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 End The Honeymoon

POLITICS FEBRUARY 13, 2009

End The Honeymoon

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

There are many good things to say about the stimulus bill. But all in all, it wasn’t as good as it could be: It’s probably too small and too skewed toward tax cuts, and particularly cuts for upper-income people who won’t necessarily spend them. The bank bailout is, well, a mystery, but at best a political fiasco. What’s the problem here?

 

I’ll give the three obvious answers before saying what I think is the fundamental problem: First, as for the administration, Obama didn’t get out on the stump soon enough to explain why government spending is essential, and his Treasury Secretary doesn’t at this point appear up to the job. Secondly, the Congressional Republicans either don’t know any economics or are willing to put the country at risk to advance their own party’s fortune. Third, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid failed again--the previous instance was over the auto bailout--to use the power of his position to win support for Democratic initiatives.

 

But I think the main reason that Obama is having trouble is that there is not a popular left movement that is agitating for him to go well beyond where he would even ideally like to go. Sure, there are leftwing intellectuals like Paul Krugman who are beating the drums for nationalizing the banks and for a $1 trillion-plus stimulus. But I am not referring to intellectuals, but to movements that stir up trouble among voters and get people really angry. Instead, what exists of a popular left is either incapable of action or in Obama’s pocket.

 

The labor movement, for instance, has not recovered from the split between the AFL-CIO and Change To Win. To make matters worse, the unions themselves--in particularly, SEIU and Unite Here--are rent by division. As a result, the unions have either been on the sidelines during the debate over the stimulus and bank bailout or uncritically backing Obama and Reid. One labor group, Americans United for Change, which is backed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), even ran ads thanking Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, and Arlen Specter for agreeing to back the stimulus bill that they had significantly weakened.

 

A member of one liberal group, Campaign for America’s Future, pronounced the stimulus bill “a darn good first step.” MoveOn--as far as I can tell--has attacked conservative Republicans for opposing the bill, while lamely urging Democrats to back it. Of course, all these groups may have thought the stimulus bill and the bailout were ideal, but I doubt it. I bet they had the same criticisms of these measures that Krugman or The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein or my own colleagues had, but they made the mistake that political groups often make: subordinating their concern about issues to their support for the party and its leading politician.

 

What, you might ask, would have been the result if these groups had gone after Obama and Reid--and in the case of the so-called Americans United for Change--the self-appointed centrists? They would have certainly incurred the wrath of the Obama administration. I know this myself. One Obama press person recently asked a mutual acquaintance, “Why does John Judis hate us?”

 

But they would have also moved the political debate to the left, so that the center no longer resided somewhere in Susan Collins or Ben Nelson’s heads, but considerably to their left. Suddenly, a $900 billion bill without the AMT and with expanded health insurance for the unemployed would have looked like a compromise. These angry leftists would have actually done the Obama administration an enormous favor.

 

What’s the basis for my saying this? Look at the last two periods in Americans history where dramatic reforms were adopted--the 1930s and the 1960s (up to 1972). These were periods when the presence of a popular left moved the center away from the laissez-faire, pro-big business right. The experience of the 1930s is particularly relevant now. During the initial years of the Great Depression, there were demonstrations and marches--notably those by the Bonus Army in 1932--but there was also great despair and disunion. The AFL was paralyzed. Communists were battling Socialists. And the absence of leftwing pressure was reflected in the legislation that passed.

 

I don’t just mean during Herbert Hoover’s term. When Franklin Roosevelt first came to office, he inspired a great deal of confidence, but much of what he did in the first 100 days was timid and ineffective. He actually cut federal pay, and his bank measures fell short. The National Recovery Administration was devoted to nullifying antitrust laws. Liberals in his administration and in Congress had to pressure him into backing relief for the unemployed.

 

The economy rebounded largely because of Roosevelt’s political skills, but had fallen back in the doldrums a year later. What really made a difference was the Second New Deal of 1935-36 that included massive public works, Social Security, and the Wagner Act. And that Second New Deal was made possible by the growth of a popular left.

 

In 1934, there was a wave of strikes. Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth movement began. In a year, it had organized 27,000 clubs across the country. Francis Townsend organized a movement for old age pensions. As a result, the center of politics shifted dramatically to the left and made it possible for the liberals in Congress and in the administration to pass legislation that under different circumstances Roosevelt would have deemed too radical.

