Risk and the sleight of hand
The Village line since Obama's address to Congress has been and will continue to be, the risk of overreach. John Harwood is the latest deliverer of this message. But this is a rather bizarre comparison.
There seems to be a key distinction between the two administrations. "Whatever their merits," George W. Bush didn't campaign in 2000 to restructure the Middle East by attacking a country that did not pose a threat to us. Quite the contrary.
And in 2004, there was not so much of a mention during his re-election campaign to privatize Social Security.
On the other hand, all three areas for reform Obama presented to Congress last week -- health care, education, and energy -- were all key pillars of his campaign platform. Not only his, as Matt Yglesias points out, but pretty much every Democratic candidate.
So, unlike George W. Bush, who with the help of the media, was able to obfuscate, confuse, but charm too many voters, with Obama we're getting exactly what we voted for. There are always risks in pursuing an agenda -- Bill Clinton was elected in part on his calls for health care reform -- but in this case at least we are not being surprised by the agenda.
Oh, and note earlier in Harwood's piece, that "Mr. Obama’s only apparent deference to overloaded circuits so far was his decision to slow his initial push for Social Security solvency, which rattled Democratic liberals." Indeed, Obama, after making some tentative comments that quickly showed him that this was a non-starter for primary voters -- did not talk about SS during the campaign, except to remind voters that John McCain was for privatization.
The Villagers, though, would like us to believe Obama is trying to pull off some breathtaking sleight of hand.
What makes Mr. Obama’s reach even more striking is that he has followed a president with similar ambitions.
Accepting the 2000 Republican nomination, George W. Bush scalded Mr. Clinton for failing to lead and promised to “confront the hard issues.” Privately among aides, he disdained the “small ball” other politicians played.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush sought to transform the Middle East by invading Iraq. Later he pursued partial privatization of Social Security over the misgivings of fellow Republicans. Whatever the merits of either endeavor, both became costly political failures even before the economy fell into crisis.
There seems to be a key distinction between the two administrations. "Whatever their merits," George W. Bush didn't campaign in 2000 to restructure the Middle East by attacking a country that did not pose a threat to us. Quite the contrary.
And in 2004, there was not so much of a mention during his re-election campaign to privatize Social Security.
On the other hand, all three areas for reform Obama presented to Congress last week -- health care, education, and energy -- were all key pillars of his campaign platform. Not only his, as Matt Yglesias points out, but pretty much every Democratic candidate.
So, unlike George W. Bush, who with the help of the media, was able to obfuscate, confuse, but charm too many voters, with Obama we're getting exactly what we voted for. There are always risks in pursuing an agenda -- Bill Clinton was elected in part on his calls for health care reform -- but in this case at least we are not being surprised by the agenda.
Oh, and note earlier in Harwood's piece, that "Mr. Obama’s only apparent deference to overloaded circuits so far was his decision to slow his initial push for Social Security solvency, which rattled Democratic liberals." Indeed, Obama, after making some tentative comments that quickly showed him that this was a non-starter for primary voters -- did not talk about SS during the campaign, except to remind voters that John McCain was for privatization.
The Villagers, though, would like us to believe Obama is trying to pull off some breathtaking sleight of hand.
Labels: social security fake crisis, The Village
posted by John at 10:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home