President Obama and Corporate America: Is he a 'sell-out' or a brilliant progressive politician?

[Axrendale]

Many on the left have bemoaned the friendly overtures that the President has of late been making towards Corporate America. They see this move as a "betrayal" - an indication that he is abandoning his liberal roots to appease Big Business. But is this actually the case? Or is the President actually playing a sly game of politics, with no more authenticity to his gestures than Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to balance the budget from 1937-38 (a political masterstroke that looked like appeasement of the fiscal conservatives but actually ended up discrediting them and enabling the President to resume his New Deal agenda with far more legislative support than he had enjoyed previously, as well as laying the foundations for the coalition that he would use to guide America into WWII)?

A fascinating article that provides an alternative way of looking at Obama's overtures to business leaders:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82096/obama-state-of-the-union-business?page=0,0

[impik]

1. When you use the "sell-out" memo, you can forget from me reading anything beyond

[Axrendale]

3. Why? Are you afraid that what you might read will indicate that the President is in fact

an authentic progressive who is fighting for the principles of American liberalism, but is doing so in a way more effective (as evidenced by his extraordinary record of achievement thus far, which will hopefully continue to grow) than any other progressive political figure since the era of the Long Sixties?

If so many of the well-meaning liberals who rain scorn upon the President for his "compromises" would take the blinkers off/open their eyes, they would see that Obama's personal political views and values are not that dissimilar from the average liberal blogger (albeit considerably more sophisticated - he is after all probably the most penetrating political thinker to occupy the White House since Woodrow Wilson). He simply believes that in trying to achieve the goals that he in a large respect shares with the Professional Left, a different approach is required to that which they believe in.

Personally I advocate pragmatic idealism: whichever approach in the long run offers the best chance of fulfilling as much of the liberal ideal as possible, seems to me the best one to support. That will occaisonally require machiavellian politicking. So be it.

[treestar]

2. People who complain endlessly about a President speaking to

business are likely the same ones wailing, "where are the jobs?" If there is no business, there are no jobs. Fucking idiots.

They luxuriate in their hatred of all things corporate, financial or business related while demanding jobs!

[Axrendale]

5. While the anti-business sentiment that has come to define a large portion of the Left

certainly arises out of noble socio-political values/principles, there is a tendancy amongst many die-hard liberals to forget just how crucial an ally Capital can be in advancing the cause of Labor. It was Abraham Lincoln (Obama's personal and political hero) who noted that while Labor "is superior, and stands prior to" Capital, the latter "also has its rights, and its place in the functioning of society".

The three greatest progressive Presidents of the 20th Century: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy - all in their own way successfully co-opted the business interests of their day in order to advance their social and economic agendas, with indisputably positive consequences for the liberal cause. The fact that in doing so they employed methods that would be considered anethema by the Professional Left does not in any way diminish the laudable nature of their achievements.

I predict that decades into the future, Barack Obama will be just as much an icon to liberals as Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Kennedy are today. The antagonism that existed between them and the liberals of their own day will be passed over in favor of admiration for the great success that he achieved and will yet achieve.

[boston bean]

9. Really, that sounds like what the republicans say about JFK.

As for FDR, he relished the thought of going against his enemies.

wrong spot, belongs one reply down....

[Axrendale]

14. Actually it should sound like what many of JFK's staunchest but most clear-eyed liberal admirers say

about him. From Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. to Irving Bernstein to David Talbot, admirers of President Kennedy have long been right in not only celebrating his astonishing (though tragically incomplete) and thoroughly liberal legacy, but in pointing to the fact that that legacy was based upon a political ability that embraced the wisdom of pursuing unorthodox methods to achieve the very dreams of the liberal orthodoxy, in everything from Economics to Foreign Policy. JFK always described himself as an "idealist without illusions". He fought for the ideals that liberals share, but with an effectiveness that they have often lacked.

As for Franklin Roosevelt, he did indeed relish the good fight with his enemies, but he always picked his fights carefully, always on his terms, and was always prepared to "fight" said enemies by embracing them in friendship before he quiety slit their throats. It is a gross mistake to regard FDR, admirable figure though he undoubtedly was, as anything other than easily the most ruthless and hard-nosed political operator that this country has ever known - a man who, in the name of achieving his (laudable) ends, was prepared to resort to means that at times verge on the horrifying: deliberatly allowing the economy to lapse into recession to discredit his foes and form coalitions; cold-bloodedly maneuvering to secure the entrance of his country into the largest armed conflict in the history of mankind, at the same time pledging "Rest assurred: your boys will not be going off to fight any wars"; employing every dirty political trick in the book from wire-taps to targeting by the IRS and other regulatory agencies in order to break his political opponents; even going so far as to intern hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans merely for the sake of a political gesture.

History's verdict has generally been to forgive FDR - the sheer monumental scale of good that he accomplished outweighs whatever evils he committed in pursuit of that good by a considerable margin. But his pragmatic ruthlessness cannot be discounted any more than his soaring idealism and extraordinary vision can.

Barack Obama by contrast has been positively benign even in the most cynical of his political dealings thus far.

[badtoworse]

10. You're right on the mark with that.

If you want businesses to invest in this country and make things here, they need an environment where costs and regulations are reasonable. If we don't offer business a good deal, they'll move to countries that offer them a better one. Why are so many here unable to understand that? I think there is a refusal to accept two basic premises about business:
1.) Businesses exist primarily to make a profit for their owners. The owners (shareholders) have put their capital at risk and will act in a way that maximizes their return on capital.
2.) Businesses operate in a competitive environment and if they don't offer their goods and services at competitive prices, they will fail and ultimately cease to exist.

I think many believe the world should not be laid out this way and characterize the above as corporate greed. Ultimately, they're refusing to deal with reality, but unfortunately, reality isn't going away.

President Obama is 100% right about this. We should all hope that he is agressive in trying to make America competitive in a world marketplace.

[Axrendale]

15. Spot on sir!

One does not have to like reality in order to acknowledge it, or to work with it in order to try and make it conform as much to one's own desires as possible - which is what Obama has been trying to do.

[treestar]

19. Exactly! +1

So many here seem to have not operated the smallest lemonade stand. It costs money to go into business. Then you have to sell the product or service. Sometimes I think there are some here who believe that when a corporations sets up, money just flows into it from the universe. And the greedy CEOs and shareholders don't pass it on!

[boston bean]

4. We're back to obama playing three dimensional chess on uranus.

[Axrendale]

8. *snorts* You think THIS is the political equivalent of three dimensional chess?

If so, then you demonstrate some considerable naivety about the dark facts of politics my friend.

While Obama in this instance is certainly engaging in politicking of a high standard, he is nowhere even close to plumbing the murky depths of political complexity in which the machinations of the great progressive leaders of the past operated. When one compares such basic political sleight-of-hand to the mind-numbingly sophisticated strategies that were employed by presidents like FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, or for that matter Obama himself on other occaisons, in order to achieve their ends, this sort of thing by comparison looks about as subtle as an arm-wrestling match rather than a game of chess.

Obama has long since proved that as a politician he is capable of operating at a high level indeed of the machiavellian art - higher than any POTUS since Nixon (though thankfully with few of Nixon's flaws) - and that is good, for without such "chess playing", the liberal dream never becomes anything more than a fantasy.

History, if nothing else, stands as proof of that.

[grahamhgreen]

6. The results point to sell-out.

[Axrendale]

12. I disagree.

The results to me seem to be that the natural hostility felt by the business community to most Democratic administrations, but particularly to this one, is on track to being deflated considerably, even if it may be far too much to hope for that it should be eliminated entirely.

The political ramifications of this alone make it worth the effort - potentially proving invaluable in reelecting the President and winning back the ground lost in Congress come November. But the potential economic rewards make the effort worthwhile also. The presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy stand as vital lessons in how the careful co-opting of Corporate Interests can actually prove to be enormously beneficial to the advancement of liberal socio-economic agendas. Corporations are at the moment sitting on more than $2 Trillion in cash reserves. If Obama can finangle the business community over time into devoting this money to investment, it could provide a powerful economic stimulus. It is after all the economy upon which our political hopes are riding in 2012 - only from success in that year can we truly move forward in taking new and greater steps in the implementation of needed social and economic reform. And if the President can further co-opt the Corporate Interests into, if not out-and-out cooperation with, then at least a decreased resistance to, other aspects of his policies, particularly on the environmental front, then that would also be a boon.

