Why has President Obama’s popularity slid over the last few months? One common explanation is that he’s governed in too liberal a fashion--too much big government, too fast. David Brooks makes this case in today’s New York Times. “By force of circumstances and by design, the president has promoted one policy after another that increases spending and centralizes power in Washington,” he writes. “The result is the Obama slide, the most important feature of the current moment.”
Is Obama really sliding because of his liberal policies? If so, then you might expect to see governors doing better--after all, they’re cutting spending. But governors of both parties have seen their approval ratings fall as well. Tim Pawlenty is unpopular. Arnold Schwarzenegger is really unpopular. Overseas, Gordon Brown is unpopular. The Japanese Liberal Democratic Party lost control of a government it’s run for more than 50 years.
So one possibility is that all these elected officials, at home or abroad, have expanded government too much or committed some analogous sin. The alternate possibility is that the world economic slump is dragging down all their popularity. I’m going with explanation number two.
This, however, doesn’t settle the question entirely. Brooks is clearly wrong to blame Obama’s decline on his big government ways. But, even if the economy accounts for the vast bulk of Obama’s decline, might Obama be more popular if he had governed closer to the center? In other words, is Brooks entirely wrong, or merely almost entirely wrong?
That’s much more of a guess. Obama has indeed supported numerous government interventions. Would he be more popular if he hadn’t? Let’s list the major ones. He supported extending the federal bailout of the financial sector. He signed rather than veto the appropriations bill from the previous year. He signed economic stimulus legislation and a bailout of the auto companies.
Now imagine he had done none of these things. If he hadn’t helped bail out the banks, the economy might still be in free-fall. If he hadn’t gotten a stimulus, most economists believe, the economy would be in worse shape. If he hadn’t bailed out the auto companies, hundreds of thousands more people in the Midwest would be jobless. He could have vetoed last year’s appropriations bill, but that would have started a fight with Congress, delayed his entire agenda by forcing the House and Senate to go back to the drawing board, and froze federal spending at a time when more spending (on anything) was desperately needed.
It’s true that, at the cost of allowing severe economic damage, Obama would have gained more of a reputation as a centrist by scaling back or abandoning these parts of his agenda. On the other hand, he probably would have had George H. W. Bush’s problem--appearing to have no serious agenda at a time when the country faced serious economic hardship.
Brooks’ prescription is as common as his diagnosis: He says Obama must scale back his plans and move to the center. Brooks is extremely vague about this point. He says that Obama should not use the reconciliation process in the Senate to pass health care reform, nor should he “balloon” the national debt (though Brooks does not mention that none of the health care plans in either chamber would do so).
Brooks does not mention another contributing factor in Obama’s poll decline: the long languishing status of his health care reform. Alongside his argument that Obama should move to the center in some unspecified way, Brooks writes, oddly:
Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach.
Why do I say oddly? Because he’s severely undermining his own case here. Republicans are going to attack anything Obama and the Democrats propose as big government. As Brooks says, voters are not going to follow the details, and in fact they’re going to be pretty highly misinformed. People make up their minds based on crude heuristics. If moderate Democrats are constantly hedging on the health care plan and suggesting they prefer a more moderate alternative, the public will conclude that Obama’s health care plan is too liberal.
Moreover, in lieu of educating the public about the health care plan, the press is dominated by accounts of political maneuvering. This, too, contributes to Obama’s declining popularity. The legislative sausage making process never makes anybody look good.
The widespread conclusion that Obama is losing popularity because he’s too liberal, and would regain popularity if he moves to the center, is totally unpersuasive. Most of Obama’s popularity hinges on the state of the economy, and most of what the administration can do to affect that, it’s already done (or not done). The rest depends on ending the long slow bleed of legislative wrangling and just passing a health care bill.
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.
Print
COMMENTS (24)
Jonatjhan Chait is a Marxist. He can't understand how why all those ignorant people out there in America believe in values like freedom, honor, decency, individual responsibility and patriotism.
The class struggle in this country is between what Vladimir Nabokov apt called the Stalinist bourgeoisie and their supposed inferiors among the lower middle classes.
The policeman on the beat, the soldier on the frontier in Aghanistan are Chait's moral superiors to the 50th degree.
