Putting the 'Change' Back in "Change You Can Believe In": The Two Faces of Barack Obama

So now it appears to be official: Obama does plan to drop the public insurance option. The "change you can believe in" President is metamorphosing before our eyes into the champion of the status quo. As if to add insult to injury, we have this gem yesterday, from Politico.com:

On health care, Obama's willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party's liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

Why do the President and his advisers feel it necessary to prove a political point by "staring down his party"? Didn't the Democrats just win substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as winning the White House? Obama's minions at the DNC certainly have no compunction about ringing us up to ask for additional donations in spite of the distinct lack of enthusiasm the President's policies continue to engender.

We're peeved. But the administration pours salt into the wound by spitting on its base, despite the fact that a broad number of polls indicate that progressive opinion, particularly in the area of health care, is much more profoundly aligned with popular opinion than the damp squib of a proposal currently being championed by the president.

Someone from the DNC rang me up last week to ask me for another donation and I basically said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

I got the usual quotes from the script, "Change is going to happen, be patient, etc., etc.," and then the poor woman dared to ask what I found so troublesome about Obama's presidency thus far. I told her, "It's more a question of trying to find something which I don't think is objectionable...the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the paucity of imagination on health care (as well as treating the party's base of supporters as if they were all a bunch of uncompromising idiots for daring to demand a public option in health care, which in itself was a compromise on single payer!), the Wall Street bailout, financial reforms which look like they were written by Jamie Dimon, I could go on..."

In any case, the caller certainly got more than she bargained for, but in a spirit of comity, I also told her I would be more than happy to open my checkbook again when I saw evidence of real change that was promised in 2008. Unlike Obama and the banks, however, I wasn't prepared to shovel more good money after bad down a proverbial sinkhole.

It is obvious by now: Obama doesn't get it. This might be the most profoundly disappointing Presidency most of us have experienced in recent memory -- because it started with such genuinely high expectations, with a country desperate to be led in a new direction. Yet every voice the president hears in Washington urges incrementalism and caution. It's the Warren Christopher presidency writ large.

The trouble is that we are in a time of crisis; we are at a point where deliberation and compromise foster more political dysfunction. We need federal government spending programs to provide jobs and incomes that will restore the creditworthiness of borrowers and the profitability of for-profit firms. We need a swift and detailed investigation of financial institution balance sheets and resolution of those found to be insolvent. We need to downsize "too big to fail" financial institutions, while putting in place new regulations and supervisory practices to attenuate the tendency to produce a fragile financial system as the economy recovers. We need to investigate financial fraud and to jail the crooks. We need a package of policies to relieve households of intolerable debt burdens. We need a health care system that doesn't force loving couples to divorce in order to cope with rising medical bills. And above all else, we need a reformed politics, where 'pay to play' does not remain the operating philosophy of government.

Obama is now at 45 percent in the polls. But for the fact that the GOP has gone completely off the deep end, he would be in grave political trouble right now, but that's no excuse for perpetuating the singularly awful policies of the past 30 years, as he continues to do.

Give the GOP at least a bit of credit. It still pays heed to its increasingly dwindling base, whilst Obama champions a non-existent bipartisanship.

True, he talks a good game (although even his eloquent speeches are starting to feel more like an insult to our collective intelligence, rather than a source of inspiration). As the experience of the early 1930s as well as that of the 1980s tells us, if left alone to deal with the current problems, market mechanisms will push management and owners of insolvent institutions to ramp up losses. The result can be massive deflation, massive bankruptcies, massive destructions of physical assets, and enormous unemployment. Without the security blanket of a proper health care system, social unrest will grow to the point that the entire socio-economic system will be threatened.

It's early, but what sort of a legacy does President Obama want to bequeath to the nation? Fifty years ago President Truman signed into law the Employment Act that committed the U.S. government to the goal of employment opportunities for all Americans. The act represented a pledge to avoid another Great Depression. It acknowledged that government had a vital role to play in establishing national economic stability and prosperity, a principle long ago established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One gets the sense with Obama that had he been the President in 1932, rather than creating the RFC or HOLC, he would have simply funneled money to people like Jack Morgan, Charles Mitchell and Richard Hay Whitney. LBJ escalated the Vietnam War, but his Great Society established a formidable domestic legacy. With Obama, we have an escalating war in Afghanistan, but in contrast to Johnson, he offers a domestic agenda which screams, "No, we can't." When Paul Krugman acknowledges that even Richard Nixon offered a more comprehensive set of health care reforms than our incumbent President, this should sound the alarm bells ringing in the White House.

