home

Recognizing The Moment

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:51:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

EJ Dionne posits that President Obama is recognizing the moment:

More striking was his sense that fate has handed him opportunities few presidents ever get and that his test will be whether he makes good use of his chance to bend history at one of its "inflection points." "Leadership at those moments can help determine which direction that wave of change goes," he said. "I think it's very hard . . . for any single individual or politician to unleash historical momentum on its own. But I think when that historical wave is there, I think you can help guide it."

Asked if this were one of those moments, he replied, flatly, "yes." That may make the situation "scary sometimes," but it should also "make people determined and excited." Maybe that explains his good mood.

This is good, and if Dionne is right, it gets better:

Yet Obama's purpose on Friday was not to play at being a philosopher of history but to stress his devotion to FDR-style pragmatism. "We will do what works," he said, reprising his administration's theme song. That "will require re-evaluation" and "some experimentation -- if that doesn't work then you do something else."

. . . And where might Republicans fit into all this? Obama still thinks he'll win their support someday on some issues. Because the stimulus envisioned a large government role in rescuing the economy, he said, it may have "exaggerated" the partisan divide because it played on "the core differences between Democrats and Republicans." But he is aware that some Republicans think they can gain "political advantage" if they can "enforce conformity" within their ranks and thus "invigorate" their base.

He declined to judge whether this strategy will work for the Republicans, but President Obama 2.0, the version slightly chastened since Inauguration Day, did not mind explaining how their approach has affected him. "You know, I am an eternal optimist," he said. "That doesn't mean I'm a sap."

If Dionne is right, it seems likely that President Obama will not only be our first African American President, but one of our greatest ones as well. I have stated that the "moment" provides two paths to President Obama - that of FDR or that of Jimmy Carter. It appears he will attempt the path of FDR.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Venezuela Chooses Chavez >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Recognizing The Moment | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    W.O.R.M. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by dk on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    I guess I have a hard time seeing how Obama's words here are any different form the "change"+PPUS he has given us throughout, other than that it is also his "lipstick on a pig" to cover both his bad (in substance) stimulus and his failure to control the message in the first few weeks of his administration.

    But, of course, only time will tell. I still think, though, that past performance is a better indicator than hope when deciding on a strategy.

    SNAP, that stung, then again (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    most things do when they're spot-on. A lot of people don't like that style. I do, when it's well-written.

    Parent
    He's still naive about Republicans (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    If this crisis doesn't get them on board, nothing will sans a nuclear attack on our shores.  The Republicans are empty, vacant of ideas, and the sooner he accepts this and starts advertising it the better.  A half century of cynicism and selfishness have rendered the Republican party comatose when it comes to possessing anything but malice and obstructionist inclinations.  If the partisan divide and core differences were exposed this early, they are only going to get worse.  Obama still needs to wake up to this.  And fast.

    I'm with you (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    I wish he would begin to publicly challenge some of the Republican core beliefs in light of the crisis we face. Doesn't sound like he will be taking that road unless he has to.  I can't imagine though that they aren't going to make that something needing to be done.

    Parent
    I see this as a good sign: (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    Obama slows  down decisions on troop deployments

    Parent
    Tell that to my brother... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    ...who has to cancel his wedding and head back for his fourth tour, not to mention his fear that, less than ten months from getting out of the military, this deployment means he ain't getting out.  I'm glad Obama is thoughtful, I'm not so happy he is waiting to make decisions that are written in stone -- get out.

    Parent
    I'm responding to your post (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    in the light of just finishing my read of BTDs post on left wing nonpressure and reading Bowers whole smallish post about Judis and Greenwald.  Where are the hard questions about ramping anything up? First we were outraged that the media fell asleep at the wheel going to Iraq and now the Leftwing is asleep at the going to Afghanistan wheel.  I'm saying this as a military spouse and also with a husband looking to leave for Afghanistan this year as well.  It is a democracy.  It is about your voice, and your voice makes all the difference in the world when it comes to what commanders end up making the existing Rules Of Engagement on the fields they step onto.  It was something we ran into in Iraq when we heard about this atrocity and that atrocity yet nothing was to be done, because of the existing Rules Of Engagement in all of those situations.  And if commanders give out Rules Of Engagement that read light everything up that causes you to feel threatened, they'll send their troops anyplace they please without regard to ANYTHING.  They don't have to entertain other forms of problem solving if they don't want to and lets remember that they did exactly this in Western Iraq in year two of that war, and they didn't attempt anything different outside of literal genocide until literal genocide didn't work. Where is the antiwar voice as this PTSD ridden military heads to Afghanistan?  HELLO out there?  And I thought Bowers was one of those damned stinking peace not war hippies.

    Parent
    Better than rushing ahead with (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:21:17 PM EST
    sending additional U.S. military to Afghanistan.  Sorry about your brother's predicament though.  

