislation is possible from this point on under current senate rules. And this could also be a "populist" issue: Obama could challenge all senators--including Dems--to pledge to put an end to minority rule by changing Rule 22 at the opening of the new Congress. It could be framed also as a blow against the Washington deadlock that people find so troubling.

- tonyg51

August 25, 2010 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I get the impression that Obama is making the same calculation Clinton did. He sees the GOP moving farther and farther to the right, so he moves to the center to court the independents. For Clinton it made sense. He really was working against an active and plausible conservative movement. Small bore politics and stemming the GOP tide was about all he could do. Fast forward 15 years and the conservative narrative is no longer plausible. It stumbled through the Bush years, then crashed into the Great Recession. Events have essentially written a narrative for Obama and the Democrats. Yet they still can't tell a populist story. Move to the center; move to the center. Appoint Republicans to the cabinet. Meanwhile the GOP is creating narrative out of nothing. "Obama is a socialist, destroying America and free enterprise." It's as if they assume Obama has taken advantage of the situation to create a populist craze and they are reacting to it with a counter-narrative. No one can believe the Dems have no story to tell.

- stevedwight

August 25, 2010 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spend, spend, spend. The only way for government to spend money is to first take it from someone. Even if they create it out of thin air, they are taking it from the frugal and productive and transferring it to the deadbeat and non-productive sector. That sure doesn't sound like a solution to anything except fueling the narcissism of the political class. Clearly Judis is either (a) a brain-dead liberal who actually believes this stuff; or (b) a power-hungry leftist thug. We're in the current economic malaise because of excessive spending and excessive debt by government an individuals and the only solution offered by Obama (and Bush) and the rest of the parasitic class is more spending and more debt.

- dalefogden

August 25, 2010 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon The term "populists" is a term loaded with meaning which does help in the understanding of today's politics. "Public" outrage is more open. "Populists" is so problematic for so many reasons. At least with the term "public" we can go further to discuss "what public" is so outraged. Populists, who are they Jon? Who are the affiliated with? Are the Hofstadter's hicks and hayseeds --- are they the related to Joe McCarthy? Or are they the Tea baggers (the Ron Paul libertarian wing of the GOP)? Jon stop using a term that has so many connotations which do not necessarily apply to the here and now!!!!!!!!

- SRC--Mpls

August 25, 2010 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry that John Judis's friends and the White House press office are so mean to him over his counter-history article -- get over it. The fact of the matter is that Judis's narrative is hand-wringing over the past and a counter-factual scenario that, like most such scenarios, conveniently overlooks its own flaws. The fact is that the economy was in terrible, terrible shape in February 2009 and most people (including the White House) either didn't realize it or refused to acknowledge reality. That inability to accurately assess the economic need for even-larger government stimulus circumscribed the debate over the Stimulus Bill and eventually led to its enduring unpopularity, although the economic reality is that the Stimulus Bill still tremendously helped the economic recovery. But that economic recovery is still anemic and unable to produce jobs and positive results for a very large proportion of the population. That's the reason for why Democrats and Obama are in trouble this election cycle -- there is insufficient economic progress for many voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote Democratic to reward them at the polls. I'm sorry, but no amount of catchy slogans, soaring rhetoric and legislative hardball would help, and anyone who thinks so is dreaming some powerful dreams. A President who makes his top legislative priority to eliminate the filibuster or restore the Glass-Steagall Act in the face of 10.5% unemployment is not going to be rewarded by the general public for those stances if they don't help unemployment. As for the Reagan and FDR comparisons, they are fatuous and Judis knows it (or should). Yes, Reagan did have some populist rhetoric in 1982 that limited Republican losses to 26 seats, but that's because Republicans didn't even control the House in 1982 and had many fewer competitive seats to lose than Democrats do today. Practically all of the Democratic House seats seized in 2008, and a good many from 2006, are in districts that have been historically willing to elect Republicans or to vote for Republican Presidential or Senate candidates. The voters in those districts, unlike voters in Bethesda, Santa Monica or Westchester, can actually fathom voting for a Republican, and many of them will this year because of the economy and the lack of sufficient progress with unemployment. The 26 Republican districts lost in 1982 were similarly historically Democratic, or at least open to voting Democratic historically, and those voters gave their Republican incumbents the same treatment. But there were plenty of other districts in 1982 where Democrats were the incumbents, so there was no issue of punishing the incumbents for the shortcomings of the economy when the opposing party is in power. Incidentally, the Republicans lost 7 Senate seats in 1982 and control of that chamber despite Reagan's effective populist rhetoric, which shows that beachheads in enemy territory are the most vulnerable in a mid-year election. As for FDR, he became President after almost 4 years of economic devastation under Hoover. The public in March 1933 knew all they needed to know about the ineptitude of the Republican Party in dealing with an economic crisis that had been raging since October 1929. In the present case, while there was widespread economic malaise during the Bush years and generalized misgivings among the electorate about the economy since late 2007, the free-fall didn't start until the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. That may have doomed McCain and a bunch of Republican incumbents, but the public as a whole (especially in otherwise Republican districts) did not automatically come to believe that Republicans were economically clueless and untrustworthy by November 2008 or March 2009. If the Great Recession lingered until March 2013 under President McCain and President Obama then took over urging bold action, you might have a better analogy to FDR. So we should not pretend that Obama has the same freedom of political action in a political environment still shaped by two decades' worth of Republican policy choices that FDR had in a political environment in which two decades' worth of earlier Republican policy choices lay in ruins.

- wildboy

August 25, 2010 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm afraid that Obama will always be accused of thinking that America is "a small homogeneous semi-socialist republic" and consequently of completely failing on his politics. And perhaps that's not regretable. After all, Obama has no alternative narrative. After hiring Geithner and Summers (and not firing them even after the Boston disaster), approving an unsustainable health care reform that really is an insurance care reform, patronizing those who like bailouts "as much as they enjoy root canal", compromising on financial reform, attacking Germany for launching a bank tax reform, etc., etc., he cannot reply saying that America is as capable of collective achievments as other countries (those small "semi-socialist Republics") are. That since his reforms (and even his conduct) ended up departing from the mythical vision of America (fronteer individualism, success above all) that stands at the heart of the conservative narrative... And then there's the matter of his hardly disguised elitism, the implicit assumption of the superiority of IV Leaguers (something that constantly lurks at his appointments), the paternalizing conduct. I imagine that even Democrats are eager to say goodbye to all that and have a real progressive candidate in touch with Main Street.

