erik lundegaard

The Non-Partisan President

I first heard Barack Obama speak in April 2006 at the annual Democratic Farm Labor Party convention in downtown Minneapolis. At the time I was working for Minnesota Law & Politics, which was part of Key Pro Media, which was owned by Vance Opperman, and since Opperman was a major donor to the DFL we had a pretty good table for the show. An embarrassingly good table. During appetizers, I looked around and saw famous faces. Hey, there's Mayor Ryback. Behind me. Hey, there's Walter Mondale. Behind me. Apologies, Mr. Vice-President. Hope I'm not obscuring your view.

The speech Sen. Obama gave that night was the speech he gave often in 2006, and which became the prologue to his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.” Here's a sample:

You don't need a poll to know that the vast majority of Americans—Republican, Democrat, and independent—are weary of the dead zone that politics has become, in which narrow interests vie for advantage and ideological minorities seek to impose their own versions of absolute truth. Whether we're from red states or blue states, we feel in our gut the lack of honesty, rigor and common sense in our policy debates, and dislike what appears to be a contentious menu of false or cramped choices.

The guy was talking my language. He was articulating the great unsaid in American politics. He was offering a third way.

Now to the present. I have some friends on the left who are outraged, outraged by the tax deal cut earlier this month, which basically boils down to: We'll extend the Bush tax cuts even for the richest 2% and you give us extended unemployment benefits. They see it as a gigantic betrayal. They fill their status updates on Facebook with invective.

Now I'm someone who thinks the wealthiest people in this country should be be taxed at a 50% rate (as they were for most of the Reagan years), or maybe at a 70% rate (as in the '70s). Tea Partiers seem to idolize the stability of the 1950s ... when the tax rate for the richest people in the country was more than 90%. I wouldn't go that far but wouldn't mind scaring some people with it.

Even so, I don't see the deal as a great betrayal. The opposite. I know this is who Pres. Obama is. I know this is the reason he appealed to me in the first place. But I am amused as the cries of the left recede and the cries of the right crescendo. I'm with Andrew Sullivan here:

I think of Frank Rich and Paul Krugman as brilliant men, but profoundly resistant to the core rationale of the Obama presidency (and the underlying dynamic of its accumulating success). That rationale is an attempt to move past the paradigms of the boomer years to a pragmatic, liberal reformism that takes America as it is, while trying to make it more of what it can be. Now, there's little doubt that in contrast to recent decades, Obama has nudged the direction leftward - re-regulating Wall Street after the catastrophe, setting up universal health insurance through the private sector, recalibrating America's role in the world from preachy bully to hegemonic facilitator. But throughout he has tried, as his partisan critics have complained, not to be a partisan president, to recall, as he put it in that recent press conference, that this is a diverse country, that is is time we had a president who does not repel or disparage or ignore those who voted against him or those who have grown to despise him. ... He really is trying to be what he promised: president of the red states as well as the blue states. And a president who gets shit done.

The results after two years: universal health insurance, the rescue of Detroit, the avoidance of a Second Great Depression, big gains in private sector growth and productivity, three stimulus packages (if you count QE2), big public investments in transport and green infrastructure, the near-complete isolation of Iran, the very public exposure of Israeli intransigence and extremism, a reset with Russia (plus a new START), big drops in illegal immigration and major gains in enforcement, a South Korea free trade pact, the end of torture, and a debt commission that has put fiscal reform squarely back on the national agenda. Oh, and of yesterday, the signature civil rights achievement of ending the military's ban on openly gay servicemembers.

In some ways, and despite his famous press conference, I think the least surprised person by all the anguish and disappointment on the left is Pres. Obama himself, since, in “The Audacity of Hope,” he anticipated it:

Undoubtedly, some of these views will get me in trouble. I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.

How's that hopey-changey thing working out for us? Slow and steady.


Posted at 06:42 AM on Mon. Dec 20, 2010 in category Politics  
No tags

COMMENTS

Mister B wrote:

I've already decided that I'm voting for him again. No wonder the GOP doesn't like him — he's helping the rest of us more than he's helping the top 2%.

And I'm disappointed in those on the left who are so willing to bail on him. Maybe they should've focused on keeping that Senate majority at 60 or more.

If the MSM is supposed to be liberal, how come they had the same patience with Obama that most pro-sports fans have when a black head coach replaces a white one?

The white guy gets several seasons to screw up a team. The black guy — usually younger — comes in and, if the team doesn't improve in its FIRST season, everyone plays armchair manager.

Sure, there are things I'd like to see done quicker. Closing Gitmo. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Raising the tax rate on the top 2% to at least what it was under Reagan (BTW, why don't more anti-tax cuts people hammer THAT stat more? Do I only have to read it here and hear it on Bill Maher? It's not socialism if we're going back to the Reagan Era!).

The super-rich aren't creating jobs. They're sending them overseas (because us Americans love our cheap crap) and/or creating/holding offshore tax shelters — and they've been doing that for decades. Raising the tax rate from 36% to 50% won't make any of them poor — and the money can be used to fix our crumbling infrastructure and put our returning soldiers back to work (or into proper treatment).

Obama's not perfect, but he's still a much better alternative than the guy he beat — and #43.

Comment posted on Tue. Dec 21, 2010 at 02:20 AM

John Hain wrote:

Obama should formally proclaim his independence from partisan politics and quit the Democratic Party. We need Presidents who can lead, not follow some limited party ideology. It is time for real change: a one term (6 or 7 year), nonpartisan President who is elected by direct popular vote after a series of primaries narrows the choice of candidates to two.

Comment posted on Tue. Dec 28, 2010 at 09:15 PM

You may bypass the ID fields and security question below if you log in before commenting.


 
 





Enter e-mail address to receive notification of new comments on this post
Click here to manage subscription
« Review: “The Fighter” (2010)   |   Home   |   Review: “Black Swan” (2010) »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES

All previous entries

LINKS
Movies
Jeffrey Wells
The Film Experience
Roger Ebert
Baseball
Rob Neyer
Joe Posnanski
Cardboard Gods
Politics
Andrew Sullivan
Alex Pareene
Hendrik Hertzberg
Friends
Cloud Five Comics
Copy Curmudgeon
Deb Ellis
Andrew Engelson
Jerry Grillo
Tim Harrison
Eric Hanson
Ben Stocking
Jim Walsh
dative-querulous