Many times during last year's campaign, then Senator Obama expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan's "transformational" presidency. One now wonders whether we were meant to take this expression of admiration literally.

Originally published at New Deal 2.0.
Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator.

Comments

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Obama is actually making good on his pledge before the election - that he would not spend much time or effort revisiting the past; unfortunately, that really means things will not change much at all - as the post appropriately captured in summarizing the administration's approach to domestic policy - "no, we can't".

[rebel7]

Obama, having taken millions from the health care industry in campaign contributions, was able to win the election. Do you think he has so soon forgotten the Hand that Feeds Him? He is a good talker, good at smoke and mirrors, (in fact, a veritable magician who succeeds by directing our attention away from the trick) and he sweet talked the Progressives, so they forgot their inherent intelligence and actually believed that there was no need to FOLLOW THE MONEY. We need to work for campaign finance reform that actually works, and a viable way for minority parties to get more power.

WAKE UP, AMERICA.

[Newbie71]

You had to know as soon as he got up in the first debate and strongly endorsed TARP being pushed through, pork and all, that he was bought and paid for.

[Partisan59]

You're probably gonna get flamed a lot with this post and I really REALLY wish I could disagree with you.

I still hope for a rabbit outta the hat moment here but if things go as badly as it's looking like they might this will be the defing moment of Obamas presidency and he will become irrelevant for the rest of his single term presidency.

[asichii]

The majority of Americans, including the author of this na.ive article, have misplaced anger. It is just a wrong time to be king for Obama. Period. The colossal mistakes, failures and arrogance of Obama's predecessors - the BushyCo - will takes years to unmake even beyond Obama's 8 yrs (yes he can).

The repugs can rant 24/7 but the bottomline is that they are increasingly becoming a fringe political party for the rural folk, uninformed, brainwashed, christian fanaticals, and a few parasitic 'elite' leading them such as Slow Limbo & Grand Back & that birther lady (Palin). A leadership crisis for repugs will enter 11th hour of 2012 & 2016... to Dems advantage! Obama will shift gears pretty soon in spite of his false start. He aint no dumb president!

[NordicSci]

"This might be the most profoundly disappointing Presidency most of us have experienced in recent memory -- because it started with such genuinely high expectations, with a country desperate to be led in a new direction.­"

I have argued from day one that this was Obama's biggest problem. Given the unreasonably high expectations, he could only disappoint and you confirmed this. However desperate the country is to be led in a new direction, the political realities of American Constitutional government are tilted against change -- two chambers in the Congress, 60 votes in the senate, 3 branches of government, checks and balances, corporate money and lobbying, the two party system, etc. It’s amazing anything ever gets done. So we can say we are greatly disappointed, but at the same time I'm also quite pleased. Imagine a continuation of right wing ideology in the presidency? Much of the work of governing is not in legislating but goes on "behind the scenes" in how the various departments and agencies operate. The past 30 years of Republical rule equated to taking a "Wrecking crew" to government operations (to borrow the title of Thomas Frank's book). That is why we have so many "unaccountable" contractors performing what used to be military functions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new crowd believes in government and will slowing turn the apparatus of government in a more progressive direction. Their value should not be underestimated.

[bryan-a]

this President made a hell of a lot of promises to get elected and fooled a hell of a lot of people doing so. He fooled a lot of libs and mods and p!ssed off repubs into voting for him by saying what they needed to hear when they needed to hear it. By saying whatever he needed to say to get elected he also alienated and scared a lot of people on the right (and not just the fringe)

So here he is lying in a very effed up bed he created - disillusioned dems, a fed up middle and a frightened right.

Nice job President Obama.

