Obama's Grade at 100? What About Our Grade?

Grading a president after 100 days always strikes me as presumptuous. The only real grade is an incomplete. And as good teachers will tell you, letter grades - as opposed to written evaluations - are inherently arbitrary and misleading.

One thing is clear. If we're grading on a curve, Barack Obama ranks near the top, just below FDR. In changing course, getting bold things done, setting a tone, lifting our spirits and confidence, we haven't seen anything like this since Roosevelt. Even Reagan, the great communicator, had a much harder time in his early days, starting with the limousine gridlock of his inaugural. He had to get shot to move his agenda.

Rather than just grading the president, I suggest we might profitably assess our own 100 days. Obama has stormed the national and world stages in his first weeks. But how have we done - particularly the progressives who have such a large stake in the success of this president - in relation to Obama? He has demonstrated remarkable mastery of the powers of the presidency to lead the country. Have we mastered the power of the citizenry to empower the president?

There is sophisticated organizing being done in support of Obama's agenda. New organizations - most notably the 13 million person Obama for America - and old have joined together to mobilize citizens around the president's key initiatives. Major groups with large memberships - from unions to MoveOn, community and citizen action networks -- have coordinated target lists, messaging, and activities. Increasingly their attention is focused on herding Democrats, which will intensify as Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to switch jerseys makes Republicans even less relevant.

Similarly, on core issues -- health care reform, new energy, college affordability, immigration, empowering workers- large independent efforts are underway. The unions and other progressive groups are taking on the corporate lobby over the Employee Free Choice Act. Health Care for Americans Now leads a range of coalitions pushing health care reform. Environment and labor groups have been actively mobilizing around green jobs and new energy.

These independent efforts will help define the scope of the reforms, engage the public to support them, and strengthen the hand (or stiffen the spine) of Democrats in negotiations. Neither the public plan in health care nor cap and trade on carbon emissions will survive without popular mobilization.

For the most part, progressives have been happy to support and reluctant to question the popular president. So the fateful commitment of 60,000 troops to Afghanistan was made without much opposition, nothing like that Obama joined when it came to invading Iraq. Human rights advocates did push the administration to open up the shameful record on torture and are now demanding investigation and prosecution. Progressives helped convince the White House to shelve a proposed task force to "fix" Social Security which would have been bad policy and bad politics. Progressive economists - Krugman, Stiglitz - and journalists - Greider and Kuttner and more - have challenged the administration's banking bailout, and pushed hard for a stronger recovery plan. The call for a full investigation of the mess - a Pecora Commission - has gained some momentum in both the Congress and the media.

But what Obama has been missing has been an independent, obstreporous citizens' movement demanding fundamental reform. Roosevelt had the labor movement, the Townsend Clubs, Huey Long, socialists and communists challenging him from the left. Johnson had the civil rights movement forcing his hand.

This kind of opposition isn't easy. No president likes to face disruption particularly from what he would consider his base. There are similar stories told about both Roosevelt and Johnson meeting with leaders of the movements and saying something to the effect of "I agree with you, now go out there and make me do it." But in reality, Roosevelt wanted to squelch Long and tame labor. And Johnson repeatedly ordered Hubert Humphrey to bring the civil rights demonstrations to an end, saying that they weren't helping the cause. King got a lot of pressure - to say nothing of wiretaps and FBI investigations - to get back in step.

Yet it is precisely these movements - independent, disruptive, passionate, demanding bolder reform, taking on entrenched powerful interests - that enabled Roosevelt and Johnson to achieve far more than they ever thought possible. The New Deal we remember - Social Security, the Wagner Act, Fair Labor Standards, the SEC and Glass Stegall, progressive taxation - came not in the first 100 days, but as Roosevelt, under pressure from his left, geared up for re-election. The Voting Rights Act surely would not have been passed with Selma, and many other sacrifices transforming public opinion to enable Johnson to act.

The absence of these movements on the left opens dangerous space for ersatz populist movements on the right. We saw that with the tea-bag parties that Fox huckstered. We've seen conservatives conflate the trillions going to bolster the banks with vital spending in the recovery plan to get the economy going. They are weaving a corrosive message that ties big spending in Washington with Wall Street wastrels. The country would be far better served with an angry populist movement that indicts Wall Street but demands greater support for working families and Main Street. But anyone building that movement will have to understand that they might earn respect, but they won't be loved in the White House.

For citizens, as with Obama, 100 days is too early to judge. In these first weeks, we've done a good job of organizing to support key elements of the president's agenda. But we've seen little evidence of a progressive movement that can challenge the limits of that agenda, and rouse an aggrieved citizenry to open up the space for the president to act far more boldly.

Grades for the first 100 days? The president, I'd say, is doing a lot better than we, his supporters, are.

