MIDTERM ELECTIONS NOVEMBER 3, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Asked on Monday to assess the significance of the coming Democratic defeat, Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tried to portray this election as fairly typical. “Since Teddy Roosevelt,” Kaine told Gwen Ifill of the “PBS NewsHour,” “the average midterm is, you lose 28 House seats and lose four Senate seats if you’re the party in the White House.” Does losing over 60 House seats and as many as eight Senate seats simply make this a below average outcome, or did something much more serious and significant happen in yesterday’s election?
Republicans might say it’s the re-emergence of a conservative Republican majority, but that’s not really what happened. What this election suggests to me is that the United States may have finally lost its ability to adapt politically to the systemic crises that it has periodically faced. America emerged from the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, World War I, and the Great Depression and World War II stronger than ever—with a more buoyant economy and greater international standing. A large part of the reason was the political system’s ability to provide the leadership the country needed. But what this election suggests to me is that this may no longer be the case.
This economic downturn structurally resembles the depressions of the 1890s and the 1930s rather than the cyclical recessions that have recurred since World War II. The American people, mired in debt, with one in six lacking full-time employment, are not spending; and businesses, uncertain of demand for their products, are not investing no matter how low interest rates fall. With the Fed virtually powerless, the only way to stimulate private demand and investment is through public spending. Obama tried to do this with his initial stimulus program, but it was watered down by tax cuts, and undermined by decreases in state spending. By this summer, its effect had dissipated.
The Republicans may not have a mandate to repeal health care, but they do have one to cut spending. Many voters have concluded that Obama’s stimulus program actually contributed to the rise in unemployment and that cutting public spending will speed a recovery. It’s complete nonsense, as the experience of the United States in 1937 or of Japan in the 1990s demonstrated, but it will guide Republican thinking in Congress, and prevent Obama and the Democrats from passing a new stimulus program. Republicans will accede to tax cuts, especially if they are skewed toward the wealthy, but tax cuts can be saved rather than spent. They won’t halt the slowdown. Which leads me to expect that the slowdown will continue—with disastrous results for the country.
And that’s only what one can expect over the next few years. Like the depressions of the 1890s and 1930s, this slowdown was also precipitated by the exhaustion of opportunities for economic growth. America’s challenge over the next decade will be to develop new industries that can produce goods and services that can be sold on the world market. The United States has a head start in biotechnology and computer technology, but as the Obama administration recognized, much of the new demand will focus on the development of renewable energy and green technology. As the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans understand, these kinds of industries require government coordination and subsidies. But the new generation of Republicans rejects this kind of industrial policy. They even oppose Obama’s obviously successful auto bailout.
Instead, when America finally recovers, it is likely to re-create the older economic structure that got the country in trouble in the first place: dependence on foreign oil to run cars; a bloated and unstable financial sector that primarily feeds upon itself and upon a credit-hungry public; boarded-up factories; and huge and growing trade deficits with Asia. These continuing trade deficits, combined with budget deficits, will finally reduce confidence in the dollar to the point where it ceases to be a viable international currency.
The election results will also put an end to the Obama administration’s attempt to reach an international climate accord. It will cripple its ability to adopt domestic limits on carbon emissions. The election could also doom Obama’s one substantial foreign policy achievement—the arms treaty it signed with Russia that still awaits Senate confirmation. In other areas, the Obama administration will be able to act without having to seek congressional approval. But there is little reason to believe that the class of Republicans will be helpful in formulating a tough policy toward an increasingly arrogant China, extricating America from Afghanistan, and using American leverage to seek a peaceful settlement of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the fix that the country is in. Out of power, the Republicans are the party of reactionary insurrection. They have little constructive to offer the country, and they have successfully frustrated Obama’s efforts at every turn. But Obama has to share some of the blame. Structural crises like the Civil War or the two great depressions present presidents with formidable challenges, but also great opportunities. If they fail, they discredit themselves and their party, as Hoover did after 1929; but if they succeed, as McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt did after 1896 or Franklin Roosevelt did after 1932, they not only help the country, but also create enduring majorities for their party.
To succeed requires some knowledge of the task at hand, which Hoover did not have; it also requires a vulnerable opposition, which Franklin Roosevelt had, and which Obama certainly had in the first months of his presidency, when Republicans were in disarray and Wall Street was disgraced. Two things are then required of a president: bold and unprecedented initiatives that address the underlying economic problems, and a populist—and sometimes polarizing—politics that marshals support for these initiatives and disarms the opposition. Obama failed on both counts: His economic program—no matter how large in comparison to past efforts—was too timid, as many liberal economists recognized; and Obama proved surprisingly inept at convincing the public that even these efforts were necessary.
The election results amply illustrated Obama’s political failure. Economic
downturns invariably awaken the populist demon inside the American psyche. Americans see themselves as part of a broad middle class—from the clerk at Wal-Mart to the small businessman—who do the work and play by the rules, but see themselves taken advantage of by illegal immigrants, welfare cheats, pointy-headed state bureaucrats, Wall Street speculators, and ruthless Robber Barons. Right-wing populists tend to point their fingers primarily at the undeserving poor and the government that serves them; left-wing populists at Wall Street and CEOs. During the Great Depression, Roosevelt was able to direct Americans’ ire primarily at the “economic royalists.” But Obama, who was uncomfortable with the rhetoric of populism and apportioned blame on Main Street as well as Wall Street, left a political vacuum that the right-wing populists of the Tea Party filled. They even managed to portray Obama and the Democrats as the patrons of Wall Street. When asked who was most to blame for “current economic problems,” a plurality of voters yesterday said “Wall Street bankers” rather than George W. Bush or Barack Obama. But amazingly, these voters backed Republicans by 56 to 42 percent. That testifies to the utter failure of the Obama administration’s politics.
