RSS Feed MenuLike a piece of ordinary furniture painted over to appear to be something it’s not, the veneer is cracking off president Obama’s image of hope and change and what’s emerging is a not so appealing image of arrogance. A man so absorbed in his celebrity he believes the American people will swallow his deficit spending agenda even if it curdles their stomach. But Obama’s determination to get healthcare reform done this summer was the tipping point for Americans. They just couldn’t take it anymore and unleashed their anger and frustration like a tsunami on one town hall meeting after another.
To my surprise an ardent Obama supporter told me recently she didn’t even understand all the reform bills and was tired of hearing the president’s warning that “healthcare is going to bankrupt us.” She added “what does that mean? He says this over and over again but what does it mean?” Though she admitted some type of reform should occur, the fear mongering wasn’t convincing her the time was now. From left, right and center, others agreed they did NOT want the $1 trillion overhaul being proposed but seemed more willing to accept reforms to the existing healthcare system.
But Obama and his stewards chose not to listen and instead dismissed the crowds as “angry mobs” who didn’t represent the majority of American opinion and were orchestrated by you guessed it – that pesky “right wing.” As August got hotter and the voices of discontent grew louder, the public stopped buying the spin. Even liberal-leaning mainstream news outlets, worshipful of the Obama agenda for so long now, have finally become more critical of his agenda, focusing more on his policies and less on his personality. In Sunday’s Washington Post, several articles appeared questioning the president’s ability to lead and his costly, expansion of government, agenda which Americans say like a foreboding Greek chorus “isn’t what they voted for.”
“Today, the energy that powered Obama to victory has begun to dissipate. Some of his supporters remain on the sidelines; others are, if not disillusioned, questioning what has happened to his presidency,” Dan Balz wrote in the Post on September 6th.
Despite what the people are saying, the president appears unwilling to listen, act like a leader, rise above politics, change course and admit he tried to do too much too fast. It seems the media’s idolization of him as the nation’s first charismatic, black president has gone to his head and he believed his election was a mandate to govern as he pleased. Because the media and voters treated him like a rock star, he thought he could use his presidency and good oratory skills to woo the masses into accepting his radical left-wing agenda at any cost.
Not so. The American people have grown weary of the smooth talk, smirks, finger pointing and fear mongering. Before other reporters started writing about it this week, I observed in my first post in May on Frum Forum that President Obama was talking too much and people were starting to tune him out, only hearing “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” I wrote:
It seems like the president’s image is unraveling in recent months and we’re getting a look at the real Obama underneath the PR, razzle, dazzle veneer he sports so well. I think Americans are growing weary of the sparkle, shine and high-spending policies this president is selling and want to see something more. Every week he is on TV holding a press conference for this or that announcement on funding, bailouts or programs to expand government exponentially. As my father exclaimed recently, “when does he have time to run the country, if he’s on television everyday.” This is a question to be pondered. Team Obama may have won the presidency through an innovative public relations campaign but winning over the confidence of Americans and setting the country on the right course will require careful thought, temperance and bipartisan collaboration.
A smile and eloquent speech won’t make it all right.
Back then I warned that the American people would stop listening and that’s exactly what’s happening. “It’s sort of Faux Eloquent Boring, especially on healthcare” wrote Peggy Noonan. “News is surprise, and he never makes news.” (See Peggy Noonan’s article “Coruscating on Thin Ice” and Matt Latimer’s Washington Post piece “A Speeechwriter’s Tip for Obama: Silence is Golden.”)
Responding to my overexposure claim, a Frum Forum reader chided me for suggesting such a thing, writing:
“As my father exclaimed recently, “when does Obama have time to run the country, if he’s on television everyday.” This is a question to be pondered.”
The only question to be pondered here is how a media consultant with 15 years of experience could write such drivel. Like him or not, Obama clearly has the intellect and skill to give a weekly presser AND carry out the rest of his duties, i.e., walk and chew gum simultaneously. (Remember, he’s not clearing brush or getting fellated in his office, so he can “waste” some of his valuable time to communicate with the public.)