    Parent
    Any sane person (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    ...with a cursory reading of history, would conclude and quite easily that a foreign military occupation of Afghanistan is a failure from the get go.  We COULD, however, succeed there either one of two ways: first, by being more brutal than the insurgency (not very likely or desirable) or, second, by being more altruistic than any foreign occupier in the history of the world (even less likely).  Sorry, thoughtful and slow, dumb and fast, it doesn't matter to when when the answer is ignored either way.  But, of course, with real skin in this game, I'm a tad biased.  Then again, who isn't?

    Parent
    Another Approach (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    Which seems to be in the making is to include Iran as an ally in stabilizing Afghanistan. Russia and China should come to the party as well, and I envision that we will be asking their help as well.

    The Obama administration has been very critical of Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and support for terrorist groups. But the comments here on Sunday by the envoy, Richard C. Holbrooke, appeared to suggest that the new administration might also seek to use discussions with Iran about Afghanistan as one way to establish a broader dialogue.

    "It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan," Mr. Holbrooke said during an interview on Sunday with Tolo TV, a private Afghan television network. "They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan's neighbors."

    NYT

    Looks like Axis of Evil mentality is dead, over, and now only a relic of the BushCo era.


    Parent

    It's a pre-emptive use of semantics (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    i.e. don't call me a naive "sap", call me an "optimist".

    Some people (i.e. Ronald Reagan) also use the optimist meme with the intent of preemptively casting their critics as "cynics". I expect to hear that bandied about in the next few days.

    Parent

    On the other hand (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    I think I want this on a T-shirt to wear on some days at my workplace -- and with my family:

    "I am an eternal optimist.  That doesn't mean I'm a sap."


    Parent
    When was the last time you (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    heard anyone refer to a person as "a sap"?

    Parent
    I confess (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    that the word occupies a prominent place in my own vocabulary!

    Parent
    Must be an Eastern seaboard thing. (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:59:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, But The Best Use Was in S.F. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:25:19 AM EST
    albeit, decades ago.

    Here, on the eastern seaboard when I was growing up we always said the trendiest stuff originated in CA.

    Parent

    We can only hope (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by cal1942 on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    he follows the right course.  But again these are just words as the campaign consisted of just words.

    Responses like "not in our culture" to suggested actions certainly doesn't inspire confidence that this administration is willing to explore possibly efficacious solutions.

    Various successful portions of the New Deal were "not in our culture" and for this administration to dismiss ideas in such a flip manner is troubling.

    There are obviously some serious flaws in "our culture" or we wouldn't find ourselves in this mess.

    Let's rattle the cage HARD while we hope! (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:49:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Very encouraging. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:33:54 AM EST
    P.S.  I wonder who the other invited columnists were?

    Didn't FDR have a record (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:34:42 AM EST
    of implementing new ideas as governor of New York before he was President?
    Excerpt from 1948's "The Roosevelt Myth" (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:10:00 AM EST
    "Senator Hastings of New York State wrote
    him early in his administration urging him to take some action to check stock market speculation and got no answer. After failure of the City Trust Company, Lieutenant-Governor Herbert Lehman, in Roosevelt's absence, appointed Robert Moses to investigate the banking situation. Moses made his inquiry and denounced the practices of some of the banks. In his report he mentioned the practices
    of the Bank of the United States. About the same time I wrote in my column an appeal to the governor to do something about these shaky banks. Governor Roosevelt named a commission to do this
    and, to my horror, appointed a director and counsel of the Bank of the United States on the commission. Norman Thomas denounced him, charging "that he had completely disregarded the Moses report and solemnly concluded everything would be all right if everybody put his money in a sound bank." His action made it quite clear that the governor had not the slightest understanding of the banking situation. It was a good deal like appointing one of Al Capone's mob to make a study of the gangster problem. Very soon thereafter the
    Bank of the United States failed. But the governor still remained uninterested. Various appeals were made for some sort of action directly to the governor but he did nothing."

    Parent
    Glad someone posted this (none / 0) (#26)
    by Faust on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    people seem to think that Roosevelt came out of the box shiny and perfect instead of being woken up by a mix of the facts on the grounds and strong political pressure.

    Parent
    Yes, to a certain extent.... (2.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    ...ahem...history is repeating itself.  The problem is that everyone is so busy with Right/Left to realize that the divide is socialist/capitalist and that both Hoover and FDR were in the socialist camp.  

    Also - president elect FDR ignored messages from Hoover regarding obtaining the cooperation of the democratic congress to have a brief bank holiday for the purposes of determining solvency and isolating panic to only insolvent banks.  It would seem that FDR was using the depression as a political tool - the worse when he started, the better.  If FDR came into office and continued a laizzez-faire approach this would be unclear, but seeing as he was more interventionist than Hoover, opportunism is much more likely.  

    Parent

    But on other issues, like labor (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:36:31 AM EST
    FDR did have experience, and good experience -- thanks to the likes of his staff like Frances Perkins, whom he took with him to Washington.

    To just look at banking is to suggest that was our only problem then -- or our only problem now.

