The Mystique of "Free-Market Guy" Obama

No matter what the facts are, some liberal activists and leaders persist in seeing President Obama as a principled progressive reformer who lives and breathes the campaign rhetoric about "change you can believe in."

When he compromises, it's not Obama's fault -- it's the opposition. Retreat is never a sell-out but a shrewd tactic, part of some secret long-range strategy for triumphant reform.

He's been in the White House eight months. It's time for activists take a harder look at Obama. And a more assertive posture toward him.

Because if Obama believes it's okay to pass health care "reform" that subsidizes insurance firms without a robust public option and he dispatches still more troops to Afghanistan, it could demobilize progressive activists while emboldening the Teabag & Beck crowd to bring the GOP back from the dead in low-turnout congressional elections next year. That would be a rerun of the 1994 right wing triumph brought on by President Clinton's weakness (e.g. health care reform) and corporatism (e.g. the business-friendly NAFTA).

Some activists still see Obama as a brilliant political superhero who -- although maddeningly slow to fight back against his opponents -- always manages to win in the end ... like Muhammad Ali defeating George Foreman.

But watching Obama last weekend on the news shows gave little reason for confidence. It's hard to win the public toward reform if you accept -- as Obama often does -- the right wing terms of debate. The right frames health care as a debate over a dangerously over-intrusive government taking away individual freedom. The left says it's about greedy insurance and drug companies -- with CEOs getting paid $10 million or $20 million per year -- putting profits above public good.

Last weekend, when he was repeatedly asked to comment on Jimmy Carter's view about anti-Obama animosity being racially motivated, Obama kept wielding the right wing frame about big "intrusive" government. On ABC, Obama talked about people being "more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."

On NBC, Obama said: "This debate that's taking place is not about race, it's about people being worried about how our government should operate." He asked: "What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?"

The president has a huge bully pulpit, which he's largely squandered. I've heard him discuss health care close to ten times in recent weeks without once hearing him rally the public against the corporate greed that leaves our country No. 1 in health care spending and 37th in health outcomes, on par with Serbia. Without a populist challenge to corporate profiteering, what's left is either a bloodless debate about "cost containment" or a right wing debate about "big government." Neither mobilizes the public toward progressive change.

Recent U.S. history shows that you can't serve corporate interests at the same time you're seeking reform -- of health care or Wall Street or any other sector. Not when big corporations are the problem ... and the major obstacles to change.

Placating big business en route to social reform is like downing a flask of whiskey en route to kicking alcoholism.

Yet there was the Obama White House this summer entering into secret deals with the pharmaceutical lobby protecting that industry's outsized profits.

If Obama is radical about anything, it's about not rocking corporate boats.

That's why he received more Wall Street funding than any candidate in history and why -- before he was a front-runner in early 2007 -- he was raising more money from the biggest Wall Street banks than even Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, presidential candidates from New York.

That's why -- as soon as Hillary left the race -- he went on CNBC and assured big business: "Look: I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

That's why he declared to the New York Times last March that his economic policies were absolutely not socialist, but rather "entirely consistent with free market principles."

That's why during his 2008 "I love the market" interview on CNBC, he shunned the "populist" label.

President Franklin Roosevelt showed in the 1930s that major reform is possible if a populist upsurge of ordinary people is mobilized to overcome the entrenched opposition of business interests -- derided by FDR as the "economic royalists."

The problem today is that Obama doesn't seem to have a populist bone in his body. A smart guy, he should know that it's absurd -- in an era when a shrinking number of ever-larger corporations dominate Congress and regulators as they deform markets in industries like banking and health care -- to keep believing we have a "free market." Yet he waxes on about being a "free-market guy."

I guess he's smart enough not to call himself "a corporate guy."

Liberal activists need to be smart enough to see Obama for the status quo politician he is -- and to act accordingly.

Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America.