Considering how great the potential rewards are for the liberal agenda, and how little the risk is (as indicated in the article, President Obama is in fact offering up very little of substance), then only a fool would reject it without careful consideration. President Obama, whatever one might think of him, is not a fool.

The alliance does not have to be a comfortable one - it probably shouldn't be. There is no reason that the experience of getting into bed with business (or at least appearing to do so) should be an enjoyable experience, any more than Franklin Roosevelt would have found it enjoyable to cut deals with segregationist southern Senators in order to advance the New Deal and fight WWII. But what we are looking for is not enjoyment, but effectiveness.

If liberal Democrats really want to one day dominate the political scene as we did for decades in the 20th Century, then we are going to have to learn to be ruthless in some respects.

[grahamhgreen]

16. I don't want to discourage you from continuing to work on this angle,

although I think he simply is a corporate sell-out, but I have been wrong in the past.

My guess is big business and media will turn on him with a vengeance, just before the election, no matter how much of the neo-con agenda he introduces.

Anyway, good luck - I hope you are right!

[Axrendale]

21. The proof will always be in the pudding.

I will not believe that Obama is a corporate sell-out until I see hard evidence that he is such. I have seen nothing thus far except a brilliant politician who has made occaisonal, sometimes serious, missteps, but who has doggedly continued on down his path, proving himself every step of the way as a statesman who shares our fundamental liberal values and is doing his best to translate them into a workable policy agenda that will do more than simply inspire - it will actually help.

If such proof were to appear then I would have reason to question the President, but in the absence of any such hard proof, he continues to enjoy my trust.

It is not about in any way facilitating the neo-con agenda, on the contrary it is about defeating that agenda by pursuading people, including business leaders if necessary, that there is substantial advantage in cooperating with his agenda.

Obama has shown the potential to become a genuinely great coalition builder. The art of a successul co-option in politics is to make the very act of "turning on you" by those who have been co-opted self-defeating, and in the State of the Union one can already see Obama doing this with virtuosity. Any new allies that he can win amongst Corporate America will be neither more nor less likely to break ranks than the "Nixon Democrats" were to turn on the conservative coalition in 1972, 1980, and 1984.

Riding upon President Obama's political odyssey is the possibility of bringing the Reagan Era to a decisive close and ushering in a new political age of liberal dominance. Win or lose, as long as he stays true to the values he has adhered to thus far (and I see no reason to doubt that he will do so) I will be cheering him on to the end.

[barbiegeek]

7. Obama is right we should tax the Corporations who don't pay any taxes

And work with the ones that who do pay their taxes.

[nod factor]

11. I am not a fan of Obama

but I do believe he has a liberal-progressive vision for America.
My problem with his agenda is in its implementation.
From HCR to Financial Reform the way they get it done has been nothing more than a Bush blueprint on steroids.
Cutting deals with the biggest of business in said industry affected by the reform in order to escape the political wrath of said lobby.
I understand they are playing the game and I do think we have been wildly successful at it, but sometimes it is more important how you get to the finish line than being first.

[Axrendale]

13. Alas friend, circumstances hardly conspired to offer him a wealth of options

Obama has never enjoyed the kind of political resources that FDR and LBJ (or even Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) enjoyed at the peak of their power, and yet he has managed all the same to guide into being enough of his agenda that he can stand on a basis of near-equality with all of them as a Presidential Lawmaker.

Although taking the "noble" route can feel very satisfying in the short run, in the long term it gets you nowhere - wittness the hopeless failure of 20th Century liberals to get any meaningful Civil Rights legislation enacted until the pragmatic, even ruthless, methods of Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were able for the first time to produce tangible results.

Compromise of this kind might stick in the throat, but it is worth noting that it is what Ronald Reagan excelled at when he was President. The deals that he cut with liberals infuriated his conservative base, who felt that he was betraying their principles in return for only limited victories, but in the long run those deals succeeded in moving the country's politics considerably to the right and establishing the Republican party in a position of political dominance.

