This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1jmcgarve
Those of us on the left side of the American political spectrum (such as it is) are a little worried about some of Obama's appointments. The economic team has too many of the folks who aided and abetted the financiers (Summers, Geithner) and the foreign policy team has too many who helped the neocons get us in deep trouble. What are your thoughts?
3theoria
Obama tipped his 'centrism' early when he praised Reagan. The "left" guffawed and the Clintons harrumphed, but I thought this was the echt Obama. He was to the 'right' of Clinton and Edwards on healthcare reform. He wound up on the right of Clinton (and had to tack hard left) after she discovered her populist cred and a taste for Budweiser from a can. But once he'd dispensed with the Clintonistas, he settled comfortably back in the middle.
Having said that, the "Right" is right to detect his "leftist" sentiments (from his dangerous liaisons with the Wrong Rev. Wright and Bill "Make War not Love" Ayers to his community organizing background and affiliation with the democracy-killing ACORN outfit). However, he had 3 years to observe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and he has wisely decided these two are incompetent liberals. The netroots, while maintaining ideological purity, is prone to a lack of realism (something an Alinsky style community organizer cannot tolerate). So he's signed up professionals, the "best and brightest," elitists all, to get the job done. More than the problem of Bush's evangelistic ideology, what has been lacking in the last 7 years is competence. If Obama delivers it, no matter what direction his policies take, he's golden.
Finally, the liberal-left has seemed to overlook the fact that Obama spoke openly about using pre-emptive force inside Pakistan and expanding the "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan. This should have been enough of a tip that Obama is not a red diaper baby. He channels Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus and held around 20,000 people without charges during the civil war (not to mention the military tribunals in the field). Che he is not.
Having said that, the "Right" is right to detect his "leftist" sentiments (from his dangerous liaisons with the Wrong Rev. Wright and Bill "Make War not Love" Ayers to his community organizing background and affiliation with the democracy-killing ACORN outfit). However, he had 3 years to observe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and he has wisely decided these two are incompetent liberals. The netroots, while maintaining ideological purity, is prone to a lack of realism (something an Alinsky style community organizer cannot tolerate). So he's signed up professionals, the "best and brightest," elitists all, to get the job done. More than the problem of Bush's evangelistic ideology, what has been lacking in the last 7 years is competence. If Obama delivers it, no matter what direction his policies take, he's golden.
Finally, the liberal-left has seemed to overlook the fact that Obama spoke openly about using pre-emptive force inside Pakistan and expanding the "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan. This should have been enough of a tip that Obama is not a red diaper baby. He channels Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus and held around 20,000 people without charges during the civil war (not to mention the military tribunals in the field). Che he is not.
4timspalding
I wonder if we aren't going to get something different than we thought—not necessarily in being more right or left, but just different in some way that will be unexpected.
This was the case with Lincoln. He was more moderate on slavery than other Republicans. But by his inauguration that wasn't the issue anymore, it was secession. And he was harder-line on secession than other Republicans. Arguably, it happened to Bush too. I think Bush entered thinking he would reign back US intervention and nation-building. Things ended up otherwise.
This was the case with Lincoln. He was more moderate on slavery than other Republicans. But by his inauguration that wasn't the issue anymore, it was secession. And he was harder-line on secession than other Republicans. Arguably, it happened to Bush too. I think Bush entered thinking he would reign back US intervention and nation-building. Things ended up otherwise.
5lriley
He's coming into colossal problems and I think he wants to get at least some republican support for his agenda. That seems to be part of it. I never really bought the idea that he was the 'most liberal' senator. His economic picks are somewhat disturbing. Robert Rubin is as much to blame as Phil Gramm as to why we're in the mess we are and yet even though he hasn't been named to anything--he's an advisor and people close to him have been named.
6Existanai
Outside the US, the Liberal party is viewed as Right or Centre-Right, and that political spectrum is also regarded as being representative of most "sensible" (i.e. not the Far Right) Americans. You can't even get elected in the US, in a sense, unless you pander to this more or less right-wing ideology (relative to the rest of the globe.) Of course this is a little simplistic, but Obama's choices, in that regard, are not surprising.
7LolaWalser
Not surprising? It's disappointing as hell.