[kewe]

i just think its hilarious when people keep saying things like the president has a 60 seat majority. as though we should now all expect that those 60 votes to all vote according to what the president says.

this is not how government works, and i would rather hold to the principles than to suggest its better that all 60 vote the same way all the time just because the president says so. that was the paradigm of Bush and look where that got us.

its true that the majorities in the senate and house should vote according to the will of their constituents, but their constituents are not made up of one person.

it's true that Obama has got to get a spine and stand behind the majority that still believe public health care insurance is required, but it's backwards thinking to suggest he should control the votes of congress.

[Marshall Auerback]

I would have expected a touch more leadership on this issue than President Obama has hitherto demonstrated. He seems more solicitous of the opinions of Charles Grassley (who seems to have bought into this bogus "death panel" nonsense) than the views of his own party. I recall Nancy Pelosi suggesting that when Democrats got control of both houses and the White House, things would change. I hardly expected there to be a seamless continuity in policy between the Paulson and Geithner treasuries.
Why do the Democrats act as if they were afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome.

[Partisan59]

Yeah, it's a shame the Dems don't march in lockstep..­...like the Republicans.

[Deschris]

This is my observation made several weeks ago.The republicans are blood sucking vampire bats that never sleep.Befo­re President Obama asked Congress to come up with a bill based on his five broad principles­,including a public option, the republicans were going to sabotage and ambush any proposal for reforms.

How soon we forget, during the election he was faced on a daily basis with untruths and racism,yet the progressives and others who wanted change prevailed.­Remember what Palin,McCain and even Hillary tried to do to ensure he failed,then this should have been a warning for you all.Before Obama got elected,he made it quite clear health care reform was one of his top prioroties,so the republican­s,insuranc­e companies and drug companies have been planning to defeat reforms for over a year,which is a huge head start.I told you also that they are in perpetual campaign mode and we have to be just as vigilant maybe even more so.

Now if the first time Palin mentioned that crap about death panels,there was someone on our side ready to shove it right dow her throat...i­mmediately­,there would have been no traction.S­o let's dust ourselves off,pick ourselves up and show these M***S we had enough of their BS!

[dbailey]

So what do you want to do about it Marshall? He didn't win this election alone and he cant get what he wants on his own. It took us to get him in and it will take us to push it forward. It's a four year appointment! If we're all weak and tired 7 months in , we suck mud! Have you written to the senate and congress!! Have you attended a rally! I never was under the impression that Pres Obama was going to kick #%^$%# and take names! No, I elected him because he's intelligent, pragmatic, a voice reason etc. I'm the Progressive, let's kick some @$#%#%!!!!! He can't legislate, that;s Congress's job, He told them in the beginning that's what he wanted in the bill. . We've got to keep the pressure on them!!! We've got to get to these blue dogs that if they're not going to stand with us, they've got to go!!!!! Nancy Pelosi isn't giving up and neither am I! That's another reason why this fight is so critical. The blue dogs are in the pockets of the Ins companies. If we let them win, there's no reason for them to stand with our party on anything. It would be a victory for all lobbyists. We've got to show them, that it's the people who rule their destiny. Now lets get up and GET IT DONE!!! We've got 8 years of damage to undo!!!!

[kewe]

here here. how lame is it to complain that after 7 months they feel all their 'work' during the campaign was wasted? "i worked hard and look what's happened?" "I donated to his campaign, but can't support him anymore" I see those comments all the time.

democracy is not a part time job, it should be part of your life

[Onepebbleinthelandslide]

" It took us to get him in and it will take us to push it forward."

Exactly, dbailey! The first step in pushing something forward is to get behind it. This is the part that many (including "braintrusters") seem content to either forget or disregard.

[Marshall Auerback]

Actually all of the above: I attended a number of the health care forums, I've spoken to both of my senators, Udall and Bennett and my Congresswoman, Diane DeGette. But I refuse to write another cheque because in contrast to the President and his Treasury Secretary, I don't believe in rewarding bad behaviour. And these posts are another way of seeking to mobilise and direct pressure. If I gave up, trust me, I wouldn't be taking the time to write about it! Thanks for your comments.

[Hallucinocynic]

The public option is the LITMUS test. If the Obama administration abandons public option reform it will lose the support of Progressives. Period. It was the progressive bloc that championed BO in lieu of HRC because we felt that the Clinton/DLC connection was too strong. What we have in the WH now is emblematic of DLC pro-corporatist cabal that compromised populist reformation in the 90s.