No matter how frustrating they are in the short term, in the long term I am confident that the pragmatism of Barack Obama will help to reap even further tangible results that will not be truly appreciated until years into the future.

[nod factor]

18. Very well said

but you have to appreciate the fact that many independent thinkers were hopeful, many college campuses were whipped into a frenzy, there were many who thought this would be a dawn of a new day for 'politics' because here was a guy we believed would do things the right way, whatever that means. Wasn't that the thesis of the campaign? I believe and trust in his vision but if it means enriching the Bigs just to play ball I want no part of it at the ballot box. Both the Bush administration and Obama said the same thing about the long term: 'History will vindicate us' or 'The long arc of history bends.' I am sick of the politics. All we do now is try to prove just how much it would suck if the other side won.

[Axrendale]

20. Believe me, I can fully appreciate the sense of expectation that so many felt after 2008.

It was an election that was indeed built upon the fundamental premise of bringing "change" to Washington of a kind that Obama himself is the first to observe has not occurred to anything even remotely resembling what was hoped for - on the contrary, the first two years of his presidency saw the political atmosphere grow even more heated, even toxic, than it had been previously.

What I think that a number of the disenchanted miss in their entirely understandable disappointment is that the person who was probably most disappointed of all in the failure to bridge the partisan gulf is none other than Obama himself. I have never doubted, nor do I doubt now, that his call for a new beginning in politics when he was running for President was anything other than heartfelt and genuine. An honest perusal of the record shows that upon assuming the Presidency, he bent over backwards in an effort to do what he had promised and reach out in an effort to break the cycle of what has been dubbed "business as usual" as he was so widely expected to do.

The reasons why he failed are in some ways long, varied, and complicated, but the essential thrust of it can be summed up thus: It takes two to tango. The Republicans made it very clear right from the get-go that they would act in virtual unanimity, a phenomenon almost unheard of in parliamentary political history, in mindlessly blocking/opposing almost every single part of the President's agenda, no matter what the merits of it might have been.

Although it is not appreciated by some, President Obama has shown clearly that he is possessed of a political intellect that one must harken back to the days of Richard Nixon in order to find its equal in sophistication. He read the tea leaves early on, and realised that almost before his presidency had really begun, he had reached a fork in the road of his political odyssey that would ultimately play a defining role in his ultimate legacy as President. He could on the one hand stake everything on his ability to persist in trying todraw together the divergent pieces of the body politic, seeking to act as the unifying statesman figure that so many hoped he could prove to be. If he chose this road then he might or might not have been successful, but he would almost certainly have failed to get any truly substantial reform enacted. Or he could pour everything that he had won in his historic election, throw all of his political capital, and use all of his ability, to seize the historic moment, carpe diem, and force from it all of the success in enacting his social and economic agenda that he possibly could. His thinking was no doubt heavily influenced partially by the knowledge that such great opportunities for vast legislative successes come but rarely, but more immediately by the sheer extent of the crises that faced America when he assumed the mantle of power. As he noted at the time, more than anything else this was a time for action.

Whether in choosing to become a great Presidential Legislator rather than a great unifyer Obama made the right choice, is a question that historians will no doubt continue to debate for years. Some might look upon the first half of his first term as a missed opportunity, while others might point to the sheer hopelessness of the path that he refused to take, stressing that it would have been as futile an effort as Lincoln seeking to prevent the Civil War from breaking out. Instead Obama, like Lincoln, chose to fight, and to do so in ways that might not always have been palatable, but almost always produced laudable results.

In any case it wwould be churlish to think that Obama did not mourn, and continues to mourn, his failure to come good on the central promise of 2008 right from the get-go. Still, he no doubt takes a considerable amount of pride, and indeed should command no small level of admiration, for the very real moral courage that it took to pursue the course that he did. It is encapsulated well in the episode of Healthcare Reform, an initiative that Obama, almost alone, insisted on pursuing in the face of frantic opposition from most of those around him, from his staff, friends, and advisors to his major political allies. The President himself was under no illusions about just what the cost of the struggle, in which success was no guarentee, would cost both him and the nation. He predicted at the very start that the battle would likely cost him "fifteen points in the polls" (an uncannily prescient estimate), alienate many of his supporters, and possibly even compromise his chances of reelection. But like Lyndon Johnson pursuing Civil Rights even in the face of his conviction that it would "deliver the South to the Republicans for a generation", he felt that he had no choice other than to go ahead with it.

