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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The smug self-assuredness of starry-eyed Obama fanatics would be laughable if it were not so scary. To assume right now that Obama will win the election, that the electorate will be as enamored of him as are his zealous followers, is a recipe for defeat in November. Simply because YOU are star-trsuck by his charisma doesn't mean that everyone else is. I'll be voting for Obama-and-whomever as part of a straight Dem ballot, but I am VERY uneasy about all of this mindless euphoria and smart-aleck smugness being exhibited by Obama-ites. Remember: "Pride goeth before the fall!"
Wilbur
No one I know is starry-eyed over Obama. We are just sick and tired of the stinking politicians we have in office right now. We are hungry for something new. Someone who cares about all the people not just some of the people.
Yes, imagine having an intelligent President who tells us the TRUTH.
Neither Barack nor Bernstein's article is about Pride, its about humility..
Do you remember President Michael Dukakis ('88)? Neither do I.
Wilbur
I am admittedly starstruck
Like many in the movement, I strongly suspect Obama will acknowledge cleaning the filth created by the Greedy Old Party will be no easy task. That said, I'm very grateful to Obama and his family that, in spite of the many death threats, he daily sets fear aside.
None can know the future, but we in the movement like to hope we can succeed through Obama. If not, then at least he and we will have made the effort.
Everyone is talking about HRC and the Virginia 3 as Veep possibilities. What about Colin Powell? He effectively neutralizes McCain. He is everything McCain wishes he could be as a soldier. Plus this would be Powell's opportunity for redemption. He was put out there by Bush as the only credible voice to sell this war. To a fault, Powell was a good soldier. Today he must be feeling a lot like Scott McClellan, only times 100. Powell doesn't deliver a particular state or demographic which is a minus but he answers the war and security concerns. Powell is almost unassailable. He has respect from a wide range of camps on the left and right. He had the good sense to realize what he had been put out there to do and once he realized it was a fraud he left. He has expressed an admiration for Barack and has worked for Clinton for a short time. Someone tell me why NOT Colin Powell.
The speech to the UN which effectively said that Iraq had WMD's. I am sure he was mislead by the Bush administration, but I am not sure that matters now. We went to war, in part, because many trusted Colin Powell and when HE said there were WMD's many believed it when they wouldn't have if it had just come from Bush.
I am a great admirer of General Powell and would have voted for him or any position at any time. But if you remember correctly, he declined the possibility of nomination for personal reasons and I don't think these reasons have changed.
I think he would be a splendid Secretary of State...as he has already shown.
because he was the one person in the administration who could have blown the whistle in front of the whole world. Instead he used his good name to get people to believe this administration and HE LIED US INTO AN INVASION ! and yes I am yelling. He knew at the very least that the information was spurious if not an outright lie. I can never forgive him for that. It was his profile in courage moment and he blew it and now has blood on his hands. I could go on, but i think you get the point.
Absolutely correct Stomper. Colin Powell has lost all credibility for his role in this disaster. I will go further. We have been every bit as betrayed by the failure of Congress to do anythihng about any of this. Election of a politician such as Obama will mean nothing unless we purge Congress of the 'faithful' of both parties who have brought such fiasco to our Republic without a fight. My hope - populist young politicians of both parties will realize they can raise funds and get elected by appealing to 'We the Peons' for their war chests. Then and only then can we have real debate on the issues of the day and solutions based on what our Representatives think best, rather than their Special Interest masters.
I want to give Colin Powell the benefit of the doubt. Who better to lead us out of Iraq than someone who had a hand in it. You can't question his military prowess. As I said, he was the good soldier. He followed orders and trusted his president. He was used. He knows it now but I believe he didn't at the time. When he left the administration, everyone knew why. It's a shame that his legacy will be this fraudulent war but I believe in redemption. Strategically, McCain is a one trick pony who doesn't do his one trick particularly well. Powell trumps McCain's one trick. Powell could beat McCain by himself. He has always been a military guy in politics not the other way around. No matter what, he is a great talent and an outside the box Veep consideration.
