You would think that after presiding over a massive economic meltdown and being trounced in the election, the Right would be hiding, licking its wounds. Instead, they continue to hold a prominent place in the news and spread their propaganda throughout the media. Why is anyone paying attention to them? Because our Democratic leaders, especially Barack Obama, do not stand up to them. Apparently our leaders think the Right is still a powerful force in American politics, that conservative ideology is popular, and that consensus and inclusiveness can work. President Obama continually tries to reach out to the Right. This weekend, Obama wanted so much to distance himself from being tagged by the Right with a "socialist" label that he went so far as to say he was really little different than George W. Bush on economic and social policy! (see New York Times article Callback)
Barack Obama’s interview with the New York Times reporters this weekend reminds me of Michael Dukakis in his debates with George H. W. Bush in 1988. After Bush had several times looked at Dukakis and disdainfully called him a "Liberal," Dukakis finally said meekly that he did not believe in labels. He did not defend his principles or policies. Obama did the same thing in the New York Times interview this weekend. Asked to describe his philosophy in a word, Obama replied "I’m not going to engage in that." Obama has many times described himself as a pragmatist. Why didn’t he repeat that in his Times interview? Has he lost faith in his ability to solve problems? Is he going to leave solutions to problems up to 535 members of Congress or large groups of citizens such as the dozens of people he invited to a one day conference on health care solutions? Is he just going to continue to throw money at the banks like Paulson did or is he going to take bold action even though the Right may label it "nationalization"? Where is the strong, audacious leader we all saw on the campaign trail?
During the lead-up to the inauguration, Barack Obama paid a great deal of homage to Abraham Lincoln. Maybe it is time for President Obama to pay much more attention to FDR and his ability to think outside the box. FDR surrounded himself with creative new thinkers (his "brain trust") and he initiated many things that had never been done before (such as CCC, FDIC, WPA, SEC, TVA, NLRB and Social Security). The free enterprise system had crashed and traditional thinking would not serve to get it back on track. FDR brought in unconventional people such as Felix Frankfurter, Henry Wallace, Frances Perkins and Rexford Tugwell. Contrast this with Obama’s timid and dithering group of economic advisors who are imbued with the traditions of Wall Street.
By the way, I hope no one reading this has fallen for the Right wing propaganda that FDR and the New Deal did not bring us out of the Great Depression. It is amazing how the Right can rewrite history and so many media outlets parrot this nonsense with no fact checking. Here are some facts: When FDR took office in March 1933, the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production was 54.3; four months later it was 85.5. By 1934, GNP rose to 7.7 percent and continued to rise. GNP was at a record 14.1 percent in 1936. Although unemployment remained high in 1936 at 17 percent, it had fallen from 25 percent in 1933. And, by the way, FDR was handily reelected in 1936. He must have been doing something right. (The next thing you know, Republicans will claim that Alf Landon won in 1936.)
As for reaching out to Republican ideologues, apparently Obama never took a course in social psychology – attitude formation and change. The minds of ideologues or true believers are encased in a protective shield – a shield that dissonant information and ideas cannot penetrate. The world that they see is highly distorted – a state of denial can easily exist in their heads. We have seen this phenomena in abundance in the past month or so as Republican leaders present their remedies to the economic crisis – remedies that got us into the crisis in the first place. It is hopeless to try to reason with such ideologues. Catering to their failed ideas will only weaken any strong medicine that is needed to cure our economic woes.
We always seem to forget that Bill Clinton accomplished a major change when he managed to get a tax increase through Congress early in his administration. Of course, no Republican voted for it. It passed by only one vote in the House. Yet it became law. The financial community was at that time very concerned by the huge deficits that had been piling up under Reagan and Bush in the 1980’s. Such huge deficits had never been seen before and they made the financial community very uneasy. The passage of the tax increase was welcomed in the financial world since it put us on the path toward balanced budgets. As we all know, the economy boomed in the 1990’s.
I am not saying that a tax increase on the wealthy under current economic conditions would be a good policy. What I am saying is that we need strong, well-conceived and original policies to deal with our current problems. Get them through Congress even if by only one vote. Why in the world does President Obama want huge majorities for his policies? A law is a law, a budget is a budget whether is passes by one vote or many. It will have the same effect. And as has been pointed out in a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, measures do not have to be "filibuster proof" to pass the Senate. A determined President and Majority Leader can get measures through with 51 votes. (see filibuster)
We need bold, original measures to deal with the economic crisis and these will not be forthcoming unless President Obama ignores the Right and leads full speed ahead with firm, clear policies. Policies developed by consensus will be a mish-mash. Policies that include Right wing discredited beliefs will be counterproductive, to say the least. Being all things to all people is not the mark of a leader. It is when you are being called names that you know you are standing out from the crowd and moving in a new direction.