Emanuel better recognize the growing discontent and begin to steer the President back onto course before it's too late.

[Keo]

I think that many, many people have jumped to a conclusion which may, or may NOT, be true. And that conclusion is that Obama has abandoned his progressive values and the campaign promises he made to the progressive cause, specifically with regard to healthcare.
None of us has heard the Prez say "no public option." We've only heard the deputies, and the pundits talk about it.
What i like to keep in mind is that Obama is very, very bright, as is Emmanuel. What do you all think would happen to the Prez' poll numbers next week if he makes a terrific, forceful speech reiterating his commitment to a public option and vowing to push it through congress, and into law, just as many of us expected? Back up to 60+% in the polls? You betcha.
I say "Give it time." All we've been hearing is rumors, scuttlebutt, talking heads speculating.
I've got no reason to think that Obama has left behind the principles, the ideas that helped to get
him elected. I've got no reason to think he isn't tough as nails, despite his congenial manner.
Do you? Really?

[Rudderman]

My main gripe with Obama has been his failure to fix one problem completely before tackling the next. As far as I can tell, the banking system is still a mess. The "too-big-to-fail" banks are already getting bigger. Real regulations and reform are no where to be found. Credit is still tight, while credit card rates remain unchecked. For all our tax-payer money, there's been zero benefit to the tax-payer. It is indeed, business as usual and the financial crowd is laughing all the way to the bank.

The band-aide approach to the banking debacle is now being applied to health care reform. Sorry Barack, but half-solutions are no solution. Until we see a health care bill with real reform, you won’t be getting any more bills from my wallet either.

[dynwit]

You know what? I'm not happy with Obama, either. But the sharks have smelled blood in the water and they're lunging in for the kill. When the progressives abandoned O, they voluntarily turned this country back over to the Republicans. And these are not your mother's Republicans, these are the foaming-at­-the-mouth b@tsh!t cr@zy ones who will utterly sink us. We simply cannot allow this to happen. We've got to get back on the Democrats' bandwagon right this very minute. This is the administration we voted for, and it's the one we've got to live with for the next four years. A little bit of progress is infinitely better than letting the ne0-c0ns back into power.

[proudprogressive]

You make a very good point. What's the alternative? As progressives, it's our job to continue to pressure the administration and to make them live up to the promises they made during the campaign. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be a huge mistake right now.

[kewe]

pressure, yes. but threatening abandoning is not effective pressure, only fodder for opponents. that's what is really killing the progressives and the president right now and cannot admit it.

[Marshall Auerback]

Did the progressives abandon Obama, or was it the other way around? I think you've got the causation the wrong way round.

[RodtheRotten]

This sort of "bipartisanship" is exactly why I initially supported John Edwards, prior to revelations about his narcisism. At least he got it. There is not a single major issue facing this nation today that isn't really about haves versus have nots. If you listened to Obama's campaign speeches, you had to notice an emphasis on "working with the other side". Many dismissed this as rhetoric to appeal to independents. Personally, I voted for Obama knowing full well that this guy could be a good president, if and only if we held his feet to the fire. It's time for us to do our jobs as citizens and remind the president that it was a vote for change, not pay for play.

[jsijason]

Thats a good point. People like the rhetoric..­. but as a People, we're more interested in other things, rather than holding politicians accountabl­e...

and by and large thats because we've got it pretty good compared to most of the world.

We should lose sight of progress and equality. But the real minority in this country is People Who Care and are Informed.

Political discussion in this country is largely: "Republicans Bad!" "Democrats Bad!"

[NCAV2]

I agree with the article. For someone who ran a brilliant campaign, this man is making so many boneheaded moves left and right. This is the golden opportunity for Obama to produce *good* change in this country and he seems to be squandering it!

[joanjourne]

igraham writes:

"...Real conservatives should be embarrassed and speak out about the misinforma­tion..."

Yes, but where shall they speak out If the MainstreamMedia is now owned by a handful of rightist extremists, as appears to be the case? Informed, intelligent, impassioned writers are pouring their hearts out on the HuffingtonPost and elsewhere every day, but is the White House reading all this?

Progressive and sane conservative efforts at "speaking out" seem more and more like faint whispers drowned in a hurricane of noise manufactured by the extreme right.