That Ms. Wright would post this “argument” as the conclusion to a long post suggests a lack of seriousness and/or depth. Some commenters here want her axed for ideological impurity; but it’s simpler than that–just give her the boot for crappy writing. - palomino70 // May 31, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Fast forward to September: Obama doesn’t seem to be communicating effectively with the public. (Contrary to the blogger’s opinion, I suspect the president has bitten off more than he can chew.) Rather than simply being heard and dismissed as puerile, “angry mobs,” the American people want to be listened to… by the president and members of Congress. They’ve awakened from their infatuation with his personality and his being the “first” in the country’s most exclusive club and finally see him as President of the United States, fallible, and accountable to the American people.
Obama doesn’t like this criticism. (Who would after receiving such princely news coverage before and after his election.) But what’s problematic is he doesn’t appear to be ready to give up his hubris and admit his lofty plans, particularly that the behemoth of healthcare reform is too big a pill for Americans to swallow, even with a spoonful of sugar.
It will be interesting to see if the president offers a fresh plan to Americans on healthcare reform in his speech Wednesday night or more blah, blah, the country doesn’t hear. But if he persists along his current righteous course, he will soon enter the winter of his discontent and eventually may find himself as a not so unique member of the club of one-termers.
If I were in the GOP leadership, I would begin crafting a strategy that offers REAL alternatives to healthcare reform, palatable to the American people, and which clearly demonstrate that some politicians are tuning in to the pulse of the country.
balconesfault // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm
To my surprise an ardent Obama supporter told me recently she didn’t even understand all the reform bills and was tired of hearing the president’s warning that “healthcare is going to bankrupt us.” She added “what does that mean? He says this over and over again but what does it mean?”
Well, if you go back to his July press conference:
“And it’s about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
So let me be clear: If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket.”
“We also know that health care inflation on the curve that it’s on, we’re guaranteed to see Medicare and Medicaid basically break the federal budget. And we know that we’re spending — on average we, here in the United States, are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries where they’re just as healthy.”
So to answer your question – do you believe that it is possible to spend twice as much per capita as any other country on the plant on defense … AND to spend about $6K per family more than our global competitors on healthcare … and to remain economically viable?
sinz54 // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Crystal:
“palomino70″ and “ottovbs”, Obama’s staunchest defenders, who ridiculed and personally insulted anyone who dissented from Obama’s policies, have fled.
Neither one has posted anything in a couple of weeks now. I suspect they won’t be back. They’re no longer enjoying the Obama presidency, and they absolutely hate to face a revived conservative movement.
sinz54 // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm
balconesfault: do you believe that it is possible to spend twice as much per capita as any other country on the plant on defense … AND to spend about $6K per family more than our global competitors on healthcare … and to remain economically viable?
If and when ObamaCare goes into effect, we’ll be spending $7K per family on healthcare. ObamaCare expands Medicaid coverage to millions more Americans, rather than cutting Medicaid.
If Obama is concerned about the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid (as he should well be), then let him propose a program to contain the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. You don’t fix one failing program by expanding it while creating another separate program.
That’s been the problem with Obama’s message all along. It’s full of non sequiturs and oxymorons.
balconesfault // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm
If and when ObamaCare goes into effect, we’ll be spending $7K per family on healthcare.
You are speaking specifically of federal outlays – Obama is speaking of societal costs.
then let him propose a program to contain the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid
He already started talking about this, and was met with the “he’s out to kill grandmaw!” attack from such moderate voices as Chuck Grassley.
Churl // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Yes, Ms. Wright the paint, if not the wheels, seems to be coming off the Obama juggernaut.
In light of this, what ought conservatives to do? Anyone can dabble in theories of Obama’s position or what he could be doing but the learned chatterers posting here don’t seem to offer advice for any concrete action.
The much denigrated tea partiers, talk radio yakkers, Palinistas, and town hall activists are at least having a discernable impact on events.
ConArtist // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Obama shouldn’t be intimidated by a fringe movement who compare him to Hitler and want their government hands off Medicare. This is not representative of America. These people revel in their ignorance and this site is designed to bring back intelligence to conservatism not substantiate the loco’s who’ve hindered the GOP for too long.