Obama's story however, is not yet over, not by a long shot. Having won over the last two years legislative victories that arguably eclipse those of any other President save Franklin Roosevelt, he is now in the midst of what can only be described as a process of profound reinvention, of his presidency, of himself, and if his efforts bear out mabye even of the political scene itself. He was "walking on air" in the words of a confidante, following the bipartsian victories of the Lame Duck session of Congress, in the words of another "finally becoming the President that he wanted to be". If his stirring address in Tuscon and and his brilliant recent State of the Union prove to be the beginning of a pattern, he may be engaged in carrying out a political pivot of a kind that has not really been seen on such a high level since those which FDR so excelled at. Obama has not forgotten his earlier promises, he still has half of his first term to go, wants to win a second one, and I think is going to do his best to make good on them.

This is not about "enriching the bigs just to play ball" any more than it is about "proving how much it would suck if the other guy won". That is what President Obama's enemies stand for, not him. He stands for doing whatever he has to to unite the country behind him as he attempts to fulfill on a vision that embraces the social, economic, and political scenes of America, to try and build a better future for Americans both alive and yet unborn. That vision, if implemented even in part, could do extraordinary good for millions of people, and it is that good that I think should be focussed on, not whether some undeserving may benefit from the political process required to bring it about. It should not be about how bad they other side is, but about how good our side is. As John F. Kennedy said, it is about having idealism, but without illusions. Our country was founded upon the principles of compromise and deal-making after all - it has been that way since the Founding Fathers struggled and fought with each other in the process of crafting and ratifying the Constitution.

Of all the public figures today, Barack Obama remains the one who I trust most to successfully act as the Helmsman who can guide the Ship of State through these troubled times. And if recent polls are any indication, more and more of the American people are coming to the same conclusion.

Just because the figure who so inspired us before has been briefly obscured from us, concealed behind the overwhelming volume of the legislative and executive process, the desperate attempt to ward off crisis and fashion a response to it that will serve the future as well as the present, does not mean that the inspiring figure is not still there. And seeing him beginning to emerge again, I for one find him just as inspiring as before.

[LAGC]

23. In 2008, we all voted for change.

He said he'd rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term one.

Unfortunately, it would appear that now we're going to have a one-term mediocre president, as I doubt he will be able to inspire so many people to vote for him again.

[cliffordu]

30. Your ability to tell the future and speak for millions amazes even me and

I'm hard to amaze.

:hurts:

[Axrendale]

37. If Obama's presidency were to end tommorow, then I personally would rank him

as a genuinely great President.

Some of the Professional Left might be loathe to admit it, but he has had more success as a Presidential Lawmaker than any other President save FDR and LBJ, has advanced the progressive cause considerably in doing so, and has brought a level of personal competence to the Presidency that I don't think has been seen since the 1970s.

But Obama's presidency will not end tommorow. He has two years left to go on his first term, and if recent trends are any indication, he has a good chance of winning a second term as well.

I am going to counter your prediction with one of my own: as the President uses the next two years to continue to articulate his vision as he has not been able to do effectively until recently, his support is going to grow until he will not only sweep to reelection with ease as Bill Clinton did in 1996, but will do so in a landslide as Ronald Reagan did in 1984 and Richard Nixon did in 1972. Nobody would have thought in 1982 or 1970 that either of those two would have been able to make it back and more, but they did it anyway, because the essence of a genuinely transformative presidency has a tendancy to manifest itself in electoral results.

Barack Obama is the first leader that the Left has had in half a century who is both intellectually and temperamentally suited to be a transformative President to the benefit of the Democratic Party - the first since John F. Kennedy, whose potential was left tragically unfulfilled. As long as Obama's presidency is not brought to a tragic premature close, then my optimism in the future remains strong.