Friends helping friends: Please forward this to your closest relatives & friends still enthralled by the Obama mystique. -- jc

 

 

Comments

[lawwizard]

Jeff as usual you have great insights, however, although there are very troubling signs, it is still too early to tell if Obama is going to be another Clinton betrayal or a Roosevelt populist. The good news we will know soon. The bad news it does seem like the former rather than the latter. At this point we all can hope for the change we elected...­but be prepared to mount a challenge to regressive policies as progressive democrats must always be prepared for.
Dan

[lawwizard]

Jeff as usual you have great insights, however, although there are very troubling signs, it is still too early to tell if Obama is going to be another Clinton betrayal or a Roosevelt populist. The good news we will know soon. The bad news it does seem like the former rather than the latter. At this point we all can only hope...

[mcmchugh99]

And I have to admit that I always wanted to laugh when he extols the virtues of free market capitalism. I mean, he is just too intelligent to take such things seriously, isn't me? He must be. That stuff if for Wall Street, or for hicks who own a general store in Alabama and think they are real "capitalists" too.

Of course, I became a democratic socialist in my early-20s, and nothing that has happened in all the years since has caused me to change my mind. Far from it.

It's just hard for me to take anyone seriously at this point when they say what a great system capitalism is, any more than when they say Santa Claus is real or that the earth is 6,000 years old. Are you kidding? How could anyone possibly believe it?

[jmpurser]

For anyone with an iota of left in them the red flags went up when Obama put his financial team together. For me the last straw was when he took single payer off the table and tried to replace it with the "public option". Suddenly in place of health care reform we had nothing but a massive corporate welfare plan.

And yes, the Obamaphiles are STILL saying it's too soon and our "chess master" was about to spring into action. Just wait 8 years and you'll see.

No thanks. The jury is in. The fat lady has sung. The time for thinking maybe Obama wasn't a right wing corporate tool is over.

[mcmchugh99]

As a democratic socialist, I know the conservatives are totally demented in calling Obama a radical or socialist in any way, and I think he's actually getting tired of hearing these attacks.

If he knows history, and I think he does, then he realizes that the Republicans have always attacked all reforming presidents in exactly the same way--or worse. FDR, Truman, LBJ, JFK, all got the same medicine from the Right.

It's just a reflex response from the Right any time the government tries to pass any domestic reforms, and happens in every generational reform cycle. Obama tends to appease and accommodate the Fox "News" crowd more than he has to, given that this is not a conservative era.

Of course, a good percentage of the white Republicans who dislike him intensely are also unhappy about his color. A good indication of that is the 60% or more of Republicans who think he was born in Africa or "aren't sure".

[anfractuous]

Most Presidents do consider posterity when they make their decisions, even W, however misguided. That is why I am still completely bewildered by Obama. Given his background, how could he possibly be the feckless stooge his actions have betrayed? When you try to make everyone like you, no-one does, and the powers you've so pointedly kissed up to will spit in your face when the time comes. I'd really have to assume some sort of psychosis at this point, which annoints him messiah of the banal.

With regards to his running again in 2012, I can only quote a disgruntled Perot supporter from 1992: "I wouldn't follow him out of a burning building."

[JDM73]

Thanks for a great article, Jeff. I can scarcely post a response to any Obama-related article without being scolded by his increasingly shrill cheerleaders. A few days ago, someone actually told me that the president has been "totally consistent" with regard to his position on health care, which brings to mind a line from Simon & Garfunkel's 'The Boxer': "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."
But we can no longer disregard the truth. I understand that it's painful for people to admit that Obama's not the guy they thought he was, but it's going to be much more painful--and dangerous--in the long run if we *don't* admit that we have a very serious problem.

[Tweet]

The day after the election, Move On put out a limited edition Shepard Fairey poster celebrating Obama's victory. I bought one, thinking the guy was going to make great history and some day the poster would be worth a whole lot. How was I supposed to know he was going to turn my poster into a worthless souvenir of a useless administration?

I want my money back (it cost plenty). But not from Move On. I want a check from Obama. I will gladly send the poster wherever he wants me to.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

You're perfectly right that the 'free-market' arguments often suffer from the fact that they are applied to where there is no free market. And that any policy that would indeed help to make a free market possible or a reality would often be all that's really needed - while there are foolish discussions about good and bad government that are totally beside the point.