- Ideaot

August 25, 2010 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis is very much on point. We on the left were deceived by Obama. His supposed accomplishments--Financial Reform and Health Care are ill-thought out legislative items that were crafted by Wall Street and Health Care special interests. But calling for Obama to change is like a fools errand--he won't. He is what he is-- and he is no FDR--and no populist. The fact he is smart and articulate does not mean he has guts or core values he will fight for. History will show that the 2008 election was determined by a freak stock market crash just before the election and McCains unbelievable blunder in picking a highly unqualified VP candidate. In fact --and I hate to say it--Obama was not qualified--not experienced enough to be a great President. Remember behind the scenes FDR was a world class son-of -a bitch--and so were several other Presidents. The Presidency is about the allocation of power and wealth between competing interests in society--and power surrenders nothing without a struggle. Obama just isn"t tough enough for the fight.FDR was.

- wsltl

August 25, 2010 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The analysis of Mr. Judis and many commentators assunmes that had the President been even more populist, i.e., progressive, he would hae both retained liberal and "left/liberal" support; would have lost few independent voters and thereby would maintain the same majority with which he prevailed in 2008. As often as many of the President's suppporters repeat the mantra, the President's slide can not be attributed solely to Fox and talk radio; few Fox watchers and talk radio listeners voted for Obama and many actually stayed at home rather than vote for McCain, whom they viewed as a so-called RINO. What they feared was both an Obama presidency and its altermative, the potential for the successful presidency of someoneone they vewed as a liberal -- John McCain. Everyone, however, doesn't read the hagiography in the NY Times, New Yorker, etc. It may just be that lots of 2010 voters just don't like the President's policies and really find Peolisi et al. distasteful. They may cling to their beer, religion and xenophiabia, as candidate Obama remarked in April 2008, but, unfortunately for Mr. Judis, they do vote. They oppose the policies and are energized by liberal critics who continuously deem the President's opponents stupid, bigoted and simply unwilling to comprehend that the President and Congress are doing everything to help these ingrates. What Mr. Judis and other commentators forget, is that the President stirred the imagination of many when, beginning with his 2004 convention address, he repeatedly emphasized that there were no red states or blue states and that he was the person to lead the country beyond the what many saw as crippling partisan warfare. Now these same voters, many of them independents and so-called moderates of both parties, perceive that he is too partisan. In this atmosphere, Mr. Judis et al. begs him to be more so. When this appearance of excess partisanship is combined with the view expressed by Valerie Jarrett that the President "is just too talented to do what ordinary people do," the voters lose whatever sympathy they may have with a well-intentioned and very smart leader whose policies many perceive as not sucessful.

- thom14

August 25, 2010 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To dalefogden: with respect I think you're wrong about "parasites" in our society who supposedly "take money" from the so-called "productive and frugal" people. In other words you're blaming the poor for our economic woes, with no recognition of several facts. A. During the Bush Administration we embarked upon two extremely expensive wars and B. Cut taxes which C. Benefited the well-to-do more than anybody else and D. Put the US in toto into a huge financial hole. I think the poor are absolutely the last people who should be blamed for our problems. Relying too heavily upon pie in the sky real estate speculation rather than investing in smart new industries was really stupid. So was the failure of business and industrial leaders to stay ahead of the times, for example our auto industry which continued to build dinosaurs while other countries got ahead of the curve with fuel-efficient designs - this almost buried Detroit and if it weren't for the govmint ie "the people" they'd be under by now. Also, reliance by those same incompetent and uncreative business and industrial leaders upon corporate welfare while at the same time screeching that poor are bankrupting America - GIVE ME A BREAK. The people who have money and power and who are in positions of business, political and industrial leadership are the people who have the ability to control the future and they have fouled up bigtime. Failure to recognize the iron grip of the oil industry on the global economy is a colossal problem - to take just one example - and so is the inability or unwillingness of people who are supposedly smarter than the rest of us, by dint usually of having inherited their money, to help bring about progressive change that would avoid poverty and economic stagnation in the first place. Finally, it isn't for YOU to judge who is productive and who isn't. Over the long haul the poor artist might well make a bigger contribution to society than the rich (and incompetent) industrialist. A healthy society respects ALL its members.

- Sophia

August 25, 2010 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thom14. You have it backwards-- you think Obama's problems are that he's not enough of a Blue Dog compromiser. the equivalent in 1859 of saying Buchanon's error was in not ceding more to Southern demands, Neville in 1938-39 being too anti-German, Truman in 1948 being too anti-communist. Furthermore, very few Progressives believe BHO's troubles asrise from Fox, as you assert. The roblem is BHOs weak, inconsistent and ineffective response to Fox and Republicans.

- drofnats1

August 25, 2010 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drofnats gets the Godwin Award! Amazing that it only took 16.75 hours to do so. Well, I guess I have to pay my bookie now ... I don't mean to go all Abe Foxman on you folks (and you know I care very little for Abe Foxman), but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop comparing anything Barack Obama does to Munich, at least in the realm of domestic politics. No Republican is Hitler. Not even Sarah Palin. Hell, not even Louie Gohmert.

- wildboy

August 25, 2010 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How's that California governor's race going, Dale? Or is it Senate race? I forget ...