 

The threat of the left made possible the existence of what Arthur Schlesinger later called a “vital center.” Obama might not want these kind of strident critics from the left--who wants a Huey Long thundering against him?--but it’s exactly the kind of opposition he and the Democrats need.

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

 

 

 

Watch John B. Judis discussing this article on TNRtv:

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 66 comments

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

66 comments

Excuse me. On what planet are you residing?

- dtohmatsu

February 13, 2009 at 6:49am

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

No thank you very much, John. I'm fine with the AMT, and the skew toward tax cuts in general. And making some cuts in other areas will help allay some of the fears Middle America has, with considerable justification, about spending that's less stimulative than reckless. The Left, such as it is, isn't playing a bigger role because frankly it doesn't deserve to.

- Robert Powell

February 13, 2009 at 7:45am

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

You still haven't answered the question - why *do* you hate Obama?

- FWright

February 13, 2009 at 8:14am

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

Mr. Judis, Rather than just glance at our comments, I would sincerely appreciate an answer to this one, a question: How would what you are talking about have changed anything in the Senate, in the face of a filibuster? Three key Republican Senators made passage possible. They couldn't care less about an organized left, etc. The NYTimes today points out that budget bills are not subject to filibuster (or at least not in most cases). Maybe that's where you should focus, and not on Who Shot John.

- Pete Beck

February 13, 2009 at 8:39am

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

Its interesting because they compared the stimulus to what Obama wanted and it was almost a perfect match except that its about 40 billion less and it has less tax cuts than he wanted. So if its lackluster then I guess lackluster is what he wanted. Keep in mind some say its too much some say its too small if you can make the extremes unhappy then I would say you are just about on target. Satisfying extreme positions is never a good thing. Carol

- Carol

February 13, 2009 at 9:05am

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

I encourage readers to click the hyperlink to the Campaign for America's Future blog "A Darn Good First Step" and read how it's misrepresented here. It is entirely possible to praise what Obama has done and simultaneously call for more.

- Bernie Horn

February 13, 2009 at 9:15am

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

Wow, is the person who wrote this article blogging from an insane asylum? This article is completely incoherent. Also seems like some sort of ego trip ("Why does John Judis Hate Obama?) -- Judis made the article more about him than the issues that were discussed. Apparently somebody REALLY wants some attention.

- Palooza

February 13, 2009 at 10:21am

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

"some say its too much some say its too small if you can make the extremes unhappy then I would say you are just about on target" If half the people say that 2+2=4, and half say that 2+2=5, would you conclude that 2+2=4.5?

- City of Evil

February 13, 2009 at 10:47am

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

Looks like the left is making the same mistake with Obama that the right made with Bush. Under Bush, the right became a wholely-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. It looks like the left has decided to take the same buy-out from the Democratic Party.

- Bruce Bartlett

February 13, 2009 at 11:32am

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

Another day, another sad-sack article from Judis about the woeful state of the Obama presidency.

- drdannyu

February 13, 2009 at 11:33am

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

I encourage readers to click the hyperlink to the Campaign for America's Future blog "A Darn Good First Step" and read how it's misrepresented here. It is entirely possible to praise what Obama has done and simultaneously call for more. How sad is it that you have to remind people that ideological absolutism isn't a requirement for party membership?

- Assezmalicieuse

February 13, 2009 at 11:37am

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

Why all the ad hominem? The article precisely describes why the agenda of the progressives, on whose support Obama became the president, is increasingly viewed as sacrificial lamb on the alter of bipartisanship. Unless the progressives push back, as John Judis argues, the Emmanuals of this world will make sure we have another Clintonian triangulation for the next 4 or 8 years. -- Nara

- Nara

February 13, 2009 at 11:58am

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

As a Canadian I've long suspected that the only reason our politics is so far left of American politics is that we've had a national party (and even a regional party) consistently promoting far-left ideology on a national level for decades. As such, socialism isn't a bad word in Canada. In fact, in Canada, trashing socialism is a faux-pas. Politicians aren't independent thinkers. They're strategists. They see two sides to every issue, left and right, and they know compromise lies somewhere in between. Thus, if you want to influence the debate, you don't need to form the government, you just need to move the goal posts, and move the middle-ground. This is what the christian right and the Canadian New Democratic Party have been doing for about the same amount of time. And look where it's got us both.