Jonatjhan Chait is a Marxist. He can't understand how why all those ignorant people out there in America believe in values like freedom, honor, decency, individual responsibility and patriotism.
The class struggle in this country is between what Vladimir Nabokov apt called the Stalinist bourgeoisie and their supposed inferiors among the lower middle classes.
The policeman on the beat, the soldier on the frontier in Aghanistan are Chait's moral superiors to the 50th degree.
Jonathan Chait is a free-trader, not a Marxist. The New Republic attracts some real loonies, right and left.
Jonathan Chait is a free-trader, not a Marxist. The New Republic attracts some real loonies, right and left.
Okay, damn it, let's settle this once and for all:
WHAT is a liberal?
what IS a liberal?
what is a LIBERAL?
After all, if Obama's economic and foreign policies are liberal than so were George Bush's. Or is someone here prepared at last to clearly distinguish how one is a quintessesntial liberal agenda while the other is a quintiessential conservative agenda.
And maybe it's time for Brooks to focus more on the relationship between big government and the defense industries...the MIC. Has he himself noted over the past 10 years how much bigger that relationship has become? Or is big government okay when it is aiding and abetting his own political and economic priorites. Hypocrisy? Heaven forbid! Thi ... view full comment
Okay, damn it, let's settle this once and for all:
WHAT is a liberal?
what IS a liberal?
what is a LIBERAL?
After all, if Obama's economic and foreign policies are liberal than so were George Bush's. Or is someone here prepared at last to clearly distinguish how one is a quintessesntial liberal agenda while the other is a quintiessential conservative agenda.
And maybe it's time for Brooks to focus more on the relationship between big government and the defense industries...the MIC. Has he himself noted over the past 10 years how much bigger that relationship has become? Or is big government okay when it is aiding and abetting his own political and economic priorites. Hypocrisy? Heaven forbid! Things are just "differrent" when his values are at stake.
Or how about the paradox embedded in the relationship between the federal government and Wall Street over the past decade. Here the smaller the government got the bigger it got. Bigger in the sense that in unanchoring the finnance industry from reality, the larger the government's responsibility was in facillitating the economic crisis. Tricky, isn't it?
We'll soon see how big or small this relationship will become in the future when the government recreates the finance industry by "reforming" it. The more things change the more they stay exactly the same on steroids, perhaps?
Chait:
If he hadn’t helped bail out the banks, the economy might still be in free-fall. If he hadn’t gotten a stimulus, most economists believe, the economy would be in worse shape. If he hadn’t bailed out the auto companies, hundreds of thousands more people in the Midwest would be jobless.
george:
These are reasonable assumptions. I agree with them. But he opted for this only because the incestuous relationship between Washington and New York created the conditions that precipitated the need for them!! And how about the prevailing gap between Wall Street and Main Street in the misery and suffering department?
Not to worry? You're still on the prosperous side of the fence, here? Well, good for you!!
But I digress:
If the Bromance between Brooks and Obama leads to a consensus that Main Street can get a few extra crumbs from the masters of the universe, it's better than nothing, right?
And maybe their Brokeback Mountian fling will lead to a marriage proposal. And maybe that will finally push Obama to go full speed ahead insecuring equal rights between gays and straights at the altar. Maybe even on the front lines in the Dapartment of Defense.
george walton
d/a
"...The widespread conclusion that Obama is losing popularity because he’s too liberal, and would regain popularity if he moves to the center, is totally unpersuasive..."
Situations perceived as real are real as to their consequences. If the widespread conclusion among voters is that Obama is losing popularity among them because he's too liberal and would regain popularity if he moves to the center, then that's the political reality he faces.
"...The widespread conclusion that Obama is losing popularity because he’s too liberal, and would regain popularity if he moves to the center, is totally unpersuasive..."
Situations perceived as real are real as to their consequences. If the widespread conclusion among voters is that Obama is losing popularity among them because he's too liberal and would regain popularity if he moves to the center, then that's the political reality he faces.
Bulbman, reading your drivel I get the distinct impression that you are neither a police officer on the beat nor a soldier in Afghanistan (or anywhere else for that matter). That would imply that you are right there in the moral muck along with the rest of us, only a lot more sullen that your preferred political candidate doesn't occupy the White House.