[Fire1]

17. He is NOT a progressive! n/t

[Axrendale]

22. What is he then?

He is certainly no conservative, and however he might tack in tune with the political winds, "centrist" and "moderate" do not really do him justice either. It is very hard to conclude otherwise than that the 44th POTUS is a definite liberal, albeit one who is prepared upon being informed that he cannot have the whole hog to accept and eat the ham sandwich.

[Fire1]

32. He has definitely proven himself to be a centrist and he's

damn sure not progressive!

[vaberella]

25. Define progressive...because I'm sure you don't know what it means. n/t

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire1]

31. Well we all can't be as brilliant as you! But MY definition is

left or left of center, of which he is neither. He is a 'centrist.' What's YOUR definition, wise one?

[Axrendale]

39. If you would avail yourself to actually study President Obama's personal political views,

you should find that they are, as is almost universally agreed by those more or less non-partisan sources who have set themselves to examining the President on this front (James Kloppenberg's book remains the best analysis of Obama's personal political philosophy thus far, IMO), quite left-of-center enough to qualify as "liberal/progressive". That much of Obama's policy results thus far have been well to the right of his own preferences is not surprising. His legislative agenda from 2009-2010 was held hostage to the pitiless mathematics of lawmaking arithmatic: the legislation that he passed could only ever be as liberal as the five or six most conservative members (at least one of whom - the noxious Joe Lieberman - has since more or less admitted that he was out to water down as much of it as possible just to spite liberals) of his governing coalition could be persuaded to approve. With the most conservative Blue Dogs thus holding effective veto power over his entire agenda, that Obama managed to get as much done as he did seems in hindsight to be not merely impressive, but miraculous, arguably surpassing even some of the feats of parliamentary wizardry that Lyndon Johnson was able to perform at the height of his powers.

The past two years have seen Obama hobbled in his efforts to act as a liberal communicator - the sheer extent of the crises demanding his urgent attention forcing him to embrace completely the role of the hard-nosed pragmatist who could get meangingful results on an immediate basis. Over the coming two years however, we can expect him to return to the political style that he finds most enjoyable: that which defined his election in 2008.

[Fire1]

45. In terms of legislation, this is true. His appointments

and appeasing the right, however, leads me to believe otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being a centrist. When voting and hitting the bricks during his campaign I didn't do so thinking he was a progressive. I didn't like his ideas on education, even then. Single payer health care was the most progressive idea he had, imo. He compromised on that and the right is still trying to repeal aspects of the "watered down" version! I believe he could've gotten more out of HCR then he actually did. Nevertheless, he is very much a pragmatist, imo. Reading his book won't change that. Look at the track records of true progressives by comparison and you will see why some agree that he is, indeed, a centrist.

Edit to add: There is a clear distinction between President Obama and progressives such as Howard Dean, Weiner, Alan Grayson, Kucinich, etc.

[Axrendale]

49. You are right, there is a clear distinction between Obama and Dean, Weiner, Grayson, Kucinich, and

other "true progressives": Obama is the President of the United States, and what is more he is a President clearly determined that when he leaves office he will leave behind him a legacy of substance that as well as being positive in and of itself, will have had a genuinely transformative effect upon the American political scene, as well as social and economic scenes.

Reading Obama's book(s) might not strike you as liable to change your mind on his being a centrist, but Obama's books are by no means at all the only material available for perusing on the subject of the President's personal political views. Entirely apart from the partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle, plenty of good writers have devoted themselves to researching just that subject of BHO's political views and how he came to form them, and they have been remarkably consistent in concluding that his views/values are solidly to the left of center, though certainly to the right of the "Professional Left" - noting also however that he is by nature tremendously receptive to compromise. As noted previously, James Kloppenberg's book "Reading Obama" is probably the best such analysis currently in print, but books by David Remnick, Eric Alterman, David Mendall, Edward McClelland, and Richard Wolffe are also highly recommendable.

