Obama's Pattern of Accommodation

On issue after issue, Barack Obama has shown a strong reluctance to challenge established thinking and to confront powerful interests. Just the opposite. He instinctively tips his hat to every establishment he encounters -- be it Wall Street, the military, the intelligence community, or the health care industry. He is little more aggressive in pressing Congress. Obama is demonstrably someone whose loud bark is not followed but much bite. Retreat from positions boldly declared has become the hallmark of his administration. At times, the retreat follows brief skirmishes. At other times, it is preemptive -- prompted by skirmishes in the president's own mind.

This is the singular Obama style evident on major domestic issues. The process begins with a firm statement of the problem, a clarion call for action, and a pledge to force change. Then, there is the period of eerie calm -- no plan is unveiled, no campaign strategy executed. There ensues an opaque, slow-motion free-for-all involving a fractured Congress, advocates, lobbies and the media with the White House staff operating in the shadows behind the scenes. Among the protagonists are the very parties that are the cause of the problem.

The very idea of a compelling national interest gets lost in the melee. Obama makes brief public appearances punctuated by further proclamations of the imperative to act, still without any specifics or sustained effort. Whatever comes out of this muddle is declared historic and promising. Thus the ramshackle approach taken toward the financial crisis.

Comments

[PPatt]

I may not be as down on him as most here but one must wonder whether the taxpayers can afford his payback of the campaign debt to Goldman Sachs. All his policies thus far have worked out really well for GS which, by the way, has offshored its profits to avoid paying tax.

At this point it is taking ones eye off the ball to e consumed with irritation at Obama. The real problem is that anyone who might have been better was cast as loony and had no reasonable chance of victory. So we got the best that we could have. Now, work on changing that with a Congress that will push Obama in the right direction and possibly a calm, unflappablem, worthy, progressive opponent in the 2012 Dem primary...or a viable independent candidate.

[thromulese]

Accommodation?

More like a slow motion cave-in disguised as bipartisanship.

Not only is he not doing what he promised during his campaign on a whole host of issues, he has actually gone in the exact opposite direction of his stated (pre election) promises.

To me he has been very disappointing. It takes more than words, and he just is not delivering as promised.

[Luvial]

left=right
Dem=Rep
Obama=Bush
progressives=change
No more Obama

[Scriobhaim]

Speaking of "accomodation".....
Obama's affectation, by which he says "hohn-DOO-rras" serves to demonstrate a typically left-wing sense of inferiority. Letists like Obama, who have absolutely no core sense of a home culture, feel they're committing imperialism if they even utter a word like "Chile" with an American accent. The really funny thing is just how "pot-shot" it all is. Will Obama start saying "Rosiya" instead of Russia? "La Fraaahns" instead of "France"? Will he call Paris "Pa-REE"? No, because he doesn't have a guilt complex about those places.
When the president of Chile talks about America, does he stop in mid-sentence to make sure he pronounces the name of our country with a good Iowan accent? Are we offended that he pronounces the names of our states, cities, country, even our people, with his own accent? Don't be ridiculous. So why does Obama need to suddenly break into a half-baked Spanish accent in the middle of a sentence? Well... because he's obsessing over minutiae, typical of a person who's never had a real job before.
I heard a Canadian television reporter refer to Quebec as "kwuh-BEK", and that was a CANADIAN - who puts to shame the clueless, clumsy attempts by many Americans to show how smart they are by saying "kuh-BEK" which, in fact, isn't right by ANY standard.
That Canadian reporter could teach something to Barack Obama.

[robbep]

you used a whole lot of words to say nothing

[progpro1]

Michael - I totally agree with your comments about Obama. I did my homework on Obama early last year when it looked like he had a good chance of securing the nomination. I was troubled by what I read - comments from his classmates and friends at Yale, people who knew him from his time in Honolulu and his very own books. I posted warnings on this site many times - to much unfounded derision from the Obamabots who hang out here - that his biggest weakness was a deep neurotic need to receive approval from his political opponents. Obama's record is very clear - he hates a fight or conflict of any kind. He lacks political courage. He only knows - reflexively it seems - the path of compromise. He will compromise when it is not even remotely called for.

