If you think some people here are disappointed - or far worse - at the administration on a number of fronts, what you are seeing starting to become public from members of both the House and now Senate Democratic caucuses is just the tip of the iceberg. The anger among the electeds is palpable, which might be why it is now more frequently exploding into public view.
While I do not always agree with some of my friends among the electeds, I have to say that I am beyond frustrated, albeit for different reasons.
I have been disappointed and then frustrated, and now I am becoming angry.
In saying that I in no way diminish the very significant accomplishments of this term: Obama did achieve a fair number of his campaign promises. Yesterday someone in a position to know reminded my students not only of that, but pointed out that the President carries in his pocket a list of how many of his campaign promises he feels he has achieved - a far cry from the list of the "terrorists" on playing cards that Bush carried, with those killed or captured so indicated.
One can acknowledge those achievements, and still be disappointed, frustrated, and now angry.
Let me explain.
It is not for me all about education policy, but as one whose professional and to a degree personal life is centered on my role as a teacher I cannot avoid this subject. Last year Diane Ravitch offered a telling - and prescient - nremark - she described Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as Margaret Spellings in drag. Spellings was one of the main architects of No Child Left Behind, first from within the White House as a key adviser and then as Duncan's immediate predecessor as Secretary. One need only read op eds by Republicans who comment on how this administration is carrying out the Republican agenda on education to understand the truth of that remark.
I have at times been criticized for saying this administration is doing more damage to American public schools than did the Bush administration. But it's true - Bush and company did not totally change the framework of education, nor impose upon states mandates to change their laws for the chance to COMPETE for federal funds. While Rod Paige may have been hostile to teachers unions, the previous administration did not systematically attack the unions as obstructionist the way this administration has.
I could go on, but this diary is not about the education policy of the administration. For a long time I was quite supportive of the administration on a number of important issues, even as I wished it would go further. Even in its most significant achievement, health insurance reform, it did not in my opinion sufficiently lead. This allowed the process to fester during the August break in 2009, allowing the development of the Tea Party movement to a degree that fascinated the press, which is always looking for conflict, and thus begin to change the political dynamics in a way that lead to the massive losses of last month, losses I believe were largely avoidable.
I was disappointed that the administration did not clearly lay out how great the economic threat was, not only to this nation but to the world's economy. While I certainly lack the understanding and insight of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, it seemed obvious to me that the stimulus package was far too small, and that politically it might well be impossible to return for a second round.
I agree that health care had to be addressed as a necessary precursor to addressing lots of other problems. Many voices expressed concern at letting the likes of Max Baucus have a major role in driving the process. That unnecessarily dragged things out. The attempts to achieve some bi-partisan agreement also undercut the the momentum with which this administration began.
Think back to when Obama visited the Republican House Caucus retreat, and how he came out of there with them looking weak and him looking dominant, in command. Now contrast that with his more recent actions with respect to Republicans on so many issues, including tax cuts on which a significant majority of the American people - more than the percentage of votes he took in 2008, support his position or something even stronger: the Republican insistence upon continuing the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans has very little public support. Now think of how the dynamics of the election might have been different if the administration had pushed for a separate extension of the middle class tax cuts - the House could easily have passed such a measure as they just did. Hell, we had public statements by the likes of Boehner that they might have to vote for such a measure.
Then bring it into a Senate that still had Ted Kennedy, himself a very wealthy man, who might well have been willing to risk his health by making a speech on the floor about the immorality of those who would hold up the government and the nation for the trillions of dollars of benefits for those who did not need them. How about forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster on that issue - a real filibuster. That would have been riveting theater. If they dared. Either way, the Democrats, the administration, a more fiscally responsible as well as progressive agenda, would have had the upper hand.
Water, drop by drop, can wear away the hardest stone. That is why some of us persist despite our disappointments.
But another image also comes to mind, and it is the death of a thousand cuts. In this case the cuts are things that undermine hope, that make people less willing to work hard on elections - absent hope, why put in the effort necessary to make a difference? Absent hope, why bother even to vote?
I am on the downside of my 65th year, with that birthday now less than 6 months away. I no longer have the levels of energy I did even 2-3 years ago. I am finding just doing my primary task of being a teacher ever more difficult because of the students who come to me - they have been being cheated of large portions of their education because of No Child Left Behind, which still continues to do its damage, damage that is being made more severe by Race to the Top and changes in laws.
I remember a candidate who would tell us that he was someone who knew the Constitution and had taught the Constitution, who seemed willing to abide by the Constitution. Ratified treaties are effectively part of the Constitution. Each time this administration finds an excuse to follow the Bush administration and wiggle out of treaty responsibilities or the mandates of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus, each time it operates in a fashion that seems of the mindset that the end justifies the means with respect to "terrorists," it demolishes the credibility of that image of a candidate who supported the Constitution in a way the previous President did not.
Perhaps that disappointment and frustration began with the unwillingness to have an honest accounting of the wrongdoings of the previous administration. The American people have never been fully informed of the illegal actions of the previous administration. They have not been fully informed of the damage the previous administration did to our economy. Simply using the imagery of driving the car of the American economy into a ditch is insufficient, when the current perception is that this administration doesn't even have someone behind the wheel.
