Skip to main content

View Diary: Dan Agin nails it! Obama's Failure: A Presidency Without Ideology: Update from Dan (289 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree with the premises laid out in this diary, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    don mikulecky, tacet, basquebob, pgm 01

    but I also agree that's it is more complicated than that.   Don't know that I can explain how, but I think a piece of the puzzle is still missing.

    There is no doubt that our government, political system, and democracy have been stolen.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Thu May 02, 2013 at 03:36:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  As a person who's field is complexity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich, basquebob

      I clearly agree:

      it is more complicated than that.

      An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

      by don mikulecky on Thu May 02, 2013 at 03:40:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I followed your link to HuffPo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jbsoul, basquebob

        It is a damn good read.    As a country and a people, I don't think we can afford another crappy President and 8 years.   The GOP Govs. and dismantling infrastructure faster everywhere.  The public school will soon be history and every teacher worth their salt gone from the profession.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Thu May 02, 2013 at 04:18:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think the missing piece is that Obama does have (4+ / 0-)

      an ideology, but his ideology is process.  I really think he places more value on having two sides come to an agreement rather than what that agreement is about.  

      For a while both parties have relied on social issued to define them and often those social issues are defined by the right.  Democrats are for the most part, pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro gay rights.  These are all in response to Republicans setting the agenda by being against these things.  Democrats were until very recently the party that set the agenda about poverty and social justice, but once they handed the keys to the conversation to the Republicans, those issues stopped being the main focus.  That drop also seems to have occurred at the time that Democrats started embracing corporations and working with them during the rise of the third way.

      This has led to a situation where the only place where you will find many Democrats not identified as liberals agreeing with Republicans not identifying as libertarian is on the expansion of corporate rights through neoliberalism.  Since Obama's goal is agreement and he himself is more comfortable with neoliberalism over liberalism, his administration's actions often are neoliberal while he speaks about liberal ideas.  I think he sees the speeches as the world that could be and the process is the way to get there but has little need for ideologies that restrain the ability to negotiate.  Essentially both sides need to slaughter some of their sacred cows to limit the herd size, and both sides negotiate together on whose cows will be sent to the abattoir.

      He isn't ideologically opposed to Social Security the way Republicans are.  He is not ideologically for its protection the way liberals are.  This is why cutting the rate of inflation in the program seemed like a great idea to him.  It is not an immediate slash to benefits, it does not end the program and it helps strengthen it over time.  A nice technical solution on paper that was completely blasted by damn near everyone because of its detachment from the injury it will cause to seniors and to politicians asking those seniors for votes. Process is his ideology which is why he was not prepared for the attack from all sides on that proposal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site