SOF and I made a Starbucks run this morning, our usual Sunday morning ritual. This particular one was a little different because we had to get up and give one of our cats an insulin shot with his breakfast. Eh. The cost, as I noted in an email, of an aging pet population in our house. He is doing fine, and we are getting used to giving shots--something I have not done since my youth on our small ranch.
Anyway, at Starbucks, I noticed the NYTimes in the corner and read the headlines. One was on how the Democrats are cratering and the election in Massachusetts is proof of that cratering. Opening the WaPo website on my return, and more of this doom and gloom.
Before Christmas, Anglican sent me this from Esquire: Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?, which I had not gotten around to reading until this morning. Obama has been anything but a failed President during his first year. But if you turn on the Cable news or read the papers, all you hear is the bs that he has been ineffective and that the public is losing faith in the Democrats.
Of course, if you look at the polling data, you do see that Obama and the Democrats have sagged in the polls. No doubt about that. I have two explanations for that. 1) Obama and the Democrats have sagged, not because they have been to liberal and too adventurous, but because they have not been liberal enough. The stimulus package, while important, was too small and too loaded with tax cuts and other spending that did very little to stimulate the economy. Obama should have pumped billions into infrastructure spending as he first suggested, and put more people to work across the country. Likewise, on healthcare, as Greg Sargent notes, more people are unhappy with the current proposal because it doesn't go far enough, than those who say it goes too far.
2), and this is certainly related to the last point, but the media is still quite conservative. Sargent's interpretation of the polling data may be flawed, but it is an arguable case. But you won't hear that line on the supposedly liberal mainstream media. Yet, throughout the entire Obama administration, you can always count on the fact that the most conservative voices will be heard on just about every outlet. As The Atlantic noted, this is not a new phenomenon. In the 19th century, newspapers were commonly so associated with their political bias that they were named after their party affiliation: for example Wherearewe Republican, or the Whatever Democrat. For me this is new because we have a good segment of the population who has completely bought the myth of the "liberal media" which makes the conservative nature of our media nearly invisible. You can call that a hat trick for the Republicans. Even though their polling is even lower than Democrats or Obama, they have successfully controlled the message and Conventional Wisdom.
Not to say that Obama has not made some missteps. He certainly has. But I am increasingly tired of our media listening to people who have a track record of always being wrong.
18 comments:
Obama and the Democrats have sagged, not because they have been to liberal and too adventurous, but because they have not been liberal enough.
I think this is part of it and it would certainly explain why many liberals are disappointed with Obama. I think it also has a lot to do with the fickle public that wants immediate results. The economy is just starting to show some improvement, but many people think this should have already happened.
and this is certainly related to the last point, but the media is still quite conservative.
While I don't believe the media is as liberal as I once thought, I don't think it is conservative (with the exception of Fox and a few others). It seems to me that they enjoy some level of conflict among the parties and also like it when the party in power is on the way out or in some kind of trouble. There were endless stories about how the GOP tanked in the last elections, so this doesn't seem to be any different.
The other reality is that the Democrats are in some trouble. Besides Ted's seat being up in the air, there have been some high profile people dropping out. Granted, this has happened to the Republicans, but this is somewhat more unexpected. I also think that Democratic leadership (Pelosi, Reid, etc.) haven't done a very good job at promoting some key platforms.
Historically speaking, the party in power usually suffers when the economy is doing poorly. I am sure the Republicans will gain some seats and it is quite possible that Obama will be a one-term president, though a lot depends on what happens with the economy and who the GOP puts forth as candidates. If the economy does well and Palin is the nominee, then I don't see the Republicans winning. OTOH, if it does poorly and they can produce a candidate that is intelligent, charismatic, and moderate, then they can win.
Good post. I was actually hoping you would post something along these lines as of late. First and most importantly, and I meant to comment on FB, I'm sorry about Calvin.
As a conservative, I don't see that Obama has been ineffective as president at all. Sure, I disagree on many pertinent points with him, but I'm still going to church, I'm still homeschooling my kids, and none of the other horror stories have yet to come true.
I have been quite confused about the "stimulus" because it really did not look like a "stimulus" at all. Though I was not necessarily in favor of it, I thought at least that if the Democrats were going to do it, then DO IT. Poop or get off the pot, to use common vernacular.
My biggest misunderstanding has been with job creation--and I think it is still too early to tell, why hasn't the unemployment rate dropped, as was promised a year ago?