- wildboy

August 25, 2010 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh by the way: yes John Judis you are too harsh on the president. Americans need to grow up. The last thing we need is a demagogue and if crazed and fiery rhetoric is what it takes to get our attention we're truly doomed. We have an intelligent leader who inherited a bundle of problems. We have to work through them rationally. We all have a responsibility here - to each other and to our nation. It will take time because folks have either been asleep, building gas guzzling dinosaurs, letting our industrial base go to hell and not replacing it with anything real; and/or they have been busily sending our jobs overseas and starting wars whilst they enjoy their large tax breaks and blame the poor for their troubles. Why is this Obama's fault?

- Sophia

August 25, 2010 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's needed is a Democratic Party to actually fight for the things that Democrats are supposed to believe in. A lot of people got elected on Obama's coattails in Nov 2008 and too many are wringing their hands for having voted for the reforms that should be their calling card. We would be a lot better off in the U.S. if we had another couple of parties that people could legitimately join with a chance of success, rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into a rigid bipolar ideological frame that doesn't match the real world any more. Also, I wonder about the "looking back" motif that Jon Chait mentions -- Americans looking back to less government, Europeans to more -- because that would seem to undermine the very argument he makes about FDR earlier. Why wouldn't Americans look back to the New Deal? It's been a long long time since the U.S. was the low-government nation that the teabaggers fantasize about. I agree that the economic situation is determining, but it does have a psychological effect if a party won't fight for what it's supposed to believe in . . .

- ironyroad

August 25, 2010 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think in the main Judis had it right on the points raised. I voted for Obama but did not realize how much he lacks the fire in the belly. He is much too much the accomodating hail fellow well met type, as has the Democratic party been since Bush v Gore when hell should be raised. And Judis did not even mention the defense budget and the war--amazing.

- warman

August 25, 2010 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

drofnats, your comment about "Neville" presumably refers to the British Conservative PM Neville Chamberlain, but the phrase being "too anti-German" is confusing to the point of meaninglessness. Surely the Munich motif is generally used to claim, in contrast, that Chamberlain in 1938-9 wasn't anti-German enough?

- ironyroad

August 25, 2010 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with "wildby" and Sophia. Mr. Judis needs to write about causes, issues and ideas. I'm not interested in Mr. Judis' endless strategies for Obama. Simply because Mr. Judis has moved politically from democratic socialism to a Herbert Croly-progressive with a touch of elitism, doesn't give him access, panache or authority to be the President's consultant. Oh, how boring is old dead white socialist Upton Sinclair? Oh, how irrelevant and embarrassing is the legacy of Norman Thomas? With a quick read of Herbert David Croly's "The Promise of American Life," I too can sit in the dinning room with the great ones and discuss the future of mankind. From the October-December 1975 issue of "Socialist Revolution's" piece on the "New American Movement, 1975" to the White House. Isn't America just wonderful? Give us a break, John. Write something important.

- LawrenceGulotta

August 25, 2010 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh bravo. I think the "touch of elitism" really REALLY ticked me off:)

- Sophia

August 25, 2010 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I couldn't agree more. Last year during the summerlong healthcare doldrums I started a blog called ODD, One Disgusted Democrat. My disgust was directed at Democrats who act like beaten dogs even while they hold a near supermajority. I too feel like America needs more viable political parties. If Dems cannot muster the courage to make a more forceful case for progressive policy than "vote for us, at least we're not insane," then what good are they?

- AaronW

August 25, 2010 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis's main point is that our economic troubles were caused by a thoroughly corrupt banking-finance industry and it not only was Obama's right, but his duty to call out these crooks instead of coddling them. Once his economic geniuses adopted the phrase "too big to fail," his presidency went into the crapper. No, no bank, brokerage house, insurance company or hedge fund is too big to fail. That is why we have antitrust laws. Remember these relics of a more civilized era? All together now: greed is not good.

- NR114746

August 25, 2010 at 10:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia writes: "A. During the Bush Administration we embarked upon two extremely, expensive wars and, B. Cut taxes which, C. Benefited the well-to-do more than anybody else and D. Put the US in toto into a huge financial hole." a. Obama has spent more on the stimulus than 7 years of Iraq. And it's growing. Iraq will look like a drop in the bucket in two more years. b. The tax cuts benefited the middle class more. Take at look at the CBO data below. The top paid 66.6% of all federal liabilities under Clinton's last year, and 68.9% under Bush's last year. That's right, the top carried more of the tax load under Bush. And the middle class? They shouldered just 9.2% under Bush, and 9.8% under Clinton. Oh, and dollars? In constant dollars, the middle class earned $64.5K under Bush, and $60.5K under Clinton. So, if you were middle class, you earned more and paid less in taxes under Bush. Sweet deal, huh!. c. Wrong. See above. d. Wrong. Bush tax cuts for wealthy cost us $36B/year. In 2011, our budget shortfall will be $1T. So bush tax cuts for the wealthy are responsible for 4% of our budget shortfall. Do you really not know this basic math? Do you just type this stuff out without any regard for the truth? Seriously? Is it because you just don't care? Or you figure it's OK to lie to make a point? Shame on you for not knowing these basic facts. Shame on your for failing to look this up in google before typing this. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link. Don't eat this link.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 3:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "The tax cuts benefited the middle class more. Take at look at the CBO data below. The top paid 66.6% of all federal liabilities under Clinton's last year, and 68.9% under Bush's last year. That's right, the top carried more of the tax load under Bush. And the middle class? They shouldered just 9.2% under Bush, and 9.8% under Clinton. Oh, and dollars? In constant dollars, the middle class earned $64.5K under Bush, and $60.5K under Clinton. So, if you were middle class, you earned more and paid less in taxes under Bush." What an utterly misleading and useless set of statistics. Those numbers mean nothing unless you know what happened to each group of earners. If the top earners did extremely well and no one else did any differently, then their income "tax load" will go up even if the tax code didn't change at all. And that's what happened: the wealthy did well in the 2000 while the median income barely budged. And then they got a bigger tax break to boot! Perhaps the middle class payed a little less in taxes, but the wealthy captured the lion's share of the benefits. The use of "constant dollars" is another fudge. If my constant dollar amount rises slower than inflation, I'm losing value. I don't know what time period you're referring to, but an increase from $60.5K to $64.5K--only a 6.6% gain--would be surpassed by inflation in only a couple of years even with relatively low inflation. And median income in fact declined under Bush. "When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/ As for the Iraq war vs. the stimulus, the stimulus was a one-time expense (barring any subsequent measures). Your cite for the Iraq war includes only current expenditures and omits long-term health care costs and other indirect and delayed costs. CBO says the long-term price will be around $1.9 trillion by 2017. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War And regarding responsibility for our long-term fiscal problems, just read David Leonhardt's NY Times piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html. "Do you really not know this basic math? Do you just type this stuff out without any regard for the truth? Seriously? Is it because you just don't care? Or you figure it's OK to lie to make a point?" I'll ask the same question.

