4 ms·

Eh, I do have plenty of foreign policy disagreements in particular with him. But he's the best we've had in living memory. Liberalism has had a smug aspect as

by scarmig 10y ago

Eh, I do have plenty of foreign policy disagreements in particular with him. But he's the best we've had in living memory. Liberalism has had a smug aspect as long as I've been alive, but at this point that aspect has metastasized to something worse. The norms that have developed are toxic to progressive movements. They certainly alienate people, but beyond that they make it so you don't even have the institutional capacity to understand or formulate policies relevant to those people. It's a perverse version of the situation people thought Republicans were in in 2012, where they seemed to have driven out most non-white people and thereby lacked the capacity for effective outreach to them. Except in this case, if you're a poor white male in Wisconsin who's done everything right but is still struggling like hell, you're an evil oppressor who just doesn't recognize your privilege. People who can understand where the poor white male perspective is coming from are literally shouted out of discussions for diverting attention from the people uniquely experiencing True Suffering and blessed with progressive sainthood. It's beyond Obama. Who, for what it's worth, has always struck me as the thoughtful type who wouldn't buy into those kinds of fake dichotomies. It's a broader issue with progressive movements where people earn cred by honing their sensitivities enough to maximize the level of offense they can experience.

rorykoehler 10y ago
I agree with everything you have said. Obama is a thoughtful type and a great orator. I'm sure he would have liked to enact some of the change he promised but he didn't. In many ways America regressed further under his watch and this is the outcome.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  You're too kind to Obama. Obama did troll his opponents on many occasions (like saying snarky things about birth certificates). He ran on a better type of politics, but he gave up on it very quickly, to phrase it charitably.
- triplesec 10y ago
  I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history
  - privong 10y ago
    > I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history Ironically, some of that might have been his own doing, though. The healthcare reform was passed essentially without republican support; I think that's a very rare example of major [healthcare] legislation that was not passed with bi-partisan support. Not doing more to bring R's on board likely burned lots of political capital and hardened opposition to him in Congress. I'm not saying Obama didn't try at all to bring R's on board, just that a bit more effort might have result in a more cooperative Congress.
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      The GOP congress decided to bring Obama down from the start, and never gave an inch. He tried valiantly to collaborate and compromise but the GOP didn’t have the political capacity to work with Obama for fear of being challenged in primaries from the right. You’re right that the ACA ended up being a political disaster for the Democrats though. The ACA was basically the same as “RomneyCare” in MA, and was a style of healthcare reform supported by mainstream center-right Republicans and some center-left Democrats (most Democrats wanted a single payer plan, or at least a public option, but took what they could get because the healthcare system was/is at a breaking point), but once Obama’s name was on it they all decided to throw everything they could against it. The GOP campaigned hard against the ACA after it passed, and won massively in the midterm elections in 2010 on the back of wall-to-wall anti-ACA messaging on right-leaning media and a huge amount of organizing and spending (the first post-Citizens United election). They took control of the House, Senate, and many state legislatures, following which they redrew all the district boundaries to cut Democrats permanently out of competition in the House and many state legislatures. After the crushing defeat in 2010, there weren’t enough Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 for the Democrats to regain control. Thus Obama had to deal with 6 years of GOP control, which has been the most obstructionist Congress in US history. As soon as McConnell won in 2010 he publicly declared that his #1 goal was to make Obama a 1-term president. We had multiple government shutdown threats, unprecedented obstruction of executive appointments including judges at every level of the federal court system, bogus investigation after bogus investigation into e.g. Benghazi, and dozens of purely symbolic votes to repeal the ACA.
lintiness 10y ago
"He's the best we've had in living memory." uh, WOW. you must have a short memory because reagan, bush sr, and clinton were all superior in almost every way, and none will eat a terrible policy failure like the aca.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  You might be interested to read http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/ http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myt...
  - lintiness 10y ago
    not the least bit interested in partisan "journalism". i was alive then.
    - judahmeek 10y ago
      And what metrics are you basing your statements on?
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      This is an excerpt from a mass-market history/biography book by a renowned historian at UNC Chapel Hill (emeritus), a foremost scholar of FDR’s life and work. It’s not journalism per se (with or without scare quotes) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195176162/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195176162/
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Somewhat surprisingly for a leftish Scot I am a fan of Reagan - for one very important reason. He understood that the standard US view of the Soviets was actually wrong and it was the Soviet leadership who were utterly afraid of the US (perhaps for good reasons) and he changed his approach.
    - jacobolus 10y ago

