Memo to: The New President

Memo to: The New President

Date: 1/21/2009

From: A Fan

Dear President Obama,

Congratulations! It's was a tough fight, but you did it. Your message of hope, change, and putting this country right with the rest of the world won the day. Some very deep Bush fatigue re: the war and the economy helped a lot too.

I know you're anxious to get to work, but let's take a minute to reflect on how this all came down, and why your message was so resonant. Let me also take you back to some words you spoke way before this election got started, words that I believe set the stage for your historic campaign.

Throughout the summer and fall, one reason your economic message was so well-received was because it was so different from your opponent's. Though he fruitlessly tried to hide it, McCain gave you a wide opening by campaigning on thinly disguised Bushonomics, where the sole solution to every problem is another tax cut tilted toward the wealthiest families. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts amounted to less than a third of his total cuts.

During the campaign, you insisted he explain how he was going to pay for these cuts without creating unsustainable debt levels (not to mention that these costs didn't even include his plan to keep the war going ad infinitum). Ultimately, he was forced to acknowledge that there's no way he could get there by going after earmarks. He would have had to cut deeply into programs that lots of us care a lot about, including Medicare, Social Security, kids' health care, education, child care, worker training, and so on.

In this regard, your victory hinged partly on voters' view of the role of government in our lives. McCain tried to run as a reformer, and, in fact, the old McCain might have had a decent case to make. But as time went on, it became clear that on most of the key issues--especially the war, the economy, and the role of government--he was stuck in the same bubble as Bush.

He tried to run on experience, but this turned out to be nothing more than a code-word for business as usual. That might have worked if we weren't mired in Iraq abroad and facing a recession at home. Given those realities, it was not hard to make the case that we've tried it their way, and it has failed us miserably.

You, on the other hand, convinced the electorate that there was another way forward. For some of us, that new vision first appeared well before you ran for the presidency, back when you were still finding your way to the Senate lunchroom. It was June of 2005, when you spoke these words:

"Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn't much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government--divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it--Social Darwinism--every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford--tough luck...It let's us say to the child who was born into poverty--pull yourself up by your bootstraps...

But there is a problem. It won't work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it's been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It's been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity."

The first two paragraphs perfectly summed up Bush/McCain's YOYO (you're on your own) philosophy, the one that was solidly rejected in this election. And the third resets the balance between, on the one side, our core individualism and its links to unfettered market forces, and on the other, a WITT (we're in this together) agenda, without which we are nothing more than a bunch of profit-maximizing competitors.

Rebalancing these forces of course calls for major policy changes. I urge you to think big. Your campaign platform featured many great ideas, both large and small. Now's the time for the big ones: think universal health care, not tax credits. Think major infrastructure investment (both "green" and public), not tweaks to trade agreements. Think restored progressivity to the tax code, not closing a loophole or two.

Yet as much as it pains a wonkish DC-insider to say it, policy alone won't take us from YOYO to WITT. You and your new administration need to change the national mindset about the role and competency of government. As it stands, you've convinced enough of us that, unlike your opponent, you deserve a chance to make this country work the way we believe it should.

But talk about your heavy lifts. Bush, Cheney and Co. campaigned on government as a source of massive waste and incompetence, and they've fulfilled their prophecy with great aplomb. McCain strategically tried to make some noises about repairing the damage, but with his platform of tax cuts in the trillions, endless war, and deep cuts to key programs, he couldn't make the case.

To the contrary, this election's results signal a unique historical moment, wherein the majority of voters recognized that we simply can't meet the changes we face without an amply funded and competent federal government. In this regard, you've got a window of opportunity that hasn't been open in years, though one your opponents in Congress will be happy to throw you out of. You can't afford to get off on the wrong foot, the way Bill Clinton did with NAFTA. This means working quickly to unify your party's majority behind the big ideas noted above.

So get some rest, and then let's get started resetting the balance between markets and government, YOYO and WITT, the forces of division, conflict, and violence, and those of hope, unity, and peace.

Months ago, back in June of 2008, in a week when the Senate rejected a plan to tax carbon emissions, when we appeared to be endlessly mired in Iraq, when the unemployment rate spiked more quickly than it had in 22 years, you reminded us someday, we'd be able to tell our children that, "This was the moment--this was the time--when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals."