And I must admit that I do not understand why Obama fuels this confusion. Which means: if he really is a free-market guy - which wouldn't be a bad thing - then he should make clear that he's not a corporate guy. The example of health care is extremely unlucky, because in this case he would actually have to explain that this is NOT where the free market is the be-all and end-all.

How that is best accomplished all in all is a different matter. I don't know. It's probably possible to tell only when you have some experience of how Washington works. And that's something I prefer not to know.

[Json]

I am becoming more and more baffled by Obama. The GOP absolutely hates him and will not support anything he wants. Even if he compromises and gives them some or all of what they want, he won't get their votes.
The liberals just want him to do the things he campaigned on (public option, repeal DADT...). He has majorities in congress and support from the people.
The seems to be no political upside to caving on any of the issues; he will annoy his base and embolden the opposition.
What's the game plan? Where is the strategery??

[Reynoldbot]

You speak like I think, good sir. Fanned.

I think Obama knows what he is doing, and I'm pretty sure the Baucus bill was either what he always wanted, or what he negotiated for so he could have something to sign. His overreaching attempts at bi-partisanship are certainly curious. He's a very smart guy and a brilliant politician, so he would have to be completely blind not to see that his attempts to cross the aisle are doomed to failure. I think it's likely that he knows full well the consequences, and reaches out knowing he'll get his hand bitten to generate political capital (it HAS overwhelmingly demonstrated that the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith, and polling suggests this strategy works).

His biggest mistake then is that he is alienating his base, and it seems that he's been slow to realize exactly what this could cost him. A healthcare bill with no public option could spell the beginning of the end for him. I know for sure that I will be hard-pressed to continue to support him.

[ALYankees12]

CHANGE!

[david43a]

And y'all pooh-poohed the LGBT's when he picked Rick Warren for the big swear in.....
hmmm, Well, I Told ya so!
Being able to say that brings me no joy and a lot of sorrow....

[MyNameIsJames]

I believe that the Progressive/Liberal Community will come around to see the President in a new light. The "trigger" will be healthcare and the public option. If he fails to deliver this-- He is in deep trouble.

Currently the Obama administration believes that it has considerable "goodwill" within the Progressive community.

The Administration also believes that it can "back down" the Progressive community and still retain its support -with - of course - a little grumbling.

If he fails in Health-care - Then we know one of two things

1) He didn't really want the public option and therefore refused to fight HARD for it
2) He is ineffectual- cannot get ANYTHING of substance through the Senate and shouldn't be seen as a leader within the Progressive community.

The LEFT would then need to rearrange their relationship with the Obama administration including:

a)TARGETING conservative & triangulating members of the President's inner circle
b)Standing DOWN on public support of the President's agenda- forcing the administration to ramp up support within the Progressive community on each and every issue!
c)Focuing on rallying and building infrastructure to more successfully confront the Obama administration on a wide variety of issues like wiretaps-torture etc.
d) Making the revolt very public within the Progressive community and the Democratic Party

If Obama isn't a reformer - Why didn't we just vote for HRC - at least she KNOWS how to play the "inside game"

[Rule Of Law]

Three posts?

Where are the Obama faithful? Is it that they see themselves in this brilliant line:

"When he compromises, it's not Obama's fault -- it's the opposition. Retreat is never a sell-out but a shrewd tactic, part of some secret long-range strategy for triumphant reform."

And realize they've been duped?

"He's playing chess while were playing checkers" sound familiar?

"He's only had 8 months!" Another justification to love. But look at all the missteps in those 8 months. Sure we get a bone now and then--Poland missile shield for one--but his main policy moves are a direct line to the Bush regime.

"He's smarter than you and me!" One of my favorite lies from the faithful. But guess what? May be the truest of the lot--he's fooled all of you...

[Estreet1964]

This is so sad. I keep waiting for Obama to come out of the corner and start throwing some punches. I was never under the impression that he was an extreme liberal kinda guy, but he's got so much talent and ability for leadership that he's just squandering to up hold the status quo.

He could really do some great things for this country if he'd kick Rahm and his ilk out of the West Wing and actually live up to some of the things he said in his campaign.

He could be an historically great president. He'd rather make nice with the money boys and try to get re-elected instead.