If his only positive contribution to history ends up being integrating the US presidency, to hell with him. Race isn't America's burning problem. Its economic infrastructure and the policies governing it are.
If his only positive contribution to history ends up being integrating the US presidency, to hell with him. Race isn't America's burning problem. Its economic infrastructure and the policies governing it are.
8geneg
After eight years of the worst kind of ideology, I will be happy with a pragmatist who tries to solve our problems with solutions rather than incompetence and bumper stickers, which is the legacy of most ideologies. I don't want another bumper sticker president. I want leadership and competence.
The left is no more able to provide leadership to the vast majority of Americans than the Right is. A President leaning too far to the left, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, massive social welfare programs, and whatever else the left lives on these days, will not have the support of the majority of the American people, will have no chance to unite the nation behind him and will not be able to accomplish much at all. Worst of all, he may cause many to pine for the old days of the Republicans. We're emerging from thirty years of a drift to the right (I hope), let's start with a drift, not a jerk, to the left.
The left is no more able to provide leadership to the vast majority of Americans than the Right is. A President leaning too far to the left, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, massive social welfare programs, and whatever else the left lives on these days, will not have the support of the majority of the American people, will have no chance to unite the nation behind him and will not be able to accomplish much at all. Worst of all, he may cause many to pine for the old days of the Republicans. We're emerging from thirty years of a drift to the right (I hope), let's start with a drift, not a jerk, to the left.
9krolik
Yes, there were precedents to suggest that he is fairly centrist, in U.S. terms, and very much a pragmatist politician. This means I'm less likely to see my wish-list seriously addressed (e.g., healthcare) but also less likely to see "noble" failures for the sake of gesture. These can be a waste of political capital, anyway. Events will probably shape him more than he will shape events. But hope doesn't hurt. Meaningful change usually comes in increments.
10enevada
I think you are both correct, krolik and geneg.
Change is too expensive, and we are broke. Good news for those who see negative restraint as a positive , but not so good for those who were hoping to choose a preferred physician under a new Universal Health Care plan.
Hope is still cheap, at the moment.
The Obama shift to the center is not terribly surprising, if you are familiar with the theory of Public Choice and its explanation of the ineffectuality or insignificance of political personalities as opposed to institutions. Changing the personalities in an election cycle every so often does little to actually implement actual changes in policies.
For some interesting, if sobering, reading: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
From which:
Studying collective decision-making by committees, Duncan Black deduced what has since been called the median-voter theorem. If voters are fully informed, if their preferred outcomes can be arrayed along one dimension (e.g., left to right), if each voter has a single most-preferred outcome, and if decisions are made by simple majority rule, then the median voter will be decisive. Any proposal to the left or right of that point will be defeated by one that is closer to the median voter’s preferred outcome. Because extreme proposals lose to centrist proposals, candidates and parties in a two-party system will move to the center, and, as a result, their platforms and campaign promises will differ only slightly.
Change is too expensive, and we are broke. Good news for those who see negative restraint as a positive , but not so good for those who were hoping to choose a preferred physician under a new Universal Health Care plan.
Hope is still cheap, at the moment.
The Obama shift to the center is not terribly surprising, if you are familiar with the theory of Public Choice and its explanation of the ineffectuality or insignificance of political personalities as opposed to institutions. Changing the personalities in an election cycle every so often does little to actually implement actual changes in policies.
For some interesting, if sobering, reading: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
From which:
Studying collective decision-making by committees, Duncan Black deduced what has since been called the median-voter theorem. If voters are fully informed, if their preferred outcomes can be arrayed along one dimension (e.g., left to right), if each voter has a single most-preferred outcome, and if decisions are made by simple majority rule, then the median voter will be decisive. Any proposal to the left or right of that point will be defeated by one that is closer to the median voter’s preferred outcome. Because extreme proposals lose to centrist proposals, candidates and parties in a two-party system will move to the center, and, as a result, their platforms and campaign promises will differ only slightly.
11jmcgarve
Obama is turning out to be a centrist, and that does not surprise me. I really wanted a liberal, and at the outset I thought it could be Edwards, but as it turned out, it was a very good thing for Democrats that Edwards did not win the nomination.
However, there are several problems with the centrism=pragmatism=success ideas given above.
First, the Republicans in the Senate are for the most part intransigent, meaning Obama can't pick up votes by compromising with them.
