I was kind of thinking of this the other day as follows. You know how, as an unsavvy tourist, a person can end up getting massively ripped off, pick-pocketed, scammed, and so forth? Whole industries still exist for this of course. Well, as time goes on, the financial industry becomes more and more remote to most of us. (That's absolutely intentional, of course. The more complex and impenetrable the better.) So when we visit, it is truly increasingly exotic. We are taken by the hand, given 30 pages of gibberish that we are told aren't important, asked to "click here" or "stick a card there," while they'll handle our luggage and room reservations and make sure we enjoy the boat tour. Then we show up for the boat tour, and it turns out we have to actually row the damn boat all day. When we get back from that, we find what's left of our luggage in a run-down hotel, a firetrap sort of place. But we look around, and most of the other tourists have it the same way, and we say "well, I guess that's just how it works now."
Except he campaigned on health care and Democrats have been trying to get health care reform for decades. I don't recall the quote exactly but I remember at the start of the Obama Admin. him saying that he was prepared to be a one termer if he could get health care passed. As I noted earlier most presidents try to get their signature piece of legislation passed as soon as possible while they still have a mandate clout. In recent Admins. its been the exception that they get anything major passed after the second year. Obama handled health care poorly but there was no doubt that he was going to try to get it passed as soon as possible. In this regard it wasn't just about winning elections but a sacred cow of Democrats.
He campaigned on the economy. That he knew better then the previous guy how to get our economy back. That he was going to really make all these changes. Yes he talked about health care, but that's not what won him the election. It was the economy. It was the debt. It was getting out of these freakin wars. Those were the issues. He didn't successfully address any of them, and that would be forgivable if he had made them a focus. He did do something for the economy, but then he spent all the rest of the time on health care. A plan that didn't reduce the deficit or control costs, and one that didn't spur the economy. That's a failure. I said that a year ago it was a mistake to pursue health care. Say what you will about using a mandate to accomplish something, but if he is a one term president and the Dems lose the senate, all his work on health care will have be for naught. And all the time and money and effort would have been a huge colossal waste. He picked an issue that did not have a solution. Single payer will not work. Nor will any other system. People don't realize it, but the whole idea of health care in the modern world isn't tenable because the cost of the technology today exceeds what any reasonable person can afford. Each person can easily spend millions of dollars particularly towards the end of their life trying to prolong it month by month. There's no way that model can be made sustainable in any way shape or form and no way the public is ready for the hard choices necessary to come up with a system that makes sense for a capitalistic society while not being draconian. Clinton figured that out and abandoned it and because of it accomplished a lot. Now, Obama is going to go down that black hole and accomplish nothing while India and China continue to erode our advantage. Fixing the economy is more than the stimulus. We need to figure out how to make the U.S. a leader in industries again that no one else can compete in. We need to figure out what industries we can monopolize and use to our advantage. We need to learn from the Chinese and Indians, and the Germans for that matter, and do it very very quickly.
I think part of the problem is that Dems were p*****s all along. They started giving in and running the compromise route before the GOP had even done anything. They should have come to the table with a more robust health care bill. They could have compromised after that but why weaken the bill before it even started. It wasn't the best bill, but it did get past. If you take the people who support that and add in those that wanted the bill to be more, and have more government involvement it far outweighs the people who didn't want health care reform. The Democrats then ran away from what they had done. As imperfect as it was, it was an accomplishment. There is a lot that the Democrats have in that legislation to crow about. They could point out that it doesn't hurt our deficit. They could point out how many more people will be insured because of it. They need to keep pushing the idea that finally people who really need the insurance and have chronic pre-existing conditions will be able to get the ongoing treatment that they need. They can say that not only did they bring all that to the public, The Republicans tried to prevent it all The Republicans don't really have an argument against it. They may try and complain about the cost, but again the bill pays for itself, and is so much more fiscally responsible than anything the Republicans have proposed. They shouldn't have tried to hide from it, and kept selling it. They should have explained that stimulus is what was and is needed. Showed the facts that the best periods of recovery all happened when the stimulus was taking effect. They could have pointed out the absurdity of the GOP position that giving breaks to the uber wealthy would make them hire people even though there aren't enough consumers to warrant that kind of expansion. The Dems should have focused on the fact it was their party trying to do something to stimulate the consumers so that businesses could expand while at the same time touted all the breaks and incentives this administration has been pushing for small businesses. The Dems shouldn't have run away from any of that. It allows the Republicans to get away with putting out all the misinformation about it that they have. It also fires up the base which is what would need to be fired up in a midterm. The midterm is closer to a primary where they need to appeal to the base than to a general election where they need to appeal to the middle. They've made plenty of other mistakes but these and the strategy behind them were horribly flawed from the beginning. Also point out what Bill Maher did. Why is it that the tea party goals are the same goals as billionaire big corporate business. IF they think they and Steve Forbes are looking after the same folks or ideals they are sorely mistaken. Yet every step of the way, they are campaigning for the exact same things.