Insurance companies are busy muddling the message and buying off Congressmen left and right. That’s why the public is confused. If the media is so enamored with Obama, why would there be a backlash? And who would cover it? It’s so frustrating to hear the cliche complaints this column is riddled with. Instead of wasting time ‘commiserating’ over the demise of Obama’s presidency thus far, how about intellectually providing something insightful to counter him? Instead of being the party of no, why not be the party of real reform?
Oneon1isto // Sep 8, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Despite what the people are saying, the president appears unwilling to listen, act like a leader, rise above politics, change course and admit he tried to do too much too fast. It seems the media’s idolization of him as the nation’s first charismatic, black president has gone to his head and he believed his election was a mandate to govern as he pleased. Because the media and voters treated him like a rock star, he thought he could use his presidency and good oratory skills to woo the masses into accepting his radical left-wing agenda at any cost.”
I’m not sure you’re very clear on how Obama is governing. His actions do not follow, at all, with your depiction. He’s left Healthcare legislation largely up to the legislators and has used his oratory skills to push a broad agenda that is largely being pushed by other actors. In fact, his biggest fault has probably been his hedging and pressing for a variety of solutions. Hell, he’s sat down and worked with drug and insurance companies, to the horror of left wing ideologues. He’s allowing legislators to duke it out with their constituents, not going toe to toe with them himself. He’s acting like a President, not like a dictator.
He has ticked off a lot of people in this debate, especially on his side. I think this paragraph reveals an unerring and unchanging view of him that reflects more your opinion than any fact based in reality. Parroting Noonan doesn’t help either.
I can agree with you on one thing though: “If I were in the GOP leadership, I would begin crafting a strategy that offers REAL alternatives to healthcare reform, palatable to the American people, and which clearly demonstrate that some politicians are tuning in to the pulse of the country.”
True that. True that. (oh and lets see if those bold markers work)
agentprovocateur // Sep 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm
If I were in the GOP leadership, I would begin crafting a strategy that offers REAL alternatives to healthcare reform, palatable to the American people, and which clearly demonstrate that some politicians are tuning in to the pulse of the country.
So when exactly will that happen? And who exactly will be crafting that strategy? John Boehner? Mitch Mcconnell? Eric Cantor? Pardon me while I try to stifle a guffaw or two.
brandon // Sep 8, 2009 at 7:45 pm
As I said on another thread, the fact that Obama having so many problems after 9 months shouldn’t be surprising to anyone because we have elected the most inexperienced president in history.
Obama doesn’t seem to understand that the campaign is over. The public is tired of him being in constant campaign mode. Unemployment is almost at 10%, they’d like to see their president governing not just making speeches full of platitudes.
“And who exactly will be crafting that strategy?” I think we should look to a state governor like Bobby Jindal or Tim Pawlenty.
anniemargret // Sep 8, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Obama’s 9 months into the presidency and has been handed a mess of two wars, a failing economy, a demoralized nation that is imploding from within with ongoing culture wars created and dominated by right wing talk radio and TV, suffering from a cadre of right wingers with a hatred so intense at times that it borders on insanity, a political party who would shred him to bits so that he cannot achieve one good thing for this country, a healthcare crisis affecting millions, an understanding and a willingness to take it on, a huge undertaking that Republicans never even bothered with…
….and his ‘honeymoon is over?” Unbelievable.
As far as his ‘platitudes,’ I would much prefer Obama’s inspiring ‘platitudes’ than Bushims, which made everyone cringe.
Jindal? His deer in the headlights rebuttal speech put an end to his effectiveness.
Pawlenty? ho-hum…yet another right wing panderer – the same old Palinesque nonsense (what foreign experience- you can’t even see Russia from Minnesota) – and what did he say now about ‘forcing’ children to listen to the President of the US speak about education? And he’s about as exciting as cream cheese on a saltine. Even ‘ole Newt would be more interesting.
brandon // Sep 8, 2009 at 10:24 pm
You guys really need to quit with the “he’s better than Bush” or “look what he inherited from Bush” routine. Reagan inherited a mess both in the economy and in foreign affairs and I don’t remember him one time blaming Carter for his inability to get the country moving in the right direction during his first year in office.
