由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
USANews版 - zz: FYI
相关主题
我最深爱的人,伤我却是最深Obama and ISIS
33%美国人认为2012年最恐怖的事情是奥巴马连任美国总统,16%认为最恐怖的事情是奥巴马没有连任有点恐怖了
Politics Trumped Policy, Truth for Obama's Reelect Story写给稀饭系列。 80/20组织和Obama.
Woodward Book Details Obama’s Leadership Failings写给稀饭系列。 结束语
一项调查发现,56%美国人认为奥巴马没资格连任fox这次是大赢家
“Bush Hatred Prevails Over Obama Love”Obama Doesn't Know a Lot of Things
Obama的总统地位超过Reagan如果Obama是个爱国者
To Save America, We Must Dethrone King Obamaobama的讲话
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: obama话题: his话题: congress话题: president话题: he
进入USANews版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
k****g
发帖数: 1509
1
I decided to support Barack Obama pretty early in the Democratic primary,
around spring of 2007. But unlike so many of his supporters, I never
experienced a kind of emotional response to his candidacy. I never felt his
election would change everything about American politics or government, that
it would lead us out of the darkness. Nothing Obama did or said ever made
me well up with tears.
Possibly for that same reason, I have never felt even a bit of the crushing
sense of disappointment that at various times has enveloped so many Obama
voters. I supported Obama because I judged him to have a keen analytical
mind, grasping both the possibilities and the limits of activist government,
and possessed of excellent communicative talents. I thought he would nudge
government policy in an incrementally better direction. I consider his
presidency an overwhelming success.
I can understand why somebody who never shared Obama’s goals would vote
against his reelection. If you think the tax code already punishes the rich
too heavily, that it’s not government’s role to subsidize health insurance
for those who can’t obtain it, that the military shouldn’t have to let
gays serve openly, and so on, then Obama’s presidency has been a disaster,
but you probably didn’t vote for him last time. For anybody who voted for
Obama in 2008 and had even the vaguest sense of his platform, the notion
that he has fallen short of some plausible performance threshold seems to me
unfathomable.
Obama’s résumé of accomplishments is broad and deep, running the gamut
from economic to social to foreign policy. The general thrust of his reforms
, especially in economic policy, has been a combination of politically
radical and ideologically moderate. The combination has confused liberals
into thinking of Obamaism as a series of sad half-measures, and
conservatives to deem it socialism, but the truth is neither. Obama’s
agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and
policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast
realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit.
Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on
think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But
then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at
once.
Bipartisan panels of economists had long urged Medicare to reform its
payment methods to curb perverse incentives by hospitals and doctors to run
up costs as high as possible; Obama overcame fierce resistance in Congress
in order to craft, as part of Obamacare, a revolution in paying for quality
rather than quantity. He eliminated billions of dollars in useless subsidies
to banks funneling (at no risk) government loans to college students. By
dangling federal public-education grants, Obama unleashed a wave of public-
school reform, over the objections of the most recalcitrant elements of the
teachers union movement. And he forced Wall Street to accept financial
regulations that, while weaker than ideal, were far tougher than anybody
considered possible to get through Congress.
It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his
presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration.
Numerous Democrats in Congress and the White House urged him to throw in the
towel on health-care reform, but he was one of very few voices in his
administration determined to see it through. Many of his own advisers, both
economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a
bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and
restructure, the auto industry. On Libya, Obama’s staff presented him with
options either to posture ineffectually or do nothing; he alone forced them
to draw up an option that would prevent a massacre. And Obama overruled some
cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden.
The latter three decisions are all highly popular now, but all of them
carried the risk of inflicting a mortal political wound, like Bill Clinton’
s health-care failure and Jimmy Carter’s attempted raid into Iran. (George
W. Bush, presented with a similar option, did not strike bin Laden.) In
making these calls, Obama displayed judgment and nerve.
A year ago, I wrote about the pervasive disillusionment felt by Obama’s
supporters. It is a sentiment that has shadowed every Democratic president
since Franklin Roosevelt, and even Roosevelt provoked long bouts of agony
and disillusionment among his supporters. All were seen by many Democrats at
the time as failures, weaklings, or unprincipled deal-makers. It's true
that all of them, including Obama, have made terrible errors. What this
tells us, though, is that we need some realistic baseline against which to
measure them.
Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since
Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including
Roosevelt. The only president that comes close in gross positive
accomplishment is Lyndon Johnson, whose successes were overwhelmed by his
failures to such a degree that he abandoned his reelection campaign. The
immediacy of the political moment can — and usually does — blind us. (In
the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the wide and even bipartisan sentiment
prevailed that George W. Bush was exactly the right sort of person we would
want to have as president at that moment.)
The sense among Obama’s wavering supporters that he has failed rests upon a
two-part indictment. The first and most potent is that he has presided over
a weak economy. This line of attack on Obama became inevitable starting on
approximately September 14, 2008, when the U.S. financial system imploded.
The economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have established that
financial crises wreak vastly deeper harm than regular recessions. Financial
crises freak out consumers, and they freak out political elites in a way
that creates a panicked stampede toward exactly the wrong sorts of policies
(like reducing short-term deficits) that in turn makes the crisis even worse.
