If your collection of Facebook Friends is similar to mine, you’ve probably been seeing these lately:
I’m not in. Rather than an exhaustive list of why I’m not happy with the Obama administration, let me give you just a few illustrative points:
- – Failure to prosecute Bush administration officials for torture and other crimes.
- – A generally anemic response to the financial crisis and ensuing recession. Coddling the financial industry while accepting unemployment near 10% as the “new normal.”
- – Continuing old wars and starting new ones.
- – Allowing inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker of the big Wikileaks stash of State Department cables. (By the way, did you know that the Obama administration has initiated more prosecutions of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than have been pursued in the entire previous history of the Act? Three of these prosecutions are for people who leaked information to the press during the George W. Bush administration — so much for “looking forward, not back.”)
I’m sure Obama is better than McCain would have been, and I’m sure he’s better than whatever rogue the Republicans nominate for 2012. But I’m not in. I’ll vote for the guy as the lesser of two evils, but I’m not giving his campaign my money, time, or enthusiasm. Any of that would be better spent on a real progressive in a local race, or on a group that’s actually helping people and working for real change. (Even if I weren’t so unhappy with the administration, the amount of attention we give to presidential elections is far out of proportion to the likelihood that our own actions affect their outcome.)
What about you all? Is Obama still your friend? Are you in or out?
no. i’m not really that excited about the current “manager-in-chief”
his recent fundraising kick off was recycled and led to an investigation of who will be up to compete with him.
and led to this privileged pretty boy: http://www.google.com/search?q=john+huntsman+jr&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1125&bih=651
and i read somewhere recently that obama might be able to raise a BILLION dollars to blow on the horse race.
A BILLION?!?!?
Rome burns… I’ve got to go make more fiddles…
Inevitable, emphatic ambivalence. I’m obviously “in” insofar as I’ll vote for him, but not so enthusiastic as to bust out the meaningless internet signifiers. I mean, the stuff that makes me angriest (e.g. light sprinkling of taxes on the wealthiest, practically none on corporations) I don’t know that he could have done anything about anyway. I guess I wish he had blown some capital on like an obvious bomb-throwing leftist on the Court. But your list, it’s a good list.
I share similar dissatisfaction with the current administration. I have been particularly perplexed by some of the actions or inactions in the current Middle Eastern Revolution. I am certainly confused by the American position concerning Libya.
Still, not defending DOMA is pretty huge to me.
On healthcare, dropping the Public Option is really, really kind of scary to me, and I wonder how this will keep health costs down. (Actually Dave, I’d love to know how you think the Court will find on this one. Will the individual mandate to buy insurance fall within the powers afforded Congress through the Commerce Clause? I’m kind of iffy on this one.)
Of course, there was the deal cut with the pharmaceutical industry, which also saddens me a great deal…
But the economy? I’m not quite sure where to start here… Keeping Larry Summers around was troubling to me, but what an effing mess to inherit. Seriously.
But then, of course, there’s the likely Court nomination(s).
Like you, I’m certainly not on the fence regarding whether I’d vote for Obama or whichever Republican, but I do share your current lack of enthusiasm…
Smearcase, the extension of the Bush tax cuts definitely gets charged to Obama’s account. During the negotiations last December, he was pushing for an extension of the cuts for sub-$250k earners; the Republicans wanted them extended for everyone. Without a bill, the cuts would have expired for everyone (my preference — it would have been a move back toward those economy-destroying 1990s tax levels; remember how much the economy sucked in the ’90s?). If Obama had been a true progressive, he could have said, “Pass my version of the tax-cut extension; I’ll veto anything else.” Instead, he let the Republicans twist his arm to sign on to a wholesale extension. Revealed preferences.
Scotty, every serious constitutional law professor in the country, left or right, thinks the individual mandate is constitutional. There’s apparently a line of cases going back to the 1930s to support it. (One conservative take you could google is by Charles Fr/ed, who was Solicitor General under Reagan and currently teaches down the street from my apartment. He says it’s clearly constitutional.) But of course what matters is how the votes come out in the court. I suspect Kennedy is not such a radical that he’ll rule against Obamacare, so there’s your fifth vote. I’ve also heard people argue that there are reasons Scalia, at least, would also support its constitutionality, but who knows. Roberts and Alito are willing to do anything to enact their far-right policy preferences.