Second, the really transformative presidents did not govern through centrism. Consider Reagan. He went for all home runs, and he got them. He made no attempts to move to the center. None. That made his message ideologically clear, so that it changed public thinking. The median voter theorem is obviously wrong. Political parties do not just measure voter sentiment, they lead and shape that sentiment, so the position of the median voter changes as political leaders affect their thinking.
Third, there are certain yes/no questions that we have to answer here. No middle will do. Do we need less financial regulation, or more? There is only one right answer: MORE! Or the world financial system will remain a Ponzi scheme. Do we raise government spending, or cut it? There is only one right answer: There must be a big increase in government spending, or the deflationary spiral will ontinue. Can we succeed in Afghanistan by continuing the current strategy but with more troops, or will that approach continue and expand the present morass? There is only one right answer: Escalation of the current strategy is certain to fail. Already the majority of Afghans and Pakistanis will go to great lengths to get the US out, in large part because of the many continuing casualties to noncombatants as a result of US bombing. Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan.
All that said, compromise will be necessary to win, especially with a Blue Dog caucus forming among senate Democrats. Compromise is different from centrism. When compromising, one says we should do X, but we will settle for half a loaf. That allows for both leading public opinion and producing results.
There is an interesting analysis by Charles Krauthammer, a columnist with whom I almost never agree, here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121102951.... . Krauthammer says that on foreign policy and the financial system, Obama is indeed a centrist, but on domestic programs, he plans to be transformative. This might be true -- although Obama's health care plan is really very modest. Obama may also be a transformative leader on energy and the environment.
So ... we shall see.
However, there are several problems with the centrism=pragmatism=success ideas given above.
First, the Republicans in the Senate are for the most part intransigent, meaning Obama can't pick up votes by compromising with them.
Second, the really transformative presidents did not govern through centrism. Consider Reagan. He went for all home runs, and he got them. He made no attempts to move to the center. None. That made his message ideologically clear, so that it changed public thinking. The median voter theorem is obviously wrong. Political parties do not just measure voter sentiment, they lead and shape that sentiment, so the position of the median voter changes as political leaders affect their thinking.
Third, there are certain yes/no questions that we have to answer here. No middle will do. Do we need less financial regulation, or more? There is only one right answer: MORE! Or the world financial system will remain a Ponzi scheme. Do we raise government spending, or cut it? There is only one right answer: There must be a big increase in government spending, or the deflationary spiral will ontinue. Can we succeed in Afghanistan by continuing the current strategy but with more troops, or will that approach continue and expand the present morass? There is only one right answer: Escalation of the current strategy is certain to fail. Already the majority of Afghans and Pakistanis will go to great lengths to get the US out, in large part because of the many continuing casualties to noncombatants as a result of US bombing. Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan.
All that said, compromise will be necessary to win, especially with a Blue Dog caucus forming among senate Democrats. Compromise is different from centrism. When compromising, one says we should do X, but we will settle for half a loaf. That allows for both leading public opinion and producing results.
There is an interesting analysis by Charles Krauthammer, a columnist with whom I almost never agree, here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121102951.... . Krauthammer says that on foreign policy and the financial system, Obama is indeed a centrist, but on domestic programs, he plans to be transformative. This might be true -- although Obama's health care plan is really very modest. Obama may also be a transformative leader on energy and the environment.
So ... we shall see.
12littlegeek
I'm really stymied that anyone would have ever believed that Obama is a liberal. Besides someone like Sarah Palin, I mean.
Didn't you people listen to him in the debates?
*head scratch*
I'm with gene, I voted for competence, not ideology. The gap between left & right is largely a media construct anyway, in my opinion. That and people's natural tendency to be tribal.
Didn't you people listen to him in the debates?
*head scratch*
I'm with gene, I voted for competence, not ideology. The gap between left & right is largely a media construct anyway, in my opinion. That and people's natural tendency to be tribal.
13enevada
Oh! The debates ...
Yeah.
Federal and judicial appointments, perhaps, will be more revealing. I'm pleased with the centrist positioning of course, and have come to see a man who is more politician than ideologue (a good thing, IMO, containable - held in check by public opinion if nothing else, at least for this first term and with regard to his legacy, which will be of significant concern).
