The conventional liberal interpretation of current events is that, one year after winning the U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama does not have much to show for his presidency. In a now notorious Saturday Night Live skit, Obama was lampooned for doing “jack” and “squat.” To the American left he promised universal health care, an end to the war in Iraq, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, more humane treatment of detained terrorist suspects, and serious legislation on gay rights and the environment. A year later, he has accomplished none of those things.
Of course, to big-government-loving liberals, accomplishment is synonymous with “doing”—taxing, spending, legislating, and “reforming.” That Barack Obama hasn’t rammed the entirety of the American liberal agenda down people’s throats is certainly disappointing to a left-wing movement incapable of logically defending its own views and values in front of an opposition audience (Fox News anyone?). Moving away from this “doing is good” paradigm, the conservative critique is even more devastating. It actually focuses on the content and substance of legislation the Obama administration has passed, and critiques him for what he has “accomplished.”
Liberals like to argue that despite their unmet expectations, Obama has done a satisfactory job in tackling the most immediate crises: bailing out the banks and re-stimulating the economy. Putting aside the fact that spending large amounts of taxpayer money is not a particularly courageous or praise-worthy feat, as all governments do it, the type of bill Obama churned out failed even these abysmally low expectations. Instead of taking leadership and “owning” the bill, Obama left a majority of the spending designs to the discretion of Congressional Democrats. The result was a gargantuan $787-billion stimulus package replete with pork and goodies for Democratic districts. The irony is that despite the haste in assembling the package, the majority of the stimulus money will not be spent until 2010 or 2011. It is no surprise then that recent unemployment figures have hit the double digits.
On trade, a vital component to the revitalization of the international economy, Obama has turned his back on basic economic principle. Despite having a brilliant cabinet of economists, from the venerated Lawrence Summers to the competent Timothy Geitner, Obama has instituted various protectionist measures through “Buy American” clauses. The Economist, a magazine that endorsed his candidacy, attacked his recent 35 per cent tariff on imported Chinese tires as “a protectionist move that is bad politics, bad economics, bad diplomacy and hurts America. Did we miss anything?” Obama talks about embracing international multilateralism, but his recent measures on trade strongly contradict the previous commitments made to his G20 partners.
As Democratic ambitions for single-payer health care in the United States is debated, Barack Obama would be wise to take into consideration Republican proposals. If he wants to cut health care costs, he could eliminate state laws that prevent health care providers from competing across state lines. Canadians are used to hearing the old refrain that the American “free-market” system costs more, but this is a gross misconception. With the current regulations in place, America does not so much have a free market health-care system as a network of 50 health care oligopolies. If Obama wants to expand coverage to those who can’t afford their own health care, he should provide a simple, no-hassle, means-tested subsidy. If he shares the concerns of working class citizens whose health care is at the mercy of their employers, he should help them establish job-independent health care savings accounts. He has promised to be bi-partisan and to transcend ideology from day one, but he has shot down all these Republican ideas.
This is just a cursory glance at the Obama administration’s efforts so far. Other disappointments include mismanaging Chinese-American relations, failing to provide solidarity to the Iranian opposition, and leaving his cap-and-trade bill vulnerable to predatory special interests. One year later, poor performance on trade, health care, and economic stimulus are enough to give Barack Obama the 51.5 per cent approval rating he deserves.
Comments
As always, you write very well Josh. But I have to agree with what Ahmed said underneath your FB link: the whole argument here would be much more persuasive if it didn't depend upon a purely ideological approach. Most Canadians don't share this outright skepticism about government that is such a key facet of the American political discussion.
What's more, you don't make any mention of the decrepid state of the GOP or its silence (and in some cases involvement) in these ludicrous and desperate efforts to discredit President Obama's policies. Furthermore, we've just experienced eight years of bad Republican policies designed ostensibly to liberate and liberalize markets and what happened? Rising unemployment, a shrinking middle class and, paradoxically, obsene levels of government expenditure. (Republicans never seem to mind "big government" if it has to do with the military).
Anyways, you make some good points about a President who was devestatingly oversold during his election campaign and, in some areas, I give you credit. But I do think the argument would have been much stronger if it didn't constantly rely on the pejorative use of the word "liberal".
