Originally Posted by James50

Very interesting. We really do see the man differently. It was so easy to see Bill Clinton succumb to the temptation of deceit. I just can't see that with Obama. His sin is sloth. Let others do the work. I am going to play golf.

James50

I think my confusion was understandable.

I have never wanted to put in the time it would require to get good at golf myself, but many presidents of both parties, including Ike, JFK, Wilson, Harding, Clinton, and Gerald Ford, have enjoyed it, and I won't begrudge them it. I think Bush II was also a golfer but it seems to me his father preferred tennis. So did Carter. Obama also loves basketball and is quite good at it.

Originally Posted by Odin

I wasn't thinking in terms of parties, I thought that comment was an oblique reference to things like Eugenics that were very popular among the old Progressives.

More like the modern progressive evolved from the movement that started at the start of the twentieth century and still shares much of the same worldview. It never occurs to Odin to ask what his beliefs evolved from in order to understand what is happening now.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think my confusion was understandable.

I have never wanted to put in the time it would require to get good at golf myself, but many presidents of both parties, including Ike, JFK, Wilson, Harding, Clinton, and Gerald Ford, have enjoyed it, and I won't begrudge them it. I think Bush II was also a golfer but it seems to me his father preferred tennis. So did Carter. Obama also loves basketball and is quite good at it.

I need to be clearer. I am not saying I think Obama is slothful. I do think it is his temptation. If a Peacemaker cannot see the way to bring others together, the temptation would be to do something else for awhile and let others take the blame. I have seen some evidence of that in Obama. The temptation of the 3 is to deceit. I don't think Obama is tempted to be deceitful in the way that Clinton was.

What throws me is that this Peacemaker role was only a peripheral part of his campaign and yet seems the primary part of his Presidency. His greatest efforts are always toward the end of the legislative struggle when he convenes people to make peace. He gives in fairly easily to reach agreement. This is not a bad thing, but it feels different from his campaign which promised transformation.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Wilson accomplished more legislatively than TR, much more.

But enough about Edith.

Seriously, though, the folks who plant the seeds and get seedlings are every bit as important -- if not more so -- than those who grow the seedlings into trees.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think my confusion was understandable.

I have never wanted to put in the time it would require to get good at golf myself, but many presidents of both parties, including Ike, JFK, Wilson, Harding, Clinton, and Gerald Ford, have enjoyed it, and I won't begrudge them it. I think Bush II was also a golfer but it seems to me his father preferred tennis. So did Carter. Obama also loves basketball and is quite good at it.

Don't people also golf as a way of networking? If Obama golfed with someone like, say, Boehner, wouldn't that really count as work?

Originally Posted by James50

I need to be clearer. I am not saying I think Obama is slothful. I do think it is his temptation. If a Peacemaker cannot see the way to bring others together, the temptation would be to do something else for awhile and let others take the blame. I have seen some evidence of that in Obama. The temptation of the 3 is to deceit. I don't think Obama is tempted to be deceitful in the way that Clinton was.

What throws me is that this Peacemaker role was only a peripheral part of his campaign and yet seems the primary part of his Presidency. His greatest efforts are always toward the end of the legislative struggle when he convenes people to make peace. He gives in fairly easily to reach agreement. This is not a bad thing, but it feels different from his campaign which promised transformation.

James50

It is possible that he could have made reforms but it was too soon to make them. We will never know. Obama strikes me as the type of person that wouldn't do something for the sake of doing something (what's that dirt doing in bosses's ditch?). After constant cock-blocking from Congress it is likely that he will let his opposition stew in indecision for awhile without him. It isn't that he thinks this will amount to much but he is not inclined to pound his head into a brick wall indefinitely. He probably thinks of nearly anything else as more productive than squabbling with Congress.

Originally Posted by Aramea

It is possible that he could have made reforms but it was too soon to make them.

The person who campaigned seem to promise that nothing would stand in his way. His most grandiose statement was the famous one the day he secured the Democratic nomination:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

That does not sound like a peacemaker but a transformer.

James50

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Our mess started before Reagan. It started with the 1973 oil shock and accelerated with the decline of the Rust Belt through the remainder of the 1970s before Reagan ever took office. Anyone over the age of 40 can probably remember how "Made in Japan" used to bring the same reactions as "Made in China" does today -- disappointment (if not disgust) about cheap businesses sending jobs overseas. This was well before Reagan's presidency.