The other telltale sign of Obama’s failure was the youth vote. Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 very much depended upon increased support from and turnout among young voters. In 2008, Obama’s organization specifically targeted these voters. In this election, voters 18 to 29 again favored Democrats by a whopping 56 to 40 percent in House races. But they constituted only 11 percent of the electorate this year compared to 18 percent in 2008 House races and 12.5 percent in 2006. Obama and his political aides recognized that this was a problem, and in the last weeks of the election, tried to rouse these voters (hence all those campus rallies and the “Daily Show” appearance). But it was too late.
The damage was done soon after Obama took office, when he and his political aides decided to disband the huge locally-based political organization they had created. Obama for America became Organizing for America, and was eventually folded into the Democratic National Committee. But it proved toothless, as Ari Berman recounts in Herding Donkeys, an excellent account of the rise and fall of Obama’s organizing efforts.
Republicans can certainly make the case that this election cuts short the kind of Democratic majority that Ruy Teixeira and I foresaw in our 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. But they would not be justified in suggesting that it revives the older Republican majority. The Republicans remain (as they were after the 2008 election) a bitterly divided party without an accepted national leadership. You essentially have Karl Rove, Haley Barbour, Mitt Romney, and Mitch McConnell on one side; the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Glenn Beck on the other. The Republican National Committee is virtually defunct.
In 1994, when the Republicans won the Congress, the election was not only a repudiation of the Clinton administration, but also an affirmation of the Republican alternative. According to one poll, 52 percent of voters approved, and only 28 percent disapproved of “Republican Congressional leaders’ policies and plans for the future.” This election, however, was not a victory for the Republicans, but a defeat for Obama and the Democrats. According to exit polls, 53 percent of voters in House races had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party and only 41 percent had a favorable view. I found this myself in interviewing suburban Philadelphia voters last weekend. Even those who said they were Republicans had grave doubts about what the party stood for and regarded the Tea Partiers as “wackos.”
The election results themselves did not represent a full-blown realignment, but a more modest shift in existing loyalties. Democrats retained, but at somewhat reduced proportion, the loyalties of blacks, Latinos, and professionals (evidenced in the 52 to 46 percent support among those with post-graduate degrees); and they suffered from reduced turnout among young voters. Republicans increased sharply their margin among white voters without college degrees, who made up 39 percent of the electorate. In 2008 House races, Republicans carried this group by 54 to 44 percent; this year, it was 62 to 35 percent. In other words, the Republicans did better with their coalition than the Democrats did with theirs; but the contours remained the same.
Where does that leave American politics? If the downturn continues unabated—and it might—and if the Republicans can control their radical right (the way that Reagan co-opted the Christian right in 1980 and 1984), and if they nominate and unite behind someone like Mitt Romney in 2012, and if Obama doesn’t revive the movement that carried him to the White House in 2008, the Republicans could win back the presidency. But if I am right about the fundamental problems that this nation suffers from at home and overseas, then any politician’s or political party’s victory is likely to prove short-lived. If you want to imagine what American politics will be like, think about Japan.
Japan had a remarkably stable leadership from the end of World War II until their bubble burst in the 1990s. As the country has stumbled over the last two decades, unable finally to extricate from its slump, it has suffered through a rapid of succession of leaders, several of whom, like Obama, have stirred hopes of renewal and reform, only to create disillusionment and despair within the electorate. From 1950 to 1970, Japan had six prime ministers. It has had 14 from 1990 to the present, and six from 2005 to the present. That kind of political instability is both cause and effect of Japan’s inability to transform its economy and international relations to meet the challenges of a new century.
The United States does not have a parliamentary system. It has been characterized by long-term political realignments in which one party had been dominant for a decade or more. But the latest realignments have not come to pass. In 2001, Karl Rove believed that George W. Bush had created a new McKinley majority that would endure for decades; and when Obama was elected, many Democrats, including me, thought that he had a chance to create a Roosevelt-like Democratic majority. But instead, like Japan, we’ve had a succession of false dawns, or what Walter Dean Burnham once called an “unstable equilibrium.” That’s not good for party loyalists, but it’s also not good for the country. America needs bold and consistent leadership to get us out of the impasse we are in, but if this election says anything, it’s that we’re not going to get it over the next two or maybe even ten years.
John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
42 comments
To succeed requires some knowledge of the task at hand, which Hoover did not have; it also requires a vulnerable opposition, which Franklin Roosevelt had, and which Obama certainly had in the first months of his presidency, when Republicans were in disarray and Wall Street was disgraced. Two things are then required of a president: bold and unprecedented initiatives that address the underlying economic problems, and a populist—and sometimes polarizing—politics that marshals support for these initiatives and disarms the opposition. Obama failed on both counts: his economic program—no matter how large in comparison to past efforts—was too timid, as many liberal economists recognized; and Obama proved surprisingly inept at convincing the public that even these efforts were necessary. The administration underestimated the size of the output gap. They should've demanded a larger stimulus from Congress, though it's hardly clear that they would've gotten what they demanded. The rest of this is tiresome pundit-speak. Republicans "were in disarray"? What does that even mean? Yes, they were in the minority, but they they were hardly "in disarray." they were firmly entrenched in their opposition, but for a couple of Senators willing to cross the aisle, but only after diluting the efficacy of any legislative effort so that they could claim the mantle of moderation. And that doesn't even get into the difficulty of herding the centrist Dems. Wallstreet was disgraced? So what? How was that supposed to help Obama get a larger fiscal stimulus through Congress?
- RerunStubs
November 3, 2010 at 5:38am
Rerun makes some good points. I'd add this: I realize this is a cliche, but I think Americans voters today are more impatient and less willing to sacrifice than they were before. This may be because they sense that sacrifice is not SHARED -- the sense that the bailout helped wall street and the reckless homebuyers (even if the program ultimately flopped). But I also think it's because, starting with baby boomers, there's been a culture of entitlement. No need to sacrifice part of your life to serve your country in a draft. Student loans available for college. And through the Clinton Administration it seemed like all the pols had to do was "tweak" the system right and everyone could have a bright future in sales. Few were saying the truth: globalization WITHOUT restructuring education or adjusting our energy policy to the reality of tight oil markets means you're all going to have a dim future in sales. No wonder nursing is such a hot profession -- it's one of the few that can't be completely outsourced, try as we might to import enough nurses from the rest of the world. There was always a Ross Perot type out there -- never to be elected, but somebody keeping both parties honest. Now we need that kind of politician to have real power. General Patraeus, your third party bid awaits you?
- Lymon1
November 3, 2010 at 6:49am
I sent this email to a friend after reading George Soros's short piece in NY Review of Books, an essay that makes much the same points as this one about the need for fiscal stimulus. i just read [the Soros article]. fairly well in line with what krugman has been saying for a long time. it's frustrating. the republicans are going to fuck the nation. tho I'm sort of pissed at obama and the dems too. I do so wish that he would just get up and make a big speech--or bunch of speeches--and say "what our economy needs right now is a second government stimulus directed at investment in infrastructure, green energy, education and relief for state and local governments. this is the only strategy that will create jobs and correct the imbalances in our economy. yes, such a stimulus might increase the deficit in the short term--though this is debatable--but despite what the ignorant republican opposition would have you believe, the DEFICIT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. to reduce the deficit now--and let me tell you, despite what they want you to think the republicans have no plan to do any such thing--is to invite disaster. I want this next congress to pass such a stimulus. it is likely that the new republican majority will block it. you should know though that if they do it will be on their heads, not mine and not the democratic party's" why he won't make such a speech is beyond comprehension.
- AaronW
November 3, 2010 at 7:24am
Is there no one, anywhere, who sees a light at the end of this long, long tunnel? Can't we look back for once at our accomplishments and not our failures? The 20th Century surely was one of the bloodiest centuries is our nation's or the world's history, but where is Stalin today, or Hitler today, or even MaoTse-tung? What about the Civil War? Wasn't that truly the darkest moment in American history, and yet today, we continue to stumble along, without George Wallace, without Strom Thurmond, and with an Afro-American President. Is there no one at the New Republic or its readers who can shake his/her head, get dressed as always, and plod off to work (that is, of course if he/she has a job to go to) and see the sun rising, and not setting? My G-d, people O'Donnell went down inflames. Harry Reid continues as head of the Senate. Boehner cries! Must I listen to this incessant doom-saying until I go to my grave? Is there no hope? None?
- EdGerson
November 3, 2010 at 7:32am
Obama inspired because he was viewed as transformational during the 2008 campaign, someone who could bridge the partisan divide and help establish the framework that is necessary for America to compete in the 21st century. And then the financial collapse changed everything. But it did not change Obama. He has governed in the same way that he campaigned. And if a financial collapse did not change Obama, I don't believe an election will. While "what ifs" will not alter the current political and economic mess in which the Democrats find themselves, I have no doubt that, if the financial collapse had occurred early in 2008, Democrats would have picked a different candidate, one that changed in response to the crisis. The list is long of the ways in which Obama stayed the course, from his economic and political advisors and policies pursued to the calm demeanor that at one time was his greatest strength but eventually was his political undoing. Since I adhere to the "one horse in the barn" view of history, the events of the past two years don't discourage. For better or worse, Obama is the President and the leader of the Democratic Party. Nudge him here, nudge him there, and maybe providence will move us along a better path. But don't expect a transformational President over the next two years.
- rayward
November 3, 2010 at 7:48am
sure there's hope, Ed. the senate is still democratic, as you say. the nuttiest of the tea party nut-jobs went down. and this reflexive liberal defeatism IS tiresome as well as being, well, self-defeating. but what I think Judis is trying for here--as he as been doing for most of the past year, I might add--is light a fire under Obama's ass. yes, our nation is not about to vanish from the face of the earth. the current downturn is not an existential crisis. but it is a big fucking deal, and by failing to address it adequately Obama has thrown in jeopardy the remainder of his and our liberal agenda. all is not lost--yet--but Obama and the democrats have to throw out this bogus post-partisan pap that he carried to the White House and get it through their thick skulls that it is neither good politics or good policy for them to try to stay in office by shuckin' and jivin' trying to come off like kindler gentler Republicans. Given a choice between an authentic, if delusional, conservative and a bogus, mealy-mouthed phony conservative, it is only rational that voters should hold their noses a pull a lever for the former. The Democrats MUST stick their necks out and give us a real choice. So c'mon, Barrack! Shove a knife into them! Get up on your bully pulpit every bloody day and tell the American people that the GOP has nothing, nada, zip to offer them which is only the truth. Roll out one big, fat job-creation spending program after another and let the Republican House vote it down. Separate out the tax cut on high-earners and make them vote FOR that. Fuck the Republicans vigorously and publicly every chance you get, Barrack. Make them howl. And then--and only then--if the American people continue to vote for the bastards, then the American people get what they/we deserve.