    Parent

    I do not follow. (2.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    What's an example of an FDR positive on labor pertaining to Miss Perkins.  I'm pretty sure each of his policies was a short-sighted reaction to the economic reverberations of previous policies.

    For example, FDR paid farmers to kill livestock and destroy crops - to maintain prices.  Meanwhile people were starving from food shortages.  Once again, Flynn:

    "Curiously enough, while Wallace was paying out hundreds of millions to kill millions of hogs, burn oats, plow under cotton, the Department of Agriculture issued a bulletin telling the nation that the great problem of our time was our failure to produce enough food to provide the people with a mere subsistence diet."

    Parent

    So, I guess the question is, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    why, then, does Obama want to model himself after FDR?

    Is he really looking to model his own approach to policy after FDR's approach, or is he merely looking to end up being viewed in line with the current public perception of FDR, shaped over time, as the president responsible for pulling us out of the Depression?

    We don't know, do we?  What worries me, as usual, is that Obama may not know, either.

    Parent

    He's just talking... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    to the cameras.  Who cares what the guy says and how that projects onto an idealized ghost of a president?  

    Look at the stimulus bill - he thinks he has the right to spend nearly 800billion of taxpayer money.  He's made that clear.  It looks like we're about to get an another knee-jerk economic policy ride with another interventionist president.  (Another parallel - hoover/bush started the same interventionist policies at the ends of their administrations - fdr/obama promising change just put the interventionism into overdrive.)  

    The question is why are republican and democratic voters fighting over the degree by which we get screwed out of the future - not whether or not we get screwed?


    Parent

    Samuel, to my mind, it isn't how (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    what Obama is saying is being projected onto FDR, it is about Obama's fondness for comparing himself - with no basis for comparison that I can see - to at least two presidents: Lincoln and FDR.

    To the point where he seems a little obsessed.  I would much rather he have an actual identity, but that's me.

    So, what is the solution, Samuel?  You seem enraged by the fact that the president and the Congress have taken it upon themselves to spend taxpayer money, and like a lot of people I hear these days, seem convinced that your future is being compromised.

    You're 24, if I recall.  I'm 55.  I have a limited amount of time to secure my future - a future that got considerably less secure over the last year as my retirement accounts lost a fair amount of value.  It's in your interest, and my children's interest, to do what needs to be done to secure my future, and that of people in my age group, because the alternative for both of us will be pretty awful.  It really would be much better if we could support ourselves in our old age than to have to put more of that burden onto the government - and if the current economic plan has no solution for me, I'm not the only one who's going to be in deep doo-doo.

    There has to be a short-term element to this whole thing, Samuel, if there is to be any hope of any long-term elements succeeding.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    "...it is about Obama's fondness for comparing himself...Lincoln and FDR."  - I maintain that this is of minimal importance, serving more for the study on the sociology of voters than anything else.

    "So, what is the solution, Samuel?  You seem enraged by the fact that the president and the Congress have taken it upon themselves to spend taxpayer money, and like a lot of people I hear these days, seem convinced that your future is being compromised." - Correct.  The solution is for them to cease the plundering and to prevent further expansion of the money supply.

    "It's in your interest, and my children's interest, to do what needs to be done to secure my future, and that of people in my age group, because the alternative for both of us will be pretty awful. " - I do not follow - not to be callous - but how is it in my interest? If you the current 55-65 demographic doesn't experience a further asset plunge for another 2-4 years how does that help me or even you?

    "There has to be a short-term element to this whole thing, Samuel, if there is to be any hope of any long-term elements succeeding. " - Economically speaking, we can only increase the TOTAL suffering by intervention.  Any short-term alleviation will result in a larger magnitude of suffering down the line.  I mean - why don't we consider the lowering of the interest rate in 2003 as the short-term that helped people?  Because it made things worse for everyone...

    I understand that it seems that you're getting more screwed than me.  The difference is that any "short term" help as an ACTIVE redistribution of wealth from future to present.  I am simply stating that I do not volunteer my own future to be taken and redistributed by the government.  Now if you want to take that future by force, using the government as a tool - and put society in a worse place - that's your "right" in terms of the legal system, but by no means your right as a human being.

    If someone wrongs you, you are not justified in wronging someone else.  

    Parent

    What I want, Samuel, is for good (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    decisions to be made that will allow my husband and me to continue to provide for ourselves, and cause the investments that we have to adequately supplement the Social Security that I hope will still exist in 10 years.  

    But maybe what you're saying is that Obama's plan isn't going to do what Krugman and others think it needed to be designed to do: stop the downward spiral, start an upturn which will ultimately lead to making a significant dent in the debt we are incurring.  

    Your solution is a little vague.  Should the government just let the banks and the auto industry and major components of the private sector fail?  How is that an answer?  How, exactly, will that help your future to be less burdensome?

    As for how my economic health over the next 10 years is your problem, you and I may both get the answer to that as we see whether the Obama plan can help those who are already over 65.  If those people lose their safety net, they are going to need more help, and whether you like it or not, our tax dollars are going to be allocated, to some extent, to fill in the blanks.

