“A mixture of undesirables—thieves, plug-uglies, degenerates.” That’s how in 1932 a newspaper described the veterans who were marching upon Washington, demanding their promised bonuses. There was some truth in the description: The marchers included a few undesirables. But the majority were simply people who were struggling and wanted their fair share. Their actions would lay the groundwork for what became the 1930s left, which helped revive a floundering liberalism and make possible the New Deal.
Stop by Zuccotti Park or any of the other spaces across the country that Occupy Wall Street has claimed in recent weeks and you’ll find a similarly motley group, with some modern-day “undesirables”—not thieves and degenerates, perhaps, but at least a few anarchists, communists, and bigots, along with plenty of funny-looking people making funny-sounding music. That’s how protest movements almost invariably emerge: The first to join them are the ones most willing to break with the conventions of mainstream society.
But at these demonstrations you’ll also find plenty of people who’ve come simply because they belong to what has come to be known as the “Other 99 Percent.” They are among the growing number of Americans struggling financially, even as the very wealthy flourish. They can't find jobs. They can't pay their student loans, their mortgages or medical bills. They've fallen way behind and see no way to get ahead. Their agenda is muddled and in many cases their thinking is, too. But they know that something has gone very wrong in their country and instead of blaming illegal immigrants or Barack Hussein Obama, they are pointing their finger at America’s plutocratic minority.
Many of the same people joined groups like Moveon.org in the early decade. They protested against George W. Bush and the Iraq War, and they thronged to the Obama campaign in 2008. More broadly, they are part of the progressive ferment that began fifty years ago, subsided during the great conservative counter-reaction that began in the 1970s, but that has begun to swell again in the last two decades. They care about human rights, clean air, gay marriage. They put “people before profits,” as the Clinton campaign put it in 1992. They are egalitarian, sometimes to a fault. After Obama took office, they rested their hopes for change on his presidency. He was, after all, the candidate of change. But they have been sorely disappointed, and in the wake of the sordid negotiations over the debt ceiling, some of them have taken their frustration to the streets.
The protesters are better at generating slogans than programs. There’s no clear agenda, but instead a hodgepodge of grievances and demands. Some of those demands, like a reform of campaign finance, speak directly to the matter at hand. Some of them, like protecting animal rights or ending alleged American colonialism, do not. But the heart of the movement is its focus on the inequality of wealth and power, and the way that it has undermined American democracy. Many liberals recognize those values and have, with some caution, embraced the movement. They are wise to do so.
LIKE THE LABOR MOVEMENT, or the old Populists and Socialists of Eugene Debs, liberalism arose in the early twentieth century as a reaction to the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism. But instead of trying to overthrow capitalism, as radicals did, it sought to create a more egalitarian version of it.
In that way, liberals and the left have always had a complicated, symbiotic relationship. Franklin Roosevelt disdained Huey Long’s Share the Wealth movement and was probably not excited about armed farmers preventing foreclosures or about striking workers. But unlike Herbert Hoover, who turned to Douglas MacArthur to drive the Bonus Marchers out of Washington, Roosevelt responded to these pressures from below not with troops, but with positive legislation—indeed, it was precisely Roosevelt’s liberalism that inclined him to do so.
The movements saw it as their task to force Roosevelt’s hand; he, in turn, understood his mission as the transformation of their sometimes unreasonable demands into the great reforms of the Second New Deal. And that is how it was throughout the 20th century. Social security, the minimum wage, Medicare, environmental protection, the government’s commitment to civil and sexual equality—all these came out of liberalism’s interaction with the left.
Sometimes, liberals have hemmed and hawed about protests, pleading that things were complex and that change was too difficult. The left, on the other hand has sometimes dismissed liberals as tools of corporate capitalism. But this kind of suspicion and derision has not benefitted either side. Without liberalism, the left and its movements slip into extremism that ends up validating their harshest opponents. That happened in the 1920s when the Communists vied with the Socialists for leadership of the left; it happened again during the late 1960s when the New Left veered out of control. The converse is equally true: Without leftwing ferment from below, liberalism becomes powerless in the face of business and the organized right. That happened in the 1920s and the 1980s and in the early part of this century—and it threatens to happen again now.