We're ready. Let's do it.

Comments

[MaureenSharkey]

Oh, great. Now we have this kid with no know - how, or experience to contend with.

All my republicans are dissing Obama, calling him the black preacherman.

I'm so bored I can barely get interested. How things went is a catastrophy I'll remember for as long as I have remembered the day JFK got shot.

This man isn't sophisticated enough to solve our insurmountable problems. But he did start out today going after big oil and wanting to slap a big tax on them. I'll give him that. He's good with the obvious.

Would the republicans vote for him? Don't make me laugh.

[legalclubs]

Yeah, that was brilliant. I'm sure a big tax on the oil companies will bring down the cost of gas, after all, taxes on businesses never get passed on to the consumer.

[chelliza]

I know many Republicans that are voting for him.

[bbbear]

Great essay! I'm hopefull that Obama will make every effort to enact a single payer, medicare type of universal health care, bypassing Big Money Insurance Lobby and save at least 16cents on the dollar, thereby remaining cost neutral.... as well as the other important items you mentioned.... In fact, I'd be happy to read your memo every week or so to all elected democrats, including Obama, for as long as they're in office.
After all, it seems to me, your memo is what the Obama movement is about. First we must help Obama get elected, then help to keep his feet to the fire...

[Sciguy]

You mentioned that "it's been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible" - thank you.

That awful "Big Brother" has also kept the roads fairly passable, regulated commerce enough to prevent many bad substances from entering the country, at least partially covered health care for the elderly and the poorest citizens, funded programs to keep our poorest children from total starvation, educated most of our children, kept the worst of our criminals incarcerated, etc., etc. These are not perfect programs, but they're all paid for by our tax dollars and they all help those among us with the least opportunity to keep on keepin' on and aim for better lives. If that's the Republicans' idea of bad, then so be it - I want more of that "bad."

Unfortunately, the failings of the programs mentioned above are legion - and just about every failing has arisen from Dubya's cutting funding from those programs in order to give the money to his buddies or to bad wars of choice. If that's the Republicans' idea of "good" - I don't want that puppy.

[Midnightrain]

Great post.

[mredder4]

How is it that infrastructure investment doesn't get more attention? I mean, I admit to a lack of full understanding on the issue, but wouldn't re-tooling Americas roads, bridges, and railroads generate a lot of jobs, at least for the next decade? Yes, they would be primarily construction and labor jobs, but those would in turn generate jobs in accounting, day care, health care, food services, etc. Not to mention the influx of American money into the American economy, right?

I can understand that there's a cultural swamp of contract bids, labor negotiations, and other seedier sides of American economics to wafe through, but in the end, wouldn't we possibly have a much better system than we have now?

[AdamX]

Universal insurance. Why do you keep calling it universal health care? It isn't. It is universal health INSURANCE.

[chelliza]

What difference does the semantics make. People need the insurance to get the health care. The outcome is the same.

[LeonBNJ]

There may be a time in the first few days when President Obama will say to himself, 'why did I decide to become President?' The best answer will be the reversal of the worst parts of the Bush Administration and lead reasoned and progressive changes in our Government's policies without gimmicks or shallow pandering. That is why people will make him President.

[ForTheChildren]

I will always vote my conscience, and let the chips fall where they may. My vote is too insignificant to waste on the best of the bad. I will be immovable on principle. It is not possible to compromise on reality; one can imagine all sorts of fantastic worlds, but reality will prevail in the end. Good luck to all of us. We will sink or swim together after all, and that's the true meaning of unity.

[tropicartisan]

Listening to Barak Obama right now on television i realize that his health care plan can not work.

I believe that it is now impossible, if not illegal, to force private, for-profit companies (heath care) to lose money by putting undue restrictions on their ability to make a profit. That is what they are in business for. We may not like it but these are the "rights" that have been given to corporations by recent presidents, including Clinton.

You can't have it both ways. If it is best for social security, it is best for health insurance.

In my opinion the only way he saved this part of his speech today is to mention Elizabeth Edwards,
who must KNOW Obama's health care approach is more of the same and will NOT WORK.