- AaronW
November 3, 2010 at 8:05am
Ed -- I wish I could buy into your optimism. But when you ask "where is Hitler/Stalin today?" my mind has answers. Maybe in Congo, where more than 6 million have died. Maybe in Pakistan or Iran, waiting to acquire nukes so that, in the words of so-called moderate former president Rasfanjani, they can play a numbers game that wipes out the Jews but leaves plenty of Muslims. Maybe in North Korea where a Stalinist might choose to go down in a blaze of glory than lose power over his impoverished nation. We've made progress on civil rights, but economically the long term trend doesn't look good because while we're more tolerant, we're also (I think) less of a team. Even after we wring out all the bad debt and capacity from the economy, I wonder if the pie is going to grow. Our population sure is. John Edwards' "Two Americas" was dead-on, even if the messenger was flawed. Maybe technological innovation will save us, as it did in the 1990's.
- Lymon1
November 3, 2010 at 8:38am
A question and observations Question: How does this guy still have a job? His 2002 book is EXACTLY WRONG as evidenced by FACTS. The electorate has not become more liberal/democratic -- exactly the opposite has occured. Observation: This will be a lost generation for the liberal parasites -- not so much for the rest of the country
- mr_rationale
November 3, 2010 at 9:15am
Mr_rat: When young people turn out in record numbers, the vote tilts left. When mainly scared old people vote, it tilts right. Which one is a better indicator of the long-range future?
- frippo
November 3, 2010 at 9:46am
AaronW says all that really need be said here: "Obama and the democrats have to throw out this bogus post-partisan pap that he carried to the White House and get it through their thick skulls that it is neither good politics or good policy for them to try to stay in office by shuckin' and jivin' trying to come off like kindler gentler Republicans. Given a choice between an authentic, if delusional, conservative and a bogus, mealy-mouthed phony conservative, it is only rational that voters should hold their noses a pull a lever for the former. The Democrats MUST stick their necks out and give us a real choice. So c'mon, Barrack! Shove a knife into them! Get up on your bully pulpit every bloody day and tell the American people that the GOP has nothing, nada, zip to offer them which is only the truth. Roll out one big, fat job-creation spending program after another and let the Republican House vote it down. Separate out the tax cut on high-earners and make them vote FOR that. Fuck the Republicans vigorously and publicly every chance you get, Barrack. Make them howl. And then--and only then--if the American people continue to vote for the bastards, then the American people get what they/we deserve."
- roidubouloi
November 3, 2010 at 9:53am
‘Look at her surrounded by the media frenzy," admires one twelve-year-old girl. "They're no match for her." I find it hard to believe a 12-year-old said that. Also, the article doesn't seem to offer much support for the thesis that O'Donnell is going to stick around.
- jaltcoh.blogspot.com
November 3, 2010 at 10:01am
Hey, AaronW, Where did you come from? I haven't notice you, or noticed you much around here, before. You seem to me to have an outstanding grasp of practical politics (a rarity both here at TNR and in the Democratic party). Are you a pro or semi-pro?
- roidubouloi
November 3, 2010 at 10:09am
After following midterm elections from the European perspective I am speechless. It would be hilarious to watch Tea Partyists and other extremists if it at the same time wasn't so frustrating and sad. I made prognosis after 9/11 that United States of America will fall into a civil war before year 2030 becouse of the obvious lack of honest introspection that could be turned into positive action. Instead you do have enough hatred combined with stupidity and shortsightesness with in your nation and people. I am waiting. (And hoping to be wrong.)
- Junttila
November 3, 2010 at 10:56am
I had hoped for a TNR analysis that would observe that voters acted like corporate employees would if given a chance to vote their bosses away. Conditions are bad, so they fired the managers. Instead, Judis tells us that Obama erred by not extending unpopular policies to greater extremes. I don't get this at all. It's convenient that he does not even mention the healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation, which more than anything told people that Washington was not even paying attention to their personal crises. The President gets blame for not taking control of the process and the House leaders get the blame for steering it in the wrong direction. And Judis gets the blame for trying to justify an old book.