    And not that you would think this is relevant, but how much are you even contributing in tax dollars at this stage?  How many of your tax dollars went to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to pay private contractors a gazillion dollars, or for all the pork the Republicans larded their bills with over the last 8 years?  Eight years ago, when I was 47, and my husband and I were kicking in some considerable taxes, you were 16.  Can't imagine you were contributing much then, so maybe you ought to dial back your outrage just a tad.  Maybe you would prefer that people like me stop making contributions to your future - that would sure help me out in the short term - how would that be?  Maybe we should just let your future take care of itself.  

    Since you have not been volunteering your present for anyone's future, or have been doing so for a pretty short period of time, I think your outrage at volunteering your future for the present of people like me is pretty misplaced.  And very selfish.  At least for the time being, I am still contributing not just to my future, but to yours.  And to the futures of my daughters, who are 22 and 26.

    As for Obama's obsession with dead presidents, I guess I am not surprised that you think it is inconsequential; I happen to think that the consequences of Obama failing to have a real identity of his own are many and they are not good, and encompass a lot more than just the sociology of voters.


    Parent

    Totally missing where I'm coming from... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    "...stop the downward spiral, start an upturn which will ultimately lead to making a significant dent in the debt we are incurring." - Allowing the "spiral" to occur is the only way to liquidate current market inefficiencies - increase real savings - and begin well structured growth once more.  Yes, all businesses which are not profitable should lower prices and face liquidation - that is how markets recover.  Postponing that will only encourage investment in additional non-viable business models - a bigger drop in the future.

    As for the rest - I don't believe in original sin.  I mean come on - the government screwed you and now you want me to help out - but you don't want to ask - you want to force me to help via the government?  That's coercion.  You're calling me selfish and you're proposing coercion.  Now, I didn't say charity was bad - we'll clearly see a lot of that.

    Also - this may be my fault - I did not mean to conflate the stimulus and SS.  Clearly SS won't go on forever (despite what Krugman says - I mean, we don't save the money...) but you are correct that dismantling it will be iffy - like all Ponzi schemes.  

    "As for Obama's obsession with dead presidents, I guess I am not surprised that you think it is inconsequential; I happen to think that the consequences of Obama failing to have a real identity of his own are many and they are not good, and encompass a lot more than just the sociology of voters." To be clear - I don't think there's any truth in what the guy says so why bother listening to words meant to manipulate?  

    Parent

    Samuel, if your theory was the one, (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:21:27 PM EST
    true theory about which the economic world was in complete agreement, none of this would ever have happened, and we wouldn't be having this conversation (we would probably all be out trying to sell apples on the street corner).  As Steve M. points out, there isn't only one immutable law to which everyone subscribes, or which has proven to be right 100% of the time.

    And, for the record, I am not at all in favor of dismantling Social Security, and think it would be a terrible mistake to privatize it.  When I refer to making contributions to the future, I am not talking about Social Security, I am talking about the totality of taxes that I pay; I daresay that I am paying for a larger portion of government programs and bail-outs and stimulus packages than you are, even though no one has asked my permission as to how the money should be spent.  

    I have been paying taxes of all kinds for quite some time - one might say that the laws required me to.  Do I regard the generation above me as having coerced me into helping them?  Well, no, I don't.  Yes, I am helping to support programs I don't need and a lot of people I don't know - but I don't want to live in an every-person-for-him-or-herself country, so even though I don't have a lot of choice about the taxes I pay, I accept it because overall, more people have better lives than they would without the current set-up.  And I'm not willing to abandon them now - although that always seems to be the Republican bottom line, so I think you and I are never going to agree on any of this.

    I don't expect you, at the beginning of your real life, to understand where I am coming from, or appreciate that what is learned in books often pales to what is learned through experience, but you may one day come to know that, and be better off for it.


    Parent

    To be fair to all of us... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    The debate IS about the theory.  If the theory is correct, then there isn't any government planning that will have a net positive.  If it is incorrect then perhaps there is a net positive to be had.  When we disagree however it is solely on the theory itself.  If you think reinflating the economy is a net positive - it's not because we just happen to have different opinions on that - it's because you disagree with a theory I follow while agreeing to the to teachings of Keynesians/Posts/Neos/Pres/Classicals who have always had a case for government intervention.

    If you agree with that - then it seems any productive conversation would arise from debating the economic theory itself.  

    ---beyond that----

    One other thing (and I'm sure I'm like nails on the chalkboard from your perspective) but I just want to make certain something is clear:

    "Yes, I am helping to support programs I don't need and a lot of people I don't know - but I don't want to live in an every-person-for-him-or- herself country, so even though I don't have a lot of choice about the taxes I pay, I accept it because overall, more people have better lives than they would without the current set-up."

    The forfeited taxes also fund or are used to gain credit to fund all foreign military ventures.

    You don't need the government to have charity.  In fact, using government for the purpose of coerced  charity as you can see ends up blood soaked.

    What do you mean "privatize" SS - GWB stock market SS - or allow people to choose whether or not they save?  You do realize that SS is mandated savings which is then immediately spent?

    I've been a progressive most of my life - I certainly sympathize with your last paragraph as I would have scoffed at someone like me.  Hell, I thought Conscience of a Liberal was a good book.  I've admitted I'm wrong in the past, I have no problem admitting I've learned something.  Yea - so maybe I'm wrong - but once again, we disagree on the theory.  

    People keep on saying that the theory isn't all there is to it - but theory is what's justifying that 800billion stim bill - so I think it's a valid subject to debate.  I mean, I'm simply asserting based on a theory and get accused of heralding it as immutable truth while as I type congress is taking 800billion on a theory that has actually been shown to be invalid.  I mean the same people accusing me of the immutable truth thing are doing so in defense of congress acting as though theory is immutable proof...right?

    Ehhh, I'm not trying to p you o, just learn - keep it coming plz.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    Economically speaking, we can only increase the TOTAL suffering by intervention.  Any short-term alleviation will result in a larger magnitude of suffering down the line.

    is just one economic theory among many, or perhaps it would be better described as an article of faith than a theory.  It is not some kind of immutable law.

    Many people spend their first couple decades on Earth learning everything there is to know about the way the world works, and then they spend the rest of their time learning how to doubt all those things they learned.  I wish you luck on the latter stage of this journey, whenever it is you decide to embark on it.

    Parent

    Offer up that knowledge Steve... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    What theory do you ascribe to and why is it more valid than Hayek/Mises/Rothbard?

    Don't call something a matter of faith before it has even been defined let alone debated.  

    I sure hope your theory doesn't involve purposeful aggregation of economic indicators like unemployment and then continues on to take an assumed - not evidenced - relationship between unemployment and wage-inflation - while assuming static unemployment...

    Parent

    Please stop. (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    My point that you do not have absolute knowledge should not be taken as a claim that I have absolute knowledge instead.

    All I know is that the belief that government intervention is always harmful in the long run is something less than an immutable law of economics.

    Parent

    'Ay Buddy, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    "is just one economic theory among many, or perhaps it would be better described as an article of faith than a theory."  - Why is it more faith than theory?  What is an example of theory that is theory more than faith?  


    Parent
    Condescension (none / 0) (#82)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    "Many people spend their first couple decades on Earth learning everything there is to know about the way the world works, and then they spend the rest of their time learning how to doubt all those things they learned.  I wish you luck on the latter stage of this journey, whenever it is you decide to embark on it. "

    You do not have an ounce of input into the discussion other than asserting that I'm one of these people?  

    How many people do you win over with that opening gesture?  

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:25:27 PM EST
    How many people do you win over by proclaiming that Ludwig von Mises has the answer to everything, and you are just his humble messenger on Earth?

    Look, your posts evidence all the capacity for self-doubt of a college freshman having his first experience with Ayn Rand.  Most of them tend to come around in the end and the odds say that you will, too.

    I'm not foolish enough to try and persuade you of anything affirmative about economics other than what you already believe, friend.  Your posts demonstrate what a truly helpless effort that would be.  The only one who can convince you that there might possibly be other arguments worth considering is you.

    Parent

    I do it within context. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:09:01 PM EST
    You arbitrarily commented on a point I made in a post to someone else - you didn't argue a point - you made a statement about the fallaciousness of my beliefs without commenting on the beliefs and then you made an additional statement about me.  

    You are once again making a statement about me.  Your making numerous assumptions and then explaining what is wrong with me.  

    If this were a thread about me I would not complain.  

    Now you are claiming that addressing my beliefs is pointless based on assumptions about me.  The obvious question would be "if it'd be foolish to try and persuade [me] of anything affirmative about economics other than what you believe..." why would it be no less if not more foolish to persuade me of beliefs about my self.

    I mean - bring the knowledge - stop attacking me the individual or my "type".  

    And as for clearing up confusions - I sadly have never read Rand and was a progressive through college where I majored in economics.  So I guess 2+2 now equals 5 or what?  

    Let's leave it at that unless you want to bring up a subject other than ME to debate.

    Parent

    You do not follow because (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:22:53 PM EST
    it would appear from your comments, you do not understand the structure of the cabinet (agriculture is, y'know, a different agency) or even the government . . . and you do not know history.  Do you even know the work of Perkins?

    I just don't have time here to cover all that.  It's not hard to find the info, though, on all of the above.  Enjoy.

    Parent

    No doubt Obama is a bright guy (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    If he turns words to deeds, the moment will not be squandered and we will be better off. Two caveats:

     1) Obama's "vision" appears to be insufficiently progressive; he seems content to be middle of the road accomplishing little of note. Achieving true universal healthcare would change that perception of course, but universal healthcare requires the destruction of the health insurance industry and I sense no desire from Obama to do that.