"He was used. He knows it now but I believe he didn't at the time." ???
I disagree. Immediately after Powell delivered those lies to the UN, he was confronted by reporters who said to him, "But there in nothing new in what you have presented. This information is 10 years old." Powell responded "So what?".
POWELL KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING!
Perhaps Colin Powel was a little bit too much the "good soldier"..
Even if and I'm betting that Obama will be the president:
WE are putting a tremendous burden on his shoulders. No one person can get this country righted again. Too many wrongs have been done to our country with Bush/Cheney, the Republican congress for 14 years who rubber stamped and didn't investigate or uphold the law under these criminals. Too many times the Democrats are blamed when they had a razor thin win in 2006 along with Dean's 50 state policy that was dissed.
It is time to realize that if we want government to work again, WE have to demand it, work for it, vote out ever Republican we can (Liberman are you listening), donate as much money as we can afford
and most of all, elect Obama and defeat MCCAIN.
There are many good government programs as well as some awful ones. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be done away with. It's a useless entity that gobbles up billions and does nothing. Fema needs to be a cabinet position. No Child Left Behind needs to go and the Education Dept needs to be strengthened. Military waste, contractors, and faith based initiatives for starters..
Good piece, Jason
Yes, the Presidency comes with a terrible burden, and yes, your second paragraph is exactly right.
One of the great debates in our society has been whether we have a representative congress or a "delegated" congress and there is a huge difference between the two. If we wish to have our positions truly represented by our Congress, we must speak loudly and often so that our "representatives" actually hear what is being said ( and desired ) by the populace..
This means, simply, we have to pay attention and yell a lot. The media won't necessarily do it for us.
".No one person can get this country righted again. "
Exactly right, but that one person can achieve great things with enough backing. As you suggest, we need to vote Democratic top to bottom and side to side in order to give Obama the backing he willl need.
I would go even further than talking about Congress and include votes for state legislatures and even local elections. This is where the rubber meets the road in politics and it's where the party gets its strength. For instance, here in Chester County, Pennsylvania, we won a 2006 race by 28 votes, giving us a 1-seat majority in the state House and making a huge difference in moving ahead needed legislation. That, in turn, helps our party infrastructure all the way up to Washington.
While it is supremely important to elect Obama, his hands will be tied unless we convince enough new voters and crossover voters to vote Democratic all the way down the ballot. If we do, he enters office not like Clinton, hamstrung by a thin majority, but like Roosevelt, with a mandate and the power for sweeping change.
Good comment!!! I especially like "Lieberman are you listening"
"The Department of Homeland Security needs to be done away with."
Absolutely. Isn't it a joke that the GOP is always advocating "small government" and then they turn around and create this USELESS behemoth.
Yesterday on the Sunday shows, I heard right wing pundits, even no so right wing pundits, insisting that since Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Senate ( a lie, remember they said this about Kerry) he must go back to the center. My thought was WHY? People who will vote for him don't want any more centrist governing. We have had 8 years of those in office governing from the extreme right and where has that gotten us? All of the policies of the right did not work. In fact, they failed miserably. I want new ideas, big ideas and those ideas won't come from governing from the right nor center. It can only give us more of the same. Can anyone imagine how we would have gotten out of the depression if FDR had tried to move to the center? No, his big ideas were liberal ideas and those are the things that we need now. I only hope that the meme, Obama is a liberal, won't work this time. So what if he's a liberal. John McCain is an extreme conservative. Is there anyone in their right mind who will vote for an extreme right wing kook like McSame, after witinessing the debacle of the last eight years? Give me a liberal!
I'm so sick of hearing, he needs to get more to the center; he needs to move more left' he needs to be more right.....
I'm right there with you, Peddler. If there is change we can believe in, it would be to refrain from perpetuating the political labels and stereotypes and, instead, focus on a cohesive unity of policy ideas that are rationally related to the success of our nation in both the short- and long-term. Designations such as left and right over-simplify what are truly complex issues and inhibit the development of the well-reasoned ideas necessary to move forward. We need three-dimensional thinking in order to flourish, so we must move beyond the convenient, linear naming conventions that have dominated the discourse in our country for too long.