- dsimon

August 26, 2010 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia writes: "It will take time because folks have either been asleep, building gas guzzling dinosaurs, letting our industrial base go to hell and not replacing it with anything real; and/or they have been busily sending our jobs overseas and starting wars whilst they enjoy their large tax breaks and blame the poor for their troubles. Why is this Obama's fault?" Sophia - Judis is not calling for a populist "demagogue' or "crazed and populist rhetoric". Judis clearly notes the excesses and shortcomings of historic populism. Judis is asking for a more populist framing. For example - that industrialists were building gas guzzling dinosaurs and letting our industrial base go to hell, or busily sending our jobs overseas. Populism. Your words. "Why is is Obama's fault?" It's not his fault that these problems exist. It is his fault that he does not describe the systemic problems you listed in a way that the voting majority can understand and respond positively to in order to move policy in Obama's desired direction. If it takes populist framing in times of economic crisis (and I think Judis has a good arguement for that), then a middle ground blame everyone approach (Obama: "Our collective failure") allows Fox and beck to choose the enemy.

- AB

August 26, 2010 at 8:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

anyone who doubts judis' main point that obama squandered an enormous opportunity in failing to use populism as an effective rhetorical device should remember the blanche lincoln derivatives saga, as well as noam scheiber's recent reporting about the politics surrounding an elizabeth warren nomination. so fearful were the blue dogs of being accused of coddling the banks that not one of them risked killing the provision, and even in the "heartland" of kentucky, the democratic senate nominee has found that populism and elizabeth warren resonate well. but instead of framing the issues in populist terms at the outset, the republicans dictated obama's strategy . . . until lincoln came along and forced the adminstration to take an even tougher tack. from scheiber's older piece (which, amazingly, managed to portray the administration's performance positively): "The White House began to recognize that derivatives might be more hospitable terrain than, say, the too-big-to-fail problem, the solution to which Republicans dishonestly dubbed a “permanent bailout.” “Rahm’s view is: ‘I like the derivatives issue,’” says one administration official. “ ‘We’re on better ground on that than talking about bailouts. If they talk bailouts, we talk derivatives.’ ” got that? the administration's legislative agenda was disrupted by the republican's skillful use of the populist nine iron -- an agenda they dubbed a "permanent bailout." but still wary of using populist rhetoric himself, rahm figures let's focus on the arcane parts of reform that the public doesn't understand -- the republicans will have a harder time reframing that one! "[Enter Blanche Lincoln's derivatives proposal.] The administration is cool to the proposal, which it fears might make the system less stable, as are many Senate Democrats. But, given the public mood, no senator wants to be linked to its death. At one point, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand filed an amendment simply requiring federal regulators to assess the idea before voting to implement it. But Gillibrand never offered it up because she and other Democrats didn’t want to slow the momentum behind an otherwise solid bill. It’s a funny thing about populist fervors: Once unleashed, no one can say where they’ll end." how did this turn out in the end? the megabanks are even bigger than before, and exert even more political and financial clout over the us economy. bernanke, geithner, and summers are still at the helm of governmental institutions that are supposed to be looking out for the stability of the economy -- notwithstanding the fact that these same people fueled the housing boom, shirking responsibility for the eventual bust. the left isn't the ones wearing the rose colored glasses.

- apollo

August 26, 2010 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: "And median income in fact declined under Bush." Wrong. I'll take the CBO over The Atlantic. Year 2000 average income for bottom 20% 17600 Year 2007 average income for bottom 20% 18400 Year 2000 average income for bottom 20-40% 40100 Year 2007 average income for bottom 20-40% 42500 Year 2000 average income for bottom 40-60% 60500 Year 2007 average income for bottom 40-60% 64500 Year 2000 average income for bottom 60-80% 89700 Year 2007 average income for bottom 60-80% 94100 Year 2000 average income for top 20% 236500 Year 2007 average income for top 20% 264700 Every single group made more money in constant dollars.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, those numbers are not adjusted for inflation. When you do adjust them for inflation, it shows that everyone except the top two income brackets had stagnant income growth and only the top income bracket had really good income growth. Feel free to argue, as a Republican, that only income growth for the top earners is worth anything to the overally economy -- just don't manipulate data to make your point.

- wildboy

August 26, 2010 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apollo, I will repeat what I said in response to Judis's original article -- the Administration certainly "squandered" the chance to use economic populism to bolster its popularity during the first 6 months after Obama's inauguration by temporarily nationalizing large failed financial institutions and using all its political capital to pass a $1.5 billion economic stimulus (and maybe eliminating the Senate filibuster rule in the bargain). The real question is whether doing so would have actually resulted in a better economic environment or not. I've made a case that it would likely have made the economic environment much worse than what it was, by freezing up credit markets and dramatically driving down the stock market. This would have accelerated unemployment and perhaps put the brakes on economic recovery then and there. Bad economic data would have led to low political popularity as it has in each and every election since the founding of the Republic, except in those circumstances where foreign crisis has scrambled the mix. Neither Judis nor his defenders have even tried to tackle this argument, even though I think it puts a huge monkey wrench into his counterfactual scenario. So the point isn't whether populism ever works or not. It's clear that it does work, and the financial regulation bill is a good example of it. But I would humbly suggest that such economic populism doesn't work when the economy was just pulled off the brink of disaster and is just barely recovering. Which is where the economy was in early- and mid-2009.

