tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post5505040496467122057..comments2024-01-08T04:16:25.601-08:00Comments on Ché (What You Call Your) Pasa: The Obama ProblemChé Pasahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-21977940712786391922011-07-29T16:50:30.810-07:002011-07-29T16:50:30.810-07:00It does and it doesn't matter "why"....It does and it doesn't matter "why".<br /><br />I think we already know the results, they've been clear enough all along: the People (excluding the upper .01-1.00%) are going to be made to pay for the economic collapse engineered by their Betters. <br /><br />How much and how fast are the only questions that has been on the table from day one of this Debt Crisis Crisis.<br /><br />But why should that be so? <br /><br />This exploration gets into some of the reasons why. <br /><br />And the reasons "why" will matter a great deal over the longer term.<br /><br />ChéChé Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-57954685027881460162011-07-29T14:42:21.809-07:002011-07-29T14:42:21.809-07:00It doesn't matter why he's doing what he&#...It doesn't matter why he's doing what he's doing, what matters is the results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-49739851740696794652011-07-29T09:14:12.283-07:002011-07-29T09:14:12.283-07:00"After you, Alphonse."
I'll say.
...<i>"After you, Alphonse." </i><br /><br />I'll say.<br /><br />It's maddening. It really is. Because it seems like there is nothing at all the Wiser Heads OR The People can do to penetrate the consciousness of the Palace, in thrall as it is to its own utter and glittering brilliance (in their own minds of course).<br /><br />The comparison between Obama and Hoover -- which I've been making for years -- is getting starker and starker, indeed inescapable.<br /><br />Hoover was an Old Line Progressive, and he was no slouch when it came to taking radical action when conditions called for it. His work in Europe and the Soviet Union during and after WWI remains absolutely amazing. <br /><br />That work -- feeding the starving masses -- never interfered with his corporatism, though. And when disaster overcame the United States and the world economies, he was locked in a belief system that simply did not allow for the possibility of radical positive action. And at the time, there was almost nothing within the governing class itself -- all captive of corporatism -- that could push the Overton Window toward what really needed to be done. <br /><br />Same now. To the extent Obama has an ideology, it seems to come first from his banker grandmother, and secondly from the elite visions of Harvard and U of Chicago. In this, he has no connection with The People as it were at all, any more than any of the elites are actually connected with the masses. At best, they/we are objects.<br /><br />So, all of his actions are taken within the context of those elites -- the Palace elite of the Government, and the external elites of academe and finance. Those are the only people he ever deals with, and he will only deal with those among the elites who must (and can) agree in order to "move forward."<br /><br />Someone like Krugman -- who is not only a card-carrying member of the academic and media elite, but he is also a Nobel Laureate like Mr. Obama, therefore a kind of "brother" -- has absolutely no traction whatsoever in the White House. It's as if he doesn't exist. Why? The way I see it, it is because Krugman's economic (and political) ideas -- which are of course mostly correct -- <b>conflict with,</b> rather than agree with, those of the people he needs to encourage agreement between. <br /><br />Conflict between people who <b>can</b> agree can be resolved. Conflict between people who <b>cannot</b> agree cannot be resolved -- and it should not be engaged in. That comes directly out of my own mediation training; I wouldn't be surprised if Obama got mediation training from the same source! <br /><br />His personal beginning point is way, way to the right, though, and all of those he is seeking to find agreement between are as far to the right or farther to the right than he is. There is no room at all for even a hint of leftism in that mix -- which tells you why the House Dem leadership was excluded from the Debt talks from the beginning, and why the Progressive Caucus's budget has been completely ignored by everyone who matters. Nancy and Steny are hardly 'leftists' in any rational world, and the Prog Budget, though far better than anything else on offer, doesn't go nearly far enough toward correcting the rightward slip-slide.<br /><br />Well, I'm rambling, but you get the picture. There isn't any way under our system at this time for rational common sense to push this situation leftwards. <br /><br />ChéChé Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-7409189212857977532011-07-28T22:14:28.168-07:002011-07-28T22:14:28.168-07:00I may be getting a bit carried away here with anal...I may be getting a bit carried away here with analogy and such. But it's like a Buddhist who wants to stop the cycle of reincarnation. No more this and that. Just a pure kind of stasis instead. Final rest. Or, Obama as Spock. Our first Vulcan president. <br /><br />Or someone who seeks an end to thesis and antithesis, of endless dialectic, tired of all that. He wants us all to settle down to synthesis and maybe stay with that? <br /><br />. . . . <br /><br />I can see that. I can see Obama, say, in an environment that called for full-on Single Payer at one end, and a liberal Republican counter-proposal of the Public Option plus price controls, forging an agreement between the two sides. <br /><br />It's all about current conditions, then. Wherever the two sides appear to be at that moment, he will push for agreement. That being the Prime Directive and the reason for the Federation. <br /><br />We are just cursed that we live in such a right-wing tilt now. When he seeks agreement today, it's between shades of rightist policy. Dancing with two right feet. <br /><br />In that sense, Obama isn't that different from leaders around the world, unfortunately. <br /><br />. . . <br /><br />But I still do think that he could move the Overton Window to the left, if he chose to. He somehow sees that as outside his purview, apparently. <br /><br />It's why we on the left <i>are</i> so "outraged". We see rightists pushing for their extremist vision, and there is no equal and opposite response from the left. Logically, there should be. To use a less obvious example:<br /><br />Planned Parenthood was attacked, and successfully defunded in part. What if the left, instead of fighting against cuts to the program, mounted an all out push to radically expand funding and reach, citing the potential for actual cost savings, better health, etc. etc.?