Comments on: Expectations for Obama

By: Handmaiden to the Translational Biomedical Sciences

Handmaiden to the Translational Biomedical Sciences — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:12:56 +0000

Nobody who gets their ideas about the social problems in United States cities from television shows should express opinions about the consequences for them of Democratic versus Republican administrations. The differences are enormous, and this stretches back at least 50 years. In my , poverty in inner-city neighborhoods declined significantly during the Clinton years, and increased significantly during the Reagan and Bush(es) years. I have seen it with my own eyes in New York and Chicago, and there are also clear statistical patterns. The difference in homelessness alone is staggering. This is why democrats consistently poll so much higher in these areas. Some of the difference may be coincidental: Clinton presided over a large economic expansion, which was slowed or reversed under his successor. But some of the difference has to do with the provision of government resources to the poorest people, not necessarily in cash but also in the funding of social services, which to Bush-43 were primarily an arena to service his religious-right constituency by wasting time with “faith-based” nonsense. Another important contributor to the quality of life in these areas derives from the hope that follows upon some attention and understanding being paid to a population that is so often ignored or denigrated. The problem that so many on the left have—and I consider myself a left-leaning social democract—dealing with “centrist” politicians is that they can’t believe that it makes any real difference to people’s lives when the overall social-economic structure is more or less left in place. This goes back to the days of Roosevelt, but I have heard it expressed much more strongly by British socialists in opposition to Blair than in the USA. I think that this is a problem of failing to take account of the importance of even small material changes for large populations of people at the bottom of the economic ladder. The value of small improvements in the social welfare for such persons is really quite significant, because so many of them live on a sort of economic precipice: an extension of unemployment insurance compensation, for example, is very important for a family living two paychecks away from homelessness. And the belief that one matters to one’s country can make an enormous difference to one’s ability to seek to improve one’s own lot. I don’t mean to undermine continued efforts towards reworking large-scale attitudes towards the social contract. I just want to remind people that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in the the US federal government is very, very significant for large portions of the US citizenry, and any diminishment of that is an expression of either obliviousness or callousness. Let’s not let our critical stance get in the way of acknowledging these stark and vital human realities.

By: Coldtype

Coldtype — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:12:30 +0000

“Perhaps when people finally start realising that the same guy is holding both sock puppets, we can start making some progress”
-Mike

Amen.

By: Thales

Thales — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:15:13 +0000

Grossly exaggerated and frankly downright indefensible remarks such as Picador’s remind me why optimistic American liberals such as myself, who have contributed hard work and money to elect Obama and defeat McCain and the legacy of Reagan and Bush, cannot count on the support of “enlightened intellectuals,” if that is indeed what you aspire to be. If you don’t see the stark differences between Obama and Clinton, let alone Obama and McCain, if you are going to tar someone who opposed the (illegal, awful but nongenocidal) invasion of Iraq with cheerleading it because he didn’t lead a foolish charge to yank every American out of there instantaneously, and spit on Obama’s genuine progressive ambitions before he’s had a single day in office, you really do deserve to live under the alternative. Please attempt to accept the good within reach over the impossible perfect, or if you just can’t, stay the hell off my side.

By: MarkUp

MarkUp — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:53:04 +0000

“What are you talking about?”

Clinton’s #’s. You’d expect that based on what you’ve said, that would have carried over to him in his next election and not just members of Congress who, as you said, voted against it in the 94’ cycle. There was more than just NAFTA that caused the shift is what I’m saying.

By: Martin Bento

Martin Bento — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:43:35 +0000

The NAFTA Clinton ran on and Gore defended in debate had enforceable side agreements defending labor and environmental interests. The NAFTA that passed did not. In fact, the NAFTA that passed permits business to have hearings in secret courts if they feel government rules may have reduced their profits, and overturn national laws. Stiglitz, who was head of the economic advisors at the time, has said that provisions were quietly added at the last minute by lobbyists, and that they were not publicly debated and should have been. He seems to suggest that he himself did not entirely know what was in the agreement. Certainly, Clinton should have known if he did not; the President has to be responsible for knowing what he is passing.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:35:53 +0000

+7 points in the next election?

Huh? NAFTA was signed in 1993. The next election was 1994, the biggest loss for Dems in decades. What are you talking about?

By: donpaskini

donpaskini — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:46:18 +0000

Worth noting that back in the late 1940s and 1950s there were plenty of lefties who thought much the same about Attlee (and I think also Truman) as Chris does about Blair and Clinton – that they had wasted much of their time in power, pursued a wrong-headed foreign policy, and their achievements weren’t that big a deal.