And we all might dicker a good deal on conservative versus liberal "bias" in the media. It depends very much so on the outlet. The main thing against conservative media (I think) is the lack of scope and intelligence. Sure Obama's health plan may be horrible to the Republicans, but where is their alternative plan? And, Palin just seems to get worse and worse and WORSE yet thinking Republicans have yet to oust her. Why? WHY? Oh well.
Thanks, Tony. Calvin seems to be doing quite well, though we will have to see how he responds to the insulin. But so far, this is manageable.
and you say that Obama has not come into your church and told you to worship Reverend Wright? I am shocked. :)
Seriously, I think we can all agree that the stimulus has not worked as well as we had hoped. The story I heard was that Obama started the spending low assuming that it would get built up as the process went along. He never imagined it to be as small as it turned out. I am increasingly a fan of Roosevelt and Keynes, and think that we needed to pump a lot of money into job creation--hiring people to build and repair stuff. Hell, I would love a modern day WPA, but that won't happen in this environment.
I think you and Steve make a good point about the media. My point is really this--that conservatives have a pretty free access to push their message, and that is not always been true about liberals, and two, that the media is better at repeating conventional wisdom than actually analyzing the situation. Complexity eludes them, and they really prefer a good sex scandal.
Good points. I think we are still in an amazingly divisive period, and it may take some time to pull out of it. I am not terribly hopeful given the power of Rush and his ilk.
The economy is NOT going to improve to the point that a lot of jobs are created, which is what it would take for Obama to be seen by most people as a successful president.
If Obama raises taxes, or increases the deficit, in order to try to stimulate the economy, the negative effects will offset any positive effects that might occur.
Chris, when did raising taxes become automatically negative. We have numerous instances of economic growth AND tax increases in our history. Cutting taxes at this point makes absolutely no sense at all, though it has become the remedy for any economic reality for many conservatives.
It depends on what the goal is. In an economic slump, raising taxes is counterproductive; if you want the private sector to function. If harming the private sector is a goal, then raising taxes would be a way to do it.
If harming the private sector is a goal, then raising taxes would be a way to do it.
That is frankly idiotic. Taxes are not a punishment against the public sector, and anyone who thinks that has not thought this through.
If raising taxes and increasing the deficit are good things to do, then do them. Let's see how it works.
Chris, you sound like a Republican, and I am hard on Republicans here, but I appreciate you contributing. Do you seriously think that taxes are always bad or are contrary to the private sector? Do you think that government is always anti-private enterprise? Do you think that private enterprise would be automatically better if there was no government or no taxes?
I'm a conservative, but not a Republican.
No, I think the government is needed to build roads, provide police, etc, and that stuff takes tax money. But it is too much.
Ah, a libertarian. You don't think that government creates the infrastructure, legal framework, and entire monetary structure that allows private enterprise to function? Lawyers, for example, do quite well, but I wonder how well they would do if there were not court houses for them to argue their cases.
I think, frankly, that libertarians underestimate how much government allows private enterprise to flourish. During the 1950s, for example, we had MUCH higher taxes than we do now, yet we had one of the strongest economies in the 20th century. More, we had less poverty and the divide between rich and poor was less.
Government subsidies for higher education, research, small business, home ownership, highways, etc., spurred untold billions (probably closer to trillions) of individual entrepreneurial enterprises. Consider just how much research universities and government research grants have contributed to the development of technologies and products. In the pharmaceuticals or agricultural areas, I am guessing that is in the billions of dollars made by private investors and business people into new drugs, new fertilizers, pesticides, medial equipment, etc. Certainly not all of that came from some kind of government subsidy or grant, but certainly a good portion of it did.
It is hard for me to imagine a libertarian world that is not one of vast poverty and inequality, and I have to say that I have real doubts about the ability of that kind of economy to invest in anything that would take longer than a few years to produce results.
Streak,
You and I prefer different countries. Sadly for me, America is much more like what you want, than what I want. But your "country" might soon collapse under the weight that is upon it. I expect it will.
So you respond to my detailed comment with something this vacuous?
See you. We actually talk about ideas, not simplistic and fantastical notions of American government. I think you need to read some history. But in the meantime, please take your brevity elsewhere.
No problem. Gone; just like the USA.
What a moron. Good riddance.
Streak,
FUCK YOU. You arrogant son of a bitch.
Well there it is. :)
Yeah, how dare people who study U.S. history for a living dare to think their opinions hold more weight in society than rhetorically challenged strangers who apparently can't figure out the process for registering a Blogger account? That's undemocratic!
Post a Comment