Great post. I know a bunch of people who, if they read that, would say "That's exactly how this "financial crisis" played out for us!" Personally, I wasn't in the market, not worth mentioning, when this went down (thanks to advice from a friend), but one heck of a lot of friends and relatives were, of course, several on fixed incomes. It's similar to doing a download of some kind on the internet, where you're given reams of stuff to scroll through and then are expected to click on accept. Almost no one actually "reads the reams." The topper is how they claim "full disclosure" and "we have your interests paramount!" Yeah, right.
A variety of things won the election not just the economy, although that was a big factor. He had promised health care reform and if he hadn't pushed it he might not have even made it out of the primaries. I would say he is on well on the course to getting us out of Iraq. There is a basic question about why you would want to win an election in the first place. Is it just for the sake of power or is it to do something you believe in? Obama is very often a pragmatist but at heart he is an idealist and health care has been the Democrats dream. If he wasn't going to take it on when he came in on a tidal wave of popularity and with record majorities then when? I am pretty sure that Obama and the Congressional Dems realized that they were probably not going to get an opportunity like this again. So yes this might not win them elections but in this case I actually think they were looking at history and not just the next election. This has been debated ad nauseum and is probably best left for another thread but from my own recent experience with health care in Singapore yes health care in a modern world is very tenable. Really accomplish nothing? You are complaining about health care and the stimulus being passed. You might not agree with those but those are substantial pieces of legislation. Sure we do but I don't think you can pin this all on Obama. As should be very obvious Obama has no magic wand that he can wave and substantially reform our whole economy and culture. No president has.
Excellent points. A pity that some of us compaining about that "strategy" were immediately pounced on here, followed by a litany of all those accomplishments, accomplishments the majority of the public seemed unaware of. That was just a microcosm of what was happening across the country. Who's fault was that on a national scale (what's the point of making a fuss here about who had blinders on)? The President's fault. The Democratic Leadership's fault, a leadership that took its cues from the Administration and a President who was elected in a landslide and surely knew what he was doing. A lot of fuss was made on the Democratic side about how this was playing out, as I personally experienced in the "real world," but what bothered me the most, besides the compromising that had no reciprocity from the other side, was how the President came across as Casper Milktoast. What happened to the passionate guy we voted into office in that landslide? Where was the team "focused like a laser beam" on winning the 2008 primaries and general election when it came to both governing and selling the program to the public? A program that, while not what a lot of us expected in the euphoria after the '08 election, was still a good one and worth crowing about? I certainly have my opinions about what went wrong, but I'm still waiting for answers to the mystery of where the Barack Obama who won that landslide went after being sworn in. My guess is that he was busy going to school. So school's out, Mr. President. Past time to take the gloves off and be the man I thought I was voting for two years ago.