This is a problem that should be cleared up as soon as possible, as much as I love BO. The hillbillies' instincts may not have been wrong.

[ceindependence]

Yes, big, big government thats the answer. Just look at all the other countries that have done this and how well they take care of their people. Don't study the history of the USSR or communist China or other socialist governemnts. Never mind that the Social Security administration has to have armed guards at every office in the country. It is only because they care so much about you and me and provide great government service that they have to have sercurity for their protection from, you and me. Of course S. Security is such a great government program that is provides a return of 2% on your money and is in financial trouble. The plus is SSecurity does give the government day to day money to spend on the general budget. Somebody needs to tell UPS et al that the postal service does it better and cheaper. The Veterns admistration is only providing poor service, of course only in the last eight years, because of Bush's mismangement . They have been know for their excellent care of our soldiers with the crowded hospitals only in the major cities. What about education, Fema and energy. Government has done a great job of providing alternative source of energy. Yeah, I say government is the answer and Obama will give us just that. I sleep well knowing government will be onto the problems and all will be well.

[BigTuna]

Now suppose we step back off that rhetorical ledge (crack a dictionary if you want to keep throwing around the term 'socialism') and examine the flip side - how's America been doing after a quarter century of conservative policies? Compared to how we were doing after a quarter century of New Deal-style programs?

I think history makes a pretty compelling case all by itself, so don't be too surprised in November.

[JohnShank]

Yeah, government programs like welfare really worked well didn't they? Thousands and thousands of people received checks and were perfectly able to work, they didn't want to. It helped create a permanent underclass of people, sucking at the tax payers teet. Now welfare probably did help some people who needed it, but it is not for the government to tell people how to spend their money! They get too much of it already. The new deal style programs are tax-and-spend garbage that didn't work before and they won't now.

[JohnShank]

Bravo ceindependence! Well said! I could not agree more. Big government has screwed up time and again, and it's our hard-earned tax dollars that get wasted. I mean, just look at the current war! Billions of dollars unaccounted for! No one knows what's going on! And we're supposed to trust these people, and their ilk, with our health and that of our families? NO THANKS!

Please just give me my tax money back and I will shop around for myself.

[chelliza]

The average household income in this country is $50,000 per year. Their going to take their $1000 tax break (that much if they're lucky) and buy health insurance with it? Where? That is why there are 35 million people that don't have it. It is not because they don't want it.

[personalpolitical]

I agree we have to go BIG. Kucinich was the only Dem that had a truly universal plan, and we should go with his, not Obama's or Hillary's, they aren't nearly big enough, they are just bandaid fixes to a gaping wound. We also have to go big against global warming, on a level that no one is even considering at this time. And yes, we have to rethink free trade altogether, not just tinker with the details, and yes, the tax code needs to be rewritten. And we need to put corporate regulation back in government, because the last three decades of deregulation have cost us dearly, and unfortunately the issue is never raised.

We'll have unprecedented opportunity to make big changes, we have to run with them, and show the American people that Democrats can be more than just better than the Republicans, we can be GREAT!

[darcy]

So how come people didn't vote for Kucinich? If people want those "big things," why do they always vote for the politicians who aren't going to provide them?

[Sciguy]

I didn't vote for Kucinich because by the time Kentucky had its primary, he was out of the race. I did, however, support him with a couple of campaign contributions - and I still have 2 Kucinich sweatshirts and 2 copies of his pocket Constitution - one signed by Kucinich. I'd have voted for him if I could have.

[TRYKER]

The MSM marginalized Kucinich, cut him out as fast as they could. Good god, they didn't want any part of his Constitutional Restoration and Dept. of Peace didn't favor the big money boys in the MIC.
I hope that Obama puts Kucinich to work for him, he'd be good to have on board. Secretary of Peace.

