Underwhelming
Stumbling over his oath of office (thanks in part to Chief Justice Roberts fouling it up), President Obama has started off on an inauspicious error. Nor did he give a speech for the ages. In fact, it wasn't a speech even remotely commensurate with the current crisis. It wasn't, if you think about it, a speech about much of anything at all. Who is this guy? The crowds impressive, Mr. Obama couldn't settle on a theme, didn't provide leadership and seemed quite lost. I'm beginning to wonder whether his obsession with bipartisan compromise might indicate that, in contrast with his sharp organization skills, he doesn't really know what political leadership means. Airy fairy rhetoric won't cut it anymore. He must provide direction and he must provide it now.
Consider, for example, economic policy. Some FOB should take the fellow aside and explain to him that virtually all prominent progressive economists have raised red flags about two things: (1) most of his nominees for senior economic positions are the wrong people and (2) what's been said so far by President Obama and by his nominees seems, on the whole, inadequate. "Disappointing," writes Paul Krugman, which sums up a consensus view. It's worth remembering that the same progressive economists raised similar red flags eight years ago, and in similar diplomatic tones. But polite susurrations won't last long if Mr. Obama doesn't deliver the goods.
Robert Kuttner eloquently nails the problem. "Once again, our new leader, who has inspired so much hope and who so wants to be a post-ideological president, needs to grasp that these are deeply ideological questions. To pretend otherwise is to allow the conservative version of the story to govern by default." And that's being nice. One wonders, pushing the logic to its natural conclusion, whether Mr. Obama in his heart of hearts might actually prefer the conservative option or, in its grubbier guise, prefer to join the establishment?
Posted by George Kenney on January 20, 2009 3:05 PM 
« No History for W | Main | Hobbits Walked Among Us »
Comments
I think the perception of most Americans is that this was an impressive speech. Compared to Presidential speeches of the past 8 years, it is of Shakespearean quality.
The flaw for me is the continued "post-partisan" rhetoric, Kuttner is indeed correct on this point.
I find myself particularly enraged by the fact that there seems to be no standard of quality for economists. Those who failed to see the housing bubble, who believed that we can have unending growth and expansion, and those who were shocked that business leaders could be greedy — those are the economists hired by Obama, quoted by the media, and I assume, prized in the academy.
If your economic policies and prognostications are proven to be worthless, you are a prominent and serious economist. If you opposed those policies and disagreed with those forecasts and have been proven right, you are a radical anti-establishment wacko. It's no wonder the science is so dismal.
[To emphasize: I'm not knocking what people feel about this and I'm sorry to be such a grump. I'm just hugely struck that Obama hasn't been able to shift from campaign rhetoric to governing mode. For an interesting recent comment on why people feel uplifted, see Roger Ebert here. g.]
Posted by: Democracy Lover
|
January 21, 2009 9:02 AM
Harry Browne, on the Counterpunch website, evaluates Obama's speech in a similar manner to George's estimation of the speech, and at odds with Democracy Lover's take. But Harry goes into it much more specifically and analytically, demonstrating how DL's misgivings about Obama's political savoir faire, undermined by his economic appointments, is clearly telegraphed in his speech. Obama goes on about how Americans love to work, and disdain leisure time, seemingly implying the slaves came here for jobs, and he is going to ask them to sacrifice even more, rather than upset the apple carts on Wall Street from which much of his campaign chest was derived. Already he is working toward re-election (according to the LA Times), not wanting to be a one term historical figure.
Posted by: Waiting for the other shoe | January 22, 2009 5:22 PM