     2) the extremists that took control of the republican party since reagan are truly dangerous. No doubt a loyal opposition is fundamental to the success of the US. But the extremists controlling today's republican party  are not a loyal opposition. They are extreme authoritarians/totalitarians hell bent on fundamental changing (destroying) America and American values as most Americans know them. Obama can not work with them, he needs to further diminish them so a new republican party (Blue Dogs perhaps?) can arise.

    Yes, the remains (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    of the Republican Party do not merit exhumation--a political party that never liked the liberal underpinnings to the constitution, and has brought the country to its knees with its failed ideologies, intolerance and corruption masquerading as incompetence.

    Parent
    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    When you say:
    corruption masquerading as incompetence.


    Parent
    Wonderful phrase, isn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:17:43 PM EST
    It resonates with me.

    Here's why:  if we think people are incompetent, we rarely think it is their fault...just bad luck or the Peter Principle or fate or ___(fill in the excuse).  Incompetent often falls into the 'sins of omission' by fools category.

    Corruption, on the other hand, is deliberate...a choice...a 'sin of commission' and those need to be punished.  Jail works for me.

    Parent

    Exactly what I thought (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    It's one of the central premises in James K. Galbraith's book, The predator State. I've linked this before, it may bear repeating:  
    Predators do not mind being thought incompetent; it obscures their actual agenda.


    Parent
    Predators. Dreadful word. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    Very difficult to apply to our fellow human beings...especially those we ourselves (or our neighbors) have elected.  Much easier to think them stupid, ignorant or incompetent.

    Parent
    The most charitable interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    I could give would be knowingly misgoverning so as to change good to bad in keeping with a plan for governmental failure (unless the rich and powerful are the major beneficiaries). The guise  of governmental incompetence plays into the plan and serves when caught as an excuse for culpability and responsibility.   The idea seems to have variations and is situational, pioneered in the Reagan administration and almost perfected by the Bush gang.

    Parent
    Path full of potholes (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by nellre on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:40:35 AM EST
    With the issues so dire and expectations so high, I think it will be nearly impossible for Obama not to disappoint.

    The Bush gang screwed it up big time. He and his cabal are to blame. We need to keep an eye on a bigger picture to put all this in perspective.

    BTW my feelings for the GOP have gone from dislike to loathing. The way the GOP frame the discussion, selective blindness, faith over fact... I'm thinking GOP is a religion rather than a political party.

    What allowed the rise of bush is to blame (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    the extremist republican party since reagan is a US corporate media creation. Republican lies, deceptions, distortions, and distractions both in fantasy reality benevolence of what republicans/conservatives stand for (think the upside downism of trickle down economics, tough love, and compassionate conservatism) and the thoroughly disparaging characterization of democrats and liberalism are given credence and domination by the corporate media. (Nothing could be sicker than the values of liberalism - the desire to help people and notion of a larger community to be a disparaging remark. But that is today's US reality.)

    Without Big Media there is no bush and there is no extremist republican party/ conservative movement. For lies consuming the breadth and pervasiveness as that which is today's Conventional Wisdom can not flourish without a sponsor such as US corporate media that controls almost all the information exchange. There is nothing more important to restoration of balance in the US than for Big Media to be broken up.

    Parent

    Broken up (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nellre on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    I can't disagree that the media no longer plays the role Jefferson envisioned, and partly it's because there is no competition and diversity.

    But it seems the public is too busy or lazy to seek the truth. The media gives the consumer what they want.

    I have seen the enemy and he is us.


    Parent
    i don't know how anybody (none / 0) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    without a certain amount of 'free time' could manage to beat the bushes for as long as it takes to find the facts amidst the prevailing propaganda.

    Parent
    Howard Dean knows about the (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    power of big media

    Parent
    That is somewhat true (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    Howard Dean was an overhyped media darling before Iowa and then he finished a distant third. He proved his candidacy was more hype than substance on his own in Iowa and everyone blamed the flameout on the scream which was after the fact. It was a little like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on too much water.

    There was a similar overhyped third place finisher on the GOP side in Iowa this year...Fred Thompson.

    Parent

    Dean wasn't overhyped as much as he (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    was 4 years ahead of the times. Keep in mind, Dean was right about everything when it was the political kiss of death to be against bush. Very brave and principled person Dean is, which of course is never a recipe for political success in the US.

    That Dean's scream was made into such a big deal, to the point of drowning out his message is exactly the point about Big Media - they pick our politicians by carrying the message of the ones they like and disparaging (Gore, Dean, Kerry, and on and on) or ignoring (John Edwards) the ones that don't suit their interests.

    That Obama is a corporate media darling does not reflect well on his policies or principles (Big Media's interests are contravailing to those of the American people), even though Big Media's support is an advantage in his getting elected. We'll see how long Big Media stays on board when (if) Obama proposes soemthing they are not for.

    Parent

    Thank god the media ignored John Edwards (none / 0) (#91)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    given his eventual display of unethical behavior, cheating on his wife while she struggled with cancer.  

    We don't need another president who can't even be honest in his primary relationship with his marital partner.