- the not-angry left

February 13, 2009 at 12:11pm

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

I've been wondering why Collins, Snow, and Specter didn't hold out for even more. The whacked out left -- led by Judis himself -- could have been out in the streets just like the French would have done, and it wouldn't have changed what any of these three senators did.

- George Kresovich

February 13, 2009 at 12:17pm

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

One of Judis's better columns. The "popular left" in the liveblogger-twitter era is mainly focused on fomenting a rapid-- "viral", in the jargon-- response to the outrage du jour. The content of this response is vapid-- smirks and sneers, usually-- and the organizing behind it has as much depth and staying power as a snowflake, which is why all of Obama's vaunted tech prowess availed him nothing when he got to the White House. When Limbaugh was assailing the stimulus, where were the twitterers and livebloggers and firedoggies? If the popular left is to develop any legs, it has to have more than "swagger." It needs a coherent understanding of what it expects government to deliver, in the way of economic security, to millions of American adults, and it needs to engage those adults in meaningful ways-- not with spam "tweets" and fulminations at the Outrage du Jour.

- teppy

February 13, 2009 at 12:24pm

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

I thought it was an excellent and very insightful article. Good to see that dicussion on the net is at its usaul high standard here. If you want to argue that Judis is living on another planet, go for it. But it might be more persuasive if you pointed out what in the article made you feel that way and why. Personally I think he has an excellent point that the Left (or any political movement) should always remain focused on ideals rather than hitch itself to any particular politician. Remember that old story about FDR? Supposedly, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." Now there was a man who understood politics.

- JustinC

February 13, 2009 at 12:41pm

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

Good piece. Obama's not going to accomplish much of anything if the only pressure he's getting is from his right; he needs strong voices to his left pulling him, too. And right now the left is too busy toeing the party line to stand up for its principles.

- chris m

February 13, 2009 at 12:43pm

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

@dtohmatsu, Palooza, drdannyu: Simply calling Judis insane or sad is not a serious refutation of his article; it's just name-calling. Why don't you lay out an actual argument? Or are you Republican trolls? @FWright, Bernie Horn: You seem to have a reflexive reaction against any criticism of Obama, which is exactly the problem Judis describes. If you want to criticize his article, then the burden is on you to refute Nobel Prize-winning economists like Krugman who say that the stimulus is flawed. Otherwise you're creating an environment where Obama is above criticism, the way evangelicals did with Bush. Krugman has a great track record of predictions, and he predicts that the stimulus is too small. It looks like Obama caved in to free-market fundamentalists whose track record demonstrates that they are out of touch with reality, and Obama deserves criticism for that. @Pete Beck: Judis is talking about the big picture, not one vote. Your objection is about parliamentary tactics on one vote, not the larger issue. Liberal economic policies are right; conservative economic policies are wrong. The financial crisis, a.k.a. "reality," should have ended this debate, but liberals are still letting conservatives set the terms of the debate. If we take back the debate and focus it on reality, then we can pass stimulus bills that will be more effective. I think Bruce Bartlett is right, at least judging by all the thoughtless, spineless comments to this article. It looks like the left has taken itself out of the debate, sending the center of political gravity over to the right. Hastings Hart Oakland, Calif.

- Hastings Hart

February 13, 2009 at 12:56pm

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

Unemployment actually went up after most New Deal legislation was passed. That is precisely what we fascist conservatives are worried about. How about passing sensible long term unemployment benefit legislation and tax relief for businesses to prevent them from failing in a bad economy and contributing to a downward spiral? These measures would cost $200 billion at most and can be reversed easily if and when the economy improves. Then spend six months or so developing a stimulus crafted by trusted experts, not politicians. Is that too much to ask for from someone who promised real change?

- Bob Ennis

February 13, 2009 at 1:12pm

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

John, your own recounting of FDR's experience demonstrates that you and so many others need to chill out. It isn't all about the first hundred days, much less the first thirty, and this narcissistic childish need to pronounce instant judgments on the administration says much more about you than about them. Without 60 dems in the Senate (or more, given how they get along) it's just silly to throw a little fit every time a compromise is needed. And it's still nearly $800B! I wanted more and better, but the fight goes on. And commentary like yours only makes it harder by suggesting that pouting and a-historical tantrums make any sense. I say this as a regular citizen out here in the real world, I'm no politico.

