Obama's First 100 Days: What's a Presidency For?
A severe economic crisis coupled with the election of a new progressive president is an opportunity for a dramatic break with the old order. But that process doesn't just happen spontaneously. It takes exceptional presidential resolve and leadership. And there are three huge obstacles to President Obama seizing the moment to produce fundamental change, two of them systemic and one self-inflicted.
The first systemic obstacle is the lingering political power of the old order. Practical failure doesn't diminish political influence. On the contrary, it leads to a defensive redoubling of political resolve. We see this every day in the relentless lobbying by the financial industry against new regulations. We see it in the ongoing power of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries to block comprehensive health reform, and in the efforts of corporate America generally to resist sweeping changes in corporate governance and executive compensation. The economy has crashed, ordinary people are suffering, rightwing ideology has been disgraced--and the old order endures.
A second systemic obstacle, for now anyway, is the absence of a popular movement to put wind at a progressive president's back. Among the logical candidates, the labor movement is weakened by the same economic crisis, divided internally, and it sorely needs Obama's good will for everything from the Employee Free Choice Act to the auto rescue. The web of grassroots activists who came together to elect Obama is now a website of the Democratic National Committee. MoveOn.org is organizing around issues such as universal health care, but pushes on the president only gingerly. More than anything else, the stance of most progressives is still mainly gratitude.
We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the release of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's torture policy, but then backtracked and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama's political self wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly muted.
Thus the most important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack Obama's conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the campaign that he would govern as a consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of achieving consensus. One is to split the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is to use presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days, Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.
The enemies of reform are both partisan and corporate. They include the Republican opposition in Congress and the financial elite on Wall Street. Obama's early gestures on behalf of bipartisanship were rebuffed with defiant opposition. To cultivate some Republican support for the stimulus package, he agreed that more than one-third of it would be tax cuts rather than public investment. He was rewarded with not a single Republican House vote.
In their serial efforts to rescue the banking system, Obama's senior economic team has worked hand in glove with Wall Street. Weakening the financial industry's political power has not been part of the game plan. Obama has jawboned financial executives on such second-tier reform issues as credit card abuses. He is waging a good fight to put the government-subsidized private student loan industry out of business. But rare moments of indignant language have been saved for purely symbolic affronts such as the millions paid out in AIG bonuses, but not for the more systemic and large scale episodes of larceny such as the use of AIG bailout funds as a pass-through to investment banks. AIG funneled millions in government funds as "retention bonuses" to its own executives--but tens of billions to houses such as Goldman Sachs that held contracts with AIG.
Obama's advisers clucked about the shame of the AIG bonuses, but had no harsh words for Goldman. The White House seems to view popular backlash against financial abuses as a dangerous force to be bottled up, rather than one to be mobilized to offset the concentrated power of elites.
On health reform, the White House is playing a curious game. On the one hand, the administration has repeatedly suggested that it wants both a bipartisan bill and one that is developed constructively with the health insurance industry. On the other hand, this past week the administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership took the bold tactical step of putting health reform on a fast track by tentatively making it part of the budget resolution, the one form of legislation not susceptible to a Senate filibuster. But if this is to be bipartisan, why the dramatic end run around a filibuster? Conversely, if the White House needs only a simple majority of 50 votes rather than 60 for health reform, then it can legislate without having to kowtow to either Republicans or to their industry allies.
So what is afoot here? A rare break with the politics of accommodation? Or a more baroque form of consensus-building? We'll have to see, but there are signs that the use of the budget resolution for health reform is simply being used as early leverage rather than a nuclear option to sidetrack the filibuster.
In policy terms, it is inconceivable that a health reform law that enjoyed both Republican support and industry buy-in would be worth having. The first element to be tossed overboard would be the one instrument of real reform--a benchmark public plan that would give citizens a choice of public or private insurance as well as a tutorial in the superiority of the public plan. But the industry and its Republican allies were not born yesterday. They are well aware that the whole point of the public plan is the gradual dwindling of the private part of the industry. They will no more support this key element than they would support single payer.
The default position, "reform" without a public option would just add more government-subsidized subscribers to a crazily inefficient system with inflationary tendencies. The relentless cost-inflation, in turn, keeps being capped by limits on needed care and by increased burdens on primary care doctors to see more patients and reduce services. The Administration's widely advertised bromide of better use of computerized medical records hardly puts a dent in the private system's deeper inefficiencies.
If Obama and the Democratic leadership truly mean to scrap the filibuster on health reform in order to legislate a sweeping reform bill, we should break out the champagne. But Republican outrage has been oddly tempered--suggesting that assurances have been given that the administration still intends to proceed by consensus.
Obama's flirtation with a commission to investigate his predecessor's torture policy gave us a brief glimpse of what more robust leadership on his part might look like. In releasing the memos, he opposed prosecutions but seemed to be open to some kind of formal reckoning process. He caught Republican right piteously off guard, and forced them to defend the indefensible. A commission would make clear once and for all that the professionals opposed the torture policy, that it backfired as an interrogation technique, that it set back national security efforts by making allies more reluctant to collaborate. It would put reform of the CIA's black activities on much more durable footing. During the brief period when Obama opened the door to all this, there was no popular backlash, only the usual squawks from the far right, and praise for the president's principled leadership.