By the way, if you want to get really depressed about the Supreme Court, look up coverage of AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, a ruling announced yesterday that hasn’t gotten nearly enough coverage. I’m not a lawyer, but this one looks to have way worse consequences than Citizens United.
Oh, that reminds me: I’m also pretty disappointed in Obama’s SC picks, particularly Kagan. The Court currently has four ultraconservatives, one conservative, and four moderates. That’s not balance.
And yeah, Lane, apparently Obama is trying to raise a billion dollars for 2012. Which acutely raises the question (without begging it), who’s the “us” in the “it will belong to us” rhetoric of the campaign announcement?
I may be the last one, but I’m still in the tank for him. Here’s why:
– passing health care reform against extremely stiff odds
– ending DADT and refusing to defend DOMA
– implementing measures that helped save the US auto industry
– implementing financial measures that kept the recession from becoming a depression. As bad as things have been, I believe they could have been much, much worse.
These are not small things. And considering what Obama inherited, and how vitriolic the opposition is to him, I would go so far as to say they’re pretty remarkable.
Dave, to your points:
– Failure to prosecute Bush administration officials for torture and other crimes.
Seriously? This seems so unrealistic to me given the current national mood and political scenario. If Obama had really taken steps to do this, he would have been crippled in every other area by the hostile response. There are things Democratic presidents, especially those with the middle name “Hussein,” just can’t do as easily as, say, a white Republican. I just think this is an unrealistic expectation for this president in this situation.
– A generally anemic response to the financial crisis and ensuing recession. Coddling the financial industry while accepting unemployment near 10% as the “new normal.”
I disagree that his response has been anemic. As I said above, as bad as things have been, I believe they could have been FAR worse. And re: “accepting unemployment near 10% as the ‘new normal’: One quality this president has in abundance is an ability to look at the long-term. Of course 10% unemployment is not acceptable. I don’t believe he thinks so either, and I don’t believe that number will stay so high.
People want things fixed now, I get that. But remember, everyone also thought he had screwed up and lost the healthcare battle – but then he came back and won it in the eleventh hour, against all expectations. Gays were furious with him for not acting more quickly on DADT – and now it’s a memory. Again, considering the mountain of incredibly complex problems this guy faced when he came into office, I think he’s done pretty damn well.
– Continuing old wars and starting new ones.
I’m not a huge fan of the continued involvement in Afghanistan and Iran, or of the fact that Guantanamo is still open. But, foolish as it may seem, I still trust Obama to have a plan, and to have the judgment to assess when is the best time to make these things happen. I know this will make me an object of derision to many of you. But I really do trust his judgment still. Withdrawing from the mess his predecessor made in the Middle East is extremely complicated and comes with its own set of risks. I don’t pretend to know enough to say “We should withdraw immediately!” Or “We should stay for x amount of time.” But I do trust him. I may end up proven wrong. But in my opinion, I haven’t been yet.
– Allowing inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker of the big Wikileaks stash of State Department cables. (By the way, did you know that the Obama administration has initiated more prosecutions of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than have been pursued in the entire previous history of the Act? Three of these prosecutions are for people who leaked information to the press during the George W. Bush administration — so much for “looking forward, not back.”)
The treatment of Manning is inhumane and very troubling, I agree. I don’t understand this at all. And I didn’t know about the whistleblowers. As much as I still like him, I don’t like everything he’s done, obviously. But overall, I will say that I’m glad he’s president.
Oy. “Iran” s/b “Iraq.”
I’m out.
Obama has repeatedly backed out on campaign promises and has delivered more of the same (as opposed to the Change I wholeheartedly believed in).
The Health Care reform plan is a boon to health insurance and a bane to the middle, working, and poor classes. Under private insurance, health costs rise continuously, essentially mirroring the downward trajectory of care, and both of these metrics will worsen once private insurers are in complete control.
Saving theUS auto industry is good news for the 17 people still employed by one of the big US manufacturers, and wonderful, magical news for the CEOs and stakeholders, but it’s awful news for the environment. Here in TX, a nearby town is trying to woo GM by offering it cash and ludicrously low tax rates. They want GM to build the next generation of SUVs right here. As if we need any more gas-guzzling minitanks.
Go Go on ending DADT, but I have no faith in Obama’s refusal to back DOMA: it’s just an indication that he’ll ‘reluctantly’ sign it (and no doubt “for the good of the country”) when/if it crosses his desk.