- wildboy

August 26, 2010 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "Every single group made more money in constant dollars." I did not dispute that. But I explicitly said that's essentially a cheat unless you account for inflation. What good is a constant dollar increase of 5% if prices went up 10%? It's another example of a number being pretty meaningless in the absence of more information. The Atlantic's numbers rightly take inflation into account. (If you dispute them, you should offer a cite instead of dissing the source. I don't argue with the statement that 2+2=4 regardless of who says it.) Would you really want more nominal dollars if they bought less? Would you rather have the income and prices of 2000 or of 2007? If you can't answer that question correctly, then you shouldn't be lecturing others on "basic math." Also, the numbers back up what I wrote above: just saying that the wealthy now bear a bigger portion of income tax revenue doesn't say anything about how the tax cuts were distributed because you have to know how income changed in each group. The first four quintiles saw their income increase (in constant dollars, though it doesn't really matter for this particular point) from between 4.5 and 6.6%, while the top quintile had a 12% increase. So the wealthy could get a bigger tax break but still pay more in taxes because their incomes grew so much more over that period.

- dsimon

August 26, 2010 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Every single group made more money in constant dollars." Amazing thing, numbers. You can do anything you want with them if 1) you think everyone else is a fool; or 2) you yourself are too fucking dumb to understand them. No economic analysis or planning over a period of years relies on constant dollars. To talk about constant dollars in anything but ironic terms is to demonstrate onself an economic ignoramous, or a malicious manupulator of data. At an average 2% rate of inflation (very conservative), the total erosion in the value of the dollar over the seven years from 2000 to 2007 would have been around 15%. The median income rise of just under 5% for the bottom 20% of the population thus represents a net 10% loss in income. This is the same net loss, in real terms and subject to very conservative numbers, for all groups except the top 20%. So, you know, either you are stupid or you think we are, and this does not really say much for you. As for the 20% comparisons, the real problem with economic performance in the US is not the median income rises or losses of any quintile; it is that the top 1% has gained a far greater increase, in real or constant terms (relatively) than any other group in society and, in fact, than the US economic performance would permit. This is the real policy problem, whether you are left or right. That sucking sound you hear, is the top 1% drawing all the resources of the country to itself through management of political resources. This is how oligarchies work; this is not a Republican form of government. Seattle:

- icarusr

August 26, 2010 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Last week on The Daily Show they were talking about Fox News' misleading, scaremongering coverage of the supposedly suspicious funding sources for the Ground Zero mosque. Wyatt Cenac and John Oliver came on each wearing a sweatshirt labeled with a possible explanation for Fox's spurious reportage: "Team Evil" and "Team Stupid." Icarusr's rebuttal of seattleeg calls just this dichotomy to mind. It seems to me that this formulation distills a cogent critique of the entire conservative movement in America, at least as it has developed over the past fifteen years or so. If you're a GOP stalwart either you're on Team Evil or you're on Team Stupid. Hard to say which should be worse for your reputation, but they're both goddamn hard on America.

- AaronW

August 26, 2010 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re my point about the top 1%, here is the Chaitnote of today on the very subject: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77248/the-rich-vs-the-middle

- icarusr

August 26, 2010 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You guys do know that constant dollars take inflation into account, right? They do that so that they can be compared. If you type "constant dollars" into google....oh never mind. Wildboy, dsimon,k icarusr...seriously? You do not know this? Are you kidding me? Why on earth would the CBO **not** report anything in constant dollars? How else can youcompare them? Read the full CBO report below at 1) And so you don't go off on some other uninformed tangent, here's the share of the federal tax burden paid by all groups (see link 2 below) The summary here is quite a shock to you I'm sure, but the data is clear as can be: The middle class earned more under Bush than Clinton--in inflation adjusted dollars--and they paid less of the federal tax burden under Bush than Clinton. And the top 20% (and top 1%) paid more of the federal tax burden under Bush than Clinton. How can you guys look at numbers that are this clear and reject them? It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed some can be. And the funny thing is you seem to be proud of the fact. 1) http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_before-tax_income.pdf 2) http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf Learn to use google. Study just a bit before you type. Everyone makes mistakes some times. But over and over you guys just reject plain-as-day data that refutes what you believe to be true in your heart. Think. Learn. Get informed. If the data doesn't match your heart, and the data is solid, adjust your heart. Don't reject the data. Be honest with yourself. You'll sleep better.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

aaronw: "Icarusr's rebuttal of seattleeg calls just this dichotomy to mind." So you don't know what constant dollars are either. Jesus H, that makes half the posters on this thread self-professed simpletons.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry seattleng but your comments completely ignore the real state of affairs for a vast number of Americans. This includes not only a real unemployment rate well in excess of the "official" numbers, but the fact that the housing market has taken an enormous hit. The implications of this are huge. The stock market has lost a great deal value as well, which also impacts pensions. Again, the lower you are on the totem pole the worse this situation becomes. I honestly don't see how you can argue about this. We may actually be confronting a real depression. I agree also - we've moved from "the American dream" to a true oligarchy. This is the core of the situation confronting Obama and the rest of us. I do think Judis and others of you above have a point not only about Obama but about blue dog and other C.S. so-called Democrats who either don't get or are afraid to confront this problem, which has been greatly worsened by the Supreme Court's affirmation that corporations have no spending limits regarding campaign contributions. I'd also like to see a real accounting of where the money went with those two wars. Ideology aside, they look like a real convenient way of funneling public monies into private, corporate hands. Am I wrong?

- Sophia

August 26, 2010 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh by the way, referring to people who disagree with your economic brilliance as "simpletons" make YOU sound like a fool sir. I have an idea. You come live in my world for awhile, or maybe step into the shoes of a person who will likely never work again, or who has lost the family home due to job loss, or pension value due to the calamitous stock market ride - then you can call me a "simpleton."