Charles S at comment 11 had a list of what he hoped President Obama would do:

‘a massive increase in the minimum wage (with the minimum wage finally tied to inflation), something vaguely approaching universal health coverage, massive increases in funding to early childhood education, massive increases in support to non-profit community groups, a shift towards independence from fossil fuels, and refundable tax credits for payroll taxes for lower income workers, etc.’

Give or take a little, those are all things which New Labour have done in the UK since 1997.

I think one big challenge for Obama and the Democrats if they win will be keeping their supporters and activists energised and involved.

By: MarkUp

MarkUp — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:43:28 +0000

LP’‘…and of course so did the vast majority of ordinary Dem voters.

…and that had consequences.”

+7 points in the next election?

By: Jeff R.

Jeff R. — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:16:52 +0000

It’s hard, though, to portray Clinton’s support of NAFTA as an unexpected betrayal of the unions, since it was a position that was clearly advertised during his campaign (and, by bringing Ross Perot into the race to syphon off nativist and protectionist votes from both parties, contributed to his getting elected in the first place.) The time to have abandoned him would have been in the general election, not after. (Or, for that matter, during the primaries…)

By: Martin Bento

Martin Bento — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:58:14 +0000

virgil, if we’ve been monetizing all along, why does the national debt go up every year by about the amount of the deficit? You realize monetization erases the debt, right? It’s inflationary, but so is cutting interest rates, and that doesn’t seem to give people heart attacks; you just balance it against other tendencies. And in a recession, especially with a credit crunch, there will be deflationary pressures. While the popular wisdom is that paying off debt in inflation to the currency is irresponsible, it does mean absorbing the cost of the deficit now rather than passing it on to our children. It’s obviously not something you can let get out of hand, but then there are few things you can afford to get out of hand, so that’s not much of a distinguishing characteristic.

But as J Thomas said, the real problem is what it can do to your currency internationally. However a) maybe now the case for getting rid of the free market in currencies that has existed only since Nixon can be heard, b) the collapse of the dollar seems rather in the cards anyway, and c) everyone else is in the same boat, and a degradation of all currencies is a degradation of none, as far as the currency trade is concerned.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:42:32 +0000

I watched Clinton and Obama rally together a few days ago in Tampa, FL, and they did a great job playing back and forth against each other. Of course, I miss Bill’s big-hearted looseness (as cool as Barack Obama is, he never really seems loose), but I agree that Obama could accomplish nearly as much, if not more.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:28:44 +0000

Sorry, meant neoliberalism, not liberalism.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:27:10 +0000

Just that it goes too far.

What does? Some criticism of Clinton does go too far, but on the other hand, some doesn’t go far enough. So it would help if you could point to something specific in this comments thread, or the original post, taht you object to.

the flaws in neoliberalism have come quite clear, but I think projecting that back to the choices the party faced in 92 is anachronistic.

You really don’t think there were any credible objectiosn to liberalism in 1992? Really?

I also think that although NAFTA (and the whole globalization regime) was flawed, the impact of NAFTA itself on the U.S. labor market has been somewhat oversold.

You are probably right on this point, but it’s irrelevant. The issue is that by beginning his preisdency by joining with Republians against his own party on an issue that was a top priority for a lot of the Dem base, he did lot to create the unfavorable political climate of the later 90s.

By: MQ

MQ — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:04:12 +0000

Or do you really think that any criticism of Clinton from the left is illegitimate by definition?

no, I think it’s quite legitimate and even necessary. Just that it goes too far. I’d prefer to see it less personal, more oriented to the general ideological currents—a critique of neoliberalism, basically. Now the flaws in neoliberalism have come quite clear, but I think projecting that back to the choices the party faced in 92 is anachronistic. I also think that although NAFTA (and the whole globalization regime) was flawed, the impact of NAFTA itself on the U.S. labor market has been somewhat oversold.

For one thing, if you make it personal you miss how strongly neoliberalism is influencing Obama today. And your argument against that influence is stronger if you point out how different the situation was in 92 vs. today.

By: Righteous Bubba

Righteous Bubba — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:01:15 +0000

The utopian alternative where we have a True Left president throughout the 1990s doesn’t exist in the real world, and it’s unfair to blame the Clintons for that reality.

Was Hillary presidenting at that point?

Yes, it’s unfair to blame Clinton for what he could not control. He could, however, control his pen. {I know…}