- kling

February 13, 2009 at 1:24pm

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

Repeat Request - Will Mr. Judis explain how the Democratgs could have accomplished a more leftish agenda in the face of a Republican filibuster? I suspect that there is no answer -- and as has been frequently said of late, Judis' perfect is the enemy of the good.

- Pete Beck

February 13, 2009 at 1:37pm

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

You said; "particularly cuts for upper-income people who won't necessarily spend them." Really? Upper-income people aren't consumers? Upper-income people aren't investors (providing capital for economic development)? Clearly your socialist leanings blind you to reality. But isn't that the very definition of socialism?

- Who Cares?

February 13, 2009 at 1:40pm

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

1. I am not on the far left, and a) blame over-regulated liberalist government for both constraining and then destroying my career as a disabled minority in this country--and as I've learned over the last 8 years, the right is not above using regulation and its processes to keep beating people like me down worse than they would a rabid dog. My life was far far easier under 504 during the Carter Reagan era than it has been during Clinton-Bush under the ADA, which I know TNR has been critical of, but for the wrong reasons. Creation of a permanent underclass, in these circumstances, is more problematic in and of itself than economic gilded eras and subsequent crashes, and TNR only barely scratches the surface of this when looking at the nightmare of American health care. 2. Though I have a significant level of education, damned if I understood TARP, and Paulson did not help much, so damn me more if I truly understand the stimulus either. 3. I thought the likes of TNR and Kevin Drum and co supported Geithner, only now Judis feels he isn't qualified because of one hearing which apparently blew a lot of smoke? Come again?

- Jozanny

February 13, 2009 at 1:44pm

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

Pete Beck has it absolutely right. The reason this bill got passed at all was because Obama was forced to cater to the middle ground. An angry(er) Left would not have changed this and in fact would have risked alienating those so called "moderates" in the GOP who were essential here. The fact is, as Arlen Specter himself said in an article in the Washington Post, half a loaf of bread is better than none. He has a right to be proud that he was able to secure that half a loaf (even if I personally am infuriated that he didn't allow more, but he is GOP after all). Populist anger does not move the heart and soul of the tax-breaks solve all woes GOP core. Obama did an admirable job fighting to get what he did without fighting so hard as to get nothing.

- Dan C

February 13, 2009 at 2:16pm

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

If you read the comments on OpenLeft, for example, you'll see that there are plenty of people on the left who criticized Obama's original and already sold-out bailout and all subsequent revisions in the direction of ridiculous tax-cuts. And isn't it surprising that all those critics are totally obscure readers who couldn't get a job with corporate media or an invitation to appear on network TV if they were the last bipeds on the planet? It's corporate media who have defined the playing field and planted both goal-posts at the far right end of the field, and here we are at TNR hearing it all blamed on "the left," as if anything of the left were actually visible except for a tip of the iceberg that corporate media allows to come into view. (Block that metaphor!) As the comments on this blog demonstrate, TNR's readership is dominated by a sort of "lumpen bourgeoisie" of the left, happy enough to pretend that the government can stimulate the economy with tax-cuts, just as long as their own tax bills diminish. In this context, John Judis passes for slightly radical, and all credit to him for refusing to join in the brain-dead chorus of praise for Barack Obama, who sold out anybody on the left who was silly enough to support him as soon as he walked into the Oval Office.

- Jacob Freeze

February 13, 2009 at 2:38pm

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

The test of the stimulus should be how stimulative it is, not whether it is sufficiently watered down to satisfy the centrists hanging around TNR's comment board. By all means, let's cut out billions in school construction funding and aid to states in order to satisfy the arbitrary whims of the so-called moderates.

- Adam

February 13, 2009 at 2:59pm

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

It's unfortunate that so many of the comments here are completely lacking substance, but are merely ad hominem attacks. What problems do people have with the assertion that greater advocacy for liberal policy could either pressure the Obama administration to promote said policy or give them political cover necessary to enable said liberal policy?

- Doug Sale

February 13, 2009 at 2:59pm

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

Mr. Judis apparently assumes that passage of a timely stimulus bill of some sort was inevitable. If that was true, then perhaps pushing the conversation leftward would have made some sense. But recent history teaches us that political pressure from both sides often results in gridlock. Given the urgent need for fast federal action, we should be happy that there was no organized opposition from the left on this matter. If we're going to have an inflexible ideological bloc in this country then let us give thanks that at the moment it is entrenched in the minority party.