Don’t count out Gov. Jindal just because of one bad speech. He’s doing a good job in Louisiana and is only 38. Remember Bill Clinton had a bad speech at the 1988 convention and he did ok 4 years later.
anniemargret // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Re: Jindal: But a bad speech is a death knell for a politician . True, he could make a comeback. But your party needs a very dynamic, very intelligent, very anti-Beck/Palin lunacy individual who can bring it back from the right wing abyss where it has now mired itself.
Brandon: c’mon. Bush was inarticulate. He might be a good guy, and I think he is at the core, but he was led by the neocons into a bad ideology, that didn’t work, despite the manipulation of the facts.
Remember that commercial when EF Hutton walked in, everyone stopped talking….and listened? If you don’t have that, it simply won’t work.
The way to win is to offer constructive ideas for reform, in a ‘gentle’ voice. People don’t like being shouted at, harangued, insulted, or dismissed. There are few Republicans now trying to do that but they are being drowned out by the hysterics and lying liars who get paid for the lying lies.
The GOP doesn’t even resemble a national party of ideas and distinction anymore.
It has morphed into a Demolition Team.
balconesfault // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:35 pm
You were saying?
Reagan’s inaugural address, 1981:
These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. …
Reagan’s first economc speect, Feb 1981:
The Federal budget is out of control, and we face runaway deficits of almost $80 billion for this budget year that ends September 30th. That deficit is larger than the entire Federal budget in 1957, and so is the almost $80 billion we will pay in interest this year on the national debt.
Twenty years ago, in 1960, our Federal Government payroll was less than $13 billion. Today it is 75 billion. During these 20 years our population has only increased by 23.3 percent. The Federal budget has gone up 528 percent.
Now, we’ve just had 2 years of back-to-back double-digit inflation — 13.3 percent in 1979, 12.4 percent last year. The last time this happened was in World War I. … I’m sure you’re getting the idea that the audit presented to me found government policies of the last few decades responsible for our economic troubles.
Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery
September 24, 1981
But let me be the first to say that our problems won’t suddenly disappear next week, next month, or next year. We’re just starting down a road that I believe will lead us out of the economic swamp we’ve been in for so long. It’ll take time for the effect of the tax rate reductions to be felt in increased savings, productivity, and new jobs. It will also take time for the budget cuts to reduce the deficits which have brought us near runaway inflation and ruinous interest rates.
…
These deficits have been piling up every year, and some people here in Washington just throw up their hands in despair. Maybe you’ll remember that we were told in the spring of 1980 that the 1981 budget, the one we have now, would be balanced. Well, that budget, like so many in the past, hemorrhaged badly and wound up in a sea of red ink.
State of the Union, 2002
In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history – 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed.
Late in 1981, we sank into the present recession – largely because continued high interest rates hurt the auto industry and construction. And there was a drop in productivity and the already high unemployment increased.
…
Already interest rates are down to 15 3/4 percent, but they must still go lower. Inflation is down from 12.4 percent to 8.9, and for the month of December it was running at an annualized rate of 5.2 percent.
…
First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend.
Second, because our economic problems are deeply rooted and will not respond to quick political fixes, we must stick to our carefully integrated plan for recovery.
Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1983 Federal Budget
April 29, 1982
Now, if I may, let me take you back a little. In 1977, when the previous administration took office, inflation was 4.8 percent. It rose steadily, and in 1979 and ‘80 we had 2 years of back-to-back double-digit inflation. Unemployment started to increase, and by 1980 we were in a recession with nearly 8 million unemployed, inflation at 12.4 percent, and interest rates at 21\1/2\ percent. As those interest rates continued, home construction and automobiles were hard hit, because few could afford to take out a mortgage or buy a car on time. Unemployment continued to increase.
The 1981 budget was already in place when our administration began, and while we managed to effect several billions of dollars savings during the balance of the fiscal year, there was nothing we could do but set our sights on the 1982 budget, which would be our first. We had to reduce the built-in rate of increase. At the same time, we had to reduce the share of the people’s earnings the government was taking in taxes.
