Is Obama's Problem That He Just Doesn't Want to Deal with Conflict?

[Javaman]

http://www.alternet.org/politics/144760/is_obama's_problem_that_he_just_doesn't_want_to_deal_with_conflict/

(read the whole article before you start flinging the poop)

As the president's job performance numbers and ratings on his handling of virtually every domestic issue have fallen below 50 percent, the Democratic base has become demoralized, and Independents have gone from his source of strength to his Achilles Heel, it's time to reflect on why. The conventional wisdom from the White House is those "pesky leftists" -- those bloggers and Vermont Governors and Senators who keep wanting real health reform, real financial reform, immigration reform not preceded by a year or two of raids that leave children without parents, and all the other changes we were supposed to believe in.

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president's leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

[groovedaddy]

1. He doesn't seem to have a problem with the "conflicts" in Afghanistan and Iraq. n.t

[Romulox]

12. Exactly. Or shoving banskter bailouts down our throats against the will of the American people. nt

[GoCubsGo]

14. IIRC...

...the bank bailouts were shoved down our throats last fall by the Bush administration, not President Obama.

[Romulox]

15. You DNRC.

1) Obama both lobbied for and certainly voted for the TARP while a Senator.
2) The TARP was structured such that the Obama admin was responsible for the disbursement of 1/2 of the funds.
3) The Federal Reserve Bank has handed out TRILLIONS more to banksters during the Obama administration. Obama's enthusiastic nomination of Ben Bernanke to return as Chairman of the Fed is more than a tacit endorsement of this strategy.
4) Just a week or so ago, the IRS extended almost $40B in NEW tax breaks to Citi.

So, no. You DNRC. :hi:

[GoCubsGo]

17. Yes, I do remember correctly.

Obama may have voted for the TARP as a Senator, but he is not the one who wrote the bill or tried to shove it down our throats. That was Bush, Paulsen, and Bernanke. So, yes, I do RC.

[Romulox]

23. And who is the President's pick for Chairman of the Federal Reserve?

You're saying that the President isn't responsible for the policies of his appointees? :silly:

[bvar22]

24. Don't forget these "Democrats".

NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

[laughingliberal]

20. Yes, and thank God our President is reversing that policy

Hell, Bush might have done a quiet lifting of the cap on money for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on Christmas Eve if he was still in office...

oh...wait...never mind

[FrenchieCat]

2. Progressives are passing around the meme handed to them by the Corporate media

and the Republican National Committee to their own detriment, cause in the end,
what will be most important to someone like that writer is
to have been right on the prediction of the election, not the fact that
we need to win the election to make more progress.

So progressives have actually started to believe this crap,
as they go around talking down the 2010 elections like 5 year olds
who don't really give a fuck of the millions who will be affected negatively
if this "prediction" were to come true.
And they are doing this nearly 1 year prior to elections, when we all know that
even 1 week in politics is forever.

"Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010."

Bet when whomever wrote that above sentence, they had their finger crossed.

What I have discovered since the election of Barack Obama, is that when we were all against Bush,
it was difficult to distinguish the asshats from the reasonable folks that just wanted better for their country, cause we all basically wanted the same thing; to see Bush ousted.

but now, those who cannot be pleased about anything no matter what unless their entire wish list is checked off and the Country is remade anew by us starting from scratch...those folks have become more evident.

It is a fine day in America, when there are so many rooting for this President to be a failure...
not for any other reason than to vindicate their own righteous views above all else.

[Javaman]

4. You read that whole article pretty fast...

try reading the entire thing next time.

[babylonsister]

6. It's only about the 14th time it's been posted. nt

[Javaman]

9. Oh, in that case, I take back what I said.

Cheers.

[FrenchieCat]

8. How long was it supposed to take me to read what you have posted?

and if the portions you have put up don't suffice,
why should I bother to go to the link to read some more of it?

It is clear what is being stated.
Is there a surprise at the end? cause I don't see it.

[Javaman]

10. Ahh so only reading the intro is good enough for you..

have fun with that.

:crazy:

[Greyhound]

19. Consider who you're reading?

President Obama could walk out on the south lawn, shoot a 6 year old kid in the head and laugh in front of the entire press corp, and she would argue that the kid had it coming and that we are just too simple to understand the complexities of being "The Supreme Being".

