Quick retort to the previous entry, which seems to suffer from the persistent refusal to acknowledge the institutional realities that has been such a hallmark of progressive thought over the last year. I'll see your HuffPo and raise you an Andrew Sullivan.
Here's what has happened: a liberal Democratic president has just passed universal health insurance. No Democratic president has done something like that since Johnson. It is designed to show that government can do something real and tangible for the working poor. And in that respect, its impact on the political culture will be deep and lasting...There is also this, from TNR's Jonathan Chait, on the subject of employment:My suspicion is that... this new landmark for liberalism will reorient American politics the way Reagan's first year did – profoundly. I may be wrong and I will be accountable for this judgment. But the age demands government action. And Obama is doing as much of it as consensually and as civilly but as ruthlessly as he can.
Why so pragmatic and centrist? Because he wants it all to last.
Obama's trickiest dilemma is that the public does not agree with–or, to put it less charitably, understand–the basis for his anti-recession strategy. Whatever your view of deficits, they clearly make more sense during a recession than during an expansion, when deficit spending can help fuel overheated growth. The trouble is, public opinion tends to get loose with the purse strings during boom times and tight during recessions, which is the opposite of what you want. During the 1990s boom, the public favored expanded social spending and tax cuts over paying down the national debt. Today, by overwhelming margins, they favor an immediate balanced budget, even in the face of economic catastrophe.Would we all love to live in a world where compromise was unnecessary, where acknowledging political realities didn't require strategy and incrementalism? Sure, why the hell not? Do we? Maybe in Kucinich-land. The rest of us are stuck here. And guess what the alternative is? Actually, you don't have to guess. Look back at the last eight years.That is, of course, insane. But Republicans have taken full advantage of the public's fiscal insanity.
Strident-y.
And service-y, I figure. People should read the Chait piece, it is dead on.
Servicey is good. I need all the ammunition for the next two days of obligatory nutty familial contact.
As my family is all hippies, lapsed Catholics, and Jews I have no sounding board (save my lone NeoCon uncle in Phoenix) and we all just sit around at holidays drinking fire-water and bitching about how stupid people are and generally patting ourselves on the back.
It's a little obnoxious, but it serves as a necessary catharsis in these Interesting Times.
I'm talking an Opus Dei recruiting aunts and Global Warming Deniers vs Commune Living Hippies and Let's Save Africa doctors death match.
I like to drink and spout out one liners to get them riled up. I plan to fish out the closeted Sarah Palin lovers this year. At least no one has suggested Glenn Beck for my new year reading list yet.
Oh, that sounds like fun!
but I heard The Christmas Sweater will bring a tear to your eye!
/when I saw it in the bookstore I uncontrollably uttered 'oh FUCK this guy'
forget it i quit, You are brave. I have 2 opus dei relatives and stay at least 2,000 miles away from them at all times.
He/they are right, though. Too bad we get compromise for Christmas. Would you care for some grated nutmeg on your steaming mug of Republican hypocrisy?
You're both right. And wrong.
Surely we can meet in the middle on this, Karen?
"The middle" is the end of the rainbow. A jowly, disagreeable leprechaun from CT will meet you there.
Right and half-wrong.
I love you both the same.
Yes, I know you are different, but I love you both THE SAME. Now get Mommy a drink.
Right. I don't want to have to choose. That's why I'm relieved I don't have to. Team Pareene.
Why do we have to fight? It's hurting America. Stop hurting America. Don't make me get Jon Stewart up in here.
Thank you. Much better. I am just going to put my head down over here and rest my eyes a bit.
It is insane (to me) that the centrist pragmatism interpretation is the most comfort I can find at present. I formerly had hope and expectations, in life, in general.
And then you (and I) got old.
(But we're still young enough to want to buy stuff, I promise.)
What I took away from this is this: that nothing will ever happen unless the private sector gets cut in on it. Republicans claim to be against big government, but what they are really against is government cutting out private industry. As long as government is paying money to private industry, whether it be for war or prisons or health care or welfare services or whatever, Republicans are OK with it (and I use "Republican" to include many Democrats).
