Barack Obama on the New Deal, continued.

[silverweb]

This thread is a continuation of post #18 _here_ regarding discussion of Obama's references to the New Deal in his book. There are nine references in Obama's book to the New Deal.

Because I'm not sure if the four-paragraph rule applies solely to articles or if it also applies to books, just to be on the safe side I posted the first of the nine New Deal references in the original thread, am posting references #2-5 here, and will post the last four in a new thread.

Barack Obama on the New Deal: References from The Audacity of Hope (hard cover edition).

(2) p.29: And when, in the midst of this topsy-turvy time, in the wake of assassinations and cities burning and Vietnam's bitter defeat, economic expansion gave way to gas lines and inflation and plant closings, and the best Jimmy Carter could suggest was turning down the thermostat, even as a bunch of Iranian radicals added insult to OPEC's injury -- a big chunk of the New Deal coalition began looking for another political home.

(3) p.38-39: Instead, we Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of the energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city. Others pursue a more "centrist" approach, figuring that so long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably -- and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground. Individually, Democratic legislators and candidates propose a host of sensible if incremental ideas, on energy and education, health care and homeland security, hoping that it all adds up to something resembling a governing philosophy.

(4) p.79: Those on the left saw the situation quite differently. With conservative Republicans making gains in the congressional and presidential elections, many liberals viewed the courts as the only thing standing in the way of a radical effort to roll back civil rights, women's rights, civil liberties, environmental regulation, church/state separation, and the entire legacy of the New Deal.

(5) p.82: Few of the Bush nominees in question fell into the "moderate" category; rather, they showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy, and checks on executive power that put them to the right of even most Republican judges (one particularly troubling nominee had derisively called Social Security and other New Deal programs "the triumph of our own socialist revolution").

The final part is _here_.

[stillcool]

1. Thanks!...

[silverweb]

2. You're welcome!

The more undistorted truth from and about Obama that gets out, the more likely he is to win with room to spare!

:patriot:

[stillcool]

3. It's rough around here...

My ignore list is ridiculous. Drive-by gang-bangers have taken over the joint! It's nice to see some accuracy spattered here and there. Shame what's going on here.

[Capn Sunshine]

4. It's not only a shame, it's pointless

none of this posting bullshit has one iota of an effect anywhere in the real world.
It's amazing to read the same talking points posted over and over and over and over
But the DLC ofrce is strong within them, young jedis.

We can at least be amused by the huge effort they seem to be putting into fighting Obama's message

[silverweb]

5. That's the truth!

I didn't even have an ignore list until a few months ago. Now mine's ridiculous, too, but having it keeps my blood pressure under control.

It's very hard not to get snarky sometimes, but it's better just to stick with facts and leave personalities out of it as much as possible.

Sanity will prevail and once we have an official Democratic ticket, hopefully we can all eliminate our ignore lists, bury our differences, and work together to take our country back!

[jackson_dem]

6. Who said anything about the New Deal? Even Reagan supported it.

Questions are raised about Obama's views of the "excesses" of Democrats in the 60's and 70's, as well as his views of the Reagan years. Why not post a thread about them? That would answer people's questions. I'll help you by starting.

Pages 156-157

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

[gulliver]

7. The Carter put-down is gratuitous and smart-ass.

"Turning down the thermostat" deserved derision? That was "the best Jimmy Carter could suggest" while America was being insulted and injured by the Iranians? Criticizing Democratic presidents is one thing. Treating them with derision is another, especially a president like Carter who has done so much for the world post-presidency, who has spoken out so bravely against Bush.

Pretty disgusting.

[silverweb]

8. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I admire Carter very much, too, and while I see honest criticism in Obama's comment, I don't see anything "gratuitous and smart-ass" about it.

The subject at hand was the dearth of needed creative ideas and strong leadership at that time. Carter was widely perceived as weak and that was one reason Reagan beat him.

Even when truth hurts, it's still the truth.

[sandnsea]

9. I think it was Nixon or Ford anyway

I remember the thermostat thing around 1972 or so anyway, the first oil crunch. Yes it was gratuitous, and I love and voted for Jimmy Carter, but I just think some people don't know how bleak it was at that time. I was 23 and had no sense of a future at all. At least now we can say alternative energy, renewables, environmental clean-up -with the right leadership. We didn't even have the idea there were going to be any innovations anymore. Reagan isn't the one who changed that, but it was that situation that gave way to some believing that conservatism was economic and social answer.

[andym]

10. Glib reading of history

Obama provides a glib retelling of history in these remarks.

For example,
Jimmy Carter not only promoted energy conservation (including that by lowering thermostats), but created the Dept of Energy, the strategic petroleum reserves, windfall corporate taxes on oil, and came up with a VERY ambitious alternate energy program in the latter half of his term in office, encouraging new technology development. Carter even had solar panels installed in part of the white house.

Carter was trying to make a revolutionary change in America's energy policy, but because the economy was in such dire condition (stagflation), during his watch (and Ford/Nixon), he was not seen as a visionary (though he was one), but as part of the problem.

To really get something done requires the ability to inspire, knowing what needs to be done (good ideas), knowing how to get things done and TIMING. That's why major change in America only seems to come about in turbulent times (FDR and the Great Depression being the best example).

[sandnsea]

11. Your last paragraph

The ability to inspire - check

Good ideas - check

Knowing how to get things done - check, see Illinois and ethics reforms in DC

TIMING - CHECK

That's why Obama is the President for THIS time. Carter was right, he just didn't have the ability to inspire or communicate his vision in a way people believed in.

[silverweb]

12. The isolated sentence might appear so to you.

That section of the book, though, deals with how "the country's tectonic plates had shifted," and the mention of Carter was just a small part of the whole discussion about that period of history... not a "glib reading" at all. I strongly suggest you read the book yourself to get the whole sense of it instead making your judgement based on one sentence.

Carter is mentioned again later in the book as a humanitarian who "seemed prepared to once again align moral concerns with a strong defense" -- until precipitous events thwarted his purposes, and made him seem naive and ineffectual. Republicans looking for an opening seized that opportunity, Reagan won the election handily, and we've been struggling with the results ever since.

What Obama has been describing over and over again, in the book and in various talks he's given, is that historic changes happen when a constellation of circumstances come together:
(1) when the mood of the country is right,
(2) when the need is apparent, and
(3) when a leader steps forward who knows how to seize that moment.

The right leader for any given time will have the ability to seize that moment, and will galvanize the mood, the need, and the people into a powerful force full of awareness and unity of purpose.

A lot of people think Obama is the right leader for this time. I'm one of them.

[RuleOfNah]

13. Ah, maybe it was something from page 38-39.

BTW, I started this, because I saw a quote in passing that seemed to be disparaging towards the New Deal (and silverweb has been kind enough to help me try and track it down). First issue is was it a real quote, then was it out of context, then maybe issues of nuance. I have read two of silverweb's excerpts and am thinking it might have been out of context (though I am also not familiar with Obama's writing style, so I am not sure where the argument Obama has built might end up).

The quote from page 38-39 seems to be close to what I saw (a random post on some thread that I happened to read).

But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of the energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city.

This is where things could veer into a Hayek/Friedman sales pitch, which would be a bad thing (in my opinion). However, there is an Others in the next sentence (that might be a veiled DLC reference?). So it does read like a litany of considered approaches that Obama might reject in the text that follows. Is that the case? If so, and Globalization isn't the proposed solution, then Obama doesn't seem to be attacking the New Deal, merely acknowledging its presence.

I'll check the next post. And thank you again silverweb, I really appreciate it!

[silverweb]

16. Here's what follows for context.

Others pursue a more "centrist" approach, figuring that so long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably -- and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground. Individually, Democratic legislators and candidates propose a host of sensible if incremental ideas, on energy and education, health care and homeland security, hoping that it all adds up to something resembling a governing philosophy.

Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with larger meaning. We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.

<snip>

Ultimately, though, I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in "either/or" thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace "socialized medicine."

<snip>

I'm under no illusion that the task of building such a working majority will be easy. But it's what we must do, precisely because the task of solving America's problems will be hard. It will require tough choices, and it will require sacrifice. Unless political leaders are open to new ideas and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy policy or tame the deficit. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy tht meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism without resorting to isolationism or eroding civil liberties. We won't have a mandate to overhaul America's broken health-care system. And we won't have the broad political support or the effective strategies needed to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of poverty.

There's not an untrue word there. Obviously, I can't type the whole chapter out.

People who want to quibble over what he "means" need only put his words in their proper contest; his meanings are clear and obvious.

People who want to understand Obama better simply need to read or listen to his books.

[Joanne98]

14. Milton Friedman strikes again!

[stravu9]

15. Now, See, I Read That...

And it just ticks me off!
It seems derisive and smarmy to me.