Hillary owned health care reform, he didn't beat her on that issue, he beat her on the sense he knew how to change washington and reverse our course. That's why I voted for him and all the others who were inspired by him did. We wanted a pragmatist who could solve problems. That's not what we got. I still would have voted Obama over McCain, and I don't think he's been terrible, but he hasn't lived up to expectations that HE SET. On the same timetable as Bush. It's a matter of priority. How important is health care really to a society? And his health plan didn't fix health care, costs will still go up, and the system is still broke. More people being covered is great and that's wonderful, but is the average guy really better off now? Do you think Americans are more worried about the economy or health care? Maybe if he had addressed Americans concerns he could have become even more popular and than been able to get a real health care reform law passed through. In a way he hoodwinked us. He talked about change and bi-partisanship, but didn't really do that. Where was the change in how politics were done? Yes the Republicans were major a-holes and weren't going to cooperate, but he knew that. Let's not be naive here. Let's agree to disagree. I am not sure if Singapore has a tenable health care system because of policy of because it's such a small place with such a rich population per capita. But let's set that aside you're right. I'm talking for the next two years. Of course not, and I am not pinning all of it on him. I still think he's the guy to make the right changes, but he does deserve criticism. There is no magic wand, but the effort hasn't been focused on the right places. I am only pointing out where that focus should be. It should be there and not on health care reform. We need to figure these things out, more than anything else. If Obama focuses on immigration reform, he doesn't deserve to be relected, I will vote Republican in the next election if he goes down that road. If he goes environmental legislation - I will oppose him as well. He better get on board with creating high tech jobs and getting our economy and industries competitive again. That's should be his main focus. The other one is the deficit. He's had his time to pass his legislation and leave his mark, now he needs to help people with what they are concerned about and honor the fact on why he was elected in the first place. I did not vote for him to do health care or immigration or the environment. I voted for him to fix the freaking economy.
Joining this late, but I am not sure whether there is anything that Obama and the Dems could have done differently to avoid a bad Midterm given the economy. If they, say, didn't do the healthcare reform, talked economy all the time, and the unemployment is still what it is, my guess is they would have still lost the House. Maybe by a smaller margin, but does that margin really make much of a difference? Of course, some may say that if they had put more focus on the economy, the economy would have been better. Not sure if that's true. First, I don't think they could have passed a larger stimulus even if that's all they did. Second, how much difference would a larger stimulus of a realistic size work to move things along between January 2009 and November 2010?
Hillary had more experience and was more knowledgeable on health care but Obama still took her head on regarding it. No Democrat was going to make it out of the primaries without addressing that. In the case of Obama this wasn't just an act to get political advantage but he is a true believer in the cause. Surprise, surprise, surprise, a politician that hasn't lived up to campaign expectations that he set. That is more the norm than it is the exception. Heck there were Republicans calling for Reagan to step down in 1982. Perhaps its because I never bought into Obama's "Hope and change" message but I never expected him to be a transformative figure. I also opposed him during the primaries because I thought he was naive and inexperienced, or more precisely I thought his supporters were naive, that I am not particularly bothered by this. Yes but Obama is the one implementing it and implementation is harder than initiation. Again you have to consider why you get elected in the first place. I have no doubt some people really do just believe in the idea of doing public service but to undertake such a torturous thing as running for president you have to either have a monumental ego or be a true believer in an ideal that you want to see changed or more often both. We delude ourselves into thinking that President is just a servant of the people. That makes for nice rhetoric but the truth is that President is there to not serve but lead. What the President believes in may not be what everyone else believes is the most pressing concern and part of the President's job is to shape the national debate. Maybe politically Obama should've just looked at the polls and said that he should focus on something else besides health care but honestly would you want a president that governed based upon what polls said was the most pressing concern of the public at any given time? For example would it have been better for LBJ to not focus on Civil rights early in his term when there were other concerns and knowing that it would cost the Democrats the South? I agree that Obama and the Congressional Dems. handled this badly but I don't fault them for doing so. This was what they believed. He might've hoodwinked us but again not unusual. Remember GW Bush campaigned on Compassionate Conservatism. Again I never bought the whole 'Change' argument and I am sure posters like FB, Rhadamanthus, Major and Batman Jones will recall how critical I