Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

information assemblage is the way in which those of us little people who muddle along in this powerless and misinformed space called "the public" have to operate...this is a long-term process that requires sorting and sifting information, venturing interpretations and going back on them in many cases as other bits surface. i've been tracking a series of matters for some time, but haven't really introduced any of them here for a variety of reasons, but the main one is that one can't assume the game of sorting and sifting operates.

that said, there's a piece in this week's london review of books that turns out to be freely available online. it is a review that stands as an essay which outlines the implications of the obama administration's drone wars and what they might mean. i considered starting another thread with it, but figure it works here, since it bears on the surreal question of "how obama is doing"...by surreal i mean...well, read the essay. if one of the justifications for the drone war is that it does not penetrate american domestic consciousness(es) because it eliminates from the american side the messy costs of killing people in great number...and one finds it not really being addressed seriously except by those folk whose tendencies when thinking about american imperial politics are not limited to the domestic sphere...then maybe there's something to that claim.

the piece outlines the logic whereby the obama administration chose to extend rather than eliminate the bushwar on "terror" and to center it on what we might politely call "extra-judicial killing" in favor of treats like rendition etc....and it indicates some of the consequences. so have a look.

Stephen Holmes reviews ‘The CIA, a Secret Army and a War at the Ends of the Earth’ by Mark Mazzetti · LRB 18 July 2013

aside: in the context of an empire, even a fading one like the american, you can't even start to talk about how this or that regime/administration is doing without looking at how it operates at its edges.

 

Everyone by now should be able to clearly answer the question in the original post. President Obama is the most ineffective two term President in the history of the US!

His speech(s) yesterday was a total waste of time. Who was he talking to? Rather than giving campaign style speeches to friendly audiences perhaps his time would be better used working with Congress. Assuming anyone in Congress listened to the speech, he said nothing that would influence an elected member of the Senate or House change a position or consider a compromise on any issue discussed. He needs to roll up his sleeves and work Congress Lydon Johnson style. LBJ, has to be the most under-rated US President, he got a hell of a lot done - regardless if you like what he did or not.

 

on the other hand, if you look at the institutionalization of the bush people's imperial executive, the normalization of a pervasive national-surveillance state, the substitution of "targeted strikes" as a mechanism for state-sanctioned murder because rendition is too risky in political terms, an accelerated deterritorialization of war so that the united states has by degrees turned into the "terrorism" it opposes, then he's been pretty fucking effective. he's also been quite effective at prosecuting people who've objected to these policies. o, and favoring a legalistic undermining of any semblance of oversight insofar as the national-surveillance state is concerned. pretty effective.

in breaking with the lunacy of neo-liberal economic thinking, articulating political priorities that would shift away from the reagan-period policies of military keynesianism and enable a coherent approach to addressing the deep problems caused by cowboy capitalism in the united states...not so much.

in delivering nice-sounding speeches that almost never result in the above...pretty good.

sorta what you'd expect from a centrist, really.

 

I base my opinion on the continuing pattern demonstrated by the President. Conditions and challenges have not changed since 2010 and the President is not showing a willingness to make any adjustments to over come the challenges he faces. He faces an uncooperative House of Representatives, odds are this will be the case after 2014. The Tea Party influence is still strong and unlikely to weaken during his remaining term. The President's agenda is going no where, he is weak, and already a lame duck.

 

so what you're faulting obama for is for not being a republican and for an unwillingness to accommodate the lunatic right. and you argue this by recycling standard-issue conservative talking points. this enables you to pretend that the republicans have no responsibility for the paralysis in washington---which nobody in the real world believes because it is simply false.

 

Here is a link to an article regarding LBJ and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ worked with a coalition of Northern Democrats and liberal Republicans to get the legislation passed - there was no hope of any serious support from Southern Democrats. In fact Southern Democrats had successfully used filibuster in the past to derail civil rights legislation. LBJ did not need to move Southern Democrats, he out-smarted them, he developed a plan to get what he wanted accomplished, here is an example from the article -

Summer 2004: Civil Rights Act

--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 4:40 PM ---

My views are contained within this thread. Basically President Obama is excellent at campaigning or getting elected and a failure when it comes to governing. The skill sets are very different. What we need is a President who can govern. I would argue that there have been periods in US history when the skill of governing was far less important than it is now. Given our needs, President Obama's weakness is glaring.