Nov 10, 2009 at 02:48 PM
"...the conservative critique is even more devastating. It actually focuses on the content and substance of legislation the Obama administration has passed..."
Unless the Obama administration proposed a bill that includes a complete government takeover of the health care system, death panels, free health care for illegal immigrants and state-sponsored abortion, then I'd have to disagree with that claim.
The Democrats aren't "incapable of logically defending [their] own views and values", they're incapable of defending the patently false views and values attributed to them by a right-wing movement that has more-or-less given up on the idea of a reasoned debate in favour of pandering to the stupid. I'm not a ardent supporter of the Democrats, but given that they're the only serious political party in the US, it's hard not to be on their side. And by a serious political party, I mean one that doesn't think that opposition to same-sex marriage is anything besides homophobia and one that doesn't believe climate change is a liberal conspiracy despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Why am I to believe that the Republicans are honestly concerned with making America a better place when they maintain such backwards views?
I really wish there was two sides to this (and other) debates because democracy really thrives when a competent opposition is present. This health care legislation most likely has a great number of legitimate flaws, but they won't be uncovered by a party that seems more concerned with appeasing the moronic elements of their party with false claims than making constructive criticisms (and thus is very easy to dismiss even when they do have genuine arguments).
Nov 10, 2009 at 04:51 PM
Luke: I'll relay what I said to Ahmed here. "If you read the article, I devote two paragraphs to liberalism, mainly to illustrate how Obama has been a disappointment to his own supporters. The rest of the article is a criticism of WHAT obama has done, regardless of ideology. It's not partisan to say that Obama didn't design the stimulus with enough discretion, or to say that he is shooting down free trade (there are many liberal supporters of free trade, Larry Summers and Bill Clinton among them), or that he is not taking into consideration ideas from across the aisle."
Now, onto the Republicans: that the party is spiraling down to its lowest common denominator is not the focus of this article. Yes, the party is making a fool of itself and blasting a lot of hot air, but it is also a party in the minority incapable of overriding a Democratic majority on any single bill. My intent was to review what Obama, with a size-able congressional majority, has done up to date. So to the extent that the Republicans are near powerless, they are largely irrelevant to the review.
Grant: You can support the Democratic party all you want, but that does not mean you should hold Obama to some lower standard just because his opposition froths at the mouth. As I said before, the Republicans are in the political wilderness - they face a media, congress, and white house that is predominantly left-leaning. Using Republican behavior to excuse Obama's various policy mistakes is a cop out, because he is the one with power, not the other way around. And as I've said before, none of my complaints about Obama's stimulus, trade, and health care policies are inherently partisan or anti-government. For example, I never said there should have been no stimulus, only that it should have been designed with more discretion.
Nov 10, 2009 at 06:02 PM
You may spend time reviewing what Obama has done, but your critique is entirely ideological. It would have had much more force if it had critiqued the policies on their own terms instead of simply rejecting them for being "liberal".
And Grant is right to point out that the Democrats, for all their flaws, have presented a serious and controversial proposal and have worked hard to defend it in the face of a vile campaign of disinformation from the GOP and its most fanatical supporters. The Republican bill is intriguing, yes, but it's hardly what dominates the news when Republican backbenchers are using phrases like "death panels".
Nov 10, 2009 at 06:21 PM
Luke: Where do I dismiss Obama's policies as being bad because they are liberal? I devoted the first two paragraphs to criticizing liberals in general and pointing out that he has ironically disappointed his own political base.
In my next three paragraphs, not once do I take a particularly partisan stance. For example, Obama's stimulus bill was bad not because it was liberal but because it was wasteful, inefficient, and poorly designed. Moreover, it didn't fulfill its purpose - to spend quickly on "shovel ready" projects - and hence the high unemployment figures. Obama's trade policy is bad not because it is liberal but because it is protectionist! Free trade is a cause that commands a lot of consensus among economists of all political bents. And Obama's health care plan is bad because it is narrow-minded.
