|
You bet, this administration has done good things. I'm glad for each and every one of them, though there are several things on that list that I feel you have seriously misrepresented, or oversimplied, in order to produce a the "list."
Rather than deconstruct those, which is easy to do and I have done before, I'd rather focus on a different point....
The administration has done good things. Only you who hate critics claim that we (critics) are somehow claiming that's not the case.
The question you refuse to address is this: Now what do those accomplishments that have to do with criticism of the direction - not the "speed" - the administration has chosen on a variety of issues (that I would specifically detail below) that are crucial?
Answer: absolutely nothing.
I'm really glad this administration has the incredibly, really historic, super impacting, major policy accomplishment of "signing the "Edward M. Kennedy Serve American Act" or "going to Copenhagen....."
But unfortunately the characterization of health care reform, money spend on education, infrastructure and energy, or listing as an accomplishment the play to soon start talking about financial regulation leave much to be desire.
In the end, a laundry list of accomplishments - big or small - is irrelevant. This isn't a game. We're not keeping score. Other accomplishments really have nothing to do with my criticism and disappointment that the democratic party leaders, congressional democrats in majority, and this presidential administration are guilty of prioritizing the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of the needs of the poor and working class.
My criticisms include:
- my belief that a trickle-down approach to economics governs both party and this administration - serve wall street, insurance, banks, energy first and the benefits will then "trickle down" to ordinary Americans.
- my belief that the handling of the financial crisis and subsequent recession have not only been clearly "trickle-down" and serve-wall-street-first in approach, but is also making the recession created by the Bush era worse and longer than it should be.
- my belief that it is also squandering the opportunity for real economic "change I can believe in" in exchange for returning to the boom/worse-bust-than-the-time-before status quo that Wall Street prefers (because in every bust, the taxpayers subsidize their loses and they make billions.)
- my belief that handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, and broader middle eastern foreign policy continues to prioritize the wants and whims of power and privilege ahead of the needs of ordinary people. Ordinary people being the poor and working class who fight our wars for the rich, or the ordinary civilians killed for our agenda
- my belief that when it comes to the current health care debate and legislative process, Democrats have again chosen a trickle-down approach, prioritizing the wants and whims of wall street and insurance mega-corporations over the needs of the poor and working class.
- my belief that the broad, underlying philosophy being clearly demonstrated by this administration (in keeping with the last democratic administration) is what Bill Clinton called "Pro-business pragmatism" - a euphemism for trickle-down, supply side economics. The democrats and this administration have consistently chosen a trickle-down approach to every economic decision, rather than a trickle-UP approach which is based on sane economic and social principles rather than elitist ideology.
Every time this administration accomplishes something that prioritizes the needs of the poor, working class or the broader 80% of people can make up "ordinary America" ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite - I cheer.
But that will never erase areas of criticism - one has nothing to do with the other.
Not to mention the fact that a statement like this:
"passed a stimulus that kept our states going, and people working," is laughably inaccurate and deeply insulting to the increasing number of people without jobs, and states that continue to be in financial disaster.
There's a lot of over-generalized statements like that which read more like a PR sheet than a serious discussion of policy or the challenges with policy.
|