- emccded
November 3, 2010 at 11:09am
"So c'mon Barrack!" The problem is, if I'm allowed to say anything, that "Barack" doesn't have it in him. The opposition to any real progressive agenda begins at his own pragmatic market oriented mind. For Obama and his entourage, the solution still is the magic market. Just check: Health care is still going to be provided by the magic market (even if sponsored by the state, but that is minor aspect that does not challenge the sheer market beauty of the scheme) and regulation is not really meant to correct the magic market but only to defend it from itself... So the ideology goes... And at the moment in which there is real confrontation, there is nothing to offer against those who call themselves the real defenders of the market magic. They can say that they are the real thing, the true masters of the game. And one can't even say that they're wrong... So Obama and co. looses without glory, beaten at his own game, after being unable to state new rules for the game... And where could Obama find the source for those new rules? Well, perhaps, if he recovered the sense of egalitarian justice that is so deeply embedded in American history (just check). But Obama and co. will have no such talk of a "sense of justice". So, once again, they get beaten, after leaving the field completely open for Republicans. Indeed, the untruthfulness of the idea that Glenn Beck's "common sense" is the real American "sense" is left unexposed, before the refusal of well thinking Democrats to get in touch with anything of the sort ...
- Ideaot
November 3, 2010 at 11:49am
Krugman hass it right "even when people have a clear vision of the problem, they lose their nerve when it comes to proposing solutions that actually address that problem. It’s this kind of diffidence that doomed us to inadequate policies when Obama might have had the ability to get stuff through; and now we’re stuck, with little hope of recovery for many years to come." What Chait, Cohn, and most tnr bloggers have been avoiding in the solution: Obama must go. The sooner he is seriously challenged by Progressives , the better for the Dems and the country. Sticking with BHO is the equivalent of sticking with Carter, Chamberlain, Buchanan, or Fillmore. Many did-- and the consequences were disasterous. BHO's lack of political skills and political philosophy once in office is really the root of the problem. And it won't go away. So far, not enough Dems are openly aware that (say) Franken (or some governor yet unnamed) vs a Palinista type Republican compared to BHO vs a Palinista is a much better shortterm and longterm choice for Dems in 2012 --- no matter who wins either of those hypothetical races in 2012. If a real Dem wins in 2012-- great. If BHO wins-- THAT is a second term catastrophe and a long-term disaster for Dems and for the country. The real hope is that whoever wins in 2016 is a rejection of the political philosophies (such as they are) and political styles of both BHO and Palinistas. Obama's disasterous approach is not just in domestic policy. There is nowan international conviction that he’s terminaslly hesitant, indecisive, and incoherent. The agonizing review that led to the Afghan surge left an impression of uncertainty. We ended up getting what some have called the Groucho Marx Hello, I Must be Going! plan, a brief reinforcement to be reversed in time for the 2012 campaign.
- drofnats1
November 3, 2010 at 12:30pm
what is with the italics? What defeatest nonsense. Judis is still pissed that Hillary didn't win and drofnats is living on planet lalaland if he imagines the Dems will dump Obama. Yeah, lets go with some white dude, someone like Edwards (oops, not Edwards). Hillary is not running and there is no one else so get over it. A little perspective people. Democrats had a 269-166 advantage in the House in 82 but Reagan still trounced to re-election. The world is not going to hell. Next year, and every year thereafter the Baby boomers will retire leaving a long term labor shortage. The US currency will still be the premier world currency, Japan is slowly demographically dying, as is much of Europe, China is way too screwed up. Latin America is enjoying brisk growth opening up new markets. GM sold more cars in China this year than the US, 30 years ago they sold none. So America won't be as super rich as it used to be, get over it, most of it belongs to the rich anyhow.
- blackton
November 3, 2010 at 1:26pm
blackton. time will tell who is living in lalaland. You have been for over a year, and my guess is you and your ilk will continue to enable and enhance the failures of the Obama presidency that might have been less had principled progressives not held their collective tongues. For you, the world of politics appears to begin and end with BHO. You are correct on one point: Dems probably won't dump Obama--- to their detriment and that of the nation. The past is the best predictor of the future: Most (including thee and BHO) will act as timidly, stupidly, and incoherently in the future as they have in the past.
- drofnats1
November 3, 2010 at 1:43pm
"The US currency will still be the premier world currency. Japan is slowly demographically dying, as is much of Europe, China is way too screwed up" Yeah, yeah and the US is leading by example... As for the rest, I remember you saying pretty much the same when the Massachusetts disaster happened one year ago... Not to panic, everything is going to be all right, the same thing happened in the eighties etc., etc. In the meanwhile Geithner keeps his job and everyone else (unemployed included) gets patronized... No wonder the patronized either vote Republican or don't show up... And the same thing is going to happen in 2012.
- Ideaot
November 3, 2010 at 1:58pm
"So America won't be as super rich as it used to be, get over it, most of it belongs to the rich anyhow." Nothing defeatest there! I agree, but isn't that the problem? I don't see the loss of class mobility and shrinking the upper middle class as a particularly good thing. I think the jobs of those retiring baby boomers (the ones who don't have to keep working because their pensions were lost) have been dwindling rapidly and aren't going to be the salvation of the young workforce. I think the big thing the U.S. has going for us is agriculture -- we're the saudi arabia of grain, and that will keep things from getting -too- bad.
- Lymon1
November 3, 2010 at 2:07pm
roid, I've been here before under a different handle--aeromonas. I left after the '08 election and have returned. I'm neither a pro, nor a semi pro. I'm a medical doctor, and I don't even live in the USA, though I'm from Virginia and still vote in North Carolina. I was a strong supporter of Obama during the primaries and still think he was the best of the choices available then. I just think he came in believing his own conciliationist hype and that he needs to give it up pronto. (I do sometimes wonder whether Hiliary, with Bill whispering in her ear would have figured out the lay of the land sooner than Obama has.)