[nodamnbush]

We also need, as Kucinich proposed, to establish a Department of Peace and to abandon our infatuation with militarism. It's not just wars that keep us broke and unable to fund badly needed social programs but our insane expenditure on useless, immoral and unworkable military weapons....examples: 2.5 billion dollar nuclear submarines, cluster bombs landmines and tactical nukes, starwars and the militarization of space. None of these have anything to do with fighting terrorism which can be more effectively reduced by learning to live in peace and cooperation with our neighbors rather than bullying, demonizing, sanctioning and bombing. It's time to reign in the empire - which now has 1000 or so military bases throughout the world - and drastically reduce our bloated military budget which approaches 1 trillion per year and exceeds that of all other nations combined, as does our national debt. Our obsession with being the policeman of the world has made us the most feared and despised nation in many parts of the world and is turning us into anduneducated , economically and spiritually impoverished nation unlikely to be able to compete in a global economy, unable to rebuild its decayed infrastructure clean up its toxic streams and polluted air, let alone to lead the world. It is indeed, time to think big , to renounce our warlike ways and devote our resources to more useful tasks.

[TRYKER]

Agreed, we DO have to rethink the trade agreements, get the human rights issues into them as well as the ecological consideration.
If we don't re-do these trade agreements, we don't right the egregious wrong that is not only here, but international. People's rights and protections have to be the first consideration, get that righted and that will stabilize society to start the climb.
Nothing good can be expected from injustice in our trade policies.

[Uselessboy]

Uhm, if we don't tweak the trade agreements, it's up to the foreign owners of our roads and highways whether to upgrade that infrastructure.

[Overd0g]

Essentially, now is the time to deliver unprecedented power and domination of all life in America to the politicians. The final destruction last pathetic vestiges of the once great American ideal nears. At least the trains will run on time.

[klmebane]

that's what happens if mccain becomes president.

[elizaW]

Obama has a style not a message. Hope? That's a message? I prefer a message that has more substance and specifics attached to it. His economic policies come down to raising taxes, not just on the rich but on those white-collar workers who can't afford it. I think that means you too. It certainly means me. No matter what Obama says about the war in Iraq, ( if he gets elected) he's not going to be pulling troops out the next day. His record as a Senator is not impressive. He flip-flops on issues just as much as any other candidate. Check out his mixed messages on free trade. And worst of all for Obama, Hillary did him a favor. While he was running against her and he benefitted from all the hatred liberals have towards the Clintons, he came off better, fresher. Their rivalry was intense and he became more interesting because of it. With Hillary gone, Obama not only loses his biggest enemy, he also loses his energy, his spark. He needed her to look better than he is. In the end, Hillary will have the last laugh.

[Marlyn]

"Obama has a style not a message." ???

Obama's style is a message of TRUTH, and this nation is hungry for it.

[TruthSlayer]

A message of Truth? What Truth are you talking about because I do not hear anything new.

[MsDoc]

Try reading his web page. Amazing what one can learn when they look for information before voicing opinions.

[JohnShank]

And I am positive MsDoc that Obama's webpage is 100% objective. They wouldn't be biased in any way...right? Riiiiiiight!

[bbbear]

HAHAHA! Great tongue in cheek! Pretend you don't know Obama, make up a silly image, then pretend to slam ----- ummmm, LOL, I got lost.. Which only proves one shouldn't try to explain a good joke.

[TruthSlayer]

All praise mighty Obama who has not provided any details on what he would do if elected. All he says is he is the candidate for change. I think over the last 30 years of following politics I do not know of any politician who did not try to pass themselves off as the candidate for change.
The DemocRATic party mindless sheep followers have already decided to ignore all the questionable personal association judgments already made by the mighty Obama!!
At this point as long as BUSH and his administration are out the door I will be happy to vote for either Obama or McCain.

[GeorgeWRumscroft]

That's great! As long as George W Bush is no longer personally involved you are perfectly happy to have his policies (massive government budget deficits, massive trade deficits, inaction on alternative energy policies, environmental degradation, increases in poverty, declines in average wages, anemic growth in employment, collapsing value for the dollar, inaction on global warming, government sponsored torture, shredding of civil liberties, ignoring 47 million without health insurance, rising inflation, out of control gasoline prices, etc. etc.) continued for another four years.

Would you like to make a prediction about gas prices if we bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?

Welcome to paradise.

[bbbear]

You nailed it!

[Timma]

George - Absolutely right and nice synopsis of the past almost eight long years with some omissions - The world's largest prison population and near the worst record on live birth. Welcome to paradise!