He is highly intelligent, and from all accounts, a genuinely warm and nice human being. But - he lacks the guts to do the right thing, especially when a bold move is most needed, as it surely is right now with all of the many challenges facing our nation. He is a Corporatist who speaks the language of a Progressive -as Clinton did - but governs like a neo-liberal free market conservative. How sad for all of his millions of liberal supporters who thought he was the real deal.

[robbep]

I agree with you that he appears to be far from what the left thought he wld be. In fact I stated that well before he became president. Obama seems to be drawn to people who reject him and this causes him to people please. His need to be liked makes it hard for him to do what needs to be done if it means he has to leave the opposition out. This is bad news for the people who actually support him and great news to those who oppose him. If after all is said and done Obama does not get us real health care reform and the economy continue to go south, his presidency may be best remembered for breaking the color barrier.

[Luvial]

How sad for all the suckers who ponied up$$$ on the Internet. that won't happen again, thank goodness!

[EducatedObserver]

Mr Brenner,

Judging from your photograph, you are not one of the young neophyte writers who overwhelmingly populate this publication, but a man of some experience. I am therefore a little surprised at your reaction to Mr Obama's behaviour in office so far.

Anyone with intelligence could see during the primaries that Mr Obama was out of his depth. Yes, he was brilliant at marketing a product - himself - but was either disturbingly evasive or troublingly messianic when faced with tough questions ("Close Guantanamo" - "Talk to our enemies" - the list is endless).

And now we have Mr Obama in office, governing haltingly. In my view we should be grateful for small mercies for, given his lack of experience, it could have been much, much worse.

[pgwodehouse]

I take issue with your comment that President Obama was out of his depth during the primaries. He appeared to be quite considered in his opinions, and liked to provide nuanced arguments, as opposed to knee-jerk headline-inducing nonsense.

Perhaps the hurried, breathless manner of media coverage of the elections and the shallowness of much of what passes for political discourse are to blame for the way candidates are presented to their public. As for the issues or questions you have mentioned, might we ask for clarification on what it is about closing Guantanamo or talking to our enemies that strikes you as evasive or messianic?

I am growing increasingly skeptical of how this President has asserted himself. However, despite my professed skepticism, your views strike me as being completely untethered from reality.

[EducatedObserver]

pgwodehouse,

Thank you for your comments I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond:

From the outset, it was apparent that Mr Obama's strategy was not about addressing the issues in a forthright, unvarnished, pragmatic and realistic manner, but rather in developing a marketing plan that took advantage of the emotional vulnerabilities of an electorate fatigued by eight years of George Bush and eager to make amends for past discrimination.

The ludicrous slogan - Change we can believe in - was in fact symbolic of his campaign. It did not matter much how the goals were to be accomplished, only that the masses "believed" in the fierce urgency of "now", as Mr Obama's rhetoric soared even higher.

As for talking to enemies ("without conditions" you will remember) - not only was this position astonishingly naive and potentially dangerous, but it was manifestly, even deliberately evasive of political reality. For as we now see, Mr Obama is not quite as doveish in office, as he seemed to be promising in the campaign.

[robbep]

If he was out of his depth who was within their depth? Are you saying Sara and John were a better fit? If so you might want to change your label to smoked out observer.

[HamletsMill]

My worst fear is that the entire system is now completely broken and is beyond redemption. We may have to face the horrible truth that the bankers and the military industrial complex own our government and the processes of our government lock, stock, and barrel and nothing can be done. Everything will be either a non-starter, subverted, or watered down to failure.

In my lifetime from the mindless debacle of Vietnam to the breathtaking 2008 financial collapse of Wall Street, it has all been the repeated national suicide and destruction of our society by mind bending stupidity and irrational greed. I support President Obama but I believe the problems are systemic.

The too-big-to-fail corporatist religion has won. Their mentality controls everything. I think Obama's Ivy League education has failed him. "He could not see the rot in what he was taught." He is far too trusting of the people around him with the same "education" and they all may be just whistling in the dark.