- AaronW
November 3, 2010 at 2:08pm
Aaron your analysis is correct. Now what you must recognize is that Obama did NOT deliver when it was much easier to deliver-- and surely wont deliver when to deliver would require real partisanship. It's hard to change leaders. The Repubs stuck with Hoover for all the good reasons that Blackton, Chait, Cone, and others constantly promote. Good luck with that. Sticking with BHO is guaranteed failure. A different Dem presidential candidate in 2012 may well also fail, but at least the probabilities of success are greater-- certainly in the longer term and no worse in the shorter term.
- drofnats1
November 3, 2010 at 2:11pm
"Judis is still pissed that Hillary didn't win" blackie, I'd have to go back and check the archives--which my limited TNR subscription won't allow me to do--but I thought that back in summer 2008 Judis offered his measured support for Obama. Am I wrong?
- AaronW
November 3, 2010 at 2:20pm
drofnats, your strategy is a recipe for a Republican presidency in 2013. Or do you secretly want that?
- zardoz67
November 3, 2010 at 2:56pm
drofnats, who is the alternative to Obama? Name some names and tell me that it won't alienate the hell out of the black vote to dump him. And no, my world does not begin and end with Obama. I do have my own life, one of sun and beaches (which is why you haven't been seeing me much here lately) Lymon, no I am not defeatist. This trend has been going on for decades but a little perspective is in order. If you don't buy so much crap, if you save and invest sensibly then you could be amazed at how well you can live on so little. Long range our problems are far more likely to be climate related and our screwed up educational system. Not much is being done about either by either party.
- blackton
November 3, 2010 at 2:56pm
one last thing, the notion that it is Obama's fault that so many Americans were so stupid as to vote for empty headed sloganeering Republicans is absurd. America has to live with the vapidity of Cantor and Boehner for the next 2 years, they brought it upon themselves. At this point, I don't give a damn. Judis is on full on panic mode. I'm not. We will have more 2 years of rhetorical insanity from the Republicans and if the American people choose that, then they deserve their misery. I avoided 8 years of Bush quite well, thank you.
- blackton
November 3, 2010 at 3:07pm
Nice to see you back aero/Aaron. If drofnats wants "guaranteed failure", he need only consult the history of presidents who had a primary challenger. Obama still has a chance to rescue his presidency, and at least up to a point pull our chestnuts out of the fire, by replicating Bill Clinton's elegant pivot to make good use of an opposition Congress--in his case both House and Senate, of course. I disagree with some of what Judis has to say here, but not his point about the necessity of serious self-criticism. It's what distinguishes the hapless, chronic failures of the Democrats from 1968-present, from the notable exception of their most successful administration since FDR--Bill Clinton's. Slick Willie knew how to listen to the people, and how to do arithmetic.The numbers are key here--when over three-fourths of the country is "moderate to conservative", kamikaze tactics by the (shrinking) fourth on the left are unlikely to succeed no matter how much their self-esteem tells them they will. Better to figure out areas of agreement and get something useful done. Time and tide wait for no man.
- Robert Powell
November 3, 2010 at 3:33pm
Drofnats, it looks like Russ Feingold is exactly your type of Democrat. He now has some time on his hands to prepare a purist challenge to that namby-pamby Obama in 2012. I must admit that I kind of feel like Bluto in Animal House after the guys were sad about being put on double-secret probation, about to remind everyone that it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. I'm obviously disappointed, especially from the economic and policy standpoint -- the economy is likely to limp along for the next two years without a stimulative jolt of some kind, and the Fed's quantitative easing is likely to be insufficient to the task. And Obama is going to have to do a delicate pivot between being accommodationist toward the new House majority and standing up on principle for his positions. My feeling -- based on Obama's tactical skills displayed during the past 3 years -- is that he is up to the task, although he will stumble at times. And count me among those who are thoroughly unimpressed with the Republican House leadership, especially Speaker-to-be Boehner -- a disjointed combination of back-room operator and maudlin, thin-skinned partisan hack. He will be forced into a staredown with the White House in short order and will blink many times over, much to the consternation of his caucus and his fellow Republican Presidential candidates. And the Revolution will be hungry in 9 months or 12 months hence. Mitch McConnell will also suffer from having to coordinate actual policy implemented by a Republican House rather than the more congenial position of permanent opposition to the White House. And his position will also come under fire in a chamber full of Republicans who believe themselves to be Presidential material now or in the near future and will posture accordingly. Clinton, in my view, didn't have better foils than these. My takeaway is that good policy is going to be sparse the next two years and meaningful legislative achievements far between. Bad policy will meet frequent death in the divided Senate and Obama's veto pen (or threat thereof) for the rest, although I do see a temporary 2-year extension of Bush's top-bracket tax cuts on the horizon -- which is a bad policy though not a disaster per se. I would think that Republican's won't be so stupid as to thoroughly soil their nest by pursuing Medicaid vouchers or increased deductibles, Social Security COLA adjustments or privatization, but you never know what kind of things the Revolution will demand by the end of 2011 if spending doesn't get cut to its satisfaction before then (and it won't). But the politics will be as good as they could be. Republicans will control the House through 2012 and beyond, though the undertow of this wave will wash out a bunch of reactionary freshmen that year the same as the 1996 and 1998 undertows swept out many Republicans of the 1994 class. But something tells me that Democrats may learn to make the best of this reality in the years to come.
