Cynicism is easy. Just pop in the toaster of received truths (nothing ever changes, they're all crooks, waste of taxpayer money) and wait a second.
Cynicism is easy, and it's also usually wrong. Being cynical is like doubting that the sky is blue just because it happens to be raining. (And then maintaining that it only 'looks' blue when the skies clear.)
Good things happen if you work for them and keep your eyes open.
There's a lot to like about the new stimulus bill, and probably a lot to dislike as well. What's new here is that we're getting a chance to look at the sausage-making process. We're being asked to behave like grown-ups.
Items I like include money for mass transit and assistance on energy costs to low-income Americans.
In addition to his usual admonition for people to act responsible, President Obama reiterated that his Administration will make the spending transparent to the American people.
“Corporate America will have to accept its own responsibility to workers and the American public,” Mr. Obama said, after alluding to an “atmosphere of irresponsibility” on Wall Street and in Washington that he said had helped push the economy toward ruin. He said, too, that he understands the skepticism that some people feel about the prospect of spending astronomical sums of the taxpayers’ money efficiently. Therefore, he said, his administration will put in place “unprecedented measures,” including Internet postings, to allow the American people to see where the streams of dollars are flowing.
That means not throwing up our hands in disgust, and not stamping our feet because our political opponents got something they want that we didn't. It means looking at the results and deciding whether, on balance, there's more of what we wanted and whether it's better than nothing.
Image via WikipediaA lot of people on the left are fretting that Obama is allowing the GOP to undermine his stimulus package by diluting it with tax cuts and reduced spending--before voting against it--thereby giving themselves an electoral boost in 2010 by showing they had the wisdom to vote against a loser of a plan.
Just so I'm sure we're talking about the same guy: this is the same Barack Hussein Obama who beat powerful connected, household name Senator Hillary Clinton, right? And rich-as-hell Jonathan (pre-adultery revelation) Edwards.
And who then thumped heroic war veteran and maverick John McCain. Right?
I used to make the mistake of thinking that because this guy is a panty-waist because he aims to change the culture in Washington, get beyond partisan politics, and make government more responsive to the American people.
Anyone with ideas like that has to have his head in the clouds, right? An idealist in a world of real politik. Well, shame on me and shame on us. No wonder we couldn't elect George McGovern. We didn't have the conviction of our own ideals.
Well, I think we have to give Obama credit for being a good fighter. He may be a visionary, but he's also a pragmatist. And he's surrounded himself with folks like Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden, who have a little bit of experience in Washington in-fighting.
With respect to the stimulus package, I don't think Obama is being taken for a ride by the GOP. I think it's the other way around. He will get his stimulus package pretty much the way he wants it--because Pelosi will play bad cop to his good cop--and the Republicans will look petty for voting against it despite the concessions the press will note that they were given.
And the truth will probably be that they didn't get very many concessions Obama wasn't willing to write into the stimulus bill anyway.
This will weaken the GOP as Obama's term progresses and he gets to tougher nuts like health care and foreign policy.
Image by Getty Images via DaylifeSeveral commentators noted President Obama's admonition that "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."
President Obama is making a determined and laudable effort to find common ground with his political adversaries, but I was relieved to hear him draw at least that distinction between himself the previous Administration.
On a personal note, my son is a dual citizen of the U.S. and France, and he lives and goes to college in France. I'm glad that he has reason to be proud of his American heritage, and even to reexamine earlier, more bitter lessons he's had about America.
For this and many other reasons, I've been acutely aware of how the U.S. is viewed abroad. What many on the intellectual left (and even the right) don't realize about Americans is how easily we can be led to believe that everything we have achieved, we have achieved alone, and that the rest of the world is either grateful for the bounty that we bestow upon them (our economic and political way of life is the envy of all!), or else insane, ungrateful and ultimately, evil and of no account.
Populists, mostly on the right, have encouraged this kind of jingoism because it justifies our disregard for international treaties which impinge on the profits of Corporate America (think Kyoto Treaty) or which cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of our military adventures.
It will be useful to remind the public of how much we have depended on foreign powers for much of our history, and of how much we have been enriched by great individuals who came to the United States because of what we stand for... which is much more than unfettered freedom to make money.
Image by BL1961 via FlickrCharles Krauthammer, well-known to New Yorkers for his reactionary diatribes in the paragon of reasonableness known as the New York Post, argues that outgoing President George W. Bush is being vindicated as we speak.
Never mind the campaign oratory, Krauthammer says, Barack Obama's appointments tacitly acknowledge that Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, the condoning of the use of torture, and laissez-faireeconomic policy were all appropriate.