I honestly hope I am wrong and their is a majestic second wave plan behind all of this. But right now it appears he is playing checkers and getting beaten very, very badly when he should be playing chess. If the corporatists own us, then there is going to have to be a new grass roots political party in the United States for us to survive as a society for our children and grand children.

[mountclemens]

Great comment!

I, too, "hope I am wrong."

But yes, the corporatists own us. Ralph Nader and others have been fighting this battle for us for a long time, and the majority of Americans have disrespected those valiant efforts.

You're right: "a new grass roots political party" is the only way out. And now is a good time for one -- with one of the two major parties in the duopoly (The Two-Party Tyranny) especially low in popularity.

If we lose the healthcare struggle this summer , then it's time. We Made History. Now Let's Make Progress!

[SwampeastMike]

Your first paragraph is the exact rationale behind the original "Superman" comic.

What fools to thing that such could come from Chicago, Illinois of all places!

[Giordano Bruno]

As usual Hamlet's Mill you are right on target. The concept that the corporate crowd is calling the shot is on target. Free market fervor has not suffered the infamy it deserves at this point. And if Mr. Obama doesn't rise to the occasion, taking the safe route, we are all in a pickle. Courageous leadership means fundamental change, which is hard to institute while maintaining the status quo.

Our economy is a service economy and this does not bring about the multiplier effect nearly as well as one with an industrial base. As we hemorrhage jobs to increase corporate profits, we will continue to experience a deepening recession. And until we get back to providing a solid manufacturing base, we are going to finally see the truth in what Jimmy Carter warned us about just before we started listening to the Gipper, bless his simple minded heart.

Best,
Giordy

[dharmawire]

Sad but true. Mr Brenner, thank you for a sober analysis. You have thrown light on the proverbial elephant in the living room. I feel you have brilliantly summed up my disappointment in the new administration.

I have read several of the comments from readers and in most of them, I sense their letdown as well. I don't think we know _why_ the president has operated this way so far. At least he still seems capable of hewing to a more leftist/progressive ideology, but I won't be holding my breath until he becomes more principled and less compromising.

I suspect many of his supporters across the nation cannot help but feel seriously disappointed by the president's modus operandi on an increasing number issues.

[Dameocrat]

I don' t think Obama has any principles on anything other than looking like a leader. His vagueness always disturbed me, but now I think it represented a fundamental lack of principle.

[1088]

I guess the President is doing something right! Congress is gear up to pass all of Obama's agenda!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124682940240297211.html

[owlsocks]

Sadly, I agree.

And no one else seems to be saying it.

He's amazingly cowardly.

Such earth-shattering promise and hope, that all turned out to be just a little bit more passion behind the same old campaign lies.

What a waste.

[SwampeastMike]

Curious that you say, "...whatever comes out of this muddle is declared historic..."

Historic what? A historic muddied mess that results from failing to take firm stands even if some stands may be on opposite sides of the mud hole?

[Giordano Bruno]

As I listened to the young people whose idealism was rekindled by the Pied Piper from Illinois I wondered if I somehow hadn't grown too old and cynical to keep the faith. The audacity of hope and the call for change were the hallmarks of the movement which captured so much good will and momentum that a historic opportunity to create new directions for our country did exist 5 months ago. As we watched good men like Tom Daschle be dispatched and cronies like Geitner be retained despite far more questionable ethics, we began to get a glimpse of where this was headed.

What is particularly sad for me, is that the idealism will quickly turn to disillusion. And reactionary forces will besmirch liberal and progressive philosophy. And I expect a powerful reactionary movement from the right, as they belittle the Democrats for their "liberalism" after all that was tried was a new rhetorical approach with the same corporate agenda prevailing.

I agree Michael, il nostro principe non ha coglioni. I never thought I would ever say this, but I think if we would have been better off with Hillary.

Giordy

[OhTheHumanities]

Yeah with Hillary we would have known it was business as usual ahead of time.