by scarmig 10y ago

rorykoehler 10y ago

I agree with everything you have said. Obama is a thoughtful type and a great orator. I'm sure he would have liked to enact some of the change he promised but he didn't. In many ways America regressed further under his watch and this is the outcome.

humanrebar 10y ago
You're too kind to Obama. Obama did troll his opponents on many occasions (like saying snarky things about birth certificates). He ran on a better type of politics, but he gave up on it very quickly, to phrase it charitably.
triplesec 10y ago
I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history
- privong 10y ago
  > I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history Ironically, some of that might have been his own doing, though. The healthcare reform was passed essentially without republican support; I think that's a very rare example of major [healthcare] legislation that was not passed with bi-partisan support. Not doing more to bring R's on board likely burned lots of political capital and hardened opposition to him in Congress. I'm not saying Obama didn't try at all to bring R's on board, just that a bit more effort might have result in a more cooperative Congress.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    The GOP congress decided to bring Obama down from the start, and never gave an inch. He tried valiantly to collaborate and compromise but the GOP didn’t have the political capacity to work with Obama for fear of being challenged in primaries from the right. You’re right that the ACA ended up being a political disaster for the Democrats though. The ACA was basically the same as “RomneyCare” in MA, and was a style of healthcare reform supported by mainstream center-right Republicans and some center-left Democrats (most Democrats wanted a single payer plan, or at least a public option, but took what they could get because the healthcare system was/is at a breaking point), but once Obama’s name was on it they all decided to throw everything they could against it. The GOP campaigned hard against the ACA after it passed, and won massively in the midterm elections in 2010 on the back of wall-to-wall anti-ACA messaging on right-leaning media and a huge amount of organizing and spending (the first post-Citizens United election). They took control of the House, Senate, and many state legislatures, following which they redrew all the district boundaries to cut Democrats permanently out of competition in the House and many state legislatures. After the crushing defeat in 2010, there weren’t enough Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 for the Democrats to regain control. Thus Obama had to deal with 6 years of GOP control, which has been the most obstructionist Congress in US history. As soon as McConnell won in 2010 he publicly declared that his #1 goal was to make Obama a 1-term president. We had multiple government shutdown threats, unprecedented obstruction of executive appointments including judges at every level of the federal court system, bogus investigation after bogus investigation into e.g. Benghazi, and dozens of purely symbolic votes to repeal the ACA.

lintiness 10y ago

"He's the best we've had in living memory." uh, WOW. you must have a short memory because reagan, bush sr, and clinton were all superior in almost every way, and none will eat a terrible policy failure like the aca.

jacobolus 10y ago
You might be interested to read http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/ http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myt...
- lintiness 10y ago
  not the least bit interested in partisan "journalism". i was alive then.
  - judahmeek 10y ago
    And what metrics are you basing your statements on?
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    This is an excerpt from a mass-market history/biography book by a renowned historian at UNC Chapel Hill (emeritus), a foremost scholar of FDR’s life and work. It’s not journalism per se (with or without scare quotes) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195176162/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195176162/
- arethuza 10y ago
  Somewhat surprisingly for a leftish Scot I am a fan of Reagan - for one very important reason. He understood that the standard US view of the Soviets was actually wrong and it was the Soviet leadership who were utterly afraid of the US (perhaps for good reasons) and he changed his approach.
  - jacobolus 10y ago