| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| How Obama can avoid a policy jam |
| 2009-03-17 |
| By Clive Crook Clive Crook of the Financial Times was one of the first highly supportive OPed writers to begin to seriously question Obama and the administration. This is an interesating piece as it discloses that Clive is still struggling emotionally with the disaster he sees intellectually but can't come to admit he was just conned. A new conventional wisdom is forming in Washington and it spells trouble for Barack Obama's administration. Coming from the president's own side as well as from his enemies, the argument says he has taken on far too much. This has been the theme of a torrent of recent commentary. The criticism has instant superficial plausibility and it is bipartisan, which makes it dangerous for the administration. But is it fair? I understand the criticism but I think it is not quite right. The White House felt it had to respond directly at the end of last week. "The truth is that these problems in the financial market, as acute and urgent as they are, are only part of what threatens our economy," said Mr Obama. "And we must not use the need to confront them as an excuse to keep ignoring the long-term threats to our prosperity: the cost of our healthcare and our oil addiction; our education deficit and our fiscal deficit ... We must build this recovery on a foundation that lasts." Mr Obama's effort to fold the wider agenda of healthcare reform, new investment in education and a quasi-tax on carbon emissions into the short-term plans for addressing the economic crisis is not at all convincing. These are patently separable issues. Moreover, the administration surrendered its credibility this early on when it said, in the words of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." The administration itself thus declared, in memorably hubristic terms, that it is seizing an opportunity, rather than battling on all fronts because it has no choice. To this point Clive is stating the obvious and quite eloquently. Then he does what Obama does. He creates a straw circumstance [as distinct from a straw man ] However, suppose for the sake of argument that the administration is right -- as I believe it is -- to want to reform healthcare, bring in a quasi-tax on carbon and invest in an upgraded education system. At the same time we can take it for granted that the overriding short-term priority is to mend the financial system and promote economic recovery: nobody disagrees with that. The crucial calculation is then about momentum on one side and capacity on the other. So Clive has taken a complete leap simply because he thinks its all a good idea. Essentially from here on in then you can't expect too much. But that is the interesting point as Clive struggles with the intellectual contradictions. The White House is concerned that if it does not seize the moment its wider agenda will be lost. Its initial remarkable popularity, and its majorities in Congress, may not last. At the very least, it must put its plans firmly on the table, preferably with numbers attached, before the politics turns more difficult. This is a legitimate consideration. Advocates of the wide agenda then have to balance their desire to "seize the moment" against the system's capacity -- administrative, legislative and political -- to deliver. Has the Treasury been slow to announce the details of its bank rescue plan because it has been distracted by work on those other issues? If so, the administration is failing to prioritise sensibly; you could go further and say it has lost its mind. But this is not the case. Why not? Clive can't answer his own perceptive question. Why the plan is taking so long to emerge is a puzzle, although a lack of senior manpower in the department is doubtless partly to blame. No its not a puzzle at all when you realize that you have the second string batting and they are undermanned. Lack of talent, focus, competence. Say what you will. It takes supreme incompetence not to see what the problem is and not at least make and attempt at addressing it particularly when the Senate overlooked Geithner's tax faux pas because he was the brightest in the class, the only person who could deal with it. But the problem is not -- not yet, anyway -- that Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has other issues jostling for his attention. No its just incompetence The planning for healthcare reform, cap and trade, and education is on other people's desks. So for all his searching, Clive can't come to the obvious answer. Legislative capacity is a second bottleneck. In due course, the writing of all this new law threatens a logjam in Congress. The administration knows it will have to pace its congressional agenda with care. This could easily go wrong but for now it is no reason to defer announcing its resolve to move on the issues. So far, that is really all it has done. The $634bn (£454bn, €490bn) in the budget for healthcare reform, for instance, was a declaration of intent, not a worked out proposal making instant demands on Congress. Political capacity is the real key, and here is where I would question the administration's judgment. Only here?? The prospects for Mr Obama's agenda depend on his ability to marshal political capital and spend it wisely. In the simplest terms, he needs to stay as popular as he can for as long as possible. Once his approval ratings slide -- and they show the first signs of doing so -- he is sunk. This is why the "overload" critique is so significant: not because it is correct on the merits but because it is plausible and bipartisan and will erode his standing with the electorate. Again Clive is absolutely correct. The thing is the slide is already underway showing up in the polls on the programs. The polls on popularity are sliding as well and will quicken pace in a week or so. There isn't enough time. So Clive is hoping there is enough time. There isn't. Mr Obama came to the presidency uniquely equipped to command and retain the confidence of the country -- not just his own party. He was elected because he was a hit with centrists, and because of exhaustion with a Republican party associated with incompetence and a rigid, divisive ideology. The US wanted to come together and Mr Obama looked the most intent on making that happen. To a surprising degree, Mr Obama is failing to play to that strength. Why is this surprising? 46% of the population could see through him. Now the rest are catching on. Incompetence, inability to administer, allinsky, take your pick As I have previously argued, his budget made no effort to keep centrists on board: it enchanted the left of the Democratic party and might have been calculated to infuriate moderate Republicans. Some of the White House's recent political stunts -- such as the plot to anoint Rush Limbaugh, the talk-radio loudmouth, as de facto head of the Republican party -- are old-fashioned Washington politics at its worst: polarising, juvenile and unserious. Correct again Clive. Mr Obama was supposed to be above all that. This perception was his greatest asset. He has let it depreciate in recent days and the prospects for his ambitious and mostly admirable agenda are diminishing with it. Correct again. It is interesting though to watch Clive struggle with his "hope" and the intellectual perception that it is all a big con. But he just can't admit he was taken in. He still wants to believe. He still has hope. He is not yet in mourning but is close. Sooner or later he will just be totally pissed off that he was suckered. |
| Posted by:Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 |
| #2 I can see the REpublican panick at teh wide ambitious agenda. It will undo all their shinanigans, prevent their rich crooked friends from ever swindling and sucking cash from Americans. These poor fellows will have to deliver 'value' and accept a day's wage like the rest of us. These descendatns of slave owners and money swindlers are done for now at least. Good riddance. |
| Posted by: Big Crinemp9511 2009-03-17 23:49 |
| #1 An Obama policy jam sounds yummy to me. Got bread? |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-03-17 11:47 |