[Todd Sullivan]

for someone "old and cynical", one would think that an individual from your generation would show a tad bit more patience. what i think is that it seems like no matter the age of a person in this country, there is this idea that everything should happen instantly (or close to instantly).

obama has been in office for all of six months. i understand that in this microwave generation (an attitude that seems to span the generations now), it's expected that obama will have solved at least 4 of the 5 world's major problems. heck, it has been a whole six months, after all.

i do agree with your statement about people quickly becoming disillusioned, but i wonder if you're including yourself in that pack (but then, you never "believed" anyway, i suppose). i think americans should incorporate pastimes that develop mental patience, like maybe every evening working on a sand mandala or something.

[Giordano Bruno]

Todd,
I appreciate your sentiments and feedback. I was not a true believer to be honest. Patience is possibly a virtue, but I truly believe we are on the abyss of disaster, and I believe desperate times call for drastic measures. I don't believe he should be expected to solve 4 or 5 major problems, but he should be seeking the counsel of those who are less comfortable with the Wall Street crowd. Geitner and Bernacke were safe choices but their views don't represent fundamental change. He should be listening to Professor Krugman and Reich whose recommendations are based on a thorough understanding of the American Economy. It is the economy, and he hasn't got it right, yet. I think Hamlet's Mills comments above are (as usual) right on target. It is time to dispatch the free market zealots from the inner sanctum. They've had their day, and they are just plain wrong. Giordy

[johnsonc20]

"Good men like Tom Daschle...?" Daschle is one of Obama's mentors - a supposedly progressive Democrat who sells out to moneyed interests in order to be "pragmatic." His supposed leadership on Iraq (caving in to Bush and then still getting pummeled for not being patriotic enough) lost the Senate to the Republicans in 2002, along with his own re-election to the Senate. His multi-million dollar personal sell-out to the health industry disqualified him to preside over health care reform. We are fortunate that he was minor-league greedy in not paying his taxes.

That should have stopped the Geithner mistake, as well. I guess that banksters have more clout in the Senate than the health care vampires.

[Sundei]

Preach...preach...Michael...

He's calls himself a pragmitist...FOOEY!!!

He has surrounded himself with banksters and Clintonites...and this was bound to be the result...

Rahm Emmaunuel is running the show and it shows!!!

[plan9]

Last year, told everyone I knew to support Obama- but he's just a big wuss and an a errand boy for Wall Street. This country has been taken taken over by vultures, lets buy Baja California and start over.

[owlsocks]

Ditto.

[MrBadger]

I love President Obama, switched parties to vote for him. And he is very politically savvy so this may yet turn out to be a carefully thought out strategy. But... I have to tell you, my one concern with him was that he doesn't have that much experience and is thus vulnerable to getting "rolled" by the established and more than a little cynical insiders. The hope is that he is a very intelligent man and learns fast. He's just in a tough position to be learning the ropes at the same time.

[jmpurser]

I don't think he's either inexperienced or "getting rolled". I think things are working out EXACTLY as he wants. I think he's much more of a right winger than "centrist" at heart and so far from his point of view things are going just fine.

[Solph]

I hate to tell you for a candidate who ran such a successful campaign to beat the Clinton machine, the Republican, to earn the independents' support, to have the media adoring him, he isn't the naive kind vulnerable to getting "rolled" by the established. He is strong willed and know exactly what he wanted to do. Did you see him fire Tim Geithner despite the outpouring opposition from the PEOPLE and the media in the last few months? No, because that's what he want, to have Tim on his side. So please renew the confidence you had in the 2008 election - he is experienced and how to fight the established WHEN HE SEES FIT.

[spinmas]

Something is wrong with him, this article is on point, I have not seen one man make so many mistakes out of the box..its like he is rolling from one side to the other...he is content with juts being president, not being bold..he is right about one thing..he will only have one term. no one will go for words a second time around..Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, give us a break...

[OhTheHumanities]

just around the corner, there's a rainbow in the sky, so let's have another cup of coffee, and let's have another piece of pie

[johnsonc20]

I am looking forward to that day when he sees fit to do the right thing. What a glorious day that will be.