- RL

February 13, 2009 at 3:48pm

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

I think fixing the AMT was essential. Failing to do it would have raised taxes on people making as little as $76,000. In the Northeast, that's barely middle class. Raising taxes on these people makes no sense.

- psimpson

February 13, 2009 at 4:27pm

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

You gotta love Judis and TNR. Even when it is the RIGHT's fault (Republicans in the senate, Fox and right wing echo chamber; Obama's capture by Geithner and the rest of the post-Rubinomics Goldman Sachs must rule our world) and Obama is not being LEFT enough... it is still the LEFT's fault. Oh well. At least you have Jon Cohn instead of Betsy McCaughey this time around.

- Steve

February 13, 2009 at 4:33pm

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

This article goes a long way toward explaining why the Left is not "popular" in this country.

- NOVAWRANGLER

February 13, 2009 at 4:35pm

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

So much for Obama's claim of transparency -- not even allowing a meager 48 hours to read much less digest this monumental waste of our tax dollars.

- Buy gold

February 13, 2009 at 5:37pm

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

On the margin of you... Here, in an highest season full of my care, I'd like to discover the sound of a tin, and perhaps my desire could arrive in the springtime. Francesco Sinibaldi

- Francesco Sinibaldi

February 13, 2009 at 6:22pm

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

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that the 'lackluster' stimulus bill would have been 'helped' by the more strenuous left. Because I disagree that the so-called 'left' today is anything near the huge 'up from below' movements of the '30s and '60s when people who had never thought of protesting their government came out in massive numbers. The only thing that really compares is the Obama campaign itself, with drew in millions of people who had not participated in politics before and drew back people who had become discouraged and cynical. The so-called 'left' today is made up of single-issue 'movements' not inclined to subject their causes to a larger framework, like an economic recovery plan. Obama did not need these groupings to begin pressing their own agendas through individual Congressional districts. That would cause even more chaos and obstacles to pass the stimulus fast, Obama's primary goal. The campaign made bad tactical mistakes, like not responding to the House Republicans in clear, timely language. But when a new President is faced with a ticking time bomb, he does not have the luxury of lengthy deliberation. He either rides with his mandate as defined by the campaign and takes that risk, or he takes a risk of delaying government intervention for months. Obama made the right, though messy, choice. BTW, how the single-issue, maximum demand mentality got to be called 'left' is beyond me. 'Left" or "right" would normally define a larger political framework, as seems the case in multi-party, parliamentary systems. Obama is trying to stride the narrow single-issue mentality that has held back Democrats and the wedge, hyper-partisan ideology that is the curse of Republicans. He more than anybody has to accept this does not come overnight.

- CAMtwo

February 13, 2009 at 7:40pm

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

The left, rightly happy to end 12 years of Reagan/Bush rule, similarly failed to press the Clinton administration on basic issues. The right, by contrast, kept the pressure on -- and so defined a listless (not vital) "center." The result was utter failure on healthcare reform, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a regressive version of welfare reform, the Effective Death Penalty Act, and other barbarisms. The stakes are much higher today, but the left, rightly happy to end eight years of Bush/Cheney....

- Roger

February 13, 2009 at 8:57pm

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

"There are many good things to say about the stimulus bill." To quote Cartman, "what a douche bag."

- tim stevens

February 13, 2009 at 10:45pm

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

Tax cuts skewed towards upper income people? Where are those? The real problems are that 1) the rebates for people who don't pay taxes will be as stimulative as the rebates from last year's bill, and 2) most of the spending is neither timely nor stimulative, and, for that matter, there is little, if any, historical basis to believe that Keyesian defecit spending works anyway (whereas, tax cuts, if of the incetivizing type, have worked as a stimulus on any number of occasions). But I guess we lost the election, so history doesn't matter. Reality has been discredited.