Always look on the bright side.
Yeah.
Federal and judicial appointments, perhaps, will be more revealing. I'm pleased with the centrist positioning of course, and have come to see a man who is more politician than ideologue (a good thing, IMO, containable - held in check by public opinion if nothing else, at least for this first term and with regard to his legacy, which will be of significant concern).
Always look on the bright side.
15enevada
No, I didn't - I admit, and I'm still not totally convinced, but now realize that the restraints on the office are much more effective than I had ever imagined. Perhaps James Madison should have clued me in - but he was a far brighter (and more cynical) man than me.
Thank God.
Thank God.
16Existanai
#11 Good post, as usual, jmcgarve.
Obama hasn't even had his first day in office, but there are already so many analyses, which probably stem from the fact people expect much more from a man who seems very different from recent predecessors (including Clinton, and not because of race) - his intelligence, frankness etc. all being in his favour. I too hope that he'll live up to expectations, but to quote Theoria, he's no Che, and there's no expectation on my part that he'll bring about a complete overhaul of things, even if that is sorely needed in areas like foreign policy, and it's too early to tell whether the appointments are going to be the whole story.
Obama hasn't even had his first day in office, but there are already so many analyses, which probably stem from the fact people expect much more from a man who seems very different from recent predecessors (including Clinton, and not because of race) - his intelligence, frankness etc. all being in his favour. I too hope that he'll live up to expectations, but to quote Theoria, he's no Che, and there's no expectation on my part that he'll bring about a complete overhaul of things, even if that is sorely needed in areas like foreign policy, and it's too early to tell whether the appointments are going to be the whole story.
17LolaWalser
Expect "more" from Obama? After Shrub and his posse ground standards to below sea-level? All he has to do is sit pretty, look smart and deal with foreign honchos moderately civilly. And that'll already be "more".
I'm not an American and therefore expect nothing good from Americans; I certainly never thought of Obama as "liberal", and talks of system "overhauls" out-fantasise Lovecraft.
But here's what I didn't expect: a Cabinet bedecked with Republican goons. Democrats are bad enough.
I shall be watching for that gentle "drifting to the left" with bated breath.
I'm not an American and therefore expect nothing good from Americans; I certainly never thought of Obama as "liberal", and talks of system "overhauls" out-fantasise Lovecraft.
But here's what I didn't expect: a Cabinet bedecked with Republican goons. Democrats are bad enough.
I shall be watching for that gentle "drifting to the left" with bated breath.
18enevada
Why do you care, Lola?
Really, this fascinates me, the preoccupation with the American political scene (about as parochial and culturally specific as it gets) by people who don't live here.
It even gets tedious to me, and I live here. But I can't imagine the attraction to an outsider looking in. Must be boring as hell.
Really, this fascinates me, the preoccupation with the American political scene (about as parochial and culturally specific as it gets) by people who don't live here.
It even gets tedious to me, and I live here. But I can't imagine the attraction to an outsider looking in. Must be boring as hell.
19geneg
Let's face it, for whatever unfathomable reasons, people around the world are interested in America and Americans. An example: why the hell do we care one whit for the British Royal Family? But we do. A lot!
20theoria
17>
The absence of Republican goons is a definite positive. The replacement of Bush's ideological rigidity for a more pragmatic, and hopefully multilateral, approach to foreign affairs will be a gain for the world. Obama seems to be committed to accepted standards of international justice, so I would expect an eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison and the suspension of renditions of "enemy combatants." Similarly, I think it is reasonable to assume Obama's Justice Department will revisit the usefulness of "waterboarding" as a means of extracting information and it will cease to be employed. I don't think Obama has expressed any enthusiasm for Bush's missile defense program for Eastern Europe, so that might be scrapped as well. However, Obama will be the President of a superpower and he'll undoubtedly do the things a superpower does, such as seeking to maintain its position. Soft power is still power.
On the domestic front, it does matter to have a Democrat, any Democrat really, as President because s/he will appoint judges. I am almost certain Obama will reinstate the American Bar Association as the arbiter of the qualifications of candidates appointed to higher courts, and this will help to reduce the Federalist Society and the spurious legal hermeneutics of "originalism" to a curiosity and marginal jurisprudential position.