Right, so he can win like Kerry did. Kissing the butts of the centrists is precisely the reason that the Dems lost in 2000 and 2004. Gore needed to respond to Nader by moving LEFT, not right, but instead he stuck with trying to be Republican Lite, and lost. Kerry was crapping in his pants over the attacks on his war record, so he had to be more pro-war than Bush, so he lost too. My big problem with Clinton, quite aside from all of those personality traits that we don't talk about any more now that we're all friends, was the crystal-clear fact that she was going to run exactly that same losing campaign, with all those clips of her knocking back shots in redneck bars and her "hard-working white families" base demographic.
My fervent hope is that the Obama people are smart enough to notice that moving to the center JUST DOESN'T WORK. Isn't the definition of insanity something like "doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results"? I hope they're sane. I think maybe they might be, which is one of the reasons I'm an Obama guy.
I think the Republican definition of "the most liberal Senator" is "the Senator running for or looking at running for Prez at the moment." Obama is the most liberal. Kerry is the most liberal. Edwards was the most liberal. Ted Kennedy was the most liberal. Maybe they ought come up with another "insult!"
By raising the question of the role of the government, Sen. Obama has created a space for debate and discussion on what it means to live in a collective, i.e., in a society. The fundamental question is to examine why we live (and have always lived) in some form of a community? And if it is an essential requirement for human existence, as it seems to have been from the very beginning of our emergence as a species, does it not follow that ‘health’ of that community must be our priority? And how can that be possible if we are not able to guarantee the well being of every member of the collective? As some one said once, if not to be responsible for our fellow human beings, what else is the reason for living in a society? And if it is not to ensure that collective well being, why else we need a government for? It is only by a continuously adjusted balance between individual freedom and the interest of collective survival can we flourish. Ensuring this must be the primary purpose of a government. And this notion needs to be at the core of teaching citizenship to our children and for strengthening democracy.
Well said!
Mr. Obama faces a critical juncture in American politics. Will he continue our long-standing global policy of imposing hardships on people in the interest of forcing them to accept American values? Or will he instead lead an attempt to make a fair reassessment of exactly what those American values are? We have just demonstrated our deeply flawed election system - a media circus, more in common with a game show than the serious exploration of goals and policies as envisioned by our founders. This is the same governmental system which since the time of Woodrow Wilson and FDR has become bifurcated into a public democratic operation bogged down by partisan politics and gridlock, and a secret, viciously undemocratic, authoritarian system run by the executive and given to covert action, violence, torture, support of oppressive dictatorships, and exportation of 50% of the armaments supplied to warring societies. And finally, Mr. Obama has to face the failure of our century long policy of global expansionism hidden under bumper sticker tags like “open door policy”, “good neighbor policy” and the like, which in practice have meant unswerving, ruthless economic aggressiveness backed by unscrupulous military power. If Mr. Obama really wants change, he has his work cut out for him.
Seems to me that one of the first things that need to be done ( and, boy, are there a lot of things that need to be done first !!) is to get rid of the Executive priviledges that are unConstitutional. Wiretapping without a warrant is only one of the many "leeways" the current admnistration has given itself, but it is the cornerstone upon which all the other excesses rest.
I'm of the opinion that most things that people do that won't bear up under public scrutiny probably shouldn't be done. This is particularly true of democratic governments. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" has a nice ring to it. Perhaps it's a place to which we should return.
We're In This Together -- nice summary of government, if you think about it! I certainly hope that this summer and autumn, Obama and the Democrats can tap into the realization that we as Americans can help everyone (including ourselves) by helping each other.
wow, this worries me, too... a little too optimistic. I still keep thinking about this short article on the electoral map:
http://www
Hopefully Barack chooses Hillary. It's the only way to unite our party for sure.
Barack has a large pool of talent to draw from. No need to put all the VP eggs in Hillary's basket. I trust Barack's decision. He'll choose the right person.