- steve

February 14, 2009 at 12:48am

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

Judis has a real point that I think is being missed by most here in your zeal to bash him as some sort of Obama hater. Had the Left--the grassroots, the netroots, the unions, and general activists--really had the wherewithall to organize a coherent voice to call for more in spending on such things as education, aid to states, and healthcare for the unemployed, Obama and Reid, as butressed by a vocal Pelosi could have been more empowered to call the GOP's bluff and told them to go ahead and try to filibuster the bill. If I were Harry Reid, on Thursday (before the deal was reached), I'd have sent each GOP senator a phonebook with a post-it note on it that read, "For tomorrow. Good luck." The point is we got a watered-down stimulus bill because the left did, indeed, provide watered-down support. Judis is right: we let our support of Obama subvert a principled stand for what kind of bill this could have and should have been. Let us hope that such timidity does not reappear when the Employee Free Choice Act comes up for debate, for that won't be so "easy" a fight to "win."

- Mike in MI

February 14, 2009 at 10:04am

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

Judis failed to mention the sharp jump in growth of the Socialist and Communist parties during the 1930s, and the strenuous efforts that the New Dealers continuously had to make to tamp down third party sentiment across the country. That's the ONLY sort of pressure the Democrats really care about.

- Rick Kissell, Milwaukee

February 14, 2009 at 10:31am

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

your recounting of economic history is from la la land. i suggest you go back to working on "peace" at your "peace center." when this bill produces nothing but even more national debt for my children to pay, you'll be walking with your head down and your tail between your legs. actually, probably not. you'll probably have another delusional spin to offer me....

- sub

February 14, 2009 at 10:46am

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

John, I know that if you and Paul Krugman had your way we'd never have been stuck with this disastrous president. And I'm positive that if either of you were calling the shots, you'd have been able to bring in a bill twice as awsome in half the time. But, unfortunately, you go to war with the president you have, not the president you wish you have. By the way, I'm being sarcastic. Paul Krugman was basically saying in his column a few weeks ago that if Obama waited until after he was inaugurated to get a stimulus package passed it was too late. Now he and you argue that you know politics better than Obama and that what a smart politician would have done is start out with an extreme position and then play hardball with senate Republicans. In my opinion that would have led to getting nothing done for the next several months. Maybe you should listen to the President when he says: "We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the absolutely essential." It might just be that he is not a complete idiot after all.

- seanwright

February 14, 2009 at 11:22am

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

I am amazed by the consistent resistance to facts by this comments section. The consensus among economists is that national GDP will collapse this year unless the government steps in as the spender of last resort. A one time shot national recovery act should have spent at least 1 trillion in direct government spending to buttress our rapidly faltering eocnomy. Instead, we have about 550 billion in spending and about 250 billion in tax cuts, which most economists also agree will not help much. What part of we need at least 1 trillion in government spending to avoid a depression don't people understand?

- JT

February 14, 2009 at 11:22am

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

amazing to see ... you must create wealth by building it with your own hands ... i dont need big brother ... they gave me all the other wonderful govt programs we already cant afford ... geez how clueless can a society get

- ibbimp

February 14, 2009 at 11:43am

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

We miss the old commies and socialists and especially those of the working class who knew suffering and were willing to really protest. So many have died away. They had an ideological thrust. Move-on - for whatever its good - doesn't have the rough thrust that's needed to move today's politicians. Everybody's too nice and respectable. Needed: Rabble rousers.

- Roldo Bartimole

February 14, 2009 at 1:02pm

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

After filling out my taxes this year, I'd certainly like a tax cut. Not sure the idea of an income tax is a good idea anyway, really.

- Felix

February 14, 2009 at 1:32pm

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

It's amazing how many of the comments are completely missing the point about what the author is talking about. As a former union organizer and a community organizer myself, it would seem to me that he is taking a position that is both accurate and appropriate. The reality is that the package isn't big enough and doesn't target things that will insure long term economic recovery, namely areas like education and scientific research. After all, once you build a bridge or an infrastructure project that's all you get. However, educate a an engineer or a scientist and you get the human capital capable of developing more and more ideas and projects. Furthermore, the author is right on when he talks about the absence of an organized left. The growth of the middle class was a direct result of the explosion in union membership in the 30's and 40's. These two decades saw the fastest rates of unionization in our nations history. We hit a high water mark in 1953 and the rate has been in decline ever since. The fact that unions are growing at such an anemic rate and are saddled with leadership that is more focused on partnering with corporations and "adding value" to companies is a huge part of the problem. The reality of this situation is that in absence of a radicalized left is one of the reasons progress on so many fronts from real education reform to healthcare reform has been so slow and half-hearted. History has shown that if you are able to build movements that engage a small portion of the population you can push an entire nation and achieve systemic change. That's what happened with child labor laws, women's sufferage, the New Deal, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, the Civil Right's Movement, etc. Sure Obama can be a good President, but he can also be great. There's nothing wrong with calling on people to help push him to a higher level.