Bulbman, reading your drivel I get the distinct impression that you are neither a police officer on the beat nor a soldier in Afghanistan (or anywhere else for that matter). That would imply that you are right there in the moral muck along with the rest of us, only a lot more sullen that your preferred political candidate doesn't occupy the White House.
He's losing popularity because he's been president.
He's losing popularity because he's been president.
-
The GOP does not have a leader and they don't have a plan. Plus, nearly 50% of the electorate did not vote for Obama and they range from disappointed and frustrated to bitter and angry.
So it is predictable that the default strategy for everyone right of center is to reject, obfuscate and in general seek temporary unity in any direction which is in opposition to Democrats. But his sliding numbers on Afghanistan suggest the lack of enthusiasm is more complicated than right-left, the economy or the role of government.
He also lacks a single opponent.
With no single person or faction to debate Obama will be unable to unify or please the far left and ... view full comment
-
The GOP does not have a leader and they don't have a plan. Plus, nearly 50% of the electorate did not vote for Obama and they range from disappointed and frustrated to bitter and angry.
So it is predictable that the default strategy for everyone right of center is to reject, obfuscate and in general seek temporary unity in any direction which is in opposition to Democrats. But his sliding numbers on Afghanistan suggest the lack of enthusiasm is more complicated than right-left, the economy or the role of government.
He also lacks a single opponent.
With no single person or faction to debate Obama will be unable to unify or please the far left and the right can ambiguously not approve. I haven't seen any "If the election were held today?" polls but both parties in congress do worse than him and Republicans haven't gained as he slipped. The scary thing? One could argue the more likely scenario of a weak GOP (their numbers don't show them picking up the slack up the unhappy) is an opponent who is unaffiliated. Even Brooks would have a tough time proposing a better alternative from the current GOP. He's had harsher words for the best they've pushed to the front.
It's obvious Brooks is suffering from a crisis of confidence in his own ideals. He's seeking to guide Obama which begs the question, "Why does he care?". Probably because Barack is his best hope and that's sufficient proof to me that even with poorer numbers most people believe he's the best out there.
So none of this less than good news for Obama is of value to the GOP unless they can consolidate all the dissatisfaction and prevail on an up or down vote, someone against him. It took Democrats years to convert chaos which was more firmly rooted against Bush-Cheney and invest in their own leader. Eighteen months ago there was talk that either Hillary or Obama folks would walk.
Yes, Obama will find himself stymied for awhile but unless the GOP shows evidence of unity under a single candidate he'll cry all the way to a second term.
-
bulbman:
How is Chait a Marxist? I don't see how advocating for a health care system that covers more people in a cost effective manner suggests that he has a linear conception of political development that ends in a government-free communist existence. Aside from blindly slinging mud, what are you talking about? Your divisive blatherskite about policemen and soldiers make you sound like Spiro Agnew. Is that type of labeling fair?
bulbman:
How is Chait a Marxist? I don't see how advocating for a health care system that covers more people in a cost effective manner suggests that he has a linear conception of political development that ends in a government-free communist existence. Aside from blindly slinging mud, what are you talking about? Your divisive blatherskite about policemen and soldiers make you sound like Spiro Agnew. Is that type of labeling fair?
George:
"After all, if Obama's economic and foreign policies are liberal than so were George Bush's. Or is someone here prepared at last to clearly distinguish how one is a quintessesntial liberal agenda while the other is a quintiessential conservative agenda."
For the 5th time, the GOP policy array:
cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy, stopping individuals from suing corporations, privatizing all necessary non-segmented goods with 100% demand (education, retirement, healthcare), opposition to affirmative action (while support for legacy admissions), opposition to all estate taxes.
This policy array, the GOP policy array, leads to one outcome: Feudalism.
The Dems are on the oppos ... view full comment
George:
"After all, if Obama's economic and foreign policies are liberal than so were George Bush's. Or is someone here prepared at last to clearly distinguish how one is a quintessesntial liberal agenda while the other is a quintiessential conservative agenda."
For the 5th time, the GOP policy array:
cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy, stopping individuals from suing corporations, privatizing all necessary non-segmented goods with 100% demand (education, retirement, healthcare), opposition to affirmative action (while support for legacy admissions), opposition to all estate taxes.