Now, this may sound strange in view of the increased spending, and it was contrary to the philosophy of the Democratic leadership. But high taxes, destroying incentive, had contributed to reduced productivity and a reduction in savings, which left us without the capital we needed for industrial expansion. And because government always finds a need for whatever money it gets, the cost of government continued to go up.
Between 1976 and 1981, Federal tax revenues increased by $300 billion. Deficits ran $318 billion. There was no way we could get the rate of spending down to where it should be in one year.
brandon // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:51 pm
I don’t disagree with a word you said Annie about Bush or what my party needs to do over the next few years. I’m just saying I wouldn’t count out Bobby Jindal just yet. He could run in 2032 and still only be 61. I would say he is very different from the Palin model and if he can reform Louisiana, he could very well be that “gentle voice” you mention.
He’s very much a traditional Catholic and would be heavily criticized by some for his very conservative religious beliefs. But for most Americans, this would not be a negative issue.
As to Reagan, I guess he did mention the previous administration but I certainly don’t remember his supporters going on and on about Carter like so many of Obama’s fans do about Bush. It seems like any criticism of Obama is met with, well Bush was worse. Can’t we have a better standard to judge than George Bush?
balconesfault // Sep 9, 2009 at 12:04 am
As to Reagan, I guess he did mention the previous administration but I certainly don’t remember his supporters going on and on about Carter like so many of Obama’s fans do about Bush.
Please – Reagan was the model of restraint compared to his supporters. It would take little digging through the archives of the National Review and other conservative journals to find a constant defense of Reagan based on how bad Carter was … in fact, I’d argue that Carter’s legacy is far far worse than it would have been had not right wing commentators not chosen to build up Reagan’s failed Presidency (if you consider that one of his primary goals upon entering office was to balance the budget, yet he left after doubling the debt) by doing everything they could to trash Carter’s Presidency (and this isn’t a defense of Carter, who was at best mediocre).
It seems like any criticism of Obama is met with, well Bush was worse.
The reality is that the right wing decided to press a full on assault of Obama from the moment he took office. Can you imagine, for example, what the reaction in 2001 would have been had Clinton or Gore taken on George Bush’s policies in the way that Dick Cheney has been waging a constant assault on Obama?
The defense of Obama based on Bush is twofold. First, Obama did inherit a dungheap of an economy, and two extremely costly wars. Second, as I keep noting, Republicans keep trying to mount ideological arguments against Obama for “expanding Socialism” when they nominated Bush in 2004 without challenge after he had pushed through the largest expansion of Medicare funding committments since it was created. That suggests that they aren’t really dedicated to their ideology, but simply to winning.
greg_barton // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 am
Jeez, balconesfault, stop making sense already!
raygun // Sep 9, 2009 at 6:51 am
Just when I thought this writer had gone away. Please Frum, stop this.
anniemargret // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:35 am
Jindal appears like a classy guy, but the GOP doesn’t like classy people nowadays. The screechier, the more rabid, the more hateful, the more insane, the better. Just look who they are upholding as their leaders…
Frum originally said that the GOP may have to go into the wilderness for many years yet and lose and continue to lose until they come to their senses. When I think back, and I am old enough to do this, to former Republican presidents, one sees articulate, classy gentlemen, able to steer well away from the extremists of their party. You didn’t have to always agree with their political philosophy, but there was no mounting wall of noise so loud, no immediate efforts to break down anything remotely positive from the elected president so that he could not govern effectively.
Republicans are fond of saying that they are more ‘patriotic’ than the rest of us. But patriotism is love of country, not party. It is doing what is best for the nation, and not just to pacify party members. They can address the issues and there can be healthy debate, but tearing down Obama at every turn, just proves they cannot debate the issues, and that their single purpose is to destroy. Patriotic? I think not. Nine months into office and he is being trashed at every turn. Does anyone think he can do anything that will win the respect from anyone in the Republican party? Oh wait…I think Newt Gingrich praised his ‘education speech’ to the kids.