- wildboy
November 3, 2010 at 4:15pm
"I just think he came in believing his own conciliationist hype and that he needs to give it up pronto." Welcome back aeromonas, and aaronw. You are spot on again.
- roidubouloi
November 3, 2010 at 5:31pm
What makes anyone believe that Obama will give up his conciliationist hype? His speech today was conciliatiuonist hype!! try this logic blackton. Economics has finally attained the status of an emerging science--- and Keynesian is the only economic theory that fits available data and, by applying, can get the US out of what will almost-certainly at best be a long&shallow recovery. Repubs are anti-Keynesian, especially disasterously so in a liquidity trap recession/depression. Obama has proven that he is not willing to advocate and apply Keynesian policies... but rather tries to combine Keynesian and Hooverian economics. That is as disasterous as pure Hooverian. As for who might emerge as a credible Progressive challenger?? Very few picked Obama as the most credible candidate in 1/2006 (I did). Once someone begins to oppose, the dam is likely to break for others to ioppose. As for presidents who lost who had opposition, it's an open question whether they lost because they were opposed or whether they were opposed because they were sure losers. I vote for the latter. Carter was really going to win w/o a Kennedy challege? LBJ w/o McCarthy?? Ford w/o Reagan? Hoover without a challenge? What have you been smoking? Almost all these elections depended on the economy--and the economy is likely to be little improved in 2012 unless an appropriatly-sized Keynesian stimulus is applied. BHO had all the data he needed in 3/09--and advocated half of what was needed.
- drofnats1
November 3, 2010 at 8:47pm
AaronW is correct that the president needs to figure out he can't reason with the GOP, they will never meet him half-way. With them it's my way or go f**k yourself. I have to agree with Drof this time though after listening to his speech today. I'm afraid he's going to act like a beat puppy with his tail between his legs. Take today for an example. He came across to me as a beat man, that he now dance to the GOP's tune. For crying out loud, the Democrats still control 1 legislative chamber. He had a chance today to say he'd work with the GOP but at the same time brazenly state he won't work with them if they just want to revive the GOP policies that brought us this economic mess and endless war, that he won't cowtow to big monied interests and GOP policies that support them. And again, what is with this italics font??
- tnmats
November 3, 2010 at 10:25pm
The scariest problem is that too many folks actually believe that the causes of and solutions for the current situation are entirely domestic. They don't understand that other countries are reaching for global economic leadership, and that whether or not Congressman Dickhead from Ohio or Senator Blowhard from Arkansas keep hollering that the U.S. is the greatest nation on earth and enjoys a special dispensation from the Almighty has no effect on anything real.
- ironyroad
November 4, 2010 at 2:39am
Excellent point ironyroad. Lot's of people seem to thing that all a president has to do is throw the Jobs Switch in the Oval Office and everything will be fine. Sure. Most posters here seem to agree that what we need(ed) is/was Paul Krugman in the driver's seat. Problem is, the American voters DON'T WANT to keep piling up debt by trying, lamely, to generate demand with Federal spending. This is still a democracy, as the subject of this post serves to remind. What we really need is a dose of reality--means testing for entitlements, a return to pay-go for new spending, an increase in the retirement age; and an all-out effort at real healthcare reform of the sort that would include some Republican concerns like tort reform, and an aggressive campaign to target waste, fraud, and abuse--an absolutely huge item as anyone who has had much contact with Medicare/Medicaid knows. These sorts of things could be sold to voters on the merits if a genuine effort was made. We could also save a pretty penny, and make a giant step into the real world domestically and in our foreign policy, by negotiating surrender terms in the Global War on Drugs.
- Robert Powell
November 4, 2010 at 5:49am
I just watched the first few minutes of Obama's speech on youtube. I couldn't stomach much more than that. It's pretty much the same line he's walked from day one: "I look forward to sitting down together with McConell and Boehner on Nancy Pellosi's back to bridge the gaps between the crazies and the cowards so together we can hand in hand with the nation through the valley of death and emerge to share a cigarette on the honeyed slopes of Big Rock Candy Mountain." Why, why, why must he do this? Obama, it would seem is an intelligent, savvy man. How can he not see that the Republican leadership cannot be dealt with? There can be no negotiation with terrorists. What he should have said was the following: "Last night my party was dealt a significant electoral defeat. I have toured the nation over the past several months and I have done a lot of listening. What I've heard is that people are unhappy with their lost jobs and lost opportunities. People are suffering, and they are fearful for their and their children's futures. They are frustrated with the slow pace of relief and with what they rightly see as the government's failure to help improve the economy quickly enough. To a significant degree they blame me and the Democratic leadership in Congress for this failure, and last night's Republican victory was, more than anything else, a consequence and a reflection of this widespread blame. And the truth is I do bear some blame for the poor state of our economy. But--now listen up people, because this is a big 'but'--BUT the blame I bear HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID ABOUT ME, ANYTHING THAT THEY ARE SAYING NOW OR WILL SAY IN THE FUTURE. The Republicans you have just elected and reelected have no idea whatsoever how to create jobs and improve the economy. If our nation follows the economic path mapped out by the likes of Boehner and McConell, I can guarantee you that unemployment will still top 10% next year and the year after that and the year after that too. As I said, I have made mistakes in my management of the economy. My greatest mistake was bowing to Republican opposition to my economic stimulus plan, allowing them to hold my plan hostage to the threat of their passing no stimulus at all--which almost certainly would have meant a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s--so that in the end more than half of the most sorely needed spending was compromised away. I should have fought harder for what I knew was right in the face of opposition I knew was wrong. "Last night I telephoned John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and I congratulated them on their party's victories. Then I told them what all of us in this room already know, that their party's victories last night came on the back of the most massively well-financed campaign of lies and misinformation that this nation has ever seen. I told them that the Republican Party leadership should be ashamed of the lies they have perpetuated in pursuit of raw political power, their greatest lie being that the massive cuts in government spending they propose can do anything other than prolong our country's current economic misery for a generation or more. I told John Boehner and Mitch McConnell that I will work with them wherever and whenever we can agree on a course of action that is of benefit to the American people, but I also told them that never again in the interests achieving a partial solution will I compromise on what I know to be the truth. "Thank you, and goodnight."