[laughingliberal]

22. +1000

Reminds me of a comment Stephanie Miller made about her mother's slavish devotion to Bush, the stupider. She said Bush could walk out on the South Lawn, have sex with a sheep and set it on fire afterwards and her mother would say, "Well, dear, the sheep looked cold and lonely." I am starting to see this same type of mindless defense of our current executive here on DU.

[bvar22]

25. "It was CHESS!!!"

You gotta sacrifice a few Pawns to protect the Royalty.

[laughingliberal]

30. +1

[chimpymustgo]

34. You are simply LYING about progressives. Most of us can think for ourselves, which is why we're NOT

buying the WARS and the health care bullshit. Nobody's rooting for this President to be a failure. We just want him to DO THE RIGHT THING for the PEOPLE and not the fat cats on Wall Street, in the health insurance industry, and the military industrial complex.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. No.

This is his problem: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x507914

[atreides1]

5. Good article

Thank you for putting it up.

[NYC_SKP]

7. The point of departure for this article is the assumption that Obama has his head up his ass.

And I disagree and don't care to rebut this point by point.

...I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is "liberalism," and they don't like what they see. I don't, either...

Most people don't understand dialectic thinkers, global thinkers, people who take a longer view.

I'm not surprised by the criticism, but I don't agree.

[Javaman]

13. On the surface, I understand what you mean...

but in reality, the average people of this nation need more than just dialectic thought.

[NYC_SKP]

16. I agree that he could do a better job articulating his vision.

And that there's a disconnect between his campaign rhetoric and the relative vagueness of his vision in practice.

Still, I don't doubt that he's got one, and one that most everyone here would support.

Having just learned yesterday that there was a credible threat of a terrorist act on inauguration day, I don't doubt that the man finds this administration very challenging, far more so than the campaign, so I'm not surprised that message delivery is suffering.

:patriot:

[laughingliberal]

21. Head up his ass is one of the kinder interpretations I have for the shift to the right I've seen

and not the explanation I truly believe is correct.

[Romulox]

11. Nope. It's a matter of VALUES, not TACTICS. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Boy, if there's ever a post that needed some text to clarify it, this is the one

I'm guessing, but it seems like this is a backhanded slap-down of criticism of the President by saying that he stands tall on "values", and thus an analysis of "tactics" is misguided or a nasty and unjustified attack that warrants only a blistering dismissal and isn't worthy of even the brief time spent to refute it.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but in lieu of any backup, that seems to be the case.

So, since I've put the proverbial words in your mouth, I'll just proceed with my rebuttal of them.

The problem is PRECISELY the opposite of such a claim: he's ALL tactics and precious few values. Seemingly anything can be thrown onto the pyre of momentary convenience for personal gain, and this chronic expediency is increasingly causing this man's motivations to be called into question from virtually every quarter, including--finally--the hardcore personality cultists.

The constant maneuvering is the act of a candidate (or serial favor-currier) rather than a leader.

At what point does anyone expect him to turn and fight? For what would he do so? Yes, it's good to have some respect for science, but merely saying that while allowing corporatists the freedom to maraud about a virtually unfettered field of battle is small comfort. Religion is allowed--nay, ENCOURAGED--to have greater influence. The health care giveaway was flaccid, expensive and cowardly. He literally got on his knees and gave the country to the Goldman-Sachs assholes who fucked things up in the first place, and the endless gushing reverence for the wisdom of the markets is even more galling than the straight-faced praise for that uber-asshole Ronald Reagan. Then there's war--or rather, wars--to be hawked like a product and held as a badge of maturity, regardless of the lack of any coherent goal.

Through the haze, the only real question is whether he is a cold-blooded corporatist himself, or whether he sees no other way to be allowed to exist in the political realm than by ceding every contended point to them.

Throughout the great march of deification of the man, the constant cry brought forth is that he's just playing chess and will someday tack back into the wind of monarchic money and do the right thing. That there's no precedent for this in his legislative career and much to loudly proclaim otherwise that seems to simply fall upon deaf ears. That's the constant bleating from the devout: he's got the little guy's interests at heart and that soul is one of boundless vision and empathy, so shut the fuck up and stop pointing out how he's just the latest standard-bearer in the hopey-changey ambling toward serfdom.