There is nothing wrong with ‘conservative religious beliefs’ Brandon. When John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic president in America, he was excoriated immediately by those who distrusted his Catholicism, or who were frightened that the “Catholic agenda’ would prevail. Kennedy, however, had the political savvy and understanding that politics and religion do not mix. And he believed in our constitution of separation of church and state. He never dismissed or ignored his own *personal* Catholicism, but he also reassured Americans he would president of the ALL the people, not just some.
That is the difference. Jindal can honor his religion and his integrity as a Roman Catholic (I’m no longer a strict church-going Catholic, but I still try to live by its principles), but he cannot come across as a Christianist (Andrew Sullivan’s apt term) for those that are bent on destroying separation of church and state, and who want to ‘christianize the government.’ There is a world of difference between the two.
And if he is Catholic then he cannot ignore the issue poverty and suffering. That is what Christianity is all about. Which means he cannot ignore the healthcare issue with impunity or pretend it doesn’t matter.
And yes, we must examine what Bush and Cheney did wrong. And if they did wrong then they must have the moral courage to admit it, and right the wrong. My own party, the Democrats, long tried to say Clinton’s adultery didn’t matter, but of course it did. It destroyed the party for years. It is only when the glaring faults are held up to the light of day and rectified that a party grows up and addresses the issues most pressing on Americans.
sinz54 // Sep 9, 2009 at 10:00 am
anniemargaret: You didn’t have to always agree with their political philosophy, but there was no mounting wall of noise so loud, no immediate efforts to break down anything remotely positive from the elected president so that he could not govern effectively.
Do you remember how in 1968, the radical Left made it impossible for the President to govern effectively, and made it impossible for his Vice President to campaign for the Presidency after him? There was quite a “mounting wall of noise” back then, as I recall. Do you want details?
Do you want details as to how conservative speakers have been heckled by the radical Left ever since, and prevented from speaking at universities, at public forums, and even at conservative forums? Are you aware how many conservative speakers have been hit with rotten tomatoes, and even with pies in the face, making it impossible for them to have their say in public?
Don’t you get it?
Your left-wing activist friends INVENTED the “mounting wall of noise,” from the 1960s onward. Your friends had many names for it: Confrontation politics. Guerrilla theatre. Direct action.
The right-wing watched the Left very carefully. And now they’re following the same playbook.
Personally, I didn’t think it was necessary–either then or today. But IF you believe your government has truly become Fascist and oppressive (as the student radicals of the 1960s did, and as the right wing Tea Partiers do today), then you’ll believe it’s necessary.
sinz54 // Sep 9, 2009 at 10:14 am
balconesfault:
Reagan’s presidency was a success. Historians have rated him one of the 10 or maybe 12 greatest American presidents.
I lived through that era–did you? I was drowning financially under the Carter stagflation. Where were you? Were you living through that era too? Somehow I doubt it. I think you were born after 1980, and all you know about the Carter and Reagan years you got from some left-wing professors. Am I getting warm on any of these?
Among Reagan’s successes were the ending of stagflation, the ending of gasoline shortages and gas lines, the lowering of fuel prices, the bringing the Cold War to nearly a successful conclusion with the U.S. completely victorious over the Soviet bloc (something no liberals had ever believed was possible). It took his successor, Bush 41, to just put the finishing touches on that job. Since I’m old enough to have had to have done “duck and cover” drills in elementary school, that meant a great deal to me.
And most importantly, Reagan’s uplifting speeches helped to restore pride and optimism to the American people after the disasters of the 1970s. Americans felt good about America again, after a decade of listening to liberals that they should feel guilty and ashamed about America’s track record. And after listening to four years of Carter that the best we can do is accept gracefully endless fuel shortages and a lessened position in the world.
