It has been almost a year since President Obama took office, and almost a quarter of his first term has passed. But, for better or worse, we also wave goodbye to a decade. Some are calling it “The Decade from Hell”–and perhaps rightly so. Whatever your politics, the period from 2000-2009 was certainly littered with difficult issues and controversies, which will flow into the upcoming election season.
The beginning of the previous decade and the Bush administration brought a new economic policy of trickle-down economics and deregulation, which led to the financial crisis we face today. Arguably, as a result of the Republicans’ mishandling of the recession and the economy, and the Bush administration’s neglect toward disasters like Hurricane Katrina and mishandling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama became the first African-American President of the United States.
The election of the first black President may not have changed the treatment of every African-American and minority in the United States or changed the hearts of racists in the U.S., but the clear departure from the stain of discrimination on American history is certainly a milestone.
However, when I reflect on 2009, which brought so much hope and promise in the sweeping, ambitious agenda of Barack Obama, I don’t see it as the year of change that I thought I would. Nor do I view the actions of the Democratic Party–health care reform included–as reasons to celebrate.
2009 was dominated by the voices of the far right, despite the fact that Democrats currently control all three branches of government. This is mostly because, as Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson said in his Wednesday Op-Ed, the conservatives managed to scrape together something liberals weren’t able to: a social movement. The Tea Partiers, led by FOX News’s Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, as well as Rush Limbaugh, are doing their politicians’ work to deconstruct the previously untouchable image of President Obama, and paint the Democrats as weak.
And I agree with that assessment of Democrats to some extent. The Democrats, President Obama included, have been far too lenient toward their Republican counterparts. I believe in the ideal of compromise and reaching across the isle to include the best ideas into a bill, but in cases where people’s lives depend on bold legislation, which stands in ideological opposition to the Republican Party–such as in health care reform–there’s no room for compromise. And Senate Democrats certainly compromised not just their objectives but their values in their version of the health reform bill.
The argument that Republicans will make this 2010 election season is that they have learned their lesson and will again adhere to their core principles of low taxes and limited government. What they don’t understand is that the reason they lost the 2008 election is that Americans correctly identified those same conservative principles as the cause of the recession.
However, Democrats may lose the 2010 midterm elections for the opposite reason. If Democrats fail to adhere to their agenda of real health care reform including the public option, and if they do nothing to significantly lower the unemployment rate which is currently around 10% (new numbers, which are projected to be more hopeful come out Friday), they deserve to lose Senate and House seats.
Referring to the pundit and media response to the attempted al-Qaeda attack on Christmas Day, NY Times columnist David Brooks said last Friday on PBS’s News Hour, “We should have some sort of steady, level-headed response. That is the sign of a resilient nation. We don’t have it. We have had the last week of the whole country going — or at least the punditocracy — going into semi-hysteria over this. And it’s just not the sign of a serious country.”
I think David Brooks’ statement that America isn’t resilient and serious applies to several aspects of American politics–not just the reactions of the punditocracy, in the sense that much of what pervades American politics today is absurdity. This problem stems from an unhealthy emphasis on party beliefs rather than a concern for sound ideas and legislation. If Democrats want to retain their legitimacy with the American people, they need to fight for the middle and lower class again and take control of public discourse by seriously acting on their campaign promises.
It has been almost a year since President Obama took office, and almost a quarter of his first term has passed. But for better or worse, we also wave goodbye to a decade. Some are calling it “the decade from hell”— and perhaps rightly so. Whatever your politics, the period from 2000-2009 was certainly littered with difficult issues and controversies, which will flow into the upcoming election season.
The beginning of the previous decade and the Bush administration brought a new economic policy of trickle-down economics and deregulation, which led to the financial crisis we face today. Arguably, as a result of the Republicans’ mishandling of the recession and the economy, and the Bush administration’s neglect toward disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama became the first black President of the United States.
The election of the first black President may not have changed the treatment of every minority in the United States or changed the hearts of racists, but the clear departure from the stain of discrimination on is certainly a milestone.
However, when I reflect on 2009, which brought so much hope and promise in the sweeping, ambitious agenda of Barack Obama, I don’t see it as the year of change that I thought I would. Nor do I view the actions of the Democratic Party — health care reform included — as reasons to celebrate.
2009 was dominated by the voices of the far right, despite the fact that Democrats currently control all three branches of government. This is mostly because, as Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson said in his opinion piece Wednesday, the conservatives managed to scrape together something liberals weren’t able to: a social movement. The Tea Partiers, led by FOX News’ Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, as well as Rush Limbaugh, are doing their politicians’ work to deconstruct the previously untouchable image of President Obama, and paint the Democrats as weak.
And, to some extent, I agree with that assessment of Democrats. The Democrats, President Obama included, have been far too lenient toward their Republican counterparts. I believe in the ideal of compromise and reaching across the aisle to include the best ideas into a bill, but in cases in which people’s lives depend on bold legislation, which stands in ideological opposition to the Republican Party — such as in health care reform — there’s no room for compromise. And Senate Democrats certainly compromised not just their objectives but their values in their version of the health reform bill.
The argument that Republicans will make this 2010 election season is that they have learned their lesson and will again adhere to their core principles of low taxes and limited government. What they don’t understand is that the reason they lost the 2008 election is that Americans correctly identified those same conservative principles as the cause of the recession.