Don't get me wrong; I think Reaganism accelerated the race to the bottom for middle/working class labor. But I don't think for a second that it *started* only when he took office, and I don't think for a second it wouldn't have still happened (albeit possibly more slowly) had he not been president.

Seriously, so many folks on this board act as though the path to Social Darwinism and the decline of the middle class began on January 20, 1981. It was starting well before then. But that doesn't make for good political sound bites. I say this not in defense of Reagan but simply as what I view as a reality check.

You're right, of course. I can trace it back through Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13, through the Watergate years, through the "Silent Majority" and beyond. Maybe all the way back to Donald Segretti's days at USC?

"Nixonland" by Rick Perlstein gives a great overview of how we ended up where we are now.

Originally Posted by James50

The person who campaigned seem to promise that nothing would stand in his way. His most grandiose statement was the famous one the day he secured the Democratic nomination:



That does not sound like a peacemaker but a transformer.

James50

He probably meant it when he said it. He made a mistake early on by focusing on getting health care passed at the expense of the economy. He had both houses of Congress so it is possible that he could have done more about unemployment. He really needs to get something out there for the economy now. Let Congress shoot it down and then blame them for the failing economy. Obama doesn't seem to operate that way though. He probably sees it as a "waste of time" to just throw a jobs plan out there to squabble over, water down and only pass the parts that don't create jobs. He needs to put it out there and stick by it 100% with no compromise but that is not his style.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You're right, of course. I can trace it back through Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13, through the Watergate years, through the "Silent Majority" and beyond.

If you are talking about tax revolts, you may as well go all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. In some respects, the country was founded on tax revolt. It has always been a strong undercurrent in our politics.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

it seems that it was also in the late 70s that the selfish attitude that "I don;t have kids so why should I pay taxes for schools" crap started.

That was definitely the case. When I was in high school, we had to fight through multiple referenda in order to get a new school built. I vividly remember reading letters to the editor from our opposition that made that very argument you outlined above.

Originally Posted by Aramea

He needs to put it out there and stick by it 100% with no compromise but that is not his style.

Precisely my point. Not a confronter but a peacemaker.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That said, Obama is becoming harder and harder to like and believe in every day. If he were Captain Smith on the Titanic he'd be assuring us all that we would safely reach New York only 24 hours late. . .I'm sorry, but I can't help it.

Arghh...he is not friggin' Santa Claus and never was.

His line in 2008 always was "We are the people we have been waiting for," not "I am the person you have been waiting for."

That reality hasn't changed. He is only one person trying to do a very difficult job. Is he flawed? Yes. Would I have done a few things differently in his place? Most likely. But throwing out stuff like "corporatist tool" and sulking because he hasn't given progressives everything they want seems counterproductive.

Originally Posted by James50

Precisely my point. Not a confronter but a peacemaker.

James50

A "peacemaker" can be transformative in the right climate. This just isn't the right time at all for an Obama. He should play hardball with whatever plan he has. It should be child's play for a skilled orator like Obama to paint Republicans as greedy a-holes if they don't pass the bill.

Originally Posted by James50

As to Obama, his hands off approach to the health care bill and budget is well known.

It is not "well known." He was heavily involved when it really mattered. He spent hours meeting with Congressional leaders over the debt ceiling issue.

He has a different temperament than our last two Presidents -- much less quick to anger and (compared to Bush especially) much less hasty in his decision making. Don't mistake that for sloth. I would call it deliberation. I would call it thoughtfulness.

Originally Posted by Aramea

A "peacemaker" can be transformative in the right climate. This just isn't the right time at all for an Obama. He should play hardball with whatever plan he has. It should be child's play for a skilled orator like Obama to paint Republicans as greedy a-holes if they don't pass the bill.

It is important to understand that no type has a monopoly on the truth. Its more like each of us has 1/9 of the truth. Each of us has a role to play.

James50

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Don't people also golf as a way of networking? If Obama golfed with someone like, say, Boehner, wouldn't that really count as work?

Sure it does.

Originally Posted by James50

If you are talking about tax revolts, you may as well go all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. In some respects, the country was founded on tax revolt. It has always been a strong undercurrent in our politics.

Maybe, but I was looking more at what is relevant in the here and now; that is, in this saeculum. My experience is limited by my age and skewed by a California upbringing, but I remember the Howard Jarvis stuff all too well, and that was the first real memories I have of a large-scale "tax revolt" in my recollection. (This was before Reagan became president and it didn't really get started until a couple of years *after* Reagan left as California governor.)