Whether Obama realized that early on and used that in his favor or whether he just couldn't overcome it, I can't tell. But that stance, that government can't do anything but write the checks, has to be overcome eventually. Because as long as it is in place, government will just be what Republicans claim to most hate: just a means of redistributing wealth. Only now it's redistributing wealth from all taxpayers to the middle and upper middle class.
Trickle Up Economics, I like it.
"I may be wrong and I will be accountable for this judgment." It's adorable when Respected Commentators say that. It's kind of like how my bank advertises its "great customer service," and I sign up with them because, hey, who doesn't like that. And much later I go back to the bank, and I say "uh, your customer service kind of actually sucks?" And they say, "yeah, we were just saying that because There Are Absolutely No Ramifications To Us Lying About That, and besides, until you actually tested it, you felt good because you didn't really know for sure we were lying." And I have to admit they're right, and I go on reading their articles with their Forthright and Noble Admissions of Future Fallibility -- sorry, I mean giving them my money.
"and I will be accountable for this judgment.." Yeah, sure Andrew. If by "accountable" you mean just saying "I'm accountable" like how you said about your Iraq War support: "I supported it like a teenage girl supporting the Jonas Brothers." YAY ACCOUNTABILITY!
"And by 'accountable,' I mean that I will continue to angrily defend my indefensible position until people actually start throwing tomatoes at me in public, at which point I will say, quietly and just once, 'I have reconsidered my position,' after which I will respond to all reminders of my years and hundreds of thousands of words of wrongness by snapping 'I have already addressed this question and I consider the subject closed'."
Fuck him indeed.
Ok, so y'all are going on about a common figure of speech that is relatively meaningless. Fine. A good editor should have left that phrase on the cutting-room floor.
But answer me this: What commentator of any kind is truly "accountable" for accuracy of his or her opinions? Do any of them have to pay a financial penalty or something when they turn out to be wrong? Is Sullivan any different from anyone else in this regard?
The price to be paid is the impact on their reputation (which, given the short attention span of the public, is probably a small one). That applies equally to all the pundits and columnists out there, not just this guy.
That's why "I'm ready to out on limb here" is such a handy turn of phrase in such a situation, if only because it reminds the reader that what follows is just some guy offering an opinion, as opposed to, oh, let's say, the head of the World Bank announcing a decision to forgive African debt, which is what AS's locution sounds like.
@Hippity. It's called shame. AND one would hope, a decreasing currency within the opinion community to use your opinions as foundations for other opinion makers' opinions. A failure on both accounts, apparently.
I still have $20 worth of ride tickets for Kucinich-land.
Take the UFO ride! The line is kind of long, but it's worth it.
The Chait thing is pretty accurate, but doesn't really contradict the previous post re: Obama's conflict avoidance. If Obama had been more radical with the economy a year ago (financial regulation and more equitable tax structure, and dare I say temporary bank nationalization, to balance out stimulus and those icky bail-outs) it's conceivable that he could have captured many of the populists who ended up at tea parties over the summer. It's not even clear to me that this would have been worse for the economy.
That horse has left the barn, of course.
In Kucinich-land, Dr. Manhattan is circumcised.
Is there a "Space Mountain" ride in Kucinich-land?
I figure there ought to be, what with the UFO sighting and all ...
In Kucich-land, Space Mountain is actually a mountain, and it's in space. And on your birthday you get to ride all day for free.
Hey remember when like 70 million people voted for this guy? And Health Care Reform was a key part of his platform? Incrementalism -- YES WE CAN!!! Maybe everybody will love Exchanges so much that in 2012, 100 million will go for Obama and we can get free government lollipops in all doctor's offices, too.
Incidentally, over here on Knifecrime Island, the Conservatives have pledged to spend MORE MONEY on the public health care system than Labour -- who are frequently criticized in the mainstream media for not being Socialist enough. So why do I feel unconvinced when people say I'm missing the "political realities" involved?