None of this would be especially "radical" but it will be a significant departure from the Bush years and the Reaganite past. If there is to be a movement towards insurgent liberalism, it will probably have to wait until 2012.
The absence of Republican goons is a definite positive. The replacement of Bush's ideological rigidity for a more pragmatic, and hopefully multilateral, approach to foreign affairs will be a gain for the world. Obama seems to be committed to accepted standards of international justice, so I would expect an eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison and the suspension of renditions of "enemy combatants." Similarly, I think it is reasonable to assume Obama's Justice Department will revisit the usefulness of "waterboarding" as a means of extracting information and it will cease to be employed. I don't think Obama has expressed any enthusiasm for Bush's missile defense program for Eastern Europe, so that might be scrapped as well. However, Obama will be the President of a superpower and he'll undoubtedly do the things a superpower does, such as seeking to maintain its position. Soft power is still power.
On the domestic front, it does matter to have a Democrat, any Democrat really, as President because s/he will appoint judges. I am almost certain Obama will reinstate the American Bar Association as the arbiter of the qualifications of candidates appointed to higher courts, and this will help to reduce the Federalist Society and the spurious legal hermeneutics of "originalism" to a curiosity and marginal jurisprudential position.
None of this would be especially "radical" but it will be a significant departure from the Bush years and the Reaganite past. If there is to be a movement towards insurgent liberalism, it will probably have to wait until 2012.
21Existanai
#17 I'm not sure what you're driving at, but, past a certain point, it's all labels to me: Obama might have a "Cabinet bedecked with Republican goons", but it's still far too early to tell what direction those goons will take - they might be malleable goons, as opposed to intransigent, self-labelled Democrat goons who are essentially hecklers for a Republican platform. Or, we could take it a step further and say perhaps Obama himself is a closet Republican; it still is too early to say, since we're talking about someone who hasn't even been sworn in yet. When I said that expectations are much higher, I clearly mentioned it's because he seems different from predecessors including Clinton; whether that translates to reality is what we're all waiting to find out, and I don't think the Cabinet appointments are a warning sign in themselves.
#18 : this fascinates me, the preoccupation with the American political scene (about as parochial and culturally specific as it gets) by people who don't live here.
Hm, kinda like the American preoccupation with, I don't know, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan... I wonder if there's any connection at all between an outsider's interests in America and American interests in the rest of the world.
Corrected msg no.s
#18 : this fascinates me, the preoccupation with the American political scene (about as parochial and culturally specific as it gets) by people who don't live here.
Hm, kinda like the American preoccupation with, I don't know, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan... I wonder if there's any connection at all between an outsider's interests in America and American interests in the rest of the world.
Corrected msg no.s
22LolaWalser
Why do you care, Lola?
It must be my inferior European education. Makes me all interested in the world, and shit. (Strategic comma...)
Really, why do I care what's happening with a "superpower" that's been waging a war somewhere continuously for 60 years now since WWII, and is just a hair's breadth away from total war in the Middle East, nuclear weapons included, whose every economic fart and tremor spreads to the four winds, whose geopolitical whims create anything from minor hassles to major existential problems to the small fry... naw, those can't be good enough reasons.
When the day comes that US politics may be safely ignored, I'll bring out pink champagne and dancing girls.
It must be my inferior European education. Makes me all interested in the world, and shit. (Strategic comma...)
Really, why do I care what's happening with a "superpower" that's been waging a war somewhere continuously for 60 years now since WWII, and is just a hair's breadth away from total war in the Middle East, nuclear weapons included, whose every economic fart and tremor spreads to the four winds, whose geopolitical whims create anything from minor hassles to major existential problems to the small fry... naw, those can't be good enough reasons.
When the day comes that US politics may be safely ignored, I'll bring out pink champagne and dancing girls.
23LolaWalser
#21
ntransigent, self-labelled Democrat goons who are essentially hecklers for a Republican platform
Who exactly?
As for the rest, we'll see what we'll see. So far, so disappointing--I hope the buck DOES stop with Obama.
#19
I don't know whether I can help you. Ever heard of the planet Earth? Other continents? The 190+ member states of the UN? Global politics? Ever read a book, seen a news piece on how the US affected and affects what's, you know, happenin'?
Jesus Christ on a stick. And this is supposed to be a site with readers.