Comments

[ntmessage]

I agree it really is too early to tell. We still need to focus and prioritize. We have spent too much time on the Banks, which is resolving itself, without the ideologically driven notion of mass Nationalization. We sill need better (not more) SEC regulation and some new version of GS for sure. At the same time, let us make sure they are in a position to pay us back, not be on corporate welfare indefinitely and make money for us so we can then get to the big issues:

1. Health Care.
2. Energy Policy.
3. Education.

More regulation for the banks, Health Care and Energy solves problems no other president has ever been able to make a dent in. Success here and FDR does not stand a chance.

Weapons control, unions that do not behave like GOPs with a different ideology and many other issues, is taking focus away from the big, big ideas will end poorly. Frankly only about 25% disapprove and many of those are Pubs.

[glockman]

"One thing is clear. If we're grading on a curve, Barack Obama ranks near the top, just below FDR."

Would that be the FDR who directed J. Edgar Hoover to use illegal wiretapping to spy on those he thought were his enemies over the objections of his attorney general Robert Jackson? The one who used Hoover's FBI to secretly pursue his political critics, and had them dig up dirt or make up stories to discredit them?

Just wondering.

[metanoia2k]

This is absolutely the right question to ask: what have WE done lately to advance the Change for which we voted. It was not enough for us to elect Obama but we also elected ourselves in the process. Our side of the bargain is that we shall remain engaged, we shall actively work for change in our communities and ourselves. To paraphrase Gandhi: be the change that you want to see in America. There is a vehicle available for us to continue the work of the campaign and "raise our grade" for enacting Change. That is called Organizing for America...

[elmerfude]

I give the general populace a C-. The conservative half of the country can only bitch and bellyache while saying no to everything except a tax cut. The other half isn't much better if they don't get their way in the details. I think the nation if pretty much fat, dumb and unhappy with of course a few exceptions including Huff post readers. .

[DaveC19]

Wall Street bailouts = F

[DaveC19]

Geithner, Summers (wall street cronies), torture, Afganistan, Prosecuting the Bushies he gets a fig fat F for those things.

[IndependentPAVoter]

Republicans get an F, Democrats Get a C-, Obama gets an A-, We the people I give a B-.

Repubs get their grade for their partisan behavior. They have been horrible at every turn!!!

Democrats haven't done much but they have stayed out of Obama's way when they have nothing good to add.

Obama loses points for some of his appointments to cabinet positions, but gains alot for keeping almost all his campaign promises. Dont believe??

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Tracking-Obama-Campaign-Promises/ss/events/pl/042709first100promis/im:/ydownload_getty/20090422/photos_net_web_yn/1240459153/

We the people get points for organising and elected this President. But we need to make some changes in the way we live.

I kept it quick for you. Just my opinion!!

[joebaggadonuts]

Damned fine question Robert. Thank you for asking.

I would say that we have not done quite as well as the President has. We are still reeling from tribalistic excess and have only turned one Republican in the Senate, few have gotten on the treadmill or become vegans, many are willing to still purchase SUVs at reduced prices, expecting to see the stock market and our housing prices rocketing back upwards again soon.

But I think we are learning that we are in this together. S l o w l y. Which is better than not learning at all. We have come out against torture despite the rabid radio bigmouths on the right who insist it's the only way to keep us safe, when even Napoleon recognized that it was a foolish thing to do in the 1700's. We haven't burned down the houses of the rich, nor their incredibly expensive yachts and cars and private jets. There is much to be thankful for.

Still the question is important. We, in this age of transparency and ethics, must be responsible for our country in a way we were not leading up to this election. We ARE participating more. For that I will give us a B. A far better grade than a gentleman's C, but we can do better.

[it is me]

We are failing miserably. Asa country, we are so lazy and just only willing to sit and complain. Obama wants to spend a lot of money, but it is amazing to me that people are fighting against it when it will provide healthcare, rebuild our infrastructure, etc. I just feel that we always look at the short term downside as opposed to the long term upside and needs. I think back to the bridge in Minnesota that collapsed and the steam pipe in NYC that broke and realize that these things will happen more often because we are not willing to spend the money and really fix them correctly. YES, they are very expensive, but putting it off makes it worse.
As a gay man, I look at the gay-marriage issue. There is no movement from the gay community. We also have to realize the issues that others have and think, sure, maybe right now settling for nationally recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage is a lot more than what exists now, even though it is not the same thing....win the collective battles, then win the war. We have failed miserably, but being a former teacher, this is exactly what my cynical self expected. Things are always someone else's problem; people would rather sit and complain than get involved and make a difference. The people need to change before anything else will.

[IndependentPAVoter]

Gr8 Post!!!

[hominidx]

I disagree with you on the overall grade (I give us a B-), but I agree with you on the gay issue for both community and the Administration. The Prop 8 thing started some stuff, but it's not enough, not to mention more pressure needed for repealing DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

But what I'd ask of all cynics: "Okay, you've listed what you think is wrong...what are you going to do about it?"