- JC KC

February 14, 2009 at 1:59pm

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

if i was obama i wouldn't even care what john judis thinks either. should put an a where the i is and the world would really know what your beloved left stands for.

- howell clark

February 14, 2009 at 2:49pm

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

Oh please, kind sir, can you educate my tiny, Republican brain on how economics work? Things like supply and demand are just too hard for me to understand!

- Matt

February 14, 2009 at 3:00pm

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

I still don't understand. How would a more vocal left overcome the Republican power to veto?

- Pete Beck

February 14, 2009 at 6:11pm

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

The destruction of the United States will begin when Obama signs this montrousity of a bill.

- TheEnforcer

February 14, 2009 at 7:33pm

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

More proof that the liberal-minded can't agree on anything.

- Ethosys

February 14, 2009 at 7:41pm

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

Wow. This person doesn't seem to understand anything. Incoherent babbling. The economy turned around at the end of the 30s because of Roosevelt's political skills? What is this guy smoking? The economy turned around when the British emptied their national wallet into the US economy buying war supplies to fight Hitler. Roosevelt had to come up with "Lend Lease" when they had no more money to give us. Political skill had little to do with ending the Great Depression. Read a book... yeesh.

- steve

February 14, 2009 at 7:42pm

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

John, From a look at your comments, it looks like radical politics as usual isn't sticking, this time. Too bad, so sad. But good news for poor people who stop relying on the false promise of leftists to improve their situations when, really, their own efforts will be far more important for that objective. Self-respect is a far more important value than generous social welfare benefits. Thank goodness most Americans still take this most basic value so seriously.

- Ben Sutherland

February 14, 2009 at 9:06pm

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

Great- people actually think that we can spend our way out of a problem caused by too much spending.

- Peter

February 15, 2009 at 12:16am

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

Japan's cogent critique of the Obama plan supports that of Judis. The attacks on Judis by 'loyal' Obama supporters on this thread support the author's second point about the bunker mentality of the so-called left. A number of left of center, center, and right of center economists are pointing to Sweden's nationalization of the banking industry as the model for the administration. None of this matter's much in the land where Obama can do no wrong. There is something to be said for spending, just for the sake of spending. But not if that money is borrowed, and not if the money could be invested wisely. Judis is right, his views are supported by international economists, and he's likely to be pilloried all the same.

- yespaul

February 15, 2009 at 3:51am

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

"It's probably too small and too skewed toward tax cuts, and particularly cuts for upper-income people who won't necessarily spend them..." Wow, another TNR-liberal who hates it that upper-income people want to keep the money they earn. Why do liberals always want to spend other people's money but will never ever spend their own? Yeah, I know it's because they don't pay their fair share, they got tax cuts from Bush, they don't care about he poor, boo hoo. I've heard all the excuses already.

- tim stevens

February 15, 2009 at 4:00am

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

John, the woeful sociological ignorance of so many of your readers - or at least many of those who comment - resolves my curiosity about how car dealers make so bafflingly much money with their Stupid People Tricks.

- jeffrey

February 15, 2009 at 12:09pm

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

THANK YOU for this report. The left is clipping its own wings at every turn these days, privately seething at missteps (the weak stimulus package, embracing the state secrets privilege, etc.) but publicly staying mute. Many of the left groups have long ago ceased to have any real grassroots engagement, preferring an inside Washington game and the lure of supposedly cheaper means of engagement via email and e-advocacy. They aren't investing in base building (and the community organizing groups that ARE doing that sort of thing are marginalizing themselves, abhorring any real effort to link people with POLICY instead of local-local-local outcomes). Even if they were investing in base building, it wouldn't matter, because they have little or no desire to use any base pressure at all on the Dems. This is in many ways like the left's response in the early days of the Clinton administration... remember how that turned out?