This panic has impeded Obama’s recovery measures. But the fact remains that
, by the standards of a financial crisis, the United States suffered through
a relatively shallow trough and has enjoyed a fairly rapid recovery. (Here
is a chart laying out the comparison between the United States and other
comparably afflicted economies.) Obama managed to stabilize the financial
system and, through the stimulus, avert a total collapse in consumer demand.
But while America has suffered less since 2008 than other victims of a
financial crisis, it has suffered. Obama’s notable success in containing
the damage has not redounded to his benefit for another, even more
historically durable reason: Voters tend to blame or credit incumbent
politicians for the state of their lives utterly regardless of
responsibility. This is not even limited to things like the economy, where
politicians can affect the outcome. Voters reward or punish incumbents based
on the weather or the success of local sports teams. Mitt Romney’s
campaign theme attempting to assign all blame to Obama for the state of the
economy is a clever manipulation of this long-standing form of irrationality
. In 2004, Romney dismissed any attempt to blame George W. Bush for the
decline of jobs under his watch as “poppycock.” In his most condescending
tone, Romney explained that of course outside forces were to blame — those
outside forces being the vastly milder 2001 recession — and that attempting
to hold Bush responsible for the economic record of his term was sheer
stupidity. Now Romney has made that very theme the central basis of his
presidential campaign.
The second indictment of Obama is that he failed to redeem the broader
vision of trans-partisan governance he campaigned on. The reason this
happened is that the Republicans' leadership in Congress grasped early on
that its path to returning to power required Obama to fail, and that they
could help bring this about by denying his initiatives any support. In a
meeting before Obama’s inauguration reported by Time’s Michael Grunwald,
the House Republican leadership instructed their members on exactly this
strategy. GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has followed the same
strategy. GOP House members and senators have admitted, some of them
publicly, that their leadership prevailed upon them not to negotiate with
Obama.
Partisan strife between Congress and the president has gone on for decades.
In the past, members of Congress often opposed the president’s agenda, but
they also believed that the voters would punish them if they failed to show
accomplishments, and so they carefully balanced their substantive opposition
with a sense of political self-preservation. What makes the Republican
opposition different is that it rests upon a novel, and probably true,
insight. Most Americans pay little attention to the details of policy. They
rely upon a broad heuristic — if something has touched off an ugly and
protracted battle, it is probably bad, but if both sides agree on it, it is
probably good. Even many Sunday political talk-show chatterers and other
blowhards use the same basic thought process. And so, as McConnell actually
said out loud, “if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was
bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must
have figured it out.” McConnell, in keeping with his Bond-villain habit of
boasting openly about his nefarious intentions, actually announced in a
prepared speech that his top political priority was to make Obama a one-term
president.
The Republican strategy is perfectly clear and not even very well hidden.
Yet many of us don’t accept it as a reality because it does not feel true.
We instinctively hold the president, not Congress, responsible, another
finding political scientists have measured. The hunger to attribute all
outcomes to the president is so deep that the political elite take it on
faith. Bob Woodward, who is justly famed as a reporter but whose opinions
are interesting only as a barometer of Washington establishmentarianism,
blamed Obama because Republicans turned down an extraordinarily favorable
budget deal. “Presidents work their will — or should work their will,”
Woodward declared, “on the important matters of national business.”
How can a president “work his will” in such a way as to force autonomous
members of the opposite party controlling a co-equal branch of government to
sacrifice their own calculated self-interest? It is a form of magical
thinking, but a pervasive one. Which is exactly why the Republican strategy
— making Obama’s promise to transcend partisanship fail by withholding
cooperation — has worked.
Whether this strategy succeeds in its ultimate goal — returning the GOP to
power in 2013 — depends on the election. In an unusual way, the success of
Obama’s first term hangs in large part on his reelection bid, as a
President Romney would probably kill his grandest achievement of providing
health insurance to those Americans too sick or poor to acquire it in the
marketplace. So any evaluation of Obama’s term before the election must be
provisional.
What can be said without equivocation is that Obama has proven himself
morally, intellectually, temperamentally, and strategically. In my lifetime,
or my parents’, he is easily the best president. On his own terms, and not
merely as a contrast to an unacceptable alternative, he overwhelmingly
deserves reelection.
r******g
发帖数: 4002
2
如果不是你本人的原创,英文评论贴在这里没有多大意义。不是你的原创,最好注明原
文出处。
1 (共1页)
进入USANews版参与讨论
相关主题
obama的讲话一项调查发现,56%美国人认为奥巴马没资格连任
终于看到letterman开obama的玩笑了!“Bush Hatred Prevails Over Obama Love”
简单评价一下Obama的演讲Obama的总统地位超过Reagan
Is it a problem for obama?To Save America, We Must Dethrone King Obama
我最深爱的人,伤我却是最深Obama and ISIS
33%美国人认为2012年最恐怖的事情是奥巴马连任美国总统,16%认为最恐怖的事情是奥巴马没有连任有点恐怖了
Politics Trumped Policy, Truth for Obama's Reelect Story写给稀饭系列。 80/20组织和Obama.
Woodward Book Details Obama’s Leadership Failings写给稀饭系列。 结束语
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: obama话题: his话题: congress话题: president话题: he