I am old enough to remember the hope and optimism of the beginning of the Clinton administration. That quickly disappeared because of mistakes - when Clinton pulled the plug on Bruce Babbitt's willingness to finally raise fees for grazing on federal land to appropriate levels and Clinton folded at the first sign of pushback, word went around DC that Clinton could be "rolled." That was the expression that was used, semi-openly.
Clinton's first chief of staff was a personal friend who did not understand Washington. For all of his skill at certain kinds of political acts Clinton made many serious mistakes.
One problem was that Rahm Emmanuel was in that White House, and seemingly learned incomplete lessons therefrom. Clinton did not sufficiently include Congress in trying to do health care, so Obama effectively deferred to Congress on the subject, not providing sufficient leadership, allowing the process to fester.
I will not go through all the examples of things I could recount that lead to disappointment, frustration, and anger. Others have done so far more effectively than I can.
At some point one says "enough!" I am getting close to that point.
I am not surprised that the administration moved to block the Spanish legal inquiry, but I could only be supportive had the administration moved to fully explore the relevant topics itself - then it could claim it was a matter of national sovereignty. Now? That comes across as America refusing to be accountable for anything its leaders and government do. That is arrogance, and in my mind violative not only of treaty obligations but of the very spirit of our Constitutional system, that this is a government of laws not of men.
I cannot understand why this administration would move to prevent a foreign criminal investigation and even prosecution of actions done by someone not as Vice President but as CEO of a corporation, actions that in some ways may have also violated US law. Are we now going to defend all actions by powerful American interests to the point that there is no accountability for wrong-doing? What message does that send?
I teach government. I regularly wonder what it is I am teaching, because increasingly what I see from government are things I do not remember reading in our Constitutional documents. That applies to all three branches of government.
We were promised hope, a new way of doing things. For many, that presumed that the interests of ordinary people would be more important than those of the wealthy or of the management of corporations. It seemed to indicate that our continued waste of treasure and lives in overseas military ventures would be significantly rolled back. It seemed to include an understanding that the ways of doing business in Washington would be changed, but in a way which would allow the interests and concerns of ordinary people to carry greater weight than those of the "governing" class.
Most of all, that hope was what was sustaining people as they confronted serious threats to their personal economic stability and future.
If people believe that they have little economic future, that their children cannot hope for a better life or at least one not significantly diminished, pray tell why should they vote for or support an administration that having promised them that is now seemingly abandoning them?
You might question those last two words. If people do not see the leadership of the administration visibly and vocally fighting for them, using what Teddy Roosevelt called the bully pulpit of the Presidency to dominate and shape the public discourse in a way that sustains hope, then no one should be surprised if they do not turn out in a midterm election.
We here are political junkies. We understand the reality behind the rhetoric offered by Republicans. We understand the threat to the wellbeing of this nation and most of the people if they were, under the effective control of their more extreme wing, to regain full control of the government. Ordinary people may not understand in the same way. But they do know this - they are not seeing or hearing from this administration something in which they can believe, that it will make a difference for them.
Perhaps it is not too late. Perhaps on the tax vote tomorrow we will see something different. Perhaps on DADT we will see something different. Perhaps somehow the administration can force Congress to reconsider the expiration of extended unemployment benefits in sufficient time that millions of families do not have their holidays ruined, and millions of others not have them interrupted by fear for their own economic futures.
Perhaps. Except for too many people they have already turned off and tuned out. They are no longer listening.
Too many voices are now expressing frustration or even anger. Consider Paul Krugman's column today as but one additional piece of evidence.
FWIW - I have friends in key positions in this administration, and for their sake I would want to maintain hope. I have tried to keep the criticisms I offered narrowly focused. I am not by nature one who gives up hope easily: I persist because not to persist would make it very hard for me to go on with much of what is important in my life.
FWIW - I am at the point of giving up on this administration.
That's right.
Giving up on them.
Because on too many issues I do not see leadership. I see reaction.
For all the rhetorical skills of this president, I do not see them being used to define the political discourse in a way that benefits the people about whom I care, and those are not the executives on Wall Street.
Corporate profits are up. Wages are down. Unions continue to be destroyed. Ordinary folks are suffering.
I think I know the moment this administration began to finally lose me. In attempting to pay for the public service jobs bill of $10 billion David Obey proposed taking less than $1 billion of unspent Race to the Top money. On that issue the President issued a veto threat. Why? To continue a policy that was destructive of public education. That policy had no research to support what it was forcing states to do. And absent the jobs bill - which was too little too late, again in part because the original stimulus was too small - many, many teachers would have lost their jobs. Which was more important, a flawed and/or untested approach to education or maintaining enough teachers that class sizes did not explode beyond the capacity of classrooms?
For What It's Worth. Absent some real leadership, some willingness to truly fight for things that matter to many of those about whom I care, why in God's name should I continue to support this administration? Merely because the other side would be worse? By the time the other side OFFICIALLY gains control of the government, the damage done may be so severe their official control of the government would be only an afterthought.
I don't discourage easily. I am discouraged.
I have no idea what impact these words will have. Take them for What It's Worth.
Which may be very little. After all, I am one high school teacher, too much in debt, too worn out to really do all that much beside run my mouth and my keyboard.
I am but one drop of water.
But I am far from alone in how I feel. Consider that Mr. President. Consider what that means.
Have a nice day, right?