The Obama loyalists argue that while he is being impolitic, he will leave a great legacy behind. True, they proffer, he may have gone for health care while the people wanted jobs, and tried to bail out Main Street by bailing out Wall Street rather than the other way around. However, look at the first major health care reform in decades, and the first major financial reform in years, and so on. (Actually there are not so many "and so ons".) The president himself once intimated that if he had to choose, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Most recently he allowed that he was governing while the Republicans were "politicking," but now he must also do some of this degrading stuff.
Well, the bad news is that if he does not do better politically, his legacy will not last long. If the economy continues to meander along, Japanese style, and the U.S. continues to be mired in a losing war in Afghanistan -- both look likely now -- the Republicans may well win control of both the White House and Congress in 2012.
And although they will not wipe out all that Obama achieved, they will cut and slice it, water it down, and then dilute it some more. The president and his remaining friends had better realize that legacy requires politicking. The argument that he can go for one at the cost of the other just does not hold water.
Follow Amitai Etzioni on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmitaiEtzioni
Thank you.
-------------------
Stimulus Law, Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, HCR bill, Financial Reform bill, Several unemployment benefit extensions, successfully managing TARP II and bringing stability to financial system, develop and implement new Afghanistan war strategy, re-start Mid-East peace talks, reform student loan program. reverse stem cell research policy, ban torture, nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.
I could go on for a while longer, but perhaps the above is enough to counter your claim that there is not many "so ons".
And remember, all that in 19 months.
The above are facts based on which, no doubt, you would call me an "Obama loyalist". But that is just a cheap debating trick, a logical fallacy. You a priori paint your opponent as biased, then reject all arguments as biased.
I could play the same game and call you an Obama hater, but I won't.
Now, how do you judge the performance of a President? Of course, you compare it to the performance of other modern Presidents. You want to do that? Go ahead, compare the above partial list to accomplishments of any other President in 19 months.
Do better politically? Yes, he could have done that by not taking on HCR and the Stimulus (which added to deficits). That would likely have saved some seats in the Congress. But is that what we want? Inaction or bad policies just so Dems stay in power? To do what?
"Didn't prevent second financial crisis."
That will be interesting given how watered down so many of Obama "accomplishments" already are.
You mean people who see the mess we have and are supporting the president's efforts?
President Obama is a gracious human being.
I wish he would just be as disparaging as Bush was in one fashion, extreme partisan.
But had he been, I would have been against it just as I was while, Bush, Cheney and Rove decimated this nation.
These are the United States of America.
President Obama believes in these United States.
Unfortunately, those dividing this nation, Rush, Beck, 1300 hate merchants, Fox and MSM hardly get a back lash from the population.
So, If pres Obama's apologist is a bad name, I am willing to wear it with pride.
The echo noise is deafening for now, but come Nov, we shall do far much better than are currently being given credit.
Both houses would still be in control of Dems.
We are not going back.
GOPers had 8yrs of destruction.
19 months for repairing this nation is severely inadequate.
We are not going backward.
Well, he can't be a "really good one-term president" and it remains to be seen if he will be "mediocre two-term president". Of course, for some people he will always remain a "great president" just like for some Bush was a "great president".
They are busy looking for real leadership elsewhere, thanks for asking.
Some wanted single-payer healthcare system, which Obama never promised and for which there were, perhaps 5 votes in the Senate.
Was the Stimulus Act to protect Wall Street?
Is the end of pre-existing condition clause in the HCR bill to help healthcare companies? And if the whole HCR bill was to help healthcare companies, why were Republicans opposed to it? Aren't they pro-corporations?
My mind is so boggled now that politics is driving me crazy and I'm about to jettison everything that mattered to me in favor of ignoring the whole thing.
Basically, once the GOP takes back over I hope everyone with an axe to grind is happy again cause there will be plenty to complain about then.
It isn't a drama- it's a tragedy.
I think the larger point though is that Obama is way more conservative then he portrayed himself in the campaign. I think many of the moves to the right were deliberately planned and not compromises to the Repubs.