[Gmoney1]

The dems and independents deserve a B for their support of the President - but the Repubs get a flat out F minus - I think Arlen Specter would second that grade for the repubs too -

[hu.man]

I have always found it perplexing that the vehement opposition to bank bailouts have come from both conservatives and progressives and yet both these groups couldn't find the wherewithal to join forces on this issue and affect change in the course the administration has undertaken. Same was true in terms of the opposition to the Iraq war, keeping in mind the distinction between conservatives and neocons.

Has anyone ever looked into this conundrum?

[VinceTeeter]

Good point. I have wondered about that. Being an ultra libber-al, I do not like money poured into banks for any reason. I don't like banks and I see no need for them. If I was a conservative, then I would not like government interference in the affairs of banks.

I do all my "banking" with a credit union, so I see no need for banks. The depositors to the credit union determine the CEO's pay.

If every corporation in this country needs to borrow money from banks in order to do business, then I think we have a problem about credit. But if credit to corporations is a real problem because the banks cannot or will not loan money, then why cannot the government directly loan money and bypass the greedy banks.

I think if the salaries of the top 10% of bank employees were exclosed, there would be a mass of people in the streets with pitchforks.

[Robert L. Borosage - Huffpost Blogger]

Taking on Wall Street and War challenges the core of established power. On Iraq, conservatives in the Congress never were prepared to challenge Bush, but elections did make it clear the war had to be brought to an end. Rather extraordinary that Democratic presidential candidates felt required to oppose the war while it was still being waged.

On Wall Street, populist anger has made it virtually impossible for the Congress to vote more money to bail out the banks. But we're headed to the worse of possible words -- with the administration unwilling to take over and reorganize the banks, and the Congress unwilling to provide the money needed for the administration's strategy.

[GranE]

We the People haven't done so poorly. "WE" have a LEADER!

[PlaceboStudman]

A leader is only ever as good as the quality and quantity of his followers, and to some of us, it appears as if many of his followers are wandering aimlessly through the desert without a compass saying "we have to get home!" without ever knowing quite where home is

[zell]

I agree with Mr. Borosage. We do need an angry populist movement that will empower the progressives to stand up for the ordinary person. There's lobbying out there for the haves-----we need more empowering for the have-nots. That means that, when needed, the president's feet "should be held to the fire." As much as I love the president and fought hard (along with many, many people) to help him get elected, I still have a mind of my own and, when I disagree with the president I am not afraid to say so.

[feliznavidad]

The difference is that there was much more union membership in Roosevelt's time. Unions have seen a steady erosion of membership, which may only now be turning upward. If I recollect my history, the communist party was also very active at the grass roots level. I don't think it would likely be effective today, considering the failure of the Soviet economy and structure, and the human rights offenses of China. Also, back in the 30's, people congregated in neighborhood groups, churches, and over backyard fences. Today -- they congregate at faux news and other places where the powers that be can manipulate them.

[PlaceboStudman]

The have-nots have been trying to stand up and lobby for our causes, but every time we do, we get shouted down and told to sit down and shut up by the "have-somes" who keep making lame excuses and present distractions to apologize for why Obama isn't tackling the issues the have-nots care about.

How many times do we have to hear "He has enough on his plate" or "Now is not the time for that" when it comes to Marriage Equality on a federal level, or repeal of Dont ask, Dont tell, or marijuana policy reform, or the removal of the Community Choice Act for the disabled from the Health Care Reforms?

[redbridge]

Robert, I'm wondering if the nerve you were targeting is dead.

We're being robbed by bankers. We're denied a Top 10 (or 20 or 30) level of health care. The media is being used to divide the lowest classes, busy at bickering with each other. Our prisons are over-stuffed - our schools under-staffed. We fight 2 wars at one time and fabricate others - Drugs. Terror. Poverty, Illiteracy and even Bugs.

The solution? Let's all fill out report cards on Obama's first 100 days.

Be an enabler. And take back the positive usage of a few other words while we're at it - social, liberal and progress come to mind.

Assemble. You are entitled. It exhilarates.

The woods would be very silent if no bird sang there but those who sang best.

[Bocababs]

I just got off the Wall Street Comment Section for MSNBC and I cannot tell you how many people gave Obama an 'F' in his first 100 days. I gave him an "A" if for nothing else, than trying to work with Wall Street at the same time he is trying to help the people who Wall Street got into trouble......the people out of a job right now. There are things I disagree with that Obama has done. But those pale in comparison to how I think this Administration is handling the Economy. He is on top of it, and like or not, Obama is doing things.....every day, he is seen doing things. I am not going to apologize to the 10% of the country that does not want their taxes raised, when I am willing as a Secretary, to have my taxes raised if it means better schools, better infrastructure, and healthcare.

[biglover]

What did you expect from Murdoch's paper???