Don’t some of the Wall Street protesters show illiberal impulses? Yes —and more will do so in the future. What is there to say about an assemblage of protestors in Atlanta denying Congressman John Lewis the right to speak because, in a fit of egalitarian pique, they didn’t want to acknowledge that one voice might have more authority than others? Or members of an extreme antiwar clique free-riding on the Occupy protests and invading the Air and Space Museum, a favorite weekend destination for visiting tourists and their children, in order to protest a display of drones?
These actions are not on a par with Tea Party members spitting on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver or heckling gay congressman Barney Frank. They pose no serious threat to civility or order. Most important, they do not seem emblematic of the movement as a whole. But they sully the left and, by the way, alienate would-be supporters. Those actions, and the minority of people behind them, deserve condemnation.
Parsing out genuine grievance and popular protest from the sectarian eccentricity, adolescent theatricality, and narrow self-interest will be an ongoing project—a difficult one, yes, but also a worthwhile one. The world is in the grips of severe economic downturn, causing considerable human misery; an alliance of business and conservative Republicans threatens to make matters much worse. The Occupy Wall Street movements may not survive the onset of cold weather and rain. But, along with Elizabeth Warren’s fledgling Senate campaign in Massachusetts and the continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin, they represent a genuine spark of grassroots political action—a chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obama’s 2008 campaign. We have to make sure we don’t squander it.
Jonathan Cohn and John B. Judis are senior editors at The New Republic.
Print
“The Occupy Wall Street movements may not survive the onset of cold weather and rain. But, along with Elizabeth Warren’s fledgling Senate campaign in Massachusetts and the continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin, they represent a genuine spark of grassroots political action—a chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obama’s 2008 campaign. We have to make sure we don’t squander it.”
Excuse me, Cohn and Judis, but to compare OWS to the genuine liberal movements like the “continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin” or the support a genuine reformer and liberal like Elizabeth Warren seems farfetched.
If and when the OWS jo ... view full comment
“The Occupy Wall Street movements may not survive the onset of cold weather and rain. But, along with Elizabeth Warren’s fledgling Senate campaign in Massachusetts and the continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin, they represent a genuine spark of grassroots political action—a chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obama’s 2008 campaign. We have to make sure we don’t squander it.”
Excuse me, Cohn and Judis, but to compare OWS to the genuine liberal movements like the “continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin” or the support a genuine reformer and liberal like Elizabeth Warren seems farfetched.
If and when the OWS joins forces with the labor movement then they will deserve respect.
Right now they are just an inchoate bunch of students who have fallen in love with their media image.
A decent defence of the movement and a proper rebuke, although timid, to "The Editors" (faceless bureaucrats?!) who dismissed a left-populist movement out of hand. If it's not going away and it has innate popular appeal, it's better to merge forces or coordinate separate agendas as much as is possible, so that people see that their economic grievances are properly fulfilled by the policy of the Democratic Party. For like the Tea Party, OWS focus primarily on economic issues; unlike the Tea Party, their economic shop is directed at a positive change for the middle class and working (or unemployed) poor, as well as many in the upper middle class.
In the end, the goal of OWS is to get a legislat ... view full comment
A decent defence of the movement and a proper rebuke, although timid, to "The Editors" (faceless bureaucrats?!) who dismissed a left-populist movement out of hand. If it's not going away and it has innate popular appeal, it's better to merge forces or coordinate separate agendas as much as is possible, so that people see that their economic grievances are properly fulfilled by the policy of the Democratic Party. For like the Tea Party, OWS focus primarily on economic issues; unlike the Tea Party, their economic shop is directed at a positive change for the middle class and working (or unemployed) poor, as well as many in the upper middle class.
In the end, the goal of OWS is to get a legislature and President more responsive to and representative of the people. Obama can be that president, has been in the past, and will continue to do so if he can risk it (trying to close Guantanamo reflects this)--and what's more, he's certainly better than Mitt Romney or any Republican. Congress can be that Congress, but it requires active political engagement and energy comparable to the 2008 election's get out the vote operation. OWS is concerned with getting tangible outcomes; many members of the Democratic Party are pursuing those same outcomes. There's no point in stiff-arming a genuinely grass-roots movement that includes people who voted for Democrats in the past. Ultimately, you need them on board anyway, and they are gaining the political exposure and (slowly) polish that enables them to spread the tenets of centre-left economics to a population that is naturally receptive to centre-left economic positions.