Yes, the Republicans have been failing to engage the president on policy as opposed to rhetorical grounds. But just because the Republicans are doing a poor job does not mean Obama can simply dismiss the constructive policy proposals of many smart conservatives working at think tanks, magazines, and universities. With a million-man staff of Harvard educated PHDs, Obama at the very least could research such proposals and openly debate them, regardless of GOP buffoonery.
Nov 10, 2009 at 06:52 PM
Josh,
I make no apologies for the fact that I follow American politics only at a very shallow level, and considering that both parties ardently believe that their ideas with respect to health care are better, I'm more inclined to side with the party that doesn't take comically anti-intellectual and religiously-charged positions, and one that, as a whole, has a good deal more intelligent supporters.
While I'm not especially familiar with the details of the legislation, I am familiar with which party charged America into two un-winnable and expensive wars and had a large part in creating the conditions for the worldwide economic meltdown that is continuing today. I'm not a supporter of Democrats nearly to the extent that I'm against the Republicans, and I don't think it's a cop-out to judge both parties on their recent records.
And frankly, while you claim non-partisanship, it's tough to get past the first two paragraphs of your essay without seeing obvious partisan slant, and your cheeky "who me?" response to Luke's assertion of partisanship seemed at best dishonest. If you were aiming to attack Obama's actions on purely intellectual grounds, why include a sentence like "That Barack Obama hasn’t rammed the entirety of the American liberal agenda down people’s throats is certainly disappointing to a left-wing movement incapable of logically defending its own views and values in front of an opposition audience (Fox News anyone?)"?
Nov 10, 2009 at 08:17 PM
Grant,
The first two paragraphs establish me as a conservative. This much I do not disagree with. And fair enough, I take some shots at liberals. But that does not somehow make the next three paragraphs partisan. Isolate them, and they could have come from a Democrat, for all we know.
But let's address the point further: what exactly is wrong with a conservative criticizing Obama? Does knowing the author's partisan slant make the author's arguments less credible? If so, why do we bother to follow the opinions of avowed liberals like Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd? Yes, I am a conservative, and I have leveled criticism at Obama. Both are known and stated. The former should not discredit or distort the latter.
I find it interesting that nobody has actually engaged my arguments on substantive grounds. Wouldn't a policy debate be more interesting? For instance, do you have novel ways of interpreting the economic data that would say, in fact, that Obama's stimulus has been a success? Perhaps you believe some of the protectionist policies were warranted and beneficial, or that the conservative proposals on health care make for bad policy. If so, I want to hear them!
Nov 11, 2009 at 01:09 AM
Nobody bothered to engage in policy discussion because of sentences like: "That Barack Obama hasn’t rammed the entirety of the American liberal agenda down people’s throats is certainly disappointing to a left-wing movement incapable of logically defending its own views and values in front of an opposition audience"
First, it makes no sense for a former Bush supporter to complain about gargantuan spending. But, as to your pork-barel complaint, I think that's a very serious concern. Of course, I have no idea if you're correct (though you almost certainly are!) so let's talk about pork-barel spending. As I see it, this is one of the greatest flaws of the American republican system: it almost ensures that money will be spent strategically to garner votes on key bills. This is not to absolve anyone who practices this disgraceful tactic, but it does account for its uqiquity.
As for the healthcare issue (the elephant in the room) I'll give you my position:
I think it's right of you to observe that the current American system is "a network of 50 health care oligopolies". With this in mind, it seems to me to make sense to consolidate health care coverage in a single entity, assuming its goal is to efficiently provide healthcare to the maximum number of people regardless of their ability to pay. I know that, as a conservative, you won't agree with this but I'll give you my ideological position as a social democrat. Most importantly, I think that the purpose of a healthcare system is to take care of all of the citizens in a state regardless of their socio-economic status. Other services (like, say, police and fire departments) also fall into this category; they are essential to the collective public interest. Thus, by privatizing them and subjecting them to the "free market" you are effectively altering their objective and making them for-profit institutions. Though I recognize the libertarian reasoning behind these arguments, I find them to be inherently anti-humanist in their implications.
Of course, there is a much larger discussion to be had here and there isn't room or strength of knuckle.
Nov 11, 2009 at 03:56 PM
Post a Comment