If you're going to use n/t, at least make a coherent statement.

[Romulox]

38. LOL. I agree with every part of your post (save where you are a dick to me.)

"Throughout the great march of deification of the man, the constant cry brought forth is that he's just playing chess..."

Did it occur to you that the 3d vulcan chess set pictured in my sig might be a dig on just that bit of spin?

It's ok; you're so right on that I will swallow my pride and simply say that I both agree with you and understand your anger. :hi:

[xchrom]

18. He's 'governing' the way I thought he would 'govern'.

He's not decisive because he can't be -- it's not in him.
I still voted for him and he certainly hasn't surpassed
the lowered bar of expectations bush passed to him.

[bvar22]

26. Obama's "problem" is....

...that he is bought and paid for by Wall Street, the Health Insurance Cartel (Wall Street's incestuous 1st Cousin), The MIC, and other Corporate Interests.

So are the people he chose to put in power...DLC ALL the WAY.

The DLC New Team
Working Class Democrats need NOT apply.

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

Once you accept that fact, everything Obama has done makes perfect sense.
Brand Obama was sold to the American people as slickly as NAFTA was sold to the American people.
"A Uniquely American Solution"....indeed.

[laughingliberal]

33. Exactly! I spent the first months of the HCR debate confused

I could not imagine how a politician as intelligent as he was could have been letting the right take control of the debate over HCR the way he was. Kept waiting for him to pull out the big guns and waiting....and waiting....

Then the reports of Karen Ignagni's smug, smirking replies the those who suggested Obama might get radical reform passed. "What the hell is he waiting for?" I thought. When is he going to get out in front of this and knock that smirk off her face?

Then the story of Rahm calling the ads the left we ran supporting a public option (back when it was assumed the president favored a public option) "fucking stupid." Then the stories of Rahn beating on the progressives to cave to his Blue Dogs.

Finally, it dawned on me. They were not on our side. They were on the side of PhRMA and AHIP. It is ludicrous to watch the gyrations people go through to justify and deny his selling out of liberals. The fiction of the boogeymen Senators who were doing his bidding all along. The floating of the trial balloons about no PO, just enough hints we still might get a PO to keep his organization supporting HCR-all of it makes sense when you accept it is what he wanted all along and his loyalty is with wealthy, corporate interests. It's disgusting but it's true.

[anAustralianobserver]

36. I agree that he compromised on health care reform early, but

I think it was out of fear of those senators; not a con where they were 'doing his bidding'.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. He's a politician, first and last. But, not a very smart one.

He's managing to alienate just about every type of voter on the political spectrum except the celebrity idol worshippers.

The right hates him.

The left holds him in contempt.

The middle doesn't give a shit and will vote for whoever promises them the safety of status quo.

[treestar]

28. Impossible or he wouldn't have gotten where he is today

not getting you everything you want does not mean he did not deal with conflict.

[anonymous171]

31. He was only elected to national office in 2004.

His skills as a politician are very lacking imho. On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being Al Gore and 10 being Huey Long, Obama would score a 4.

[anonymous171]

29. I agree with this article. Obama is a wuss. He needs to grow a spine

[gopwacker_455]

32. The problem is that he's a sellout

[anAustralianobserver]

35. I think it's that he hasn't wanted to deal with conflict *publically*

which of course has been a critical mistake. "It's the transparency stupid."

He's lost the real connection and engagement he had with you, by keeping one too many secrets that you need to know imo.

I think he's earnest about restoring balance of powers etc but should have done more by now - which is demoralising and frightening for everyone.

A democratic head of state can't just operate by ambiguous language, leaks and winks to his supporters! I think some of that was necessary during the campaign, and I think he is probably doing a lot more now than is visible,

but if he doesn't re-engage his base and the public soon he'll have failed by his own standards.

"the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case."

I'd love to see him regain and hold the large part of the left and middle again! (Paradoxically I think the right respects him sometimes more than the left, but are ashamed to admit it.)

I think it's possible he can do it, but I intuit that he (and the Democratic leadership) will first have to admit keeping critical secrets from you, his fellow citizens.

Maybe it will take other leaders to take up the mantle which he wore so courageously in 2008?