Reagan failed to balance the budget, but that was because the liberal Dem House Speaker, Tip O’Neill, flatly refused to go along with any Reagan cuts in social programs. Reagan wanted to cut the Federal budget but O’Neill wouldn’t let him. O’Neill was also opposed to Reagan’s military modernization program. In fact, O’Neill was flatly opposed to everything Reagan was trying to do, despite Reagan’s landslide election victory (see, you Dems were rabidly partisan as a minority too). Reagan had a hard decision to make, and he made it. He cut a deal with O’Neill to back his military modernization program and not interfere with foreign policy, in exchange for Reagan giving up his plans to cut social programs.
You liberals will always despise Reagan precisely because his presidency was successful. It made conservatism respectable and liberalism rejected for the next 30 years.
Frankly, I’m sick and tired of left-wing historical revisionism, and always having to set the record straight. I’m willing to give Democratic presidents their due when they do good things. That liberals refuse to give any credit to conservative presidents, ever, for anything, gives the lie to the idea that they are ever interested in “bipartisanship.”
balconesfault // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:51 am
sinz: Your left-wing activist friends INVENTED the “mounting wall of noise,” from the 1960s onward. Your friends had many names for it: Confrontation politics. Guerrilla theatre. Direct action.
The right-wing watched the Left very carefully. And now they’re following the same playbook.
But that’s the problem, in my opinion.
Radical behavior is … shall we say … unbecoming for conservatives? In essence, in embracing radical tactics, they no longer are conservative – they are reactionary.
There is nothing conservative about screaming down an opposing speaker. There is nothing conservative about circulating blood libels about your opponent for political gain. There is nothing conservative about being willing to abandon your own principles as a political tactic simply to inflame people.
In essence, there is no conservative soul to conservatism today – the embrace of the tactics you mention have eaten it like a cancer. Which in large part is why the Bush years were such an extraordinary disaster … and why it’s no stretch to imagine that until some serious soul searching is done by the party, and these tactics are rejected, any other Republican who gains the power of the Presidency in such an environment will likely end up being even worse than Bush.
balconesfault // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:54 am
Somehow I doubt it. I think you were born after 1980, and all you know about the Carter and Reagan years you got from some left-wing professors. Am I getting warm on any of these?
Nope. Worked for Richard Nixon (and Texas Gubernatorial Candidate John Grover) in 1972, worked for Ford in 1976, and cast my first Presidential vote for John Anderson in 1980. You’re cold as can be.
balconesfault // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:56 am
He cut a deal with O’Neill to back his military modernization program and not interfere with foreign policy, in exchange for Reagan giving up his plans to cut social programs.
In other words, you let me spend a lot of money the way I want to … and I’ll let you spend a lot of money the way you want to … and the deficit be damned.
The true success of Reagan Conservatism.
brandon // Sep 9, 2009 at 1:13 pm
You want the true success of Reagan Conservatism?
How about 96 months of economic growth (largest peacetime expansion in history), 18 million new jobs, the GNP being enlarged by a third and government revenues doubling.
balconesfault // Sep 9, 2009 at 3:04 pm
How about 96 months of economic growth (largest peacetime expansion in history)
96 months of economic growth, coupled with 96 months of 2% of GDP deficit spending. How perfectly Keynesian of you.
18 million new jobs
Which makes a good case for people holding their criticisms of Obama right now – since when Reagan took office the unemployment rate was about 8%, and it ran up to around 10.5% for the next couple years before reducing to about 7.5% in the 4th year of Reagan’s term. In other words, at this stage in his Presidency, Reagan was overseeing the worst job loss in decades.
government revenues doubling
Not quite. Total receipts in 1980 were 517 billion … in 1988 were 909 billion.
Maybe you were thinking of Social Security receipts, which more than doubled, from 158 billion to 334 billion, thanks to Reagan pushing the massive increase in Social Security taxes.
Although it’s really best to talk of these things in constant dollars, and not current, since inflation clouds the picture.
In constant 2000 dollars, Reagan increased receipts from 1,028 billion in 1980, to 1,235 billion in 1988. Maybe you were thinking of the Clinton boom, when receipts (constant 2000 dollars) increased from 1,282 billion (1992) to 2,025 billion (2000)?
Feel free to interject how growth in government revenue (which is stealing from the people, right?) shouldn’t be a metric anyhow, and you don’t know why you put that in there…