#20
it will be a significant departure from the Bush years and the Reaganite past.
I hope so. My bar is very low--I hope he doesn't preside over the war with Iran and Syria. (Or--gosh, maybe I need to hedge my bets--over war anywhere. NEW ones, I mean.)
ntransigent, self-labelled Democrat goons who are essentially hecklers for a Republican platform
Who exactly?
As for the rest, we'll see what we'll see. So far, so disappointing--I hope the buck DOES stop with Obama.
#19
I don't know whether I can help you. Ever heard of the planet Earth? Other continents? The 190+ member states of the UN? Global politics? Ever read a book, seen a news piece on how the US affected and affects what's, you know, happenin'?
Jesus Christ on a stick. And this is supposed to be a site with readers.
#20
it will be a significant departure from the Bush years and the Reaganite past.
I hope so. My bar is very low--I hope he doesn't preside over the war with Iran and Syria. (Or--gosh, maybe I need to hedge my bets--over war anywhere. NEW ones, I mean.)
24Existanai
>Who exactly?
I can't think of any names right now, but these (dated) posts should provide examples of right-wing Democrats of the past couple of years: Unmasking the DLC, from The Huffington Post; an entry at a blog called Down With Tyranny... there are others, but the point is some Democrats are only nominally so.
I can't think of any names right now, but these (dated) posts should provide examples of right-wing Democrats of the past couple of years: Unmasking the DLC, from The Huffington Post; an entry at a blog called Down With Tyranny... there are others, but the point is some Democrats are only nominally so.
25LolaWalser
#24
Well, yeah, those are dated and I don't see what they have to do with Obama.
Everybody is something only "nominally". There is no absolute standard Dems or Repugs are required to fulfill. A Southern Democrat can be farther right than an East Coast Republican. Obama isn't an FDR Democrat himself, he's a neoliberal social conservative. As you noted, he isn't even in office yet. However, people are rightly concerned about the choices he's made. If they turn out well, great. If not, not great. That is all.
By the way, I don't think any POTUS in recent history will have received as much support as Obama. Not only are anti-Bushies thoroughly disgusted, the Bushies themselves are shitting their pants with fear at the future. That's how we got to see all those heartening "Rednecks for Obama" signs down in Dixie. So, if he doesn't end his presidency with good marks, I really don't expect "heckling" from "faux-Democrats", of all things, will be to blame.
But, let's give it another four years first...
Well, yeah, those are dated and I don't see what they have to do with Obama.
Everybody is something only "nominally". There is no absolute standard Dems or Repugs are required to fulfill. A Southern Democrat can be farther right than an East Coast Republican. Obama isn't an FDR Democrat himself, he's a neoliberal social conservative. As you noted, he isn't even in office yet. However, people are rightly concerned about the choices he's made. If they turn out well, great. If not, not great. That is all.
By the way, I don't think any POTUS in recent history will have received as much support as Obama. Not only are anti-Bushies thoroughly disgusted, the Bushies themselves are shitting their pants with fear at the future. That's how we got to see all those heartening "Rednecks for Obama" signs down in Dixie. So, if he doesn't end his presidency with good marks, I really don't expect "heckling" from "faux-Democrats", of all things, will be to blame.
But, let's give it another four years first...
26codyed
If I had uttered the same tripe that Lola did about Europe, I would not hear the end of it. But since this person is bashing the United States and Americans in general, then it is acceptable discourse.
Hypocrites.
Hypocrites.
27LolaWalser
Uttering tripe is something of your specialty, is it not? So why not test your hypothesis? Or do you assume Tim's got a monopoly on starting Europe-bashing threads?
Go ahead, I hear there's a future in wind-energy industries.
Go ahead, I hear there's a future in wind-energy industries.
28Existanai
#25 If they turn out well, great. If not, not great. That is all.
I was saying much the same thing. :)
#26 Hypocrites.
Cody, I thought this was a foregone conclusion, what with all of us voting for Obama because he's black, and race permeating everything, and so on and so forth.
I was saying much the same thing. :)
#26 Hypocrites.
Cody, I thought this was a foregone conclusion, what with all of us voting for Obama because he's black, and race permeating everything, and so on and so forth.