    Parent

    Whereas the "overhyped media (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    darling" of last year is now the president.

    For better or for worse, they got what they wanted.  What is amazing to me is that 'their chosen' coincided with that of the Democratic Party establishment and with the village choice as well...the real trifecta and an exceedingly rare opportunity.

    Parent

    Um, the scream did him in (none / 0) (#61)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    and that's what I was referring to.
    That was assassination by corporate media.

    Parent
    He was done (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    before the scream. The scream is what people use as an excuse because they couldn't accept that his presidential aspirations took a major hit earlier that day. He wasn't humiliated by the media until after his hopes were crushed by the caucus.


    Parent
    He did the scream on the night he (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    came in third in Iowa. Are you saying he could have come back from that loss if the media had not made something out of nothing with The Scream? Doubtful.

    Parent
    My lord, the GOP has been a "religion" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    since R. Reagan gave the religious right free-rein over policy in 1981. So, I agree, only more so.

    Parent
    Obama's good mood. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    Today the Times reported that our pilotless drone planes killed 31 more Pakistanis. The Pakistani government has protested. Obama's administration could care less.

    The Iraq war continues unabated.
    "The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes."

    "The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity..." (WashPo)

    And war in Afghanistan is on the front burner behind closed doors.

    No one cares.

    Obama is in a good mood.

    Imo, Obama's mood needs to reflect (none / 0) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    the mood of the public. Which assumes that Obama should be representative of the people.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    that we may be in a better position to make a judgment in three weeks or so, when Treasury completes its "stress tests" of the endangered banks.  That's going to be a real "bite the bullet" moment for the administration.

    4 banks were taken over on Friday (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    alone. At this point the FDIC is a battlefield surgeon, hacking away just a little bit more each time, trying to stop the gangrene spread.

    Parent
    The problem is that the fish is rotting (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    fro the head (Citi and friends). One wonders if the FDIC could force the matter. . .

    Parent
    I think the fish is actually rotting from both (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:18:16 AM EST
    ends. Which makes the whole thing really complicated.

    Parent
    I hope someone has worked out (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    the math on what would be required if every single bank had to be nationalized.

    Parent
    That much math (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Faust on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    is going to result in an ongoing process. In fact that reason alone might be reason not to announce ones intention to put all the banks into recievership, i.e. that they need time just to get their ducks lined up before they announce. My opinion is that the whole stress test bit is actually intended to produce the data that will inexorably guide the conclusion that many admit but which the administation cannot yet say: that the vast majority of our banks are insolvent and need to be put into recievership.

    Parent
    One thing is clear (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by SOS on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    we're doing everything possible to evade reality.

    We don't need a 2009 version of Ronald Reagans Hollywood nostalgia projector.

    Wow... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by masslib on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    "If Dionne is right, it seems likely that President Obama will not only be our first African American President, but one of our greatest ones as well. I have stated that the "moment" provides two paths to President Obama - that of FDR or that of Jimmy Carter. It appears he will attempt the path of FDR."

    Just days ago you were lamenting his stim bill as a "failure", which I believe it is.  Good luck with that FDR thing.  I don't think it's going to happen at all.  Nothing he's done policy wise indicates that.

    "If Dionne is right" (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    seems to be the part that is confusing you.

    Parent
    Face on a coin (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    I was wondering what it must be like to be president already knowing you will probably be on a coin or paper bill someday, because you have made history just by taking the oath. I think that in Obama it confers a desire to be known for more than that.

    My fear is that the PPU is what he wants to be known for - I don't think he calls it a schtick. But he is starting to sound pragmatic enough to realize that there is only so far he can or should go to make that happen. I think he went too far down that road in the stimulus bill, but I'm glad to see the door is not closed on course correction.

    That's a very interesting question. (none / 0) (#32)
    by indy in sc on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    I was wondering what it must be like to be president already knowing you will probably be on a coin or paper bill someday, because you have made history just by taking the oath.

    I was wondering the same.  I remember hearing about an elementary school that changed its name to Barack Obama Elementary School after the election and long before the inauguration.  I kept thinking--what if he is a huge failure?--don't you want to wait and see if he's worthy of naming your school after?

    Aruguably, if he does nothing remarkable, but also doesn't stink--I can see leaving the name because of the historical nature of it, but given the challenges we face, I don't think he can get away with just being unremarkable.  

    It's added pressure for him--I still think he can rise to the challenges.  I hope, for our sakes, that he does.

    Parent

    Does Obama understand how slowly (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    government works, and that it may take time to know if something works, and even more time to come up with an alternative and actually implement it if Plan A fails?  I'm not getting the sense that he does, which is surprising for someone who has been involved in government long enough that he should have a grasp of how it works.  

    I am also a little uncomfortable with his continued mention of the role of fate; how different is "fate" from George Bush believing that God had called him to be president?  When people talk about fate in this way, I worry that they will not spend enough time thinking about the consequences of their decisions because they believe that it's all going to work out in the end.