This policy array, the GOP policy array, leads to one outcome: Feudalism.
The Dems are on the opposite side of these policy issues, so are therefore, anti-feudalism (although many Dems, particularly powerful members, are overly swayed by corporate cash.)
I think the entire banking bailout, w/o a banking breakup, did real damage to the body politic, I don't think these affects should be underestimated.
This policy caused real anger among sane people (of all ideological stripes) and real bizarrro strangeness among crazy people, it was just nuts.
I'm thinking that after this monstrous bailout, this sort of 'stockholm syndrome' emergency capture of the government by this technically important but very narrow and incredibly elite interest, people are waiting now for the 'government to work for them.'
What that phrase means depends on your ideology. For me, as a liberal, it means taking the insurance companies out of the healthcare equation, passing ... view full comment
I think the entire banking bailout, w/o a banking breakup, did real damage to the body politic, I don't think these affects should be underestimated.
This policy caused real anger among sane people (of all ideological stripes) and real bizarrro strangeness among crazy people, it was just nuts.
I'm thinking that after this monstrous bailout, this sort of 'stockholm syndrome' emergency capture of the government by this technically important but very narrow and incredibly elite interest, people are waiting now for the 'government to work for them.'
What that phrase means depends on your ideology. For me, as a liberal, it means taking the insurance companies out of the healthcare equation, passing effective stimulus, and re-orienting our industrial policy toward both an economic and environmentally sustainable future. (Other liberals might include other priorities, funding education, ending torture, ending certain wars, repealing 'don't ask don't tell', gay marriage, etc...)
Obviously, conservatives (the sane ones) would have a different agenda, but I'm sure they feel the government isn't working properly for them either.
propositionjoe writes:
"How is Chait a Marxist? I don't see how advocating for a health care system that covers more people in a cost effective manner suggests that he has a linear conception of political development that ends in a government-free communist existence. Aside from blindly slinging mud, what are you talking about? Your divisive blatherskite about policemen and soldiers make you sound like Spiro Agnew. Is that type of labeling fair?"
In calling Chait a Marxist I don't mean that he believes in dialectical materialism or that he has a picture of Lenin hanging on his wall. I mean that he is so blinded by belief in the beneficence of the state (provided only that the right people are ... view full comment
propositionjoe writes:
"How is Chait a Marxist? I don't see how advocating for a health care system that covers more people in a cost effective manner suggests that he has a linear conception of political development that ends in a government-free communist existence. Aside from blindly slinging mud, what are you talking about? Your divisive blatherskite about policemen and soldiers make you sound like Spiro Agnew. Is that type of labeling fair?"
In calling Chait a Marxist I don't mean that he believes in dialectical materialism or that he has a picture of Lenin hanging on his wall. I mean that he is so blinded by belief in the beneficence of the state (provided only that the right people are in charge) that he imagines that medical care will be improved if all of it is controlled by the government, instead of only about half of it as is the case now. The idea that there is such a thing as the government providing goods and services in a cost-efficient manner is contrary to all experience. I note that the Communist Party of China reached that conclusion shortly after Mao died. Compare the economy of China before and after the leadership took the capitalist road.
The fact that liberals are mostly snobs who look down on the lower middle and working classes is well known. In fact, it is one of the central themes of American politics since the sixties. Way back in the 1930's Mary McCarthy saw that one coming, when she quipped, "Scratch a socialist and find a snob". The working classes don't like that sort of condescension one bit. Can you spell "Reagan Democrat"?
In the current debate over Obamacare liberals have shown nothing but contempt for the grassroots protests against Obama's program of vastly expanding the power of the federal government over the lives of individuals and families. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk have smeared the protesters as "astroturf". The polls tell a different story.
"The idea that there is such a thing as the government providing goods and services in a cost-efficient manner is contrary to all experience."
retirement security, clean water, and FEMA before Bush took over.
The market has proven repeatedly that it fails to provide non-segmented goods that have 100% demand.
But yes... that is the first theme, the first shibboleth of right-wing messaging since at least the 60s
and the second theme is...
"The fact that liberals are mostly snobs who look down on the lower middle and working classes is well known. "
The actual fact is that that doesn't even vaguely describe FDR's new deal coalition, although I guess if you like bulbmann you can close your ... view full comment
"The idea that there is such a thing as the government providing goods and services in a cost-efficient manner is contrary to all experience."
retirement security, clean water, and FEMA before Bush took over.
The market has proven repeatedly that it fails to provide non-segmented goods that have 100% demand.
But yes... that is the first theme, the first shibboleth of right-wing messaging since at least the 60s
and the second theme is...
"The fact that liberals are mostly snobs who look down on the lower middle and working classes is well known. "
The actual fact is that that doesn't even vaguely describe FDR's new deal coalition, although I guess if you like bulbmann you can close your eyes to history.
"he imagines that medical care will be improved if all of it is controlled by the government, instead of only about half of it as is the case now."
Well bulbmann, your powers of telepathy notwithstanding, I'm sure Chait is at most saying that a government 'takeover' of the health care insurance industry would yield vastly better outcomes at lower costs (you should check data on a foreign country sometime), and really what he's saying is that a robust public option would provide the competition that the insurance industry so desperately needs.
Do you hate competition Bulbmann?
Do you like being ripped off to the tune of 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 for at best, equal and at worst, crappier service?
I'm still not sure what 'liberal snobbishness' has to do with practicality, we should all suffer gigantic ripoffs and bad healthcare service because some people are snobs?
It is impossible to disprove a negative like...."If Obama hadn't done A, B, or C it would have been so much worse." Actually, it most likely WOULD have been so much worse, but we will never know. Besides, I hate to use the same ridiculous logic that the Big Dick is trying to snooker us with relating to stopping terorists by using torture. Dick knows you can never prove him wrong, dammit!
The black pall hanging over everything that Obama has or hasn't done in the past seven months was created and fueled by the rising unemployement rate. People don't care as much about health insurance reform, global climate change, deficit spending or even war and peace when they can't find a job or they'r ... view full comment
It is impossible to disprove a negative like...."If Obama hadn't done A, B, or C it would have been so much worse." Actually, it most likely WOULD have been so much worse, but we will never know. Besides, I hate to use the same ridiculous logic that the Big Dick is trying to snooker us with relating to stopping terorists by using torture. Dick knows you can never prove him wrong, dammit!
The black pall hanging over everything that Obama has or hasn't done in the past seven months was created and fueled by the rising unemployement rate. People don't care as much about health insurance reform, global climate change, deficit spending or even war and peace when they can't find a job or they're terrified of losing one. Unemployment has a great ability to shorten your horizons to just in front of your nose. It's human nature at its worst, unfortunately.
If our president and Congress would simplify the argument and focus on one or two big things, especially getting everybody employed, the other big items would follow suit. As much as I support the policy and feel it is essential to our continuing existence, I'm also realistic enough to understand that now isn't the time to work for cap-and-trade because Joe Public sees it as a jobs and industry killer under the present circumstances. Likewise, while health reform is an essential element of the overall economic recovery in the long run, at the moment, with his short horizon, Joe and Jane Public sees it just as more taxes and more government regulation that makes his existence even more tenuous.
Obama needs to simplify the argument and demonstrate the economic benefits to the average citizen as part of the overall economic recovery. As recovery kicks in, the revenue part of the deficit will rise to counter-balance the spending side.
I'm pretty down with you desertdog, but I really do think the banking bailout thing, directly or indirectly, informed or ignorant, really freaked people out. Maybe my anecdotal sample is flawed...
I'm pretty down with you desertdog, but I really do think the banking bailout thing, directly or indirectly, informed or ignorant, really freaked people out. Maybe my anecdotal sample is flawed...
Bulbman is an angry Idiot. He can't understand why all those ignorant people out there in America don't see everything the same way he does. Best to ignore his ill-informed, rabid statements, unless you enjoy arguing with dining room tables (or unless he posts something thoughtful).
Bulbman is an angry Idiot. He can't understand why all those ignorant people out there in America don't see everything the same way he does. Best to ignore his ill-informed, rabid statements, unless you enjoy arguing with dining room tables (or unless he posts something thoughtful).
desertdog: < If our president and Congress would simplify the argument and focus on one or two big things, especially getting everybody employed, the other big items would follow suit.>
But getting everyone employed means business (large and small) feel comfortable enough to invest. With this massive uncertainty around taxes, that climate doesn't exist.
If you are a small business owner pulling in about $500,000 per year from 3 sandwich shops and you paid about $190,000 in taxes year, then for 2011 your taxes will be $225,000 (if Bush tax cuts expire), $245,000 (if tax cuts expire and wealthy sur tax kicks in), $290,000 (tax cuts expire, sur tax kicks in, and you have a health care penalty ... view full comment
desertdog: < If our president and Congress would simplify the argument and focus on one or two big things, especially getting everybody employed, the other big items would follow suit.>
But getting everyone employed means business (large and small) feel comfortable enough to invest. With this massive uncertainty around taxes, that climate doesn't exist.
If you are a small business owner pulling in about $500,000 per year from 3 sandwich shops and you paid about $190,000 in taxes year, then for 2011 your taxes will be $225,000 (if Bush tax cuts expire), $245,000 (if tax cuts expire and wealthy sur tax kicks in), $290,000 (tax cuts expire, sur tax kicks in, and you have a health care penalty for not ensuring all workers in your chain of sandwich shops).
How can anyone make plans in this environment? They can't, so they just go into a holding pattern. It's the same with all businesses.
Next time you hear "trickle down economics", think of it in a good way. If your small business owner is making a lot of money, you can bet he's also employing a lot of people.
If Obama had come in and said that Bush tax cuts are goign to stay, and in fact there will be even more tax cuts, this economy would be a much better place today. Obama has done exactly the wrong thing.
I'm not saying you are wrong about the bailout, mmathog, but what really freaked me out was not the bailout but all the signs of our economy getting onto the glide path for another Great Depression. Who knows if it would have come to that, but I was (and remain) willing to cut some slack to both Bush and Obama on the bailout issue. Remember which administration that bill came from. I am sure some of the bailout provisions will turn out to be awful giveaways, but I also expect the cost in the end to be a lot smaller than the upfront cost, and better policy than the bad PR would imply.
I'm not saying you are wrong about the bailout, mmathog, but what really freaked me out was not the bailout but all the signs of our economy getting onto the glide path for another Great Depression. Who knows if it would have come to that, but I was (and remain) willing to cut some slack to both Bush and Obama on the bailout issue. Remember which administration that bill came from. I am sure some of the bailout provisions will turn out to be awful giveaways, but I also expect the cost in the end to be a lot smaller than the upfront cost, and better policy than the bad PR would imply.
Yeah Jeff I was for it too as long as the big banks got temporarily nationalized, re-separated, shrunk, and sold back to the private market.
However, none of that happened, so we got a (necessary) bailout and then back to business as usual, awful.
As for 'seattleEngineer,' there might be an argument for small business tax cuts.
Know what else there's an argument for? Getting BIG business to start paying ANY taxes AT ALL!
Yeah Jeff I was for it too as long as the big banks got temporarily nationalized, re-separated, shrunk, and sold back to the private market.
However, none of that happened, so we got a (necessary) bailout and then back to business as usual, awful.
As for 'seattleEngineer,' there might be an argument for small business tax cuts.
Know what else there's an argument for? Getting BIG business to start paying ANY taxes AT ALL!
mmathog:
Please name business large or small that does not pay substantial tax on their profits. My guess is that you will not find one. Apple paid $2B in taxes on $6.2B in income. That's a lot.
Exxon paid $36B on $84B in income. That's a lot.
Can you name a corp that is making money and isn't paying a huge amount in taxes?
mmathog:
Please name business large or small that does not pay substantial tax on their profits. My guess is that you will not find one. Apple paid $2B in taxes on $6.2B in income. That's a lot.
Exxon paid $36B on $84B in income. That's a lot.
Can you name a corp that is making money and isn't paying a huge amount in taxes?
http://www.truthout.org/article/most-corporations-dont-pay-income-taxes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/16/ST20090116...
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812 ... view full comment
http://www.truthout.org/article/most-corporations-dont-pay-income-taxes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/16/ST20090116...
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812
Guess someone should dig up that actual GAO report.
ahhh
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
ahhh
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
Back to the themes raised by bulbmann...
'Chait is a Marxist.'
When Chait starts advocating for controlling production of TV sets and wristwatches, I'll start listening.
'Government can't provide goods and services.'
Sure, not if Monica Goodling is vetting DOJ lawyers and Mike Brown is running FEMA. Didn't we cover this ground?
'Liberals are elite snobs.'
Some are, no doubt, I'm sure the same holds with conservatives. So the answer is to destroy the public interest because some people annoy you?
Back to the themes raised by bulbmann...
'Chait is a Marxist.'
When Chait starts advocating for controlling production of TV sets and wristwatches, I'll start listening.
'Government can't provide goods and services.'
Sure, not if Monica Goodling is vetting DOJ lawyers and Mike Brown is running FEMA. Didn't we cover this ground?
'Liberals are elite snobs.'
Some are, no doubt, I'm sure the same holds with conservatives. So the answer is to destroy the public interest because some people annoy you?
Ah, city slickers vs. hillbillies...
The "liberal elite snob" is a brilliant tactic. Use it and suddenly every one who has any sort of expertise becomes stupid, and everyone who has none becomes smart. It's like those wonder-pills that cure all your ills - only $19.99 + shipping! Everyone can be a brilliant economist! Everyone understands healthcare! Everyone has a firm grasp of history! Everyone is highly educated and familiar with policy!
Unfortunately, it's utter nonsense. Experts aren't necessarily smarter, but they do have a leg up. And when most experts are liberals, what is the modern conservative to do but attack their very position as somehow illegitimate (damn MSM & ivory ... view full comment
Ah, city slickers vs. hillbillies...
The "liberal elite snob" is a brilliant tactic. Use it and suddenly every one who has any sort of expertise becomes stupid, and everyone who has none becomes smart. It's like those wonder-pills that cure all your ills - only $19.99 + shipping! Everyone can be a brilliant economist! Everyone understands healthcare! Everyone has a firm grasp of history! Everyone is highly educated and familiar with policy!
Unfortunately, it's utter nonsense. Experts aren't necessarily smarter, but they do have a leg up. And when most experts are liberals, what is the modern conservative to do but attack their very position as somehow illegitimate (damn MSM & ivory towers!).
The supreme irony is that "average joes" are just as intolerant of liberal elites as we are of them. They can't stand our endless subversion of their paradigms. Why can't the men act more like men? Why can't the women act more like women? Why don't we go to church too? Why do we... the list is easily as long. Part of the reason liberal elites conglomerate in big cities is to ESCAPE the scorn of the plain folk.
Ask yourself how many average joes had to move TO the suburbs to escape the ostracism of the elites? How many were actually forced on threat of violence to flee because of their sexual orientation? There's a name for that but it sure ain't "snobbery".
I keep coming back to this, but there's a really curiously skewed or cropped perspective in some of this analysis. The observation that Obama is losing in the popularity stakes -- very natural for a president six months into office and with the economy just about keeping its head above water -- is being conflated with the fact that Obama is being bitterly attacked with fantastic accusations and infantile conspiratorial assumptions by people who dislike and even hate him and who disliked and hated him back in November too.
They haven't changed. These are people who didn't want him to be president, refuse to accept that he's president, and find any and all obscure accusations to pret ... view full comment
I keep coming back to this, but there's a really curiously skewed or cropped perspective in some of this analysis. The observation that Obama is losing in the popularity stakes -- very natural for a president six months into office and with the economy just about keeping its head above water -- is being conflated with the fact that Obama is being bitterly attacked with fantastic accusations and infantile conspiratorial assumptions by people who dislike and even hate him and who disliked and hated him back in November too.
They haven't changed. These are people who didn't want him to be president, refuse to accept that he's president, and find any and all obscure accusations to pretend to themselves that he's some kind of weird foreign oddity and therefore not really president. They didn't vote for him, and never will.
To that extent, all we are seeing is that the crowds shrieking their fear and hatred at the Sarah Palin rallies have transferred their energies to some of the town hall debates, along with their usual right-wing call-in shows. If Obama came out tomorrow and cancelled health care reform it wouldn't change their minds in the slightest. Incidentally, the complicity of the media in giving these folks unearned attention is imo one of the untold stories of the last month or two.
I don't believe these are "the people" that Obama is losing touch with. If there was an election again tomorrow, Obama would win it.