29timspalding
> but the point is some Democrats are only nominally so
They must be purged, puuuuurged!
They must be purged, puuuuurged!
30codyed
>28 Existanai: - Well, that didn't take long for your persistently outraged self to justify your blatant hypocrisy.
>27 LolaWalser: - Your certainly giving me a run for my money, dear.
I'm smelling sock-puppetry.
>27 LolaWalser: - Your certainly giving me a run for my money, dear.
I'm smelling sock-puppetry.
31margd
Re external interest in America:
"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
--Pierre Trudeau, addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C. (25 March 1969)
"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
--Pierre Trudeau, addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C. (25 March 1969)
32enevada
Nice find, margd. And more in line with the answer I was expecting from our neighbors to the north (and east, for you Cody).
Trudeau - from back in the days when Canadian politics were interesting in themselves.
And I must admit that the tabloid quality of phrases such as "bushies shitting their pants" is colorful, if somewhat raunch and completely divorced from reality. Presumably, "bushies" are members of his cabinet or staff that will either a) return to civilian life when Bush does and/or b) work for someone else.
American governance is largely bureaucratic these days and not nearly as machiavellian as some believe. The purple prose is over the top, but the pink champagne and dancing girls is nice. Although, in America, we call them women.
Trudeau - from back in the days when Canadian politics were interesting in themselves.
And I must admit that the tabloid quality of phrases such as "bushies shitting their pants" is colorful, if somewhat raunch and completely divorced from reality. Presumably, "bushies" are members of his cabinet or staff that will either a) return to civilian life when Bush does and/or b) work for someone else.
American governance is largely bureaucratic these days and not nearly as machiavellian as some believe. The purple prose is over the top, but the pink champagne and dancing girls is nice. Although, in America, we call them women.
33Existanai
#30: Well, that didn't take long for your persistently outraged self to justify your blatant hypocrisy.
Cody, I used to think like you when I was about 13, or thereabouts. I took it a step further by writing mocking poetry that was very popular, to the extent that teachers asked me to read some out in front of the whole school for one of the morning assemblies; I hope you can profit from your naivete too.
Cody, I used to think like you when I was about 13, or thereabouts. I took it a step further by writing mocking poetry that was very popular, to the extent that teachers asked me to read some out in front of the whole school for one of the morning assemblies; I hope you can profit from your naivete too.
34margd
>32 enevada: Ah, but when elephants turn mean, they can do a lot of damage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/appeal-how-to-keep-an-elephant-ou... . A biologist who once worked in Zimbabwe told me about a guide who was stomped, picked up, and thrown to the ground so many times only hamburger remained... ETA: He said that's one of the reasons villagers don't consider poaching such a crime.
35jmcgarve
The title of this thread seems a little silly now. Every Obama appointment has been centrist appointment, on the right side of the Democratic Party, with the possible exception of Chu. We have Vilsack, a big advocate of corn ethanol and agribusiness, at the agriculture department. We have Salazar at Interior, who is strong on wind power but not strong at all on species protection. And finally, the booby prize goes to Mary Schapiro at the SEC. She is currently head of the Financial Services Regulatory Agency, in which role she has clearly failed utterly.
36enevada
#35: what is interesting to me - and I was wrong, dead wrong, when I mentioned to BGP (where has he gone? He's among the best and the brightest, I think of the leftist persuasion on this site) that the Democrats made a gross strategical error in choosing Obama over Clinton - is that Obama made a brilliant (politically speaking) and completely unprecedented move: he actually became Hillary Clinton.
Wow. I don't think anyone saw that coming - I certainly didn't - but think of it: Hillary without the baggage, without the yellow pant suits, without Bill, and in the body of an attractive black man with some urban street cred (no-one else in politics even comes close on that score).
Great move, and it worked. But it seems that he's not going back.
Wow. I don't think anyone saw that coming - I certainly didn't - but think of it: Hillary without the baggage, without the yellow pant suits, without Bill, and in the body of an attractive black man with some urban street cred (no-one else in politics even comes close on that score).
Great move, and it worked. But it seems that he's not going back.
37enevada
Oh, and even WSJ likes the Education pick:
Barack Obama has chosen Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan to be his Secretary of Education. As scarred veterans of the school-reform wars, we applaud the choice with great caution...