- JR

February 15, 2009 at 1:20pm

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

For what it's worth, I thought this was a fine article--neither meandering, nor irrational, nor pointless. Judis only makes the point that, while the Stimulus Bill isn't horrible, it's not exactly what one might hope (on the left) for considering Democrats control the presidency and both houses of congress--and that political pressure from the ground would shift the center of political dialogue and pressure to the left. Judis doesn't seem to hate Obama--seems to me he just thinks the left shouldn't be uncritical in its support of the administration. Re: Pete Beck's point, I think pressure from the left would help with the filibuster by encouraging the idea of a mandate for a leftward bent to the final bill--it might make it more difficult for Reid to make concessions, and also more difficult for Snowe, Nelson et al to claim a centrist position and demand concessions. That would be the optimistic take, anyway.

- C. A.

February 15, 2009 at 4:30pm

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

Mmmpf. All this proves is that Mr. Judis knows neither history nor economics. FDR was elected on a platform of cutting taxes and government expenditures. Instead he flailed around extending and expanding the Progressive Hoover's ill-conceived programs of interference in the economy and managed to kill fledgling recoveries in '33 and '36; in sum, Hoover and FDR turned what would otherwise have been a short, very painful correction due to the Fed's anglophile policies of the '20s into a decade of worldwide misery. This is precisely what Mr. Obama is proposing to do now. The spending and fiscal policies of the '60s led directly to the decade of stagflation we survived in the '70s. We're in for an enormous surge of inflation in about two years, at which time the economy will *still* be suffering from recession due to the unpredictable economic bashing about of the administration. Investment and job creation depends on the ability of businessmen to make long-term plans, which government by political whim makes impossible. The Federal policies which caused this crash range from the "redlining" nonsense of three decades ago to the Fed's easy money all through the '90s. Economic policies do not have immediate consequences; they take years to infect the system. Our children will be suffering from Federal economic illiteracy and wishful thinking two decades from now. What a wonderful legacy.

- Craig Goodrich

February 16, 2009 at 12:09am

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

Really...the GOP doesn't understand economics...I'm a 11 year CPA that deals with such issues daily...you like to mention the 30's...well The New Deal did not accomplish anything and unemployement was still in the double digits until WWII...you people need to quit drinking the koolaid and quit trying to re-write history...this country is in for a rude awakening and I hope all of you that voted for this dumb ass get higher taxes and your standard of living plumets...I on the other hand will be fine...I can afford to move...

- wcm

February 16, 2009 at 5:35pm

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

LMFAO...ok...the only reason your country, if we can really call it one, can afford to be socialist is because you don't have to afford a military because who would screw with a USA neighbor...please...keep your thoughts to yourself you uneducated dolt

- wcm

February 16, 2009 at 5:38pm

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

"the Congressional Republicans either don't know any economics" This statement makes me curious. Inasmuch as you would sit in judgment of those who oppose the government bloating spending in the porkulus bill, suggesting that they "don't know any economics," I'm wondering what makes you think you know anything about economics. I'm no economics expert, I only have a degree in Business Administration and Actuarial Mathematics, but still, I know enough to wonder about you!

- jt

February 17, 2009 at 8:42am

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

wcm, your comment that "I'm a 11 year CPA that deals with such issues daily" brought a smile to my face. Especially when you followed up with your "history lesson" about how we got out of the depression. If the question at hand were, how much of income can I get away with designating as a dividend from my closely held corporation, I would defer to your expertise. But I hope you'll forgive me if I don't add a whole lot of weight to your historical and macroeconomic analysis based upon your credentials.

- seanwright

February 17, 2009 at 12:58pm

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

Why weep or slumber america/ Land of brave and true/ With castles and clothing and food for all/ All belongs to you Evry man a king, evry man a king/ For you can be a millionaire/ But theres something belonging to others/ Theres enough for all people to share/ When its sunny june and december too/ Or in the winter time or spring/ Therell be peace without end/ Evry neighbor a friend/ With evry man a king

- Scalawag

February 24, 2009 at 8:30am

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

Going forward, I couldn't agree with Judis more. Cautious ideas and tepid political organizing, not to mention Reid's timorous compromising with those whose only interest is to make Senate Democrats look weak, is not going to answer the grave economic challenge that America faces over the next couple of years. A strong and vocal Left will actually create "political breathing space" (to coin a phrase) for Reid & Pelosi to work within. We need a surge in Lefty political noise to balance that coming from the Right.

- eztempo

February 24, 2009 at 10:52am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close