The idea that Obama could have somehow "gotten more out of" the legislative crafting process of the HCR bill has for almost a year now been a touchstone for left-wing opponents of the President, and frankly one that I continue to consider ridiculous, on a par with the notions that Lyndon Johnson should have "done more" with the Medicare Act, Franklin Roosevelt should have "made stronger" the Social Security Act, Woodrow Wilson "gave too much away" with the Federal Trade Commision Act, Theodore Roosevelt "compromised too much" on the Hepburn Act, and Abraham Lincoln "didn't go far enough" with the Emancipation Proclamation - all of which were expressed by the liberals/progressives of the day. Obama in seeking to pass a law that would overhaul healthcare had less in the way of political resources to work with than any of the above. What some seem hellbent on refusing the see is that the law that finally came out of the Congressional Sausage Factory for him to sign could only ever be as strong, could only ever be as liberal, as what the most conservative of the legislators who voted for it were prepared to tolerate. That is the devastating truth about the lawmaking arithmatic that he had to work with. I don't think that Obama "could have gotten more" - on the contrary I think that it was a borderline legislative miracle that he didn't get far less, and he could very, very easily have gotten nothing at all.

Appointments by the President are just as much an act of politics as anything and everything that he does, and anyone who tries to deny this is fooling themselves. Obama has made appointments of conservatives, moderates, and progressives as he has seen fit not as an inherent reflection of his political values, but as a measure of how in his judgement he can work with the state of politics to best implement his agenda, which is what really reflects his political views. In this he is no different from all of the successful liberal Presidents of the past.

Obama is not a chest-thumping liberal President like Harry Truman - who got virtually nothing done in legislative terms. He is an "idealist without illusions" liberal President like Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy - and these are the liberal Presidents who ultimately get great things done and are remembered as genuinely transformative.

[phleshdef]

29. 80% access to high speed rail, 80% of the nation running on clean energy, government investments....

...in innovations across the board, from higher education to infrastructure.

Yea, not progressive at all.

[Fire1]

33. These are proposals and projections. Try again. n/t

[phleshdef]

35. Um, no, just proposals, and they are being proposed by this President...

...and they are progressive propositions.

If you aren't going to respond anymore effectively than that, why bother responding to me at all?

[Fire1]

46. Projections relative to future performance, thus the "80%."

Agreed. Responding to you is a waste of time.

[phleshdef]

47. You are just making shit up. You aren't even writing relevant responses.

[Fire1]

48. Then don't read or respond. n/t

[harun]

24. If he had even one Progressive in his inner circle I may harbor the same

hope.

[Axrendale]

36. What about Elizabeth Warren? She's a part of his inner circle, and I hear, fairly progressive.

;)

Seriously, I think that people tend to forget that the political positions of the people that the President appoints do not necessarily represent the views of the President himself. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both appointed conservatives to positions where they would play a key role in implementing their liberal agendas. That does not change the fact that they were both definite liberals themselves.

Obama, like JFK and FDR, understands that personal political ideology should be trumped by loyalty and personal competence when it comes to government. The "inner circle" serve at the pleasure of the President, and at the end of the day will bring all that they can to doing what he requires of them.

[yellowcanine]

27. Just pointing out that those aren't mutually exclusive. He could be both.

...depending on how one defines "sell-out" or how one defines "brilliant progressive politician"

Personally I believe he is a smart progressive pragmatist. He is not as brilliant politically as Bill Clinton but then doesn't have the character weaknesses of a Bill Clinton so he may in fact ultimately be more successful.

[Axrendale]

40. To be honest, I would say that as far as political brilliance goes,

Barack Obama has long since surpassed Bill Clinton. Certainly the 42nd POTUS might be a protean personality of extraordinary intellect, but I don't believe that even he (or for that matter any major political figure alive) is quite able to match the sheer level of penetrating thought that the 44th POTUS has proven again and again that he is able to focus upon whatever challenges confront him.