[stagebandman]

Wow, you're right. Obama has not laid out a single detail of what he would do as president.....
except that he has. Every speech has details, his website has details, his debate answers have been incredibly detailed (when the questions weren't absurd), and there are hundreds of sites on the internet that include his details. If you base your entire political view on soundbites and Fox News, you won't even get a hint of the true path of the candidates. Read a paper (front section, not just op-ed), read a book (Obama's written a couple of good ones), search the internet. It's all there.

Time to take off the blinders, all you Republican lemmings. The truth is staring you in the face and begging you to open your eyes. Come on, you can do it. Think for yourself, I know it's been awhile, but it's still possible. We're all Americans. Time to move forward.

[klmebane]

mccain and obama are exact opposites. you have to decide what direction you want the country to go in. one that coddles the small percentage of the wealthy (mccain) or one that takes into account the well-being and best interests of everyone (obama). his details for policies are on his website for anyone to see if they are willing to take a look and actually read what his thoughts are. as for personal association, everyone knows people who say dumb things or have prejudices or are involved in unseemly things. what someone else does is not what you do. if you have a relative who is addicted to meth, it doesn't make you a meth addict by extension. judge obama on what he himself believes, not what people he knows believe. there will always be people who believe crazy things, or are hateful. but obama is not them, he is himself.

also, bush and his admin may be out the door, but mccain and bush see the world the exact same way, which means bush's policies will be mccain's policies. he's already said so. if you really hate bush and what he's done that much, you'd be insane to vote mccain.

[HBeachbum]

... and then you woke up from your la-la land dream to see the inaugeration of President McCain. The Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

[klmebane]

you want to see this country collapse on itself, don't you?

[bobdob]

If the Republicans had their way, every American family would have to hire their own fire prevention service. For myself, I prefer being able to dial up the fire department when my house is burning down.

Enough with this free market garbage. It IS social Darwinism, and it's destructive to everything America stands for. We take care of each other. That's what America is about. Looking out for Number One is what the Republicans are all about, and we've seen over the past eight years where that leads us.

[Overd0g]

Wrong. America stands for social Darwinism. What you advocate is destructive to everything America stands for.

[klmebane]

social darwinism is letting the weak die. i don't think that's what the author of the quote on the statue of liberty had in mind..... you know: give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.... so they can die here. oh wait, it doesn't say that last part.

[elizaW]

You're exaggerating the Republican position to make a point. There are many Republicans who have given huge sums of money to charities and continue to give back to this country. As for your definition of what America stands for - when has social Darwinism not been a part of it? What do you think capitalism is? Of course people deserve social services, health care etc but Obama is offering these up as if he's Santa Claus. And who will pay? Upper middle class professionals. You, me and probably at least 75 percent of the people who post here. Sorry but Obama is not the right guy for the job. He's all talk, all glitz, no real solutions.

[MsDoc]

So how do you prefer the Republican standard bearer? You LIKE being in Iraq? You think illegal wiretapping is a fun sport? You THINK women should lose their right to CHOICE?

Be real. The Republicans have made these issues a public part of their campaign and that is enough for me.

[stormkrow]

SO waht you're saying is that McFlightsuit is the better candidate? Because in the end you have to chose between the 2. Write in votes, voting third party and not voting do America a disservice.
Bushonomics, Reanganomics...Republicans and economics just don't mix. They offer tax cuts to the wealthiest 5% of our country and say "No not another GVT Program" and then take that same program outsource it to a friend or lobbyist at 10X the cost of what it would have taken the GVT to get done to begin with. And throw it in your face as progress.
Perfect example is BlackWater Security.

Sorry there are no "republicans" in the "republican" party anymore...less you count Ron Paul. And the RNC HATES Ron Paul and especially his supporters trying to come in and bring the party back to what it should be. I saw it first hand here in Texas. My wife campaigned her heart out for Paul only to be slighted and told to Shut Up and the Precinct Convention. Thank the lord we're removing these people at a record rate.It just cant happen fast enough if you ask me.

[Marlyn]

The GOP spin machine uses the term "Darwin" to indicate the concept of "survival of the fittest" in a social sense, but at the same time, rejects the concept in the physical sense, evolution.

[Sciguy]

GREAT point!