I remember thinking, At last! Here was the Obama whose intuitions, ideals and audacity we so admired early on. And if Obama can stare down the right on a subject as risky and dear to his constitutional heart as his revulsion against torture, maybe he can even stare down Wall Street and the health insurance industry.
But then, political prudence intervened, and the door was shut. Too bad.
When Lyndon Johnson advised his aides, just days after President Kennedy was assassinated, that he intended to use his presidency to enact landmark civil rights laws, he was warned that it was far too early to risk the nation's support on something so controversial. "Hell," Johnson replied, "What's the presidency for?"
Barack Obama, after nearly a hundred days, enjoys a huge reservoir of popular good will. He has managed to charm even his detractors, while his supporters are still cutting him a lot of slack. In a national crisis, that initial support is a huge asset but it will not last forever. Public approval of a president is not like a stock of savings. It needs to be invested in great deeds, and earned. Obama has yet to decide what his presidency is for.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. He is author of "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency."
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
Terrific article.
It troubles me that the president has inserted the same people into his economic team that failed to see the potential problems with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and have enriched themselves through the passing of Gramm/Leach/Bliley.
My problem with the president's performance so far is that on the surface it looks like he's taking the right actions, but as you dig a little deeper, the cracks appear. It's still business as usual in Washington and without meaningful change that will halt the shrinking of the middle class, curb poverty and steady job losses to China and India and remove corporate welfare - the changes become superficial in nature.
Torture can't be swept under the rug, and nobody can absolve the past administration from any criminal acts they may have committed. And can someone please explain what's the point of bringing the Iraq occupation to an end if president Obama intends to insert those troops into Afghanistan instead?
The president's healthcare plan does not remove the middleman (HMOS) out of the system, nor does it negotiate with big pharma to pay capped prices for Medicaid prescription drugs that are mostly unnecessary and should be replaced by healthy lifestyle changes.
It's great to have a President who isn't a national embarrassment, but over the next 4 years it's going to prove irrelevant if the corporate and military interests who leech off taxpayer funded welfare aren't extricated from the political system permanently.
My thoughts re Obama. 1)too 'establishment', 2)cares for the banks and Wall Street over Main Street, 3)too easily backed down on health care and torture and telecom immunity 4)ignores what America needs as a proactive business plan, but seems instead to have a 'going out of business plan' dictated by the banks, WS and corporate power. Summary: "This Obama is not the same one who campaigned and spoke to the people." Grade: D from me. A+ from the banks and WS.
Brilliant analysis. However I would argue that the Republicans are not the only ones who want to block a true national healthcare reform bil. There are plenty of Democrats who want to make money off of healthcare "reform". One other little point...Kuttner implies Obama is progressive. When did that happen? Little I've seen suggests he is progressive. In fact in most areas he has moved regressively from spying powers to weakening Miranda, to the W on T and more, as Anthony Romero of the ACLU has said, Obama "is more of the same".
cogent analysis, particularly of the fumbling of the financial crisis. it has the greatest potential to destroy the obama administration because: maddeningly few people seem to read balance sheets or remember what worked best in the savings and loan crisis; continuing to pay taxpayer funds to financial industry insiders and bondholders ahead of strapped mortgage payers stokes populist rage (and doesn't work); and another whole cycle of mortgage resets (alt-a primarily) is set to begin later this year and continue well into 2011.
"The White House seems to view popular backlash against financial abuses as a dangerous force to be bottled up, rather than one to be mobilized to offset the concentrated power of elites."
YES! The bankers understand that the people are angry and they want Obama to calm us down and keep us quiet and subdued. Hence, the comment this evening on how "calming" he was to the progressives with whom he met.
But that is the voice of the people and it will not stay silent for long.
If Obama goes against the banking elites, we WILL have his back.
If not, he will see ours.
obama is nothing but an illusion built up by the public relations industry --
the dude has proven to be just another Business Party spokesman --
he excels at appeasing the general population, particularly those who might rise up, while forwarding the Business Party's agenda. --
check out =>
http://adage.com/moy2008/article?article_id=131810
"just do it", "Rocky Mountain Fresh", "Change you can believe in" --
Obama wins Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year ::
How they voted
Marketer % of votes
Obama 36.1%
Apple 27.3%
Zappos 14.1%
Nike 9.4%
Coors 8.7%
McCain 4.5%
Source: Meridia ARS
I wish I could believe you are right. The problem is that in our bought-and-paid-for political party system we have today, a political career depends upon pleasing people with more money than either of us will see in our lifetimes. He could be a Mr. Smith who went to Washington, but he hasn't shown any signs of it yet.