Bradley Manning is a patriot.
And things could have been much worse. But they could also have been far, far better. The handouts to the banks certainly fattened their pockets and those of their CEOs, but did nothing for the foreclosed masses, nor did it rein in any of the more exotic forms of trading. Health Care in this country still ranks just below Iraq (or just above? I don’t recall. 39th in the world, anyway), and it only gets more expensive.
But there is one thing I’m thankful for: Obama showed me that it is pure folly to put any trust in those in power. I’ll definitely never contribute time, money, or emotional energy to any politician or political entity again (and I gave all my Obama and Obama/Biden t-shirts to the Goodwill), unless, of course, our entire social order changes, and money stops ruling the world. I’ll probably go out and vote, but only because the polling place is on a direct route home from work: if I had to go even the tiniest bit out of my way, I wouldn’t bother. And, anyways, my votes rarely count: I live in TX.
So, yes. Out. Way out. Left out.
So, I’ve been thinking about the torture prosecution thing.
LP notes that it’s pretty unrealistic to think that any plausibly electable president who got elected in 2008 would have prosecuted Bush administration officials (up to the level of the president himself, now that he’s admitted he ordered waterboarding) or CIA or other government operatives for their roles in torturing prisoners. I don’t know if Parrish is right about this, but she might be. Depends on what we mean by “unrealistic,” I guess. I’ll concede that there’s a pretty low chance that either Clinton or Edwards, had they been elected instead, would have ordered prosecutions. No Republican would have, not even McCain, who if he weren’t such a creep should know better after his POW experience. And maybe that’s all “unrealistic” means, that there was always a really small chance at best that it would happen.
(Although I like to think that Obama or any other skilled politician who’d been elected in 2008 could have gotten it done if he’d wanted to. Maybe appoint a panel of special prosecutors that included principled, old-school conservatives and a retired military prosecutor or two. Also have your defense secretary make some noise about how violations of the laws of war by Americans put American soldiers at risk and give terrorists and other anti-American forces a huge recruiting tool. The CIA will be pissed, but the officer corps of the armed forces has an intense self-image as principled and disciplined, and they can be won over on something like this. And of course a lot of die-hard Republicans will be pissed, but they are anyway. They’re not going to give you a goddamned inch on anything, so who cares.)
But assume LP is right on that point. What follows from it? It’s plausible to say something like, “Don’t stop supporting a politician just because he doesn’t meet your unrealistic expectations.” That sounds reasonable. But there are some issues where I have to draw the line. I read something like this, a study that says US doctors hid signs of torture at Guantanamo, and I feel sick. There’s a lot of good stuff about the United States, but this torture business is like a big chunk of antimatter to any American ideals we think are worthwhile. And if I admit it’s unrealistic to expect any President to simply ask a prosecutor to look into actions that look like clear violations of existing criminal laws against torture, that doesn’t make me any happier with the President. It makes me way less happy with the whole system — all the senators and congressmen who also don’t dare ask for prosecutions (and I know there are exceptions), all the reporters and editors who write the “Maybe ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ Are Illegal, Maybe They’re the Only Thing Standing Between Us and Sharia: Sources Disagree” stories that help define the fucked-up consensus we live with, and certainly all the national-security fanboys and two-bit nationalists who take “24” as aspirational docudrama.
And yeah, I can only take this position because I’m not a player in mainstream politics; it might be unrealistic for many elected officials to agree with me. But that’s part of the freedom of being a citizen, not a player, and it’s a freedom we all have. We aren’t constrained by the consensus of the Washington Post editorial page or the tut-tutters at NPR. We get to demand unrealistic things. And “unrealistic” just means there’s a very small chance, right, not that it’s impossible?
Gah. I immediately cringe looking at the last comment, thinking it’s too preachy. Sorry, and it’s not directed at anyone in particular, more at the whole congregation — like a sermon! There’s a bigger topic there, which is that in general I think we progressives need to ask for more stuff and imagine crazy demands that are worth making, because the other side is going hog-wild and we seem to have lost a certain momentum on the ideas front. (Not that our ideas are bad and theirs are good — theirs generally range from stupid to immoral, with a wide arc towards self-destructive; and ours aren’t bad. Just not ambitious enough.)
Update on Bradley Manning’s treatment: It’s reportedly better now.