In simple terms of political intellect, I think that it has been clear for some time now that even the Comeback Kid himself has finally met his match. Entirely apart from the ease with which Obama was able to run rings around both of the Clintons in the 2008 campaign (during which the way that Obama was able to manipulate the former President at times bordered on the astonishing), in his first two years of his Presidency, Obama has demonstrated that he has a far better natural grasp of all the levers of his Office than Clinton was able to demonstrate in a similar time. It is easy to forget, but Clinton's first two years as President were an unadulterated disaster: just about the worst transition in modern political history, waffling or outright bungling most of his chances to meaningfully enact parts of his agenda, and failing to demonstrate any of the decisive leadership that would later come to define his presidency. Obama by contrast, working with political resources not significantly greater than Clinton's, in the face of far more entrenched opposition, a political atmosphere even more toxic, and with far less executive experience, has already ammassed a set of achievements that justifies the label "historic". Both of them sufferred "shellackings" in the midterms, but whereas Clinton took some time to pull together his "triangulation" strategy to pull himself back from the brink - in early 1995 he could still be found arguing with a Press Conference that "the President is still relevant here", Obama pivoted from what seemed like a disastrous setback to forging a series of masterful compromises that brought several more key parts of his agenda into enactment during the Lame Duck session, with an ease that again bordered on the astonishing. He then came roaring back with the New Year to seize upon openings to restore public confidence in his leadership to levels not seen since the beginning of his presidency, this bounceback encapsulated best in the brilliant speeches he gave in Tuscon and the recent State of the Union. Where Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were at a similar point in their presidencies sufferring from approval ratings in the 30s and (low) 40s percent, Obama is once again flying high on around 55%.

I stand by my previous assessment that the last time that America had a President whose political intellect was on a similar level in its sophistication with that of Barack Obama, was when Richard Nixon reigned over the close of the Long Sixties era. Nixon, it is worth noting, recovered from a humiliating defeat in the 1970 midterms, with his base dissatisfied and the political atmosphere in a toxic state, to recover, reassamble his "Silent Majority" coalition, and in 1972 win the greatest landslide victory since FDR's triumph in 1936. The difference between Nixon and Obama is of course that Obama (thankfully) is entirely lacking of the gross temperamental flaws that led to Nixon's downfall and the agony caused to the country that came with it - where Nixon was an inherently divisive figure, Obama shows the potential to become a genuinely great unifying President. Jonathan Alter pegged it when he wrote that "Obama is rare amongst Presidents in that he is possessed of both a first class intellect and a first class temperament."

This excellent analysis by Rachel Maddow from last night sums up well for me why I consider Obama to be the first President in decades who shows the potential to be an authetically "great" political figure, as opposed to merely an "effective" one, in this standing above Bill Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L8vOQCnuhh4

[ClassWarrior]

28. Wow. When did Michelle Obama wake up next to George Lakoff??!

(Sorry for conjuring that image...)

I truly appreciate this analysis and Rachel Maddow's analysis from last night. They both give me more confidence about what the Prez is doing.

Love this: "(Business leaders) couldn’t immediately discern that Obama had conceded almost nothing of consequence."

NGU.

[Hutzpa]

34. You know, sometimes as parents

you just have to go ahead and do things without consulting the kids, most of the time kids have no idea what parents have to do to survive.

That's what this piece reminds me of.

[Axrendale]

42. Indeed.

Here are a few more good ones:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82174/blast-the-past

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82214/sotu-obama-his-best-nationalism

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82175/sotu-obama-republicans-trap

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/obamas_state_of_the_union_addr.html

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_72/-202811-1.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/next-to-republicans-obama-is-presidential-2011-01-26

[boppers]

38. Somebody who actually knows FDR, not just the absurd hagiography!

Welcome to DU!

[Axrendale]

41. Thank you :)

I've been lurking on this sight for some time now - it is only recently that I have started to actively post.

FDR has for a long time been the historical figure who holds the most fascination for me - due to both the highly complex nature of his elusive personality (it was not for nothing that a number of cartoonists in his day drew him as the Sphinx), and for the sheer importance that his legacy holds not merely to American, but to world history. In years of studying his life and career I have had to revise my opinions of him repeatedly - of all our Presidents I do believe that despite being one of the best known he may in fact be one of the most misunderstood, by his admirers and detractors alike.

[boppers]

43. Some spell check:

Sight: vision, something you see.
Site: A location, a place.
Cite: A reference.

That being said, FDR is complex, but very simple with some.

[Axrendale]

44. Thanks again.

Most of the major figures in most political history are simple for some - it goes for JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and for that matter, Obama, just as much as it does for FDR.

The facts about each of these figures tend to show them up as being far more complicated than the liberal and conservative two-dimensional caricatures of them, and many others, would suggest (and far more interesting to boot).