- Sophia

August 26, 2010 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You guys do know that constant dollars take inflation into account, right?" Looks like I made a mistake regarding the term "constant dollars" (I believe the more common term is "nominal dollars"). But you are still as wrong as can be with the obviously misleading stat of who pays what share of the taxes. As I've written repeatedly--and the numbers that you yourself cited support--saying "the top X% pays Y% of the taxes" is essentially meaningless without knowing the income distribution. You have yet to respond to this point, only repeating the same insufficient information. "And the top 20% (and top 1%) paid more of the federal tax burden under Bush than Clinton." Again, that's not because they didn't benefit tons more than the middle class because of the tax cuts; it's because their income increase was so much more than anyone else's, which was multiplied because they already were making so much more to begin with. "George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut was a huge windfall for the wealthy. About 40 percent of its benefits went to the tiny sliver of Americans earning over $500,000." http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/08/02/reich_bush_tax_cut "Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the [CBO] study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners. "Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html "Learn to use google." I did. I even read newspapers. And I frequently found information that says median income went down slightly during the Bush years. "In 2000, at the end of the previous economic expansion, the median American family made about $61,000, according to the Census Bureau’s inflation-adjusted numbers. In 2007, in what looks to have been the final year of the most recent expansion, the median family, amazingly, seems to have made less — about $60,500." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/business/09leonhardt.html The numbers you cite use the "average" for the quintile, which may not be the best values to use because the distribution within each quintile may be skewed, so perhaps that accounts for the discrepancy. "If the data doesn't match your heart, and the data is solid, adjust your heart. Don't reject the data." I have regarding the use of terms and I don't reject the data, but you seem unwilling to adjust your use of the data. Will you admit that saying "X% of the population paid Y% of income taxes" is essentially meaningless without other numbers? (If we lived in a society where only 20% made enough to pay income taxes, then we could truthfully say that the top 20% of earners paid 100% of the income taxes--even if the rate were one-tenth of 1%.) And if that's so, then why keep using that statistic? I think you know better, in your heart.

- dsimon

August 26, 2010 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To correct myself before seattleeng again pounces on an innocent mistake, I meant to say in my prior post that the terms I'm used to are "inflation-adjusted dollars" as opposed to "nominal dollars." I find those terms much clearer and explicit than "constant dollars," which only raises the question "constant as to what?"

- dsimon

August 26, 2010 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more, and hopefully last point. seattleeng, does your fealty to the data affect your claim that the stimulus will make Iraq war spending seem like "a drop in the bucket"? I provided the data in a prior post.

- dsimon

August 26, 2010 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sophia: "Oh by the way, referring to people who disagree with your economic brilliance as "simpletons" make YOU sound like a fool sir." Perhaps. But I at least will type a word or phrase that I'm unfamiliar with in Google before typing a message. And I'd not call that trait brilliance either. I'd just call it wanting to be accurate.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: "which only raises the question "constant as to what?" " That's what is good about constant dollars. You don't care. It could be constant to 1960, or 2005. It doesn't matter. You just compare away.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: "Again, the lower you are on the totem pole the worse this situation becomes." Yes. And thus I am surprised when you are confronted with data that shows the middle class earned more under Bush than Clinton, and paid less taxes, why you still trash Bush? If it is true that the middle class and poor earned more under Bush than Clinton, and if it's true they paid less in taxes, then will you agree that Bush was better for the middle class and poor? I suspect you are one that really dislikes the notion of "trickle down" economics, aka supply side. But look what we are going through right now. The wealthy, by and large, are getting by. They are tightening their belts for sure. But they aren't losing homes at the rate of the middle class. Hell is tricking down right now on the middle class. Health costs are skyrocketing even more than a year ago. All the projections for unemployment have failed to come true. And the president continues to vacation. You have the guy you wanted in office. Your congress is coming up on 4 years to make things happen. Your president has been in congress for 5 years. You've had a strong majority for 2 years. Are you really sure that what is happening now is best for the middle class? If the data shows you the middle class did better under Bush, and the policies of the current leaders have made things so bad, while at the same time pumping big money to the bankers and their pals...isn't it time to re-think what you think you know?

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: ". You have yet to respond to this point, only repeating the same insufficient information." IT'S IRRELEVANT! The point at hand here is whether or not the middle class in 2007 are better off than the middle class in 2000, right? The data says "yes" If inflation is 3% a year, and the middle class grows at 4% per year, that's fantastic! They are outpacing inflation! That is how the middle class today has so much more than the middle class of 1970, and 1930, etc. And yes,that is how the middle class today Now, if the middle class is growing their salary at 1% faster than inflation, are you surprised that the top 20% grows their salary at 2% faster than inflation? That is where the Stanford grads, the doctors that can do transplants, the lawyers that can do huge mergers...that is where all those people live. Do you really expect society to give them the same raise each year as the guy selling cars making $55K per year? That is all that is happening here. The top achievers of our society get a slightly better raise each year than the middle class. Are you surprised by that? I hope not. And then, if year after year, the top 20% grows at 2% faster than inflation, and the middle class grows at 1% faster than inflation, then the top 20% takes a larger share of the pie. But the entire pie has grown So don't compare yourself to the top 1% and get bitter. Compare yourself to you 5 years ago, 10 years ago, your parents, their parents. That is what makes this country so wonderful.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 9:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: "One more, and hopefully last point. seattleeng, does your fealty to the data affect your claim that the stimulus will make Iraq war spending seem like "a drop in the bucket"?" Fact: Stimulus spending has already surpassed Iraq spending. Again I turn to the CBO http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html And if the stimulus keeps on coming, the way many think it will, it doesn't take much for this "drop in the bucket" to materialize.