"He's a proven and committed and inventive education reformer," Mr. Finn wrote yesterday on the Institute's blog, "not tethered to the public-school establishment and its infinite interest groups."
more here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947395330612359.html
Barack Obama has chosen Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan to be his Secretary of Education. As scarred veterans of the school-reform wars, we applaud the choice with great caution...
"He's a proven and committed and inventive education reformer," Mr. Finn wrote yesterday on the Institute's blog, "not tethered to the public-school establishment and its infinite interest groups."
more here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947395330612359.html
38theoria
35> "And finally, the booby prize goes to Mary Schapiro at the SEC. She is currently head of the Financial Services Regulatory Agency, in which role she has clearly failed utterly."
Schapiro is CEO of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. http://www.finra.org/index.htm
"Ms. Schapiro serves as CEO of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, created in 2007 through the consolidation of the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration functions of the NYSE. She previously served as Chairman and CEO of the NASD, as Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and as a Commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission. She is currently a director of Kraft Foods Inc." http://people.forbes.com/profile/mary-l-schapiro/27508
Schapiro is CEO of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. http://www.finra.org/index.htm
"Ms. Schapiro serves as CEO of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, created in 2007 through the consolidation of the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration functions of the NYSE. She previously served as Chairman and CEO of the NASD, as Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and as a Commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission. She is currently a director of Kraft Foods Inc." http://people.forbes.com/profile/mary-l-schapiro/27508
39timspalding
So, I have a question: what is the net effect of the tilt of cabinet appointments on the tilt of a president's policies, controlling for the tilt of the president?
I mean, granting for a moment that Obama is choosing right-wing Democrats for his cabinet, does that matter? Did it matter that Clinton's cabinet included Robert Reich, regarded by most as on the left of the party and of the cabinet? Certainly Reich didn't think so; I understand his memoir, Locked in the Cabinet, was all about how Clinton didn't live up to the progressive promise. At the same time, the cabinet is the cabinet, and must have some role on small-bore policy and on the president's political context and advice.
So, serious question—what's the net effect? Does it vary between cabinet positions? Does it vary between presidents and their management style? Granting that the left doesn't care for many of Obama's appointments, does it matter?
I'd hazard that it doesn't have to matter. Bush had a hands-off approach. He let his cabinet have a lot of power—not to mention his veep. His hand wasn't firmly on the tiller all the time. Incompetence aside, I think that gave his cabinet more freedom to set the agenda. Something makes me think that Obama isn't that way—that he can listen to ten people saying X, thank them, decide on Y, and make it happen.
I mean, granting for a moment that Obama is choosing right-wing Democrats for his cabinet, does that matter? Did it matter that Clinton's cabinet included Robert Reich, regarded by most as on the left of the party and of the cabinet? Certainly Reich didn't think so; I understand his memoir, Locked in the Cabinet, was all about how Clinton didn't live up to the progressive promise. At the same time, the cabinet is the cabinet, and must have some role on small-bore policy and on the president's political context and advice.
So, serious question—what's the net effect? Does it vary between cabinet positions? Does it vary between presidents and their management style? Granting that the left doesn't care for many of Obama's appointments, does it matter?
I'd hazard that it doesn't have to matter. Bush had a hands-off approach. He let his cabinet have a lot of power—not to mention his veep. His hand wasn't firmly on the tiller all the time. Incompetence aside, I think that gave his cabinet more freedom to set the agenda. Something makes me think that Obama isn't that way—that he can listen to ten people saying X, thank them, decide on Y, and make it happen.
40timspalding
CNN: "Obama adds another Republican to Cabinet"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/transition.wrap/index.html
Ray LaHood of Illinois (R) to be his nominee for transportation secretary.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/transition.wrap/index.html
Ray LaHood of Illinois (R) to be his nominee for transportation secretary.
41jmcgarve
>39 timspalding: "Granting that the left doesn't care for many of Obama's appointments, does it matter?" The appointments themselves certainly matter, because Obama's appointments reflect his real beliefs. They will do what he wants, and what he wants is a centrist, post-partisan policy apparatus. It probably doesn't matter that the left doesn't care for the appointments -- the left does not matter in this country, and hasn't since the early 60's. The most that the left has been able to do is to provide votes for the centrist candidate.