The very continuation by Democrats of Bush's policies will be grudging, if silent, acknowledgment of how much he got right.
Krauthammer says the selection of Timothy Geithner to head Treasury demonstrates Obama's approval of Bush economic policy; likewise, keeping Gates at Defense means continuity of Bush's Iraq strategy; and Obama's refusal to summarily dismiss every single one of Dick Cheney's policy suggestions means Obama now supports torture.
It's a pathetic and blatantly transparent attempt by Krauthammer to whitewash not only 8 years of disastrous policy and incompetent administraton, but by extension, 8 years of unapologetic babbling in support of those policies by one of the most unreflective and unself-critical pundits on the Washington scene (what a coincidence).
Krauthammer is conflating unrelated events to suit his theorem, but reality is more complex and, thankfully, Obama is as non-ideological as promised.
Where the selection of Geithner is concerned, Obama is choosing to continue with the implementation of a policy he supported from the beginning--in September 2008--and which is at odds with not only 8 years of Bush incompetence but more than a century of free market principles.
Geithner himself is typical of the people Obama has picked to fill his Cabinet: highly intelligent, capable, and expert in the matter at hand. Geithner is by all accounts brilliant, and because he had a hand in the bail-out, can help Obama administer it better than any outsider, especially in the short term.
Gates is hardly a Bush favorite, and went so far as to contradict Bush's statements on Iraq during his confirmation hearings in 2006. Moreover, Gates is in the middle of the kind of badly needed institutional reform at the Pentagon, and Obama has wisely decided to allow him to finish his work.
Finally, Obama's refusal to make overly-sweeping statements does nothing to diminish his firm statements about our use of torture and the need for America to earn back the respect of the community of nations.
If by rehabilitating Bush, Krauthammer means that Obama will close the Guantanamo prison, end our policy of extraordinary rendition, move our troops out of Iraq in as orderly and rapid manner as possible, step up the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and replace unprovoked war with diplomacy as the primary instrument of foreign policy, then I guess we can call that a vindication.
If by rehabilitating Bush, Krauthammer means spending on public works programs, extending unemployment benefits, creating a national health insurance program and reaffirming the role of proactive government in American life is vindication of Bush politics, then I guess we can call that a vindication.
After all, historian Ferdinand Braudel credits the excesses of feudalism with paving the way for capitalism, so in a way, the excessive incompetence of George Bush's "Administration" can certainly be seen as paving the way for a return to progressive American politics.
Obama apparently came to dinner without having first extracted promises that the reactionaries would share Obama's convictions, recant past positions, retract previous defamatory and patently untrue remarks, or even agree to disagree.
However, that Obama should agree to sit down with these enemies of civil liberties, coddlers of torturers and defenders of despoilers of American treasure should come as no surprise, given his campaign promises.
Reached for comment, New York Senator Charles Schumer said, "I for one am appalled. We expected 'that one' to meet with Kim Jong Il or Pol Pot or someone like that. But these guys? It's beyond incredible."
However, true to his word, Obama is reaching out to friends and foe alike, no matter how irrational they may seem.
New York-based VC Fred Wilson makes an excellet point about the details of Obama's economic fix-it plan versus the stated purpose of Obama's candidacy.
He argues that Obama's leadership is more important than the fine print of the stimulus program, especially given that the economic models that everyone is using are likely to be anachronistic.
I had dinner last night with some friends, all of whom were big supporters of Obama and his vision of change. All of us were at least a little (and in some cases a lot) concerned that in the transition from candidate to President, Obama was getting sucked into conventional thinking. Spending a trillion dollars may work, but helping change the DNA of america and the world would help a lot more. And he doesn't need economists to tell him how to do that.
Here is the text of a comment I left on Change.gov. President Obama needs to pass the stimulus package as he thinks it should be constructed, and not with a view to placating the GOP by imitating their failed policies.
Please stop meeting the GOP halfway before they demonstrate a willingness to meet you halfway as well. We won the election by being faithful to our progressive beliefs, and the country voted for those principles. We as a people have rejected laissez-faire and tax-cutting economics and we want a real stimulus package. It seems like you are bending over backwards to negotiate when you should be dealing from a position of strength. The GOP is not going to play nice. They would rather see you fail, even if it means more pain for the American people. If the GOP attempts to filibuster your plan, call on the American people to email their reps; that will give you all the political capital you need. I agree that you should try to build consensus around long-range programs so that they have a chance to stick around past your Administration, but this stimulus package is short-term and should be the best proposal you think you can put forward, not a compromised version you hope will please the GOP. We elected a progressive government on purpose, and we deserve the government we worked to get. Please remember that you owe your election to the people, and we need you to fulfill the mandate you were elected to enact, not earn brownie points with Mitch McConnell.