So, Cohn and Judis are dissenters... Who does that leave?
So, Cohn and Judis are dissenters... Who does that leave?
The main thing I like about OWS? They are getting off their fucking electronic devices and getting together physically in the same place. Meetings do not a movement make, but you can't have a movement without meetings.
The main thing I like about OWS? They are getting off their fucking electronic devices and getting together physically in the same place. Meetings do not a movement make, but you can't have a movement without meetings.
Reasonable people, including liberals, can disagree about the best response to OWS. I agree with Cohn and Judis. Why? Because I believe it's the best chance finally to bring all of the middle class together, where they belong, and end the division that has been created by those who care more about political victory than what's best for the country. The chart by James Sinclair that has been circulating on the internet this week, which shows the large intersection of common interests and goals of seemingly disparate groups, the tea partiers and OWS, is all one needs to know to realize the enormous potential for change that is right in front of liberals. Sure, each of the groups has its frin ... view full comment
Reasonable people, including liberals, can disagree about the best response to OWS. I agree with Cohn and Judis. Why? Because I believe it's the best chance finally to bring all of the middle class together, where they belong, and end the division that has been created by those who care more about political victory than what's best for the country. The chart by James Sinclair that has been circulating on the internet this week, which shows the large intersection of common interests and goals of seemingly disparate groups, the tea partiers and OWS, is all one needs to know to realize the enormous potential for change that is right in front of liberals. Sure, each of the groups has its fringe dwellers. But focusing on the fringe, as did the editors of TNR, highlights the differences while overlooking the common interests of the middle class that make up both groups. The opportunity for liberals is there, as it was when FDR lead the way in the 1930s, if only they will seize it. Thanks to liberals such as Cohn and Judis, it's possible.
Great post rayward.
Great post rayward.
Republicans should be embracing Occupy Wall Street. After all, this will guarantee Obama to be a one-term President. A movement of people in heavily Democratic States will add no electoral votes, and will turn off independent voters in swing states. Like the Chicago 7 bringing us Richard Nixon, OWS will bring us Mitt or Rick or Herman. So why should Liberals like this?
The only way this could be a serious movement is if they demonstrated in Eric Cantor's or John Boehner's district and tried to change some election that mattered.
Republicans should be embracing Occupy Wall Street. After all, this will guarantee Obama to be a one-term President. A movement of people in heavily Democratic States will add no electoral votes, and will turn off independent voters in swing states. Like the Chicago 7 bringing us Richard Nixon, OWS will bring us Mitt or Rick or Herman. So why should Liberals like this?
The only way this could be a serious movement is if they demonstrated in Eric Cantor's or John Boehner's district and tried to change some election that mattered.
While I think the TNR editors concerns are understandable, my thanks to Judis and Cohn for voicing their dissent on this. OWS has reframed the debate in an important way, and the grievances being expressed are real. Liberalism needs to identify more with grassroots democracy and less with capitalism, for liberals' own sakes but even more for the good of the country.
While I think the TNR editors concerns are understandable, my thanks to Judis and Cohn for voicing their dissent on this. OWS has reframed the debate in an important way, and the grievances being expressed are real. Liberalism needs to identify more with grassroots democracy and less with capitalism, for liberals' own sakes but even more for the good of the country.
It's true that the OWS really needs to join forces with labor before it can really be effective, and working-class people are not going to embrace drum circles. Nevertheless, a normally apolitical writer's blog I read recently suggested that we view the OWS movement as simmering stock: it could one day be used to create a delicious soup, but it doesn't make sense to complain that it's not soup itself.
Or something like that.
It's true that the OWS really needs to join forces with labor before it can really be effective, and working-class people are not going to embrace drum circles. Nevertheless, a normally apolitical writer's blog I read recently suggested that we view the OWS movement as simmering stock: it could one day be used to create a delicious soup, but it doesn't make sense to complain that it's not soup itself.
Or something like that.
I agree with bwickes 100%.
The big problem strategically for the Democrats is that OWS will very likely become an albatross. There are just too many opportunities for people like Fox News, Wall Street Journals, Weekly Standard, etc. etc. etc., all the various clever Tea Party/Republican groups, to "Willie Horton" the movement.
There's also a sort of "category error" going on also, I think. People observe that the Tea Party was the energizing of the base (or "extremists") of the Republican Party, and now, of course, virtually everyone is a RINO; they are all actually Tea Partiers now. I think some Democrats see a chance to put OWS in the same category as the Tea Party: something right now tha ... view full comment
I agree with bwickes 100%.
The big problem strategically for the Democrats is that OWS will very likely become an albatross. There are just too many opportunities for people like Fox News, Wall Street Journals, Weekly Standard, etc. etc. etc., all the various clever Tea Party/Republican groups, to "Willie Horton" the movement.
There's also a sort of "category error" going on also, I think. People observe that the Tea Party was the energizing of the base (or "extremists") of the Republican Party, and now, of course, virtually everyone is a RINO; they are all actually Tea Partiers now. I think some Democrats see a chance to put OWS in the same category as the Tea Party: something right now that is dominated by the "base"/extremists within the Democratic Party, and some Democrats now visualize/hope for an outcome similar to the Republicans/Tea Partiers: that the Democratic party become more like OWS in its focus and arguments. But while this historically has worked for Republicans as a method of winning national elections, historically it has failed Democrats and will fail again this time: there is really no way to have a successful outcome if Democrats tilt to their extremes.
Things are actually going pretty well now for Democrats: Sarah Palin has bowed out rather ignominiously, I think, and we were even "lucky" enough to have Steve Jobs' death several hours later eliminate media focus on Palin. The Repub debaters are essentially a circular firing squad. And of course, the one likely to win the primary, Romney, elicits very little enthusiasm from most Republicans. And if Perry wins the nomination, that ain't such good idea either. What's not to like? Obama just should keep tacking to the center, at least "respecting" OWS, but not being drawn into agreement with them, and that way he can still win PA, OH, MI, WI and FL and just maybe win the election.
This is your best post so far, Tim.
This is your best post so far, Tim.
Yes, I agree with gmck on this: the difference between the teabagger caravan and the OWS circus is that the Tea Party "extreme" is backward looking and wants a return to the Constitution, mom, and apple-pie after the Kenyan socialist muslim somehow got elected and destroyed America, while the OWS "extreme" wants a social transformation forward into a future with fairness, diversity, regulation, tolerance, and the whole wacko liberal hippie agenda.
Except perhaps for the New Deal, the right has always had more success dressing up their vision as American normal than the left.
Yes, I agree with gmck on this: the difference between the teabagger caravan and the OWS circus is that the Tea Party "extreme" is backward looking and wants a return to the Constitution, mom, and apple-pie after the Kenyan socialist muslim somehow got elected and destroyed America, while the OWS "extreme" wants a social transformation forward into a future with fairness, diversity, regulation, tolerance, and the whole wacko liberal hippie agenda.
Except perhaps for the New Deal, the right has always had more success dressing up their vision as American normal than the left.
irony:
"the OWS "extreme" wants a social transformation forward into a future with fairness, diversity, regulation, tolerance, and the whole wacko liberal hippie agenda."
Granted, there are plenty of reasonable people in that group.
The problem is that Fox News, etc., are going to report it solely from the standpoint of there being Ward Churchill-type people in the group (or even less-extreme people, whom Fox can still present as "extremists"). There's no shortage of opportunities for extremely un-photogenic interviews and event-reporting.
irony:
"the OWS "extreme" wants a social transformation forward into a future with fairness, diversity, regulation, tolerance, and the whole wacko liberal hippie agenda."
Granted, there are plenty of reasonable people in that group.
The problem is that Fox News, etc., are going to report it solely from the standpoint of there being Ward Churchill-type people in the group (or even less-extreme people, whom Fox can still present as "extremists"). There's no shortage of opportunities for extremely un-photogenic interviews and event-reporting.
gmck1948 - my take is that this is the exact wrong tack to take. I said this on another thread and I apologize if it sounds obnoxious - but your take reeks of fear. We have allowed the crazies to define the narrative for too long, while we cower in the corner muttering impotently about objective reality and data. Fact is, it is long past time that we took back the narrative - and stopped cowering in fear that the big bad boys at Fox will get us for it. Enough!
Read the reports in TNR last week detailing how Obama's populism is not only having no effect on his numbers with independents, it's actually strengthening them. Well, duh as Roi would say. It's called leadership, it's called stan ... view full comment
gmck1948 - my take is that this is the exact wrong tack to take. I said this on another thread and I apologize if it sounds obnoxious - but your take reeks of fear. We have allowed the crazies to define the narrative for too long, while we cower in the corner muttering impotently about objective reality and data. Fact is, it is long past time that we took back the narrative - and stopped cowering in fear that the big bad boys at Fox will get us for it. Enough!
Read the reports in TNR last week detailing how Obama's populism is not only having no effect on his numbers with independents, it's actually strengthening them. Well, duh as Roi would say. It's called leadership, it's called standing up for what is clearly right and taking on bullies.
We have a chance to show loud and clear is that Fox and the rest of the nutbag right wing press is OZ man. The curtain is coming down daily. Are you really still afraid of Robert Murdoch? Why on earth would you be?
J&C write: "These actions are not on a par with Tea Party members spitting on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver or heckling gay congressman Barney Frank."
You do know that Breitbart has had a standing offer of $100,000 for anyone to produce a video of this. There were countless cameras in use that day, and the media was following the congress folks through the crowd. And not camera captured these alleged acts. Why?
Rayward has indeed hit on a key point with Sinclair's chart. That Judis and Cohn are writing without recognizing this overlap speaks volumes.
And this is why I always ask folks to think about WHY, with a supermajority, the dems did nothing of substance? They always talked about what they wou ... view full comment
J&C write: "These actions are not on a par with Tea Party members spitting on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver or heckling gay congressman Barney Frank."
You do know that Breitbart has had a standing offer of $100,000 for anyone to produce a video of this. There were countless cameras in use that day, and the media was following the congress folks through the crowd. And not camera captured these alleged acts. Why?
Rayward has indeed hit on a key point with Sinclair's chart. That Judis and Cohn are writing without recognizing this overlap speaks volumes.
And this is why I always ask folks to think about WHY, with a supermajority, the dems did nothing of substance? They always talked about what they would do, and who they would punish, and then when confronted with the opportunity, they did nothing. Why?
A supermajority is a nightmare for any political party. It means full speed ahead on the agenda they always TALK about. It means full speed ahead on punishing those that block the "progress" and stand in the way of truth and light.
But if deep down inside the political party knows that these ideas and talking points are NOT conducive to a healthy wall street, a strong economy, great jobs numbers and more importantly, their re-election, then what are they to do?
They do exactly what the dems did: They claim they were blocked. Even right now we're witnessing Obama talking about republicans blocking his job bill, when in reality it's Harry Reid that is doing the blocking.
If you go far enough left, or far enough right, you pop out on the other side. The fringe elements of our parties are scary close. And at the end of the day, the average republican doesn't want to cut taxes if it hurts the economy, and the average dem doesn't want to raise taxes if it hurts the economy. Both sides agree that hard work should result in tangible wins, and both sides agree that sloth shoudl not be rewarded.
I honestly don't know any republicans that are against gay marriage. I'm sure they exist. I know a few republicans against abortion. I'm sure these mythical creatures exist, but the party differences are not nearly as polarizing as everyone thinks. Our leaders want us to believe they are. Their worst nightmare is finding enough common ground that the incumbants get kicked out and replaced with a next set of folks that are more interested in the population than special interests.
I fantasized after the crises that the republicans and democrats in congress would be forced to vote out their top 20% of members than had their hands on the tiller of the economic mess. Let republicans identify their greatest contributors to this mess, and dems identify their greatest. And then we fire them and cancel their pension. No mercy. Just like in business.
And then next time a horrid mess happens and government shows themselves to be asleep, we do it again. What is unacceptable is two years down the road, and nobody is in jail.
One can dream.
seattleeng: "I honestly don't know any republicans that are against gay marriage."
Come to the deep South, and I'll show you plenty.
seattleeng: "I honestly don't know any republicans that are against gay marriage."
Come to the deep South, and I'll show you plenty.
Wandrey, I understand and sympathize with your argument on this. Perhaps my only defense -- I can't speak for gmck -- is to say that my take reeks of caution rather than fear and the posture of my formerly upright soul is not totally craven but more a once-bitten-twice-shy defensive crouch :)
Ok, I'm not saying fear is good and I'm certainly on board with the people who say the ludicrous panic of the other TNR editorial is an example of nervous liberal op-ed squirming at its worst, but history is real and there is an undeniable history out there of a particular style of American left politics tripping up its own content.
If people are turned off -- maybe via biased reporting, whatever -- the ... view full comment
Wandrey, I understand and sympathize with your argument on this. Perhaps my only defense -- I can't speak for gmck -- is to say that my take reeks of caution rather than fear and the posture of my formerly upright soul is not totally craven but more a once-bitten-twice-shy defensive crouch :)
Ok, I'm not saying fear is good and I'm certainly on board with the people who say the ludicrous panic of the other TNR editorial is an example of nervous liberal op-ed squirming at its worst, but history is real and there is an undeniable history out there of a particular style of American left politics tripping up its own content.
If people are turned off -- maybe via biased reporting, whatever -- the messenger, then the message has a harder time getting across even where it might have a hearing. And if people are more invested in the purity of their own actions than forming the alliances they need to achieve practical ends, they often don't see that.
We stand with you Red Dawn faction of TNR!
We stand with you Red Dawn faction of TNR!
Or as Myles na Gopaleen might have written:
The brother was up at the married sister's in Skerries and there was great talk about the Occupy Wall Street movement over there in America. Do you know what I'm going to tell you?
-- I do not.
That'll do wonders for mobilizing the left. The brother says it could even help Obama get re-elected provided Fox News and them fellas don't manage to demonize it completely. A lot of mainstream liberals, on The New Republic for example, are nervous about street activism but this thing could shift the debate in the right direction.
-- Your relative seems very familiar with the details of the American political scene.
He's got the measur ... view full comment
Or as Myles na Gopaleen might have written:
The brother was up at the married sister's in Skerries and there was great talk about the Occupy Wall Street movement over there in America. Do you know what I'm going to tell you?
-- I do not.
That'll do wonders for mobilizing the left. The brother says it could even help Obama get re-elected provided Fox News and them fellas don't manage to demonize it completely. A lot of mainstream liberals, on The New Republic for example, are nervous about street activism but this thing could shift the debate in the right direction.
-- Your relative seems very familiar with the details of the American political scene.
He's got the measure of it all right. Ah, here's me 46A. Take care now!
-- Farewell, friend.
:) Irony.
"I saw that my witticism was unperceived and quietly replaced it in the treasury of my mind."
:) Irony.
"I saw that my witticism was unperceived and quietly replaced it in the treasury of my mind."
Why do we need to "embrace" them?
Why can't I just say we agree with some of their demands such as more jobs and more regulation of wall street firms and banks; and that I think some of their views a combination of new age wine in very old communist bottles?
Why do we need to "embrace" them?
Why can't I just say we agree with some of their demands such as more jobs and more regulation of wall street firms and banks; and that I think some of their views a combination of new age wine in very old communist bottles?
Rayward--would you mind posting a link to the chart you mention? Couldn't find it via google.
Rayward--would you mind posting a link to the chart you mention? Couldn't find it via google.
Who are "The Editors" of TNR if they're not John Judis or Jon Cohn?
Who are "The Editors" of TNR if they're not John Judis or Jon Cohn?
The typical Wall Street demonstrator is about "I'm a sensitive artistic soul. Let those hicks out there in Middle America support me". Middle America's justified reply is a middle finger pointed in the direction of those lazy worthless bastards.
The typical Wall Street demonstrator is about "I'm a sensitive artistic soul. Let those hicks out there in Middle America support me". Middle America's justified reply is a middle finger pointed in the direction of those lazy worthless bastards.
I agree largely agree with this post and I am rather shocked that TNR would take a Fox News-like condescending attitude toward these protesters. Thanks for giving cover to the right wing on this, TNR!
However, I would also like to address Judis' review of Ron Suskind's book. While I agree that Obama should have followed his populist instincts more regarding Wall Street, I hardly think it follows that this represents 'a failed presidency'. There is so much wrong here, I don't know where to start.
First, somehow Obama's failure to get tougher somehow led to the people of Mass voting for Scott Brown? Really? Scott Brown ran as a crusader against Wall Street, railing against the Obama Admin to ge ... view full comment
I agree largely agree with this post and I am rather shocked that TNR would take a Fox News-like condescending attitude toward these protesters. Thanks for giving cover to the right wing on this, TNR!
However, I would also like to address Judis' review of Ron Suskind's book. While I agree that Obama should have followed his populist instincts more regarding Wall Street, I hardly think it follows that this represents 'a failed presidency'. There is so much wrong here, I don't know where to start.
First, somehow Obama's failure to get tougher somehow led to the people of Mass voting for Scott Brown? Really? Scott Brown ran as a crusader against Wall Street, railing against the Obama Admin to get tough with those fat cats? I guess I missed that.
Tim Geithner failed to stop Lehman Bros from going under - I believe that was largely the policy of Hank Paulsen, not really Geithner.
First stimulus too small? True (or at least too tilted toward tax cuts). However, I still have not seen any evidence that a larger or a second stimulus would have somehow been looked upon more favorably by the GOP and Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman (because I'm sure the GOP at that point would have dropped their intransigence, right?).
The Administration watering down the financial reform bill? Somewhat, yes. It seems to me the Admin (although maybe not Geithner or Summers) was generally fighting Congress for a tougher bill, particularly a tougher Volcker rule. However, Sen Feingold wanted something even tougher and so was going to vote against the bill. That meant the 60th vote they needed for passage was Scott Brown's (you know, the guy the people of Mass flocked to because he would be so much tougher on Wall Street on Wall Street) and he would only vote for a watered down Volcker rule. So now do water down the Volcker rule or let the bill fail? It's odd to me that the actions of one of the Senate's great progressives actually resulted in a weaker financial reform bill.
But even if Obama had gotten tougher with the banks, would the economy be in any better shape today? Probably not - in fact, it may well have been negatively impacted in the short run. That is the biggest reason Obama faces difficulties today - while liberals may feel better about Obama if he had been tougher on Wall Street (although they would have found any other number of other 'sins' to bitch about), 9% unemployment is the biggest albatross he faces. Being too tough on Wall Street may well have been seen as a negative and further increased opposition to Obama - an encroachment by the horrible federal government on the private sector that failed to improve the economy.
Finally, I suppose I need to know Judis' definition of a failed presidency. Obama still has accomplished quite a bit in his first term, particularly given the situation he faced entering office. I realize that some may think these accomplishments didn't go far enough - but they never do. There's always another battle to fight on progressive issues because the forces arrayed in favor of inertia in this country are so great. I am supposing Judis' definition of a failed presidency is the failure to get re-elected. And in that world, I guess that would make Barack Obama a failure if he loses in 2012, but apparently makes George W Bush a success. If that is the alternative we face, then count me in favor of failure.
Republicans need to reform Wall Street. There's a good start on that in the Tea Party's revulsion over the taxpayer bailouts of some of the big investment banks. No more too big to fail. Don't get me wrong. Presidents Bush and Obama had to bail out the bad guys - they *were* too big to fail without the risk of a 1930's level depression. But we need to reform the banking system. We need to reform the banking and securities and laws so as to get rid of too big to fail.
Democrats need to reform education. There is good news on that front. An amazingly progressive law had been passed in California, "The law works as follows: If a majority of the parents of children at a chronically fa ... view full comment
Republicans need to reform Wall Street. There's a good start on that in the Tea Party's revulsion over the taxpayer bailouts of some of the big investment banks. No more too big to fail. Don't get me wrong. Presidents Bush and Obama had to bail out the bad guys - they *were* too big to fail without the risk of a 1930's level depression. But we need to reform the banking system. We need to reform the banking and securities and laws so as to get rid of too big to fail.
Democrats need to reform education. There is good news on that front. An amazingly progressive law had been passed in California, "The law works as follows: If a majority of the parents of children at a chronically failing school sign a petition demanding action, they have the right to institute one of four major reforms: firing the school’s principal, replacing the majority of the staff, shutting the school and sending the students elsewhere, or replacing the administration with the management of a nearby charter school."
"The main author of the bill was the Democratic state senate’s majority leader, Gloria Romero. 'You shouldn’t have to write this bill,' she says. 'The adults who run the education bureaucracy should be doing this, but they’re not.'"
If the California legislature can see the light, surely TNR and its readers can do the same.
John and Jon: your take jibes with my experience (in Rome) - http://kvickthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/10/roman-holiday.html
It's time for thoughtful politicians to support the movement and fill the power vacuum. ("Is it safe yet?")
John and Jon: your take jibes with my experience (in Rome) - http://kvickthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/10/roman-holiday.html
It's time for thoughtful politicians to support the movement and fill the power vacuum. ("Is it safe yet?")