- seattleeng

August 26, 2010 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: your commitment to facts seems to be selective. Your cite regarding stimulus v. war spending does not dispute what I cited above--again from the CBO--that Iraq war spending will be nearly $2 trillion by 2017--and these are largely long-term cost that will be incurred no matter what. Instead, you respond by speculating that there will be more stimulus. In fact, it would have to almost triple just to equal what the CBO projects for Iraq war spending, much less be a "drop in the bucket" by comparison. So "in you heart," why are you so unwilling to accept the facts on this? "IT'S IRRELEVANT! The point at hand here is whether or not the middle class in 2007 are better off than the middle class in 2000, right? The data says 'yes'" If it's irrelevant, they why did you bring up the point that the wealthy now pay a greater share of total income tax revenue to begin with if it's irrelevant? What was your point? You brought it up when you were trying to show that the Bush tax cuts benefited the middle class more than the wealthy. See your own post above where you say "The tax cuts benefited the middle class more. Take at look at the CBO data below. The top paid 66.6% of all federal liabilities under Clinton's last year, and 68.9% under Bush's last year. That's right, the top carried more of the tax load under Bush." But you seem reluctant to admit that your stat doesn't make that point, now claiming that it's irrelevant and turning the argument to whether each income group did better. (Nor do you dispute the cite I gave indicating that the median income did not improve over that time period.) "The top achievers of our society get a slightly better raise each year than the middle class. Are you surprised by that?" Well, why should that be the case? What inherent rule says the wealthier you are, the greater your percentage income increase should be? Even if everyone got the same flat rate of increase, the wealthy would get a "better" raise than everyone else in terms of actual dollars. And from what I've read, worker productivity has gone way up--but it's not showing up comparably in their wages. Moreover, it's not a "slightly better raise." In percentage terms, it was double for the top quintile, and even more so at the top. "That is where the Stanford grads, the doctors that can do transplants, the lawyers that can do huge mergers...that is where all those people live." Do you think that those in the finance industry deserved such raises, especially considering what almost happened to the entire economy? Did those huge mergers improve people's lives? CEOs and doctors and lawyers in our peer nations don't get paid there what they get paid here, so again this isn't an inherent principle we're dealing with. (And, by the way, the facts again say that the lower pay in the medical field elsewhere doesn't prevent them from getting as good or better outcomes than we get here.) "So don't compare yourself to the top 1% and get bitter." Since I'm in the top 1% (or close to it, depending on the year), I don't compare myself to myself and get bitter. I am questioning your use of statistics and the social policy of giving the biggest tax cuts to those who need it the least.

- dsimon

August 26, 2010 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another self-correction: in my prior post, substitute "much less make Iraq war spending look like a 'drop in the bucket' by comparison" in the second paragraph.

- dsimon

August 27, 2010 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR has an article that completely refutes the bullshit from our dear friend seattle: http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/77242/inequality-recession-credit-crunch-let-them-eat-credit The chart on pg. 1 is the most telling. As for war spending vs. stimulus spending: WHERE and on WHAT the money is spent matters too. Stimulus money is spent mostly at home and is targeted for productive purposes (such as rebuilding infrastructure at home, investing in productive capacity domestically). Money spent on a pointless war started on false pretenses is a money pit with no return, and much of the cash is spent outside the US with zero economic return.

- tnmats

August 27, 2010 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon writes: "Well, why should that be the case? What inherent rule says the wealthier you are, the greater your percentage income increase should be?" and "Do you think that those in the finance industry deserved such raises, especially considering what almost happened to the entire economy?" Again, irrelevant. The question is can these people FIND someone to pay them 2% increase over someone that paints houses and gets a 1% increase over inflation. And the answer is: Of course they can. They are the smartest and highest achieving people in our society. Why do you think the guy that can replace you liver cannot finagle a better annual raise than the guy that paints your house? One took years of training, the other took hours. One has a skill that most anyone can do, the other has a skill that very few could ever do. So, the "inherent rule" is the rule of supply and demand Are you suggesting that a trash collector and the guy that figures out how to cram a 3 million transistors in a square millimeter of silicon should have their raises tied together some how? One job can be done by just about anyone, the other job allows a company like Intel to stay ahead of their competition, earn Intel billions of dollars in a single year, and can probably be done by only 100 or 200 people world wide. You really expect them to get the same raise each year? Do you think the government should decide national raises and award that or something? If you agree that the guy that figures out how to let Intel earn a few extra billion dollars because of their increased competitiveness can get a bigger raise than a trash collector, then congrats, you just decided indirectly that the rich should get richer. Feels pretty good, eh? If you feel the trash collector and the rock star doctor or engineer should get the same raise as determined and controlled by the government, congrats, you might be a socialist. Don't panic. It's not a dirty word. But there's a word for an economy is tightly controlled by the state and it's socialism. PS. Agree on long term Iraq. My point was that for everyone that is upset about the war spending, it's important to note that Obama has surpassed it handily in short order. And in the words of dem senator Bennet recently said "we have nothing to show for [the stimulus]"

- seattleeng

August 27, 2010 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tnmats writes: "the chart on pg. 1 is the most telling." What is most telling is that the author of the article gave just two data points. More comments on that posting

- seattleeng

August 27, 2010 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just finished reading Jane Mayer's piece "Covert Operations"in the current (8/30) New Yorker, about the Koch brothers' success at persuading large numbers of Americans that their economic interests coincide with those of an oil-producing (and environment-befouling) behemoth. The great "populist groundswell" of the past year, while exploiting people's all-too-real discontents, turns out to have been little more than a media extravaganza funded by Koch Industries through various front organizations. like Americans for Prosperity and Patients United Now. Nothing terribly new here -- Republicans have been playing this cynical pseudo-populist game for decades, and the strategy has worked very well for them. Still, the scope and sophistication of the Koch operation (yes, there really are vast right-wing conspiracies!) puts Obama's travails in a new light, and just when I was beginning to lose patience with all the fatuous speech-making. With such forces arrayed against you, how do you make the case for a genuine populism?

- lfeinber@email.unc.edu

August 27, 2010 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: Again, you did not respond on point to just about everything I wrote in my prior post. Primarily, you did not explain why you brought up the "X% of the top wage earners paid Y% of the taxes" number that you now claim is irrelevant. Are you now giving up that argument? "They are the smartest and highest achieving people in our society... One took years of training, the other took hours. One has a skill that most anyone can do, the other has a skill that very few could ever do." That justifies higher compensation. I don't see why that then justifies a higher year-to-year percentage raise. Is one suddenly doing better transplants than before as opposed to another who is painting houses better than before? You're not citing any principle supporting the difference in increase here. "If you feel the trash collector and the rock star doctor or engineer should get the same raise as determined and controlled by the government, congrats, you might be a socialist." Who ever said that's what I believe? Why do you set up straw men? You're the one who said that the wealthy somehow inherently deserve higher percentage increases (apparently including those who actually don't even work but who are living off investment income, since they did much better than other income groups too). I just asked you why that should necessarily be the case, and you haven't done so. "So, the 'inherent rule' is the rule of supply and demand" Again, that "rule" explains compensation differentials; it does not explain why one group should get a bigger percentage raise than another. Did the number of people seeking higher paying jobs suddenly drop, causing a decrease in supply? Since when did higher salaries become a disincentive? And moreover, how does it justify having most of the tax cuts go to people who are making more money--another point you leave unaddressed? "My point was that for everyone that is upset about the war spending, it's important to note that Obama has surpassed it handily in short order." You said more than that. You said that stimulus spending would make Iraq spending look like "a drop in the bucket." Not only will stimulus spending come nowhere close to Iraq spending (do you really think there will be another big package from Congress after the midterm elections), any additional stimulus would have to be several times larger than Iraq war spending to make the latter look small. So I think in the interest of the facts you should retract your claim. "And in the words of dem senator Bennet recently said 'we have nothing to show for [the stimulus]'" Ah, so since Bennet said it, it must be true. Most independent analysts (e.g. Zandi at Moody's, the CBO) say the stimulus had a mildly positive effect, about what one would have expected it to do. But if you think it was a bad idea, do you advocate taking back the third of it that was tax cuts? And the third that was direct aid to the states? Again, your fealty to the facts--and your willingness to directly address opposing arguments--seems selective.

- dsimon

August 28, 2010 at 12:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, if only liberal policies were packaged better, Americans would like them better. Good point. If only the president would stir the passions of the resentful rabble, he, and we could be philosopher kings and reshape the planet as we like. Unless, of course, the rabble is contemporary America, overwhelmingly middle class, with unimaginable amounts of money and education, who are nothing like the frightened masses of the Depression. Plenty of people who drink chardonnay and Chivas, not to mention single malt, don't like what's been going on under Obama, after they voted for him. What they want is what they got under Clinton, after 1994 --a center right government that makes all the right noises and is ineffective in trying to change their lives. The broad center in America, of all classes and levels of education, are genuinely shocked by the elitist and undemocratic style of today's Democrats. And they will stop them, even if it means voting for the Republicans.

- homeros

August 28, 2010 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "So, the 'inherent rule' is the rule of supply and demand" If you think supply and demand explains spiraling CEO pay which rewards failure with $40 million severance packages, then I can't help you.

- dsimon

August 28, 2010 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Plenty of people who drink chardonnay and Chivas, not to mention single malt, don't like what's been going on under Obama, after they voted for him." I don't believe Obama has done anything on a significant scale that he didn't signal during the election. What is it these chardonnay-drinking educated middle-class folks want him to do, that he's reneged on in their eyes? If they want stronger regulation for Wall Street and the financial markets, for example, than I'd emphasize to these people that the Republicans aren't their best choice in that area.

- ironyroad

August 29, 2010 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am starting to wonder if Obama actually wants the Republicans to win Congress, so that he can run against "incumbent" Republicans in 2012 just as he did in 2008.

- tmanson

August 29, 2010 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article may be right in its identification of (some of) the things that have gone wrong. It fails to make the connection, though, as to how carrying on like Glen Beck or and Sarah Palin would make these things right. There is no point in Obama's pretending he is something he's not and saying things he knows are ridiculous in order to sound like a "populist" and lose at least as many votes as he would gain. The problem with this administration is not a lack of populism but a lack of competence. The problem begins with the prominent role of the Gang of Four (or so) from Chicago and campaign days; the appointment of a Cabinet with one true star (Hillary), one brilliant man who is never heard from (Steven Chu), and a bunch of hacks and incompetents who don't really matter because Obama does not believe in government by Cabinet. Shouldn't there be a Cabinet secretary or two (Labor, Commerce, whatever) who could come up with something that at least looks like a job development strategy while the White House staff continues its ongoing graduate seminar with Professor Obama? Do you really think Rahm Emanuel telling everyone to f**ck themselves is a substitute for legislative liaison (name one other person whom anyone ever heard of that is doing anything in this area)? And does this administration have any concept of systematically seeing that policy decisions are implemented by the appropriate agencies, monitoring their performance, and being able to report accurately on what has been accomplished (like, where did the stimulus go and how many jobs did it create or "save")? As it is, promises are made and then forgotten (e.g., Guantanamo, mortgage relief) until someone realizes they are not going to happen--most recently, the bloviating message that "we" will stand and fight with the people of the Lower Ninth Ward until the damage is repaired, when nothing is being done, nothing has been done, and there are no plans or resources available to do anything. Oh well, as long as (mostly white) tourists can frolic in the French Quarter and (mostly white) football fans can pack the Superdome at $60-plus per ticket, what else is there to worry about? Just so the Muslims don't decide to build a mosque near the "hallowed ground" of the Superdome (which they have a right to do, the President would say, but they ought to exercise discretion and just go away), there's really no problem here that can't safely be ignored. Wouldn't be prudent to appear to be supporting blacks (e.g., Shirley Sherrod) or Muslims, would it? Of course, the President has done many things right and has been the victim of truly unpatriotic and disrespectful Republican opposition ("You lie!"), a racially-tinged Tea Party movement ("Go back to Kenya!"), and the mess left by the Bush administration, but there is no war room operation to counter all the lies and misperceptions because that would be playing politics. Competence and political skills are what is needed, not more faux populist rhetoric.

- mlottman

September 1, 2010 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close