Obama's picks for various positions within his administration have created much to-do among the politically active, especially online, much of it of the hand-wringing variety. The most sympathetic summary of these Jeremiads that I can dredge up is that, given the size of Obama's victory, it's all well and good to meet the other guys half-way--but where is the proof that the other guys have any intention of meeting us half-way?
In principle, I agree that these picks (and a few others--these are just three that stand out) are disappointing in some way. Gates looks like an admission that only Republicans can handle national defense; Summers hasn't given any indication that he understands how the policies he heped craft are part of the problem; Rick Warren is a bigot.
But to cavil about these things--and yes, I'm intentionally demeaning the complainers here--is to be not only short-sighted, but to miss the whole point of Obama's campaign and subsequent election.
He's not going to do stuff we all agree with. Philosophically, he's not nearly as liberal as most progressives wish him to be, he's a bit moralistic, and above all, a shrewd and pragmatic politician.
There are 18 days left until Obama's Inauguration, followed by at least four years of sane governance by competent people. Regardless of what you think or fear about his appointments, you can take comfort that at the very least, a culture of competence will be returned to government, as well as a belief in the benefits of government activity.
Sometime in the next 45 days, New York State will have a new Senator, and it says here that Andrew Cuomo will be the one holding an Acela ticket to Washington.
There are a lot of good reasons, most of them inside-baseball political, for Paterson to name Caroline Kennedy. She's got ties to Obama, which is good. And she's a pick that will anger everyone, and thus no one.
See, Paterson's first goal has to be to name someone who will be able to keep it in Democratic hands in 2010.
Given the utter paucity of GOP talent in the state, it would be ludicrous for New York to elect a Republican to the Senate in 2010, but a misstep by Paterson could well bring about this result. And you can bet that the national GOP will spend heavily if they sniff the chance of embarassing the Democrats by picking off a seat in a blue state.
(New York is fairly reliably blue in presidential elections, but has been unpredictable at the state level. The GOP and Democratic parties have alternated occupancy of the governor's mansion and have seen GOPers like Alphonse D'amato, Christopher Buckley and Jacob Javitz elected to the U.S. Senate.)
Paterson's choices include:
Kennedy, who has name recognition and fundraising prowess, and, as a female, will at least please one constituent bloc, but whose nomination will stoke anti-entitlement passions;
Congresswoman Nydia Vazquez, also a female, whose nomination would satisfy Latinos angry at being underrepresented in the higher levels of state government;
Jerrold Nadler, a staunchly liberal congressman from the Upper West Side;
Byron Brown, the first African-Ameircan to be elected mayor of Buffalo; and
Carolyn Maloney, a long-time representative from Queens.
The problem with all of these choices, other than Brown, is that they are downstaters with little chance of carrying the entire state, particularly if faced with a potent Republican like Peter King. Moreover, Nadler is far too liberal and Vazquez an unknown minority with little pull outside NYC.
And as I mentioned above, there will be a populist backlash against Kennedy, maybe even from within her own party, with factions forcing her into a nomination fight on the grounds that she should have to face friendly fire before confronting an actual adversary in the general election.
Conversely, Brown is unknown outside Buffalo.
Andrew Cuomo, on the other hand, is well-known both upstate and down. He doesn't satisfy any particular constituency, but neither does he satisfy one at the expense of the others. And he's the member of a political family.
And while Kennedy's dynastic connection is as much a liability as it is a boost to her career, Cuomo's family name only burnishes a career and public personna he has built up on his own. Best of all for Paterson, it removes the only serious competition he might have had for his own job in 2010.
And lest we forget, Paterson doesn't come out of nowhere either. His father was Basil Paterson, a highly regarded politician who came close to being the first African-American mayor of New York City.
So Paterson knows first-hand that being the scion of a political family has built-in advantages, and a Cuomo has less baggage to tote around than a Kennedy.
Looking for the intersections of media, information technology, culture and politics. I've covered enterprise technology and finance for the better part of ten years. I used to own an American diner in France!
Image by Getty Images via Daylife![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4d118cec-aaa6-4890-b680-24e8f0530ad9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f5fd988d-6e88-43fa-9354-a86577fc3d2e)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4c8cf303-33d6-49bb-b7a0-2c972afe3bf1)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=afa7cda4-71bb-45fe-8485-9d1b4ab8f717)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8c16d32e-fb6c-4794-b1e2-e6e941846c63)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9d60324e-f651-4e21-b4d5-e7e75b1dc020)
