As I have mentioned before, the Republicans have been seemingly taken over by the loony fringe.One of the problems with the internet today is that anyone with a computer can pollute the blogosphere with his or her opinions, whether founded in reality or not. I find this makes the job of the reasoned critic more difficult. If you criticize some particular action the wingnuts can seize on that as proof that you agree that Obama is illegitimate. Point out errors, even egregious ones, by the fringe and you get accused of "drinking the kool-ade." While many claim Obama is a socialist/communist/fascist/Kenyan/pro terrorist, or whatever, others claim he is no better than Bush. Nuance is not in style.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment