Even before yesterday's election in Massachusetts, progressives have been split between those who see the Obama administration as a pretty good thing, doing the best one could hope for in difficult circumstances, and those who think they are either political cowards or what would be genuine liberal Republicans if we had such a thing.
On a mailing list I belong to, Nathan Newman posted a strong defense of the Obama record. I think it misses the point. With his kind permission, I'm posting first his text, then a second version interspersed with my responses. (For fairness, I wanted to give readers the full flavor of his argument before I responded to it.)
Here's the bulk of Newman's original posting, responding to the suggestion that Obama had failed to deliver for his electors:
• Obama passed the largest social spending bill in history in the form of the recovery plan last year, directing $300 billion into health care and education spending, along with tens of billions of dollars into food stamps, housing aid, unemployment insurance, and child care.
• Billions were directed into mass transit, weatherization and other conservation programs through the same bill.
• Millions of children have health care because of the SCHIP bill that was also passed.
• CAFÉ standards were raised for the first time in decades—with a 35mpg standard adopted
• Lily Leadbetter and Equal Pay laws passed to fight pay discrimination
• Pro-labor executive orders promoted project labor agreements and helped unionized contract workers
• 2 million acres of land were protected against oil and gas drilling
• Strengthened state authority and restricting federal preemption to protect state consumer, environmental and labor laws
• Reversed Bush ban on stem cell research and on funding overseas family planning clinicsThis is just a summary but these are solid achievements, less than what some might want but hardly “fucking us over.” The reality is that this is the first recession ever where we have provided health care insurance for the unemployed, where unemployment insurance was expanded to cover a higher percentage of the unemployed, and other aid to them was expanded in such a significant way. Notably, in December the NY Times found that 61% of the unemployed approved Obama’s handling of his job, quite a bit higher than the general population. But then, the unemployed are seeing first hand the help they’re getting due to Obama’s actions.
People are free to want more but we saw nothing like this during Clinton’s or Carter’s Presidency—and the Great Society was delivered in the middle of an economic boom. So you basically have to go back to FDR to find this level of social and economic legislation enacted in the middle of a recession.
Yes, Obama hasn’t delivered FDR-level political accomplishments, at least not yet. But that hardly justifies the animosity some people seem to have adopted.
And here's Newman again, this time interspersed with my reply:
• Obama passed the largest social spending bill in history in the form of the recovery plan last year, directing $300 billion into health care and education spending, along with tens of billions of dollars into food stamps, housing aid, unemployment insurance, and child care.
It was too small. 1 out of 5 men are unemployed. And we knew it was too small when he proposed it. It was pre-compromised: he didn't fight for more.
•Billions were directed into mass transit, weatherization and other conservation programs through the same bill.
Very little has trickled down yet. And by the way, that's approximately equal to the cost of one year of Bush's tax cuts for the richest 5% — which have not been repealed.
•Millions of children have health care because of the SCHIP bill that was also passed.
A win. But not one the middle class notices.
•CAFÉ standards were raised for the first time in decades—with a 35mpg standard adopted
When does that take effect? 2020? Yawn.
•Lily Leadbetter and Equal Pay laws passed to fight pay discrimination
Back to the status quo ante (before Supreme Court). An important (and relatively uncontroversial) change – because this had been the rule previously.
•Pro-labor executive orders promoted project labor agreements and helped unionized contract workers
How many workers have actually gotten jobs from this? Not many.
•2 million acres of land were protected against oil and gas drilling
•Strengthened state authority and restricting federal preemption to protect state consumer, environmental and labor laws
Way below the radar.
•Reversed Bush ban on stem cell research and on funding overseas family planning clinics
Payoffs are either abroad, or far in the future.
This is just a summary but these are solid achievements, less than what some might want but hardly “fucking us over.”
Almost nothing there for the middle class. Very little for the poor except SCHIP
The reality is that this is the first recession ever where we have provided health care insurance for the unemployed, where unemployment insurance was expanded to cover a higher percentage of the unemployed, and other aid to them was expanded in such a significant way. Notably, in December the NY Times found that 61% of the unemployed approved Obama’s handling of his job, quite a bit higher than the general population. But then, the unemployed are seeing first hand the help they’re getting due to Obama’s actions.
Much better than nothing — but jobs would be much better. Where's that big new public works infrastructure push to fix bridges? Nowhere visible. Do you see any signs anywhere in your neighborhood about a federal works project? I sure don't see any here.
People are free to want more but we saw nothing like this during Clinton’s or Carter’s Presidency—and the Great Society was delivered in the middle of an economic boom. So you basically have to go back to FDR to find this level of social and economic legislation enacted in the middle of a recession.
The PROBLEM is that it's nowhere on the scale of what FDR did (modulo bailouts) — and yet that is what the times require. We need FDR. We have … Nelson Rockefeller?
Yes, Obama hasn’t delivered FDR-level political accomplishments, at least not yet. But that hardly justifies the animosity some people seem to have adopted.
It's not simply the failure to deliver. It's the failure to show any DESIRE to deliver them. For someone who was such a great campaign speaker to fail to make the public case, repeatedly, for the big programs — not the crippled stimulus, with all the tax breaks, or the health care plan that contracted HillaryCare disease — failing to have a simple progressive (or populist) narrative that people could rally behind.
Without that big, public, bet-your-Presidency commitment, it all looks pretty half-hearted at best, Republican Lite at worst.