was regarding the idea that Obama was somehow going to transform politics and how naive that was. IN general that the Republicans weren't going to cooperate with Obama isn't a surprise to me as I predicted back in the spring of 2008. That given I am not going to throw Obama under the bus. This was a failure of him to not get his message across clearer and take more charge of Congress but if you really believed in HOPE and CHANGE as that Obama was going to win over Congressional Repubs and Blue Dogs and now are upset he couldn't then you are the one who was naive. Agree. Lets leave it to another debate. And again most presidencies don't get much accomplished after the first two years. The only reason why GW Bush did was because of 9/11. If it hadn't been for that the most he could've done was a stem cell policy that pleased few otherwise his other proposals after tax cuts (immigration, social security reform) were going to be very difficult or DOA. Even with 9/11 he still couldn't get those passed either. Of course he deserves criticism but to criticize him for focussing on something that is a closely held belief, getting health care passed, ignores why he ran for and became president in the first place. It would be like if a Republican won but decided not to focus on tax cuts. I predict Obama is not going to be able to pass much if any legislation. He is also not going to substantially create high tech jobs or get our industry competitive again. That is not a criticism on Obama but just the political reality as I see it now. That said he has done what he can to help the economy and considering that the Stimulus was passed before health care I don't think you can say that Health Care distracted him from the economy. If you thought he wasn't going to invest serious time into Health Care I would say again that you were the one who was naive as that was a centerpiece of his campaigned on. It might not been what you voted on but it was obvious that he was going to take that on. More than likely if he hadn't taken it on things might be even worse for him as the liberal base might've turned out in even fewer numbers.
Completely agree. As I noted in my other post the stimulus was passed prior to health care. THis wasn't a matter of a weak stimulus passed because health care was a distraction but that that was the most that could be passed.
Health care had to be done. Period. Given 2008, it was now or never. For the long term, that was the best thing that could have been done for the economy. Now, the fight will be to preserve it and then when Dems get another majority, add to it. We knew Dems would lose seats in the midterms. That was a given. Looking at history and the Repub tactics, there was no question. I'm glad the Dems accomplished a bunch of stuff instead of playing prevent defense. There's policy stuff I have major issues with and there's political stuff that probably should have been done differently. However, given what was accomplished the last two years and knowing what happened on Tuesday, I would gladly make that trade. We'll have a few months of Repub breast-thumping while Obama tries to play the nice guy. This will embolden the Repubs more, they will overreach, and Obama will become the reluctant warrior just in time to beat whatever Repub challenger emerges from the Crazyville primaries. The last two years were policy and the next two will be politics. (I am looking forward to 2012 when we can finally get rid of that unctuous independent senator from Connecticut.)
I can see your perspective on all these issues. Basically he did what he believed in and thought was best for the country, and was willing to pay the price whatever that might be. So he has to live with the fallout which is what he is doing now. I still think that he can make a difference with industry, but only if he can work with the Republicans....and that's a really monumental if. Their goal was to become the majority party, and now their goal is to get the presidency back. So nothing will get done in the next two years. But I do think now Obama will be gone in 2012, the Republicans will take the Senate as well, and their first order of business will be to undo the health care bill and reverse everything Obama did essentially.
Actually, what he said about Teddy Roosevelt is true. Roosevelt hated Big Business and Big Business hated him. He was the original environmentalist. He also read more books than most people will see when they walk into Barnes and Noble or Borders. Which is to say, he was a very learned individual. Granted, T. Roosevelt was always itching for a fight. He had a bit of the tough-guy syndrome in him, wanted to surpass his frail-health childhood and always push himself physically. But at least he wasn't a chicken hawk, which is not what one could say of the last administration.
Yeah, I know that about Teddy. The problem is that the analysis is disingenuous. Sure, by the standards of the late 19th/early 20th century, TR loved him some regulation. But the scope of government regulation and government spending has expanded exponentially since TR's days. Government spending (Fed, St, and Local) was around 7% of GDP in 1903. In 2010 it will be above 40%. I don't know how big the Code of Federal Regulations was in 1903 (or even if it existed), but it was surely slimmer than today's version. So, if you were to transport TR to 2010 he may look at the scope of government regulation and spending and decide he wants he even more. Then again, he may not. He may think that we have it just about right or that we may even need to dial it down a bit. At any rate, his environment was so radically different than ours that we cannot with any certainty claim to know how he would view today's government.