Originally Posted by James50

The person who campaigned seem to promise that nothing would stand in his way. His most grandiose statement was the famous one the day he secured the Democratic nomination:



That does not sound like a peacemaker but a transformer.

James50

But notice the use of "we" throughout. He fully recognizes it's not a one-man show.

This is why I get so fed up with the lefties who've gone off to sulk in a corner when they should be out writing letters to the editor, helping people register to vote, doing volunteer work, and keeping their eyes on the prize. It is NOT only about one person who happens to be the president of the United States.

Originally Posted by Aramea

He probably meant it when he said it. He made a mistake early on by focusing on getting health care passed at the expense of the economy. He had both houses of Congress so it is possible that he could have done more about unemployment. He really needs to get something out there for the economy now. Let Congress shoot it down and then blame them for the failing economy. Obama doesn't seem to operate that way though. He probably sees it as a "waste of time" to just throw a jobs plan out there to squabble over, water down and only pass the parts that don't create jobs. He needs to put it out there and stick by it 100% with no compromise but that is not his style.

I would argue that health care costs are very much an economic issue and needed to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by James50

If you are talking about tax revolts, you may as well go all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. In some respects, the country was founded on tax revolt. It has always been a strong undercurrent in our politics.

James50

Um, back then the colonists had no representation in Parliament.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

This is why I get so fed up with the lefties who've gone off to sulk in a corner when they should be out writing letters to the editor, helping people register to vote, doing volunteer work, and keeping their eyes on the prize. It is NOT only about one person who happens to be the president of the United States.

This is one big difference between the right and the left, I think. When the right doesn't *fully* get their way, they are still more likely to show up on Election Day and vote for the Republican candidate even if they hold their nose and call him a "RINO". When the left doesn't get their preferred candidate, they sulk and stay home in larger numbers, helping to elect someone even worse in their eyes.

Thus there's an irony: In terms of rhetoric, the Republicans talk more radically and the Democrats talk more pragmatically ... but come Election Day the Republican core voters are more pragmatic (in showing up to vote for the "lesser of two evils") and the Democratic voters are more "radical" in their refusal to vote for a moderate Democratic candidate.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Yes, you are one of the people I was referring to earlier in your apparent belief that the new American Right is as bad as any oppressive regime we've seen in the last century. So tell me, how do you think they can pull this off in the context of our political system?

Potentially! I see the potential. No, it would not be quite like Hitler. It would have to fit patterns of (white) American culture. To begin with it would more likely use the twangy drawls of country music than the pompous bombast of Richard Wagner or Franz Liszt. Its iconography would include Washington and Lincoln, although in service to practices that Washington and Lincoln would despise. We Americans know enough about the Third Reich to distrust any ceremonial book-burning; a Hard Right regime might simply see fit to pulp 'undesired' tomes unceremoniously and secretively.

A right-wing version of America could be many different things. It could be "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" (Singapore), the sort of place that is superficially attractive even if one gets a fill of it quickly. It could be like Apartheid-era South Africa, with class instead of race as the cause for divide. It could be many things... I doubt that they would be pleasant. It would be a bad place in which to hold any beliefs contrary to those of the Leadership or to even have a conscience that goes beyond sacrificing on behalf of prosperity (as such is defined in content and purpose), "patriotism", and deference to deputed leaders. J

It could in theory be the "libertarian paradise" of every-man-for-himself... but there has never been a political entity founded on libertarian principles. I have seen libertarian philosophy, especially that of Ayn Rand, and I notice huge contradictions that demand some resolution in which some people get the freedom and opportunity and others are denied both. Politicians rarely resolve philosophical contradictions well -- especially when they hold revolutionary ideologies.

Much is possible in a 4T, and much of what is possible is horrific. Liberal democracy remains the best check on the worst behavior of governments. Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Rwanda during its madness, Amin's Uganda, and Hussein's Iraq demonstrate what is possible where the liberal checks and balances do not exist.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Um, back then the colonists had no representation in Parliament.

Yea, just got done with a biography of Benjamin Franklin. He spent many years in London making that point.

Without the Stamp Act, it is doubtful the revolution would have happened when it did.

James50

One other comment about the Peacemaker. The strength of this type is exactly what I am hoping for from the new "super" committee dealing with the budget. I would love to see a grand bargain. I don't see how it can happen on a committee with lots of confrontational leaders.

James50