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 5:51am
I lost all excitment for Obama when he asked Rubin, Summers and Geithner to serve. Like asking Cheney to write torture laws.
- IggyPop
November 4, 2010 at 7:14am
All I had to hear was his willingness to compromise on extending high-end tax cuts. My heart sank. All he has to do is let the bloody things expire. The sad truth is that Obama is afraid of these people. And I think it is personal and cultural. FDR and JFK were afraid of nothing because they were patricians. Same with W even if he was stupid as a brick. Obama lacks the confidence that he can bully, humiliate, or just laugh off these people because he is insecure and accustomed to accommodating the white folks to succeed. A very gifted and brilliant man in so many ways, but he lacks the megalomania necessary to wield power effectively. Power is his problem.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 8:47am
He might have compensated by getting the right people to work for him, but he was not connected in the corridors of power and made the timid choices: Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, even Gates who is a good man but not able to control the Pentagon on the president's behalf. He controls it, well, to the best of his ability.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 8:49am
That may be true -- FDR had gone to prep school with Wall Street banker types and knew them for what they were.
- ironyroad
November 4, 2010 at 11:21am
Mr._r: "How does this guy still have a job? His 2002 book is EXACTLY WRONG as evidenced by FACTS. The electorate has not become more liberal/democratic -- exactly the opposite has occured." And if you had taken a poll two years ago, you would have to have said that he was EXACTLY RIGHT. So now you have to explain why today's poll should have more weight than the one two years ago--or one to be taken two years from now. You can't cherry-pick one data point, especially in such unusual economic conditions. Perhaps Judis will turn out to be exactly wrong, but a sample size of one doesn't prove it. Really, such complaints sound like those who say a freakish amount of snow one winter in DC "factually" disproves global warming. You need a lot more than that to make your case.
- dsimon
November 4, 2010 at 1:28pm
roidubouloi "The sad truth is that Obama is afraid of these people. And I think it is personal and cultural. FDR and JFK were afraid of nothing because they were patricians. Same with W even if he was stupid as a brick. Obama lacks the confidence that he can bully, humiliate, or just laugh off these people because he is insecure and accustomed to accommodating the white folks to succeed. A very gifted and brilliant man in so many ways, but he lacks the megalomania necessary to wield power effectively. Power is his problem." This is the best critique I've heard of Obama. I hate seconding it, but it's a never admitted point. He doesn't have an instinct towards power. I used to blame it on his communications people, who should be fired straight up. But you are right. Obama doesn't have the instinct to crush instead of just win. When your opposition slimes a major bill with 'death panels' you pounce on them and don't let up. When they say peer review of best medical practices is rationing in disguise, you put THEM on the defensive to make the damn connection. When they oppose Medicare paying for end-of-life consulting, you pull out all the legislation Republicans have joined to set up hospices and other services that have overwhelming support from the American people. It actually gets me physically sick. Plus, the incompetence of the WH communications outfit is legendary: only 10% of people know they got a tax cut from the stimulus; or that the bail out will likely break even or even make a profit. The fact Obama still has the same group of perpetually behind-the-curve communications and media people reflects that same resistance to (or knowledge of how) to use power. Obama himself set the tone of the campaign; he hated the 24/7 news cycle and did not want the campaign to run on it. He was then able to pull the campaign as a whole out of disaster with a few great speeches and massive rallies. If you don't fight to win the political and communications battle every day - to weaken your opposition every day - you won't win. Republicans have it mastered.
- CAMtwo
November 4, 2010 at 2:36pm
Roi, I think you're onto something. If you grow up with brown skin and a funny name in a weird-ass place like Hawaii and then show up at Columbia and Harvard, the qualities upon which you'll learn rely to get ahead are going to be your intelligence, your charm, and your ability to ingratiate yourself, not your ability intimidate people. I wonder whether Barrack Obama has in earnestness and anger ever in his life said, "Fuck you!" to another human being. I'm guessing not. So, if we are to follow drofnats down his garden path, to which angry, F-bomb dropping liberal democrat should we hitch our wagons? I don't really believe a primary challenge in 2012 is such a good idea, but it's worthwhile to explore the possibilities.
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 2:47pm
And when you grow up as Joseph P. Kennedy's son, you can learn how to intimidate people and then go to Harvard. I think a primary challenge to Obama would be suicidal. And I cannot think of a single, credible Democratic name who could win an election other than the sitting president. Let Hillary run in 2016 if she wants to. After that, it will likely be Andrew Cuomo's turn or something.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 8:05pm