The myth of Obama's "blunders" and "weakness

[sasha031]

With the details of the pending debt deal now emerging (and for a very good explanation of the key terms, see this post by former Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein), a consensus is solidifying that (1) this is a virtually full-scale victory for the GOP and defeat for the President (who all along insisted on a "balanced" approach that included tax increases), but (2) the President, as usual, was too weak in standing up to right-wing intransigence -- or simply had no options given their willingness to allow default -- and was thus forced into this deal against his will. This depiction of Obama as occupying a largely powerless, toothless office incapable of standing up to Congress -- or, at best, that the bad outcome happened because he's just a weak negotiator who "blundered" -- is the one that is invariably trotted out to explain away most of the bad things he does.

It appears to be true that the President wanted tax revenues to be part of this deal. But it is absolutely false that he did not want these brutal budget cuts and was simply forced -- either by his own strategic "blunders" or the "weakness" of his office -- into accepting them. The evidence is overwhelming that Obama has long wanted exactly what he got: these severe domestic budget cuts and even ones well beyond these, including Social Security and Medicare, which he is likely to get with the Super-Committee created by this bill (as Robert Reich described the bill: "No tax increases on rich yet almost certain cuts in Med and Social Security . . . . Ds can no longer campaign on R's desire to Medicare and Soc Security, now that O has agreed it").

Last night, John Cole -- along with several others -- promoted this weak-helpless-President narrative by asking what Obama could possibly have done to secure a better outcome. Early this morning, I answered him by email, but as I see that this is the claim being pervasively used to explain Obama's acceptance of this deal -- he was forced into it by the Tea Party hostage-takers -- I'm reprinting that email I wrote here. For those who believe this narrative, please confront the evidence there; how anyone can claim in the face of all that evidence that the President was "forced" into making these cuts -- as opposed to having eagerly sought them -- is mystifying indeed. And, as I set forth there, there were ample steps he could have taken had he actually wanted leverage against the GOP; the very idea that negotiating steps so obvious to every progressive pundit somehow eluded the President and his vast army of advisers is absurd on its face.
link to email
http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/08/email-to-john-cole.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/01/debt_ceiling/index.html

[DJ13]

1. Wouldnt it be wonderful

To have a President strong enough in Democratic principles not to need people making excuses for him after the fact?

[leveymg]

2. The narrative of "blunders" has almost run its natural course. Exhausted, like the rest of us.

I think we're about ready to play the game by our own rules, because the game in DC is rigged.

You know, we've been very patient and understanding. But, even that has it's limits. . .

[theoldman]

3. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Obama meets with his advisers.

They must be discussing a plan far beyond our imagination. Do any of you recall a previous president leading the country out of a recession with reducing taxes and cutting spending? You can even use another country as an example.

[ixion]

4. hmmm... seems like a pretty weak performance to me

I've been disappointed on a number of levels. I wouldn't call it a myth.

[Lasher]

5. I agree, and we should have known.

Thanks and a hat tip to DU's florida08 for finding this visionary contribution from December 2007. The original article was published by Paul Street at Z Magazine in February 2007

Sun Dec-09-07 by Progress And Change

Obama the neoliberal? and other "hidden" inconvenient truths about his record

I saw Obama supporters explain away his support for George Bush's so-called tort reform and tried to find stuff on it. While doing that I discovered a few more inconvenient truths that you will never hear about it. Obama is not my favorite candidate yet even I was unaware of several things in his record pointed to in this article.

Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a "Hamiltonian" believer in "limited government" and "free trade" by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having "a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS" Or that he had to be shamed off the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator . . .

Never mind that Obama has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neo-liberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. . . Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in primary races . . . Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred - in a "tone laced with contempt" - to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly." . . . Or that "he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts." Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine's Joe Klein last year that he'd never given any thought to Al Gore's widely discussed proposal to link a "carbon tax" on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation's millions of working poor . . .

Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. . .

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-obama-illusion-by-paul-street