Hm... I can't help agreeing w/ Naomi Klein's observations on Obama. Why is it so hard for us to see that grassroots solutions are the ONLY way to get anything done? When are we going to realize that "change" doesn't come from the "top" (AKA the political elite)? I find it shocking that so many are deciding to rest on their laurels right now instead of opting to do the right thing: organizing campaigns to push through the very things the PEOPLE and NOT the elite need. I am so sick of people expecting him to do something rather than take action and do it ourselves. We need to forget the whole "Great Man Theory" that has been sprinkled throughout our country's discourse too. All too often we forget that it was THE PEOPLE who pushed change through not some "Great Man" and this is DEFINITELY one of those times.
Exactly, Obama HIMSELF said changes comes TO Washington.
People are LAZY in this country.
A democratic republic requires PARTICIPATION.
People need to put PRESSURE on and NOW -- and PUT IT ON CONGRESS.
Exactly. As FDR said, "now make me do it."
you are spot on! but the idea of another political figure just appeasing his cronies gets my blood to boil. we elect these people to work for us, the people. i have a job and life to manage and i don't always have time to do all there jobs for them. that's why they get the JOB! now i ask them to do it. and yes maybe you are right we have to demand that they do! Im just sic of having to do it for them and pay them a salary on top of it!
I had high "hopes" of Obama really getting his hands dirty and doing the right thing. solving our basic problems in this screwed up country. I wanted a strong more radical president that was not a shill for the corporate crooks he swims around with.
My hope is waning. The bailout was the first indicator he is out flanked by crooks.
But as one commenter stated maybe he is playing a good game of chess.
but the fact that as soon as popular outcry went up about doing nothing about the torture situation he released the documents. Appeasing the populace. So is he playing chess or playing the "game" of politics?
will there actually be any reforms or just the appearance of them? will the poor become the beasts of burden for the elite and political corruption that is reaching new highs of deception?
When will we all be sick of this duplicity.
It is always very easy for critics to tell you that President Obama is not acting in a bipartisan manner
but nobody equerries how he can continue to work with a group who wants him to fail whose stock in trade is to say "NO" to every policy move. Think of when the Minority leader is trying to dictate for him what to do. The Republican party should change or face extinction from the political landscape
IF the MSM had dissected the last administration the way they are dissecting Obama's MAYBE we would not be in the shape we are now...........worth thinking about and asking WHY didn't they?
Milrepa said:
"When the day comes that Ted Turner and Bill Gates have to stand in line with the rest of us, that is the day I will promote universal health care."
Do you seriously think that Bill Gates and Ted Turner get the same level of medical care as you now? Ha! Good one!! The rich and well-connected will always have access to "the best".
I think that Kuttner is mistaken about what Obama was doing when he came out against a commission to study torture policy during the Bush admin. I think that Obama is setting the groundwork for something more effective. I think, as they say, Obama is playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.
I think you are correct. I also think when he redention (sp) on the table, he gave repubs until september to cooperate, so dems get it together, we're passing this thing!
The backers of the "old order" have existed for many years in quest of profit and of aggrandizement ... for the "elite few." Naturally, the politicians take it for granted that they, too, are part of that "few." (After all, they're rich, aren't they?) If there is any strategy that will direct even more paper-profit into the hands of this elect group, they're all for it ... and "damn the consequences."
In so doing, however, they demonstrate again and again that they are not real businessmen.
Consider that Henry Ford recognized that the workers at his plants had to be paid better-than-average wages ... so that they could afford to buy Ford cars. Legendary business names ... Hershey, Firestone, etc ... recognized universally that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Per contra, these men and women who loudly proclaim that their businesses are "too big to fail" seem unable to comprehend that their businesses -- large though they might be -- have already failed utterly.
Money will both buy and blind many people, and the people most-easily blinded are those who often become politicians. They seek "power for power's own sake" while repeatedly demonstrating that they have no idea whatsoever how to use power, or accumulate lasting wealth.
interesting-
i would like to see an experiment, similar to the "stanford prison experiment", but
instead of a prison setup - a heirarchical gov't setup ??
If anyone is to allege that both Dem and Repub parties aren't total sellouts, they just aren't watching. But what ever happened to the generation whose principles were all about dropping out and "going back to the land". They dropped back in, and currently have accumulated more wealth than anyone. The fact that they also managed to turn the USA into a pristine State Park (with no visible means of support) and offshored the pollution creating manufacturing doesn't ameliorate the damage to the environment, in fact it's worse. The USA can't control offshore pollution. Fish anyone? International Identity theft? Global pandemics? Catastrophic forest fires caused by two party bickering? This is progress? The poor people are poorer than ever, and the rich get richer. Same old, only worse. When Universal health care becomes a fact, do you think George Soros (et. al.) will be waiting in line at the Clinic with the rest of us poor schmucks? Just how "Universal" will it be? When the day comes that Ted Turner and Bill Gates have to stand in line with the rest of us, that is the day I will promote universal health care. Otherwise, it will just turn into a bunch of low quality free clinics, with the uber-wealthy class going elsewhere (quietly and secretly, of course).
right on --
obama is the business industry's lead spokesman --
an unbelievable front man for the Business Party that really controls Amorican politics !!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