<br /><br />That kind of thing. <br /><br />Or, to go bigger. Instead of fighting to reduce cuts a bit to Social Security, make the case for a lower age for retirement and much bigger pension plan for all, given our place as one of the most parsimonious of nations when it comes to those pensions . . . <br /><br />Or, better yet, replace Social Security altogether with a guaranteed living wage from the start, one that we take with us into retirement . . . Dignity during our working life and after it. <br /><br />Overton Window. Push it dramatically. <br /><br />Then, couldn't Obama still achieve "agreement" by finding some sort of "middle" position between a real left-wing proposal and a rightist one? Logically, the further left we go, the better the eventual outcome if it somehow splits the diff. <br /><br />. . . . <br /><br />That's the part I'm missing. That aspect of creating his own narrative frame, which he seems to have little to no interest in. <br /><br />He wants others to make those proposals, it seems. That they haven't, tells us that the Dem leadership beyond Obama isn't much better about that narrative. <br /><br />"After you, Alphonse." <br /><br />Meanwhile, rightists are cleaning their clock while they say, "no, you first."<br /><br />etc.Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-89548124897176505672011-07-28T21:47:03.743-07:002011-07-28T21:47:03.743-07:00Ché,
So, if what you're saying is correct, Ob...<i>Ché,<br /><br />So, if what you're saying is correct, Obama is all about relative, relational process. Meeting of the minds. Which means, if Obama had appeared on the scene in a different era, he would be seeking compromise between the two sides as they were at that moment. The policy goals would be completely different.</i><br /><br />Yes. Exactly. His Principle is Timeless and is applicable between just about any disputants on almost any topic.<br /><br /><br /><i>An analogy.<br /><br />Let's say fifty years ago the two parties could not reach agreement on saving a certain amount of wilderness. The Dems wanted to set aside one million acres. The Republicans, five hundred thousand. Obama doesn't want to split the difference exactly, because he doesn't want to appear as an unfair weight on the scales, and feels the need to go further in the direction of the opposition, so he pushes for 650,000 acres of wilderness protection.<br /><br />Something like that.<br /><br />But that same human being, today, in totally different circumstances, is probably going to be choosing between 100,000 acres and nothing. So he pushes for 10,000, perhaps, and adds the sweetener of letting in private firms for mining, etc. etc.</i><br /><br />A-yup.<br /><br /><i>Same president wanting to compromise. <b>Compromise being the real goal, not policy.</b> The policy itself isn't his telos. It's agreement somewhere between the existing parties.</i><br /><br />Precisely. We've seen what we believe are excellent policies get jettisoned -- or not even considered -- time and again as Obama keeps pushing <b>agreement</b>, not even so much compromise. He wants more than anything for the parties to come together.<br /><br /><i>In short, we got the wrong guy at the wrong time. But in a different America, he might not have been half bad.<br /><br />An overly generous assessment, perhaps? Or am I just missing your point entirely?</i><br /><br />I don't think I'd put it quite that way. I'm horrified at some of the policies that have come out of his approach and how those policies get adopted (I'm thinking Liz Cheney sniping on behalf of her father from the sidelines), but I am truly amazed at his ability to pull it off. And he is. This is what the lefty snipers can't seem to understand. He <b>is </b>pulling it off -- this transcendence thing -- with the Washington Insider Crew. He's threading a very fine needle. <br /><br />I think from his point of view he's doing fine. Just fine. While the "left" is going crazy at his constant betrayal, and the batshit right is going crazy at his Maoist Communism. <br /><br />I expect him to write a book about it. From his point of view, his actions are happening at exactly the right time. The process of transcendence is extraordinarily difficult, but as long as the pattern is set it at least has the potential to endure. He's trying to transform the role of the President and providing a model for future Presidents.<br /><br />This Debt Crisis Crisis is looking like it will turn out terrible for the masses (was there ever any doubt about that?) and astonishing to the participants and the Palace Courtiers in the media. <br /><br />And Obama will once again be hailed -- and denounced -- for doing the impossible.<br /><br />Well, we'll see, anyway.<br />. . .<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />ChéChé Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-34972844013954053262011-07-28T20:06:55.547-07:002011-07-28T20:06:55.547-07:00Ché,
So, if what you're saying is correct, Ob...Ché,<br /><br />So, if what you're saying is correct, Obama is all about relative, relational process. Meeting of the minds. Which means, if Obama had appeared on the scene in a different era, he would be seeking compromise between the two sides as they were at that moment. The policy goals would be completely different. <br /><br />An analogy. <br /><br />Let's say fifty years ago the two parties could not reach agreement on saving a certain amount of wilderness. The Dems wanted to set aside one million acres. The Republicans, five hundred thousand. Obama doesn't want to split the difference exactly, because he doesn't want to appear as an unfair weight on the scales, and feels the need to go further in the direction of the opposition, so he pushes for 650,000 acres of wilderness protection. <br /><br />Something like that. <br /><br />But that same human being, today, in totally different circumstances, is probably going to be choosing between 100,000 acres and nothing. So he pushes for 10,000, perhaps, and adds the sweetener of letting in private firms for mining, etc. etc. <br /><br />Same president wanting to compromise. Compromise being the real goal, not policy. The policy itself isn't his telos. It's agreement somewhere between the existing parties. <br /><br />In short, we got the wrong guy at the wrong time. But in a different America, he might not have been half bad.<br /><br />An overly generous assessment, perhaps? Or am I just missing your point entirely? <br /><br />. . . <br /><br />Whatever the case, we really live in strange times.Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.com