 

Whats your point, Ace?

The 88th Congress (1964) was entirely different that today's Congress, where now a small group of 6-8 Republicans in the Senate and 30-40 in House have become so extreme that 225+ years of respect for tradition and the manner in which the institution operates no longer exists and Congressional consensus building is nearly impossible.

Ask John Boehner about that.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM ---
Oh how I wish for more Senate Republicans like the '60s Everett Dirkson or Jacob Javitts , who were statesmen and pragmatists, not rigid ideologues.

Or even the most conservative Republican Senator of that time and nominee for president in '64, Barry Goldwater.

Or even Reagan Republicans, like Howard Baker (majority leader when the Rs had control) who did not view compromise as a dirty word.

Instead, we get Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

 

Given the President's recent economic speech to a friendly audience using a similar pattern of empty campaign style rhetoric used when he was a candidate, it is of no value in terms of governing and getting legislation passed in Congress. LBJ put his effort into managing his legislative agenda. President Obama either is not putting any effort into managing his legislative agenda or is ineffective/incompetent in this regard. I presented a question when President Obama ran for re-election - what does he or the voter expect to be different? It was a time to honestly reflect and perhaps present a Democrat Party option of a person who has governing skills.

This Congress is not as unique as you want us to believe. Just like LBJ faced entrenched opposition regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, other Presidents faced entrenched opposition including President Obama. It happens. LBJ could get his agenda voted on and passed.

Are you holding the position that there are no lessons to be learned and applied from LBJ for President Obama??? I am going to assume you agree that President Obama could benefit from a study of LBJ. And it is my view that LBJ in terms of governing has been our most under-rated President.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM ---

Everything is pointless if one holds the position that lessons from one situation can not be applied to another. So, perhaps you can be more specific in your critique of my point. Do you even understand my point? Are you focused on the same issue of the comparison as I am? Have you read my posts? Do you see how one post flowed from another? Do you see the connections in the posts? Can you follow along in a conversational manner or do I need to preceded each new thought with a recap of the others.

I am sorry but responses like your response above just makes me wonder how seriously you take this. The inference that the civil rights political environment is the same as today's environment is a lowest common denominator interpretation of what was written. The nature of political conflict, however, is not new! We all know this is true. We also know some are and have been better able to manage it than others. But rather than exploring the nature and methods of managing political conflict we can get lost in trivial diversionary comments.

 

LBJ faced four cloture votes in the Senate to block his legislative agenda. Obama faced 137 and 113 in his first term and on pace for the same in this session of Congress.

 

Are you kidding?

Do you agree we have a history of political conflict?
Do you agree we have a history of leaders managing political conflict?
Do you agree we are currently in a period with political conflict?
Do you agree that LBJ was uniquely skilled at managing political conflict? I could have just as easily used how he managed the Vietnam War or other issues, would we be caught in this same silliness???
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 4:12 PM ---

Do you not understand this supports my position?

Ok., I got it. Move on. Nothing to see here. President Obama is a victim of circumstances.

 

I would agree that LBJ brought experience and relationships to Congress, as former Senate Majority leader, that other presidents, including Obama, did not have.

Putting the historic number of Senate Republican attempts to block votes on Obama's legislative agenda, which I assume is irrelevant in your eyes, LBJ also had the advantage of a near super-majority in the Senate (65-35) and majority in the House (255-177)...and he had moderate Republicans who put pragmatism and consensus building above ideology.

Ace, there is something to see here. And it is supported by the facts that the Republicans in Congress have become more extreme and more obstructionist than anytime in our lifetime.
--- merged: Jul 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM ---
He (LBJ) also did not have a "Hastert Rule" in the House, where Republican Speakers since 1995 would not allow any legislation to the floor w/o support of the majority of the Republican party, thus making compromise among Rs and Ds much more difficult.

These recent phenomena, the record attempts by the Republicans in the Senate to block legislation and the Hastert Rule in the House, are examples of putting partisanship above policymaking in the best interest of the country.

 

I am going to assume you don't remember what LBJ accomplished. Here is a short reminder -

Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" [ushistory.org]
Primarily he did this between 1963 - 1966 before the war began consuming most of his time. Agree or disagree with his Great Society agenda, he got stuff done.