Yes, Gianna, unlike the GOP, the Democrats have many people to choose from for their VP. Remember, we had great candidates for our nominee this year. The best the GOP could do was McCain?????? Too funny. Let Sen. Obama decide for himself who would be our best choice. We don't need to go back to the same old swamp to pick our party leaders. We are better than the Republics. (We should start calling them the Republics and the Republic party)
HRC does not have to be the VP to do her job of uniting the party. Obama will keep her on the short list, but no one should count on her being the VP selection. It sounds like Obama would want to keep her in the Senate to supply the hard push on the programs that both have agreed on through out the nominating process (Health care, Women's rights). Remember the GOP is going to fight new programs with every trick that they can pull.
How about HRC as Attorney General? She's a fighter, so let her be top cop.
Now THAT would really scare the GOP!
I think it's important when considering what we want from a new president to ask ourselves, What is it that we don't like about George Bush? First so we don't forget why we were angry in the first place. Will Obama return the power that Bush has stolen from our country? Will he restore the balance of power? Will he stop spending a billion dollars a day and if not will he at least move the money from the war column into the school and bridge column. I'm not optimistic I'm determined to help move our country away from the Iraq war. No more lies. No more torture. End it. Bush truly is "The Emperor with No Clothes" The saddest part is that we must suffer through Bush as well as McCain for another six months. What ever we think we have right now, the true is, all we really have right now is a light at the end of a tunnel, a glimmer of hope.
I can't help but notice how shortsighted some seem to be about Hillary Clinton sharing the ticket with Obama.
Are you aware that once this election is over, the Clinton's, yes both Clinton's, must be dealt with on a day-to-day basis?
Every time someone mentions this stupid idea, it brings to mind two people getting married. The worst combination imaginable but they will look beautiful together on their wedding day.
And what about the day after? The weeks after? The months after? The years after?
If one truly honor and cherish their wedding vows, wouldn't it make sense to take those vows with someone as a commitment?
Rather than as an opportunity to get from here to there?
JMHO.
"Hopefully Barack chooses Hillary. It's the only way to unite our party for sure"
I'm not a Democrat, I'm an American! I could hold my nose and vote for Obama (he has little substance), but NO WAY can I vote for HRC.!!!
great memo... can I sign on ?
but now, today in June, if I were a spiritual person I would be praying. Praying that it all happens, and that we will have a country for us to take back, we have a few more months of the "Bushwhack
"Dear President Obama" indeed. This is just the kind of Count-Your
Give me a break!
the only thing stopping us, is us, as in everything humans have only themselves to blame, this fall will show us what sort of people we really are
At this juncture, why shouldn't we be talking like this in an Op-Ed piece? Now then, if we were to start calling him that in the real world, especially this long before the election, that would be a problem, and you'll notice that although I say that he WILL be President Obama as a hope statement, I still call him SENATOR Obama for most applications!
do you really believe in "jinx"? thats very grammar school. if we have faith and believe anything is possible. if it's Obama's destiny to be POTUS then nothing can "jinx" it.
Thank goodness the folk who worked on his campaign didnt take this attitude, they never would have gotten off the ground against the Hillary shoe-in.
Yes, lets talk about president Obama and what our country will look like with him in office vs. McSame.
I have a dream that one day President Obama will turn back all the harm that has befallen this country in the past 8 years.
It is time to move past the fiction that the government is the problem. We are the government. We can solve our problems. We will be stronger when we all share in building a just society, when the least of us are the concern of everyone. Obama offers us a way forward that will build on our strengths and allow us to have a good and prosperous country. We can once again be a beacon for the world.
"It is time to move past the fiction that the government is the problem."
Why do you think this is a fiction?
Who's reading your email?
Who's trying to decide for you your reproductive choices?
Who is waging war against Iraq?
Who found and nurtured bin Laden?
Of course government is the problem. Do we actually need government to encourage us to "share in building a just society, when the least of us are the concern of everyone."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