However, Democrats may lose the 2010 midterm elections for the opposite reason. If Democrats fail to adhere to their agenda of real health care reform including the public option, and if they do nothing to significantly lower the unemployment rate, which is currently around 10 percent (new numbers, which are projected to be more hopeful come out Friday), they deserve to lose Senate and House seats.
Referring to the pundit and media response to the attempted al-Qaeda attack on Christmas Day, New York Times columnist David Brooks said on PBS’s News Hour last Friday, “We should have some sort of steady, level-headed response. That is the sign of a resilient nation. We don’t have it. We have had the last week of the whole country going — or at least the punditocracy — going into semi-hysteria over this. And it’s just not the sign of a serious country.”
I think Brooks’ statement applies to several aspects of American politics — not just the reactions of the punditocracy, in the sense that much of what pervades American politics today is absurdity. This problem stems from an unhealthy emphasis on party beliefs rather than a concern for sound ideas and legislation. If Democrats want to retain their legitimacy with the American people, they need to fight for the middle and lower class again and take control of public discourse by seriously acting on their campaign promises.
“Ideological opposition” of “bold legislation” and representing the best interests of the nation are not inherently contradictory. Just because the Republicans don’t like the proposed solutions doesn’t mean that they don’t care about the problems that our nation currently faces.
Its not that Republicans have no solutions Musselman. Its just the solutions are devastating to the country. The solution to national security gave America 9/11/01. Bush and Cheney letting Osama bin Laden get away when they had him cornered at Tora Bora was deliberate. The total disaster regarding the Bush and Cheney handling of the Afganistan war. How about the shoe bomber. How about the anthrax attack? The devastating Iraq War and the blatant lies that led up to it. How about Katrina and that total Bush and Cheney screw-up? And please name one positive alternative besides the blatant lies and half-truths regarding to any of the Democratic proposals? I’ll be waiting for any of your postitive alternatives.
You are making the same mistake in reasoning that the collumnist made. Suggesting that certain things are not in the proper role of government is a “positive alternative.” You may not necessarily agree with it, but it is a valid suggestion for government policy.
So. Answer the question.
I fail to see the relevancy of any number of Bush administration screw ups on current government policy. For better or worse, Bush is no longer the President of the United States. He has no more power over government policy than you or I.
Wow are you serious? The first full year of a new president is spent undoing the policies of the previous president! Some of Bush’s acts the first year:
In Bush’s first year he reversed Clinton’s regulations. That reversal allowed more arsenic in our drinking water. Bush flavored arsenic. A portend to things to come.
Bush reversed Clintons land protections for national monuments.
Bush changed another rule that allowed the BLM the discretion to veto mining permits deemed to harm the enviornment. Ya! strip mining on federal protected land!
The Bush administration opposed rules to The Clean Air Act because the enegy industry opposed it. Whose view do you think prevailed? Let me give you a hint…Enron and later 4 dollar a gallon gas.
In 2001 Bush reveresed Clinton labor policies.
So Musselman maybe if Bush had been more interested in protecting America from terrorists instead of Clinton 9-11-01 may not have happened.
We are still suffering Bush. The visa that the Xmas bomber had was given in 08 by the Bush administration.
Again, you misunderstand, although this time I’ll admit it was my fault. I meant to say that right now, January 11, 2010, George W. Bush is a private citizen who has no more power than either of us. Complaints about Bush era policies, as valid as they may or may not be, are meaningless in terms of current Republican policy proposals. That is to say, just because Bush sucked, it doesn’t mean that all Republican proposals are worthless.
Now this doesn’t mean I agree with all of your criticisms of the Bush administration. How can you blame Bush for 9/11 and also blame Bush for the underwear bomber? You could say that both cases, the intelligence failures that allowed the terrorists to remain undetected were the responsibility of the previous administrations (Clinton and Bush respectively) or that in both cases they are responsibility of the then current administrations (Bush and Obama, respectively) but it is logically inconsistent to blame both incidents on Bush.
Your mention of Clinton era environmental policies reminds me of story of a little town called Jarbidge where the residents weren’t allowed to rebuild a road out of town. Or any number of areas closed off to recreation as “wideness areas”. Every one of these additional regulations costs us either money or freedom. Sometimes it’s worth it, but not always.
Jason,
It seems as though you’re using, in your own words, a failed presidency, to justify the performance of Obama.
The Republicans have screwed us in the past and the Democrats are screwing us now. Stop blindly rooting for the liberal side and start rooting for individual sovereignty and the US Constitution.
Its not that Republicans have no solutions Musselman. Its just the solutions are devastating to the country. The solution to national security gave America 9/11/01. Bush and Cheney letting Osama bin Laden get away when they had him cornered at Tora Bora was deliberate. The total disaster regarding the Bush and Cheney handling of the Afganistan war. How about the shoe bomber. How about the anthrax attack? The devastating Iraq War and the blatant lies that led up to it. How about Katrina and that total Bush and Cheney screw-up? And please name one positive alternative besides the blatant lies and half-truths regarding to any of the Democratic proposals? I’ll be waiting for any of your postitive alternatives.