    And then, there's that "p" word again...pragmatism.  I wish I believed that he understood that the path of least resistance does not always take you where you want to go, and in fact can be the path that you are manipulated into taking because of the passive resistance of the other side.  He seems to be so averse to having an honest-to-God fight about anything, and I believe there are a number of principles that are worth fighting for.

    Finally, I can't help but think that if FDR could have offered Obama any advice on the economy and the stimulus bill, he would have urged Obama to make it bigger and better than it started out, and fight to make sure it didn't get any smaller than it turned out to be.  It was, after all, when FDR got "pragmatic," and gave in to the GOP on the budget, that the gains that had been made started to slide.  

    Wish I knew how he defines the pragmatism of FDR, because if the stimulus is an example, I don't think he's headed for the annals of Greatest President Ever.

    Bill Clinton, per Huff Post, (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    says Obama is "off to a good start."  

    Parent
    The rhetoric needs retooling... (none / 0) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    Wouldn't Obama want to be a "pragmatic optimist" rather than an "eternal optimist"?

    Parent
    FDR wasn't pragmatic... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    his economic policies would better be described as "reactionary", "knee-jerk", "panicked" and the all too common "inexplicably confident in a plan that has no chance of helping anyone".  

    I mean - can we just acknowledge that price/wage controls have never and will never work?  That getting in bed with the inflationists was THE WRONG move?

    I'm starting to wonder why those guys wanted to get out of Brigadoon in the first place.  

    Parent

    Ron Brownstein (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    had a similar column.

    We can only, um, hope.

    He was "preternaturally calm" again (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    Obama was relaxed, responsive and, as usual, seemed preternaturally calm and unruffled.

    That description is starting to make me feel really uncomfortable.  I would prefer him to be a little ruffled at least.

    Parent

    What does it take to be "calm"? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    Imo, being calm in a crisis involves some ability to dissociate and compartementalize one's feelings.

    Some people are able to do this because it is drilled into them as part of their professional training, i.e. doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, pilots - like Sullenberger who landed the plane in the Hudson.

    Then I think of Bush's seemingly preternatural calm when he got the 9/11 news. That looked like a case of maladaptive dissociation - he just wasn't capable of relating on an empathetic level.

    I don't know what's going on with Obama. But, "calm" is a state of being - I'm more concerned with what he's doing.

    Parent

    Bush didn't look calm on 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    Bush looked dazed.

    Parent
    Agreed, but "preternatural calm" (none / 0) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:50:01 PM EST
    may also mask the reality of actually being somewhat "dazed".

    Parent
    Calm in crisis is one thing (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:43:24 PM EST
    I've had my share of crises and I've been useful and calm in some, and near useless and hysterical in others.  In both types of reactions, it was all about how I used the adrenaline and/or sense of urgency.

    This "preternaturally calm" thing that I keep seeing sounds to me like detachment, not like a cool head in a crisis.  It sounds to me like there is no particular sense of urgency.  BO says that it's urgent.  But he doesn't act like it's urgent.

    Now I'll gladly admit that it's how personally perceive it.  And it's one of those cases where I will happily be wrong.  But when I keep seeing that description, it concerns me.

    Parent

    Has Obama ever looked (none / 0) (#71)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    very emotional, or like he's genuinely moved by anything in particular? Imo, he has a detached patrician air, despite what he may be feeling.

    Parent
    If you can keep your head (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    while those around you are losing theirs....you just might not understand the danger of the situation.

    I always think of that old parody of Kipling when I hear about his "calm".

    Parent

    I'll go with The Prez (none / 0) (#18)
    by SOS on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    will have to start announcing all kinds of new and more drastic measures that will shock the stunned American public. The Baby Boomers that came back from the land, clipped their pony tails, discovered venture capital, real estate investment trusts, securitization of "consumer" debt, and the Hamptons will need the most serious counseling and hand holding.

    Your stereotype of boomers (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    as all old hippies is just silly and not reality-based.  Don't fall for hype; figure out that most boomers were and are working-class, for one thing.

    Parent
    The only 'pony tail' I want to 'clip' (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    is on the Unity Pony.

    Btw: OBAMA IS A BABY BOOMER who clipped his Afro. Is that on par with other boomers who clipped their "pony tails"?

    Parent

    That's ridiculous and inaccurate, too (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Spamlet on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    See Cream City's comment.

    Also consider two more things: (1) that in the years to come, boomers who learned communal living skills during the late 1960s and early 1970s will probably be depending on those skills and teaching them to many younger people, too; and (2) that in many cases people much younger than the boomers (e.g., Enron traders), as well as people older than the boomers (e.g., people in John McCain's "silent generation"), have played a major role in f^cking up the U.S. economy and the world.

    Anyway, generation-based bashing of entire groups of people is just silly. Lazy, too.

    Parent

    Jimmy Carter vs FDR (none / 0) (#31)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:03:18 AM EST
    What are these two paths?  

    Recognizing The Moment | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment