Obama's extreme makeover for America gets thumbs down from the voters
Like a window broken and falling to pieces in slow motion, the Obama dream (some would say fantasy) is shattered. The pieces haven’t hit the floor yet, but the collapse raises serious questions about whether Obama will be a one-term president.
The Massachusetts senatorial election was the blow that did the job, but the arm that wielded the hammer was the electorate—American voters angry and alarmed by Obama’s attempt to transform American society into something they would not recognize and do not want.
Barack Obama was elected for just one reason: he was the man the majority of voters thought could fix the economy, give them their jobs back, and repair the 401(k)s. Instead of focusing on those tasks, the President, believing he had a mandate to redo America, attempted to rush through Congress a leftist agenda. He almost succeeded.
As pointed out by Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal, Obama was a blank slate when he appeared on the presidential campaign scene. People were free to fill that blank with anything they wanted, and they projected their desires and fantasies onto it. After years of reckless Republican spending and missteps, he appeared to be a savior.
The shards of broken glass falling to the floor include his health care bill, the cap-and-trade climate proposal, the Manhattan trial of the 9/11 masterminds, the Mirandizing and criminal trial for the Detroit underwear bomber, the bowing to the Saudi Arabia royalty and Japanese emperor, the apologies to one and all for American “arrogance” after 9/11, and the failed effort to butter up Iran and sweet talk it out of its nuclear ambitions.
Of course, they still love him in Europe, but the romance with American voters shows signs of wilting. Simply put, Americans love their country, they believe in American exceptionalism (even if they can’t explain it), and they do not feel America has to apologize to anybody. Americans readily admit that their country is far from perfect, but with Lincoln they believe we are the world’s Last Best Hope.
One cannot help be reminded of two recent one-term presidents. Jimmy Carter had the same apologetic approach to his people, telling them that they suffered from a “malaise” of materialism. As historian Paul Johnson has pointed out, Carter played down the grandeur of the American presidency, banning “Hail to the Chief” when he entered the room, letting it be known that while working he wore a sweater (presumably after turning down the heat), and did everything he could to show Americans how to be humble. The Iranians took him seriously and held the American embassy hostage, humiliating Carter and the Great Satan .
Americans didn’t buy Carter’s vision, any more than they did the hesitancy of President Gerald Ford, who historian Johnson believes suffered from a feeling of inferiority because he had not been elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency. Neither of them reminded Americans that they were who they were and where they had come from.
But America embraced Ronald Reagan, who made them believe in themselves again. Reagan was likeable, but in many ways he was lazy and woefully ignorant of the important fundamentals needed to govern. But Reagan was a fair man, believed in four or five important principles, would not compromise them, was strong willed, and was a great communicator. Under Reagan the economy and the nation arose from its “malaise.” In the world arena Reagan’s adherence to simple human principles brought the Soviet Union crashing down. Who can forget, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?”
And how the media shuddered when Reagan called the Soviets an Evil Empire. Soviet Communism was probably the most evil institution that ever plagued the earth, but those on the left felt we should step softly, because, after all, the Soviets believed in their version of truth just as much as we believed in ours. And, as the pundit said, the Russians were insecure, while we knew “who we are.” Psychobabble was as prevalent then as it is now.
Whether Obama can pick up the pieces, change course, and inspire the American people the way Reagan did is questionable. He is part of the elite left—well educated, nimble with words, and convinced that the unwashed masses want what he offers but just don’t know it yet. He still talks about full speed ahead, and you wonder if he gets it yet. Americans don’t want what he is selling.
He has three more years in his term. For the sake of the nation, we have to wish him success. Iran is moving toward a nuclear bomb, Israeli jets are on the runway ready to attack Iran, and the economy is still fragile with the jobs picture still clouded. Meanwhile, waiting in the shadows is Al Qaeda, planning its next murderous attack on American soil. We need a good president.
Let’s hope Obama is not Humpty Dumpty.
- Stan Latreille's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
ABOUT STAN LATREILLE
Stan Latreille is a retired Livingston County Circuit Court judge. He served on the court for 26 years before retiring in 2009. Stan is also a former newspaper reporter at the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. He is also a published novelist, having penned “Perjury,” a courtroom mystery.
Straight Talk
Today's Featured Blogs
Tak Stan with a grain of salt, and head for the herbs
Stan is over rating the Mass. senatorial election. Here is the reality check on the race. The democratic opponent was so into her election race, she took a vacation, refused to go out into the public and did everything possible not to be liked. Coakley's meeting with lobbyist raised concerns about her among some of the democrats, causing others to hang back from her.
On the other side, Brown backed by Mitt Romney, had the heavy hitters in Mitts failed presidential election working for him. Romney is so dislike by the right, as well as the left, in Mass., he had to stay out of sight during the race, or Mitt would have tainted the possibilities of Brown winning the elections; which was the reason many in Mass. were shocked at Romneys appearance at Browns celebration announcing his win.
Maybe, Stan was drawn to the titillating side of Brown run; articles ran in Mass., after Browns win, regarding Mass. now being represented by porn stars, referring to Browns naked photo opts, and Browns wife appearance in a rock n’ roll video called “ The Girl with the Curious Hand”. The reality check is, Brown has yet to prove himself in office, and it says a lot on the quirkiness of people when Brown soared to the top of the republican polls, when people do not know how he will be in office.
Since you never answered my question...
Of "which of President Obama's policies do you feel are left of center?", I'll rephrase it to be:
How do you define the 'center' on the political issues of today? (Health Care; Government Stimulus; Banking Regulations and other Free-Market Regulations; Environmental Protection; etc)
I'll start with health care:
-The left would like a single-payer system.
-The center would like a regulated free-market system with a public option.
-The right would like an unregulated free-market system.
Government stimulus:
-The left wants the government to spend even more money to kick-start the economy. They feel that only the government is able to take on the risk of spending in a bad economy, so only they can turn it around.
-The right wants the government to decrease as much spending as they can (effectively having thousands of government employees lose their jobs), and cut taxes as much as possible. They feel that the low taxes are the only way to get businesses to start hiring in a bad economy.
-I'm not sure where the center would be there.
Regulation:
-The far left wants heavy regulations on businesses in order to protect consumers. They want to put their trust in government to have the people's best interest.
-The far right want absolutely no regulations on business, putting all of their trust in the free market to react appropriately.
-I would say the center sees that since President Reagan, we have been following the right's idealogy much more so than the left, and that has not worked out for us that well. So they feel that only government can protect the people from the potential harms of business.
Environmental protection:
-The left wants to do what we can to protect the environment, and that means regulating businesses. They are willing to admit that there could be negative economic impacts, but also many positive economic opportunities to outweigh the downsides, so it's a win-win.
-The far right doesn't even believe an environmental problem exists, so why would they do anything to solve the problem. Some feel climate change is a hoax fabricated by "liberal scientists". Others know that climate change is real, but they feel that humans are not the cause. Both of those groups though want to do nothing.
-The center is much more logical than the right. We can leave it at that.
Please let me know where you disagree; how you define the "center" that President Obama's policies are so far left of.
Herbs are better
Justice is blind?
“Blind trust in anybody except the Almighty is unwise.”
Stan, people learned that when you were on the bench.
Better than salt, use herbs
http://1stholistic.com/Recipes/condiment_herbal-salt-substitute.htm
Broken Obama
Great article! Written with the proper mix of hope and reality.
Why do some insist the people are stupid?
Thanks. I do wonder why so many think the American people are like sheep, so easily swayed. I am referring to those who insist that what President Obama proposed is what the electorate really wants and needs, but that the evil Glen Becks perverted the message and caused overwhelming support to collapse like a baloon. This thinkiing is a variation of elitism: we know what's best for you because you are too ignorant to understand.
Consent of the governed is a bedrock principle of this nation, and it looks like the governed haven't consented.
You are kidding, right?
President Obama is proposing the changes he campaigned on, he is not proposing anything he was not elected to do. In case you have never followed Democratic politics, national health care is BIG. There were no Democrats who said they didn't want national health care reform who ran for President. And yes, we still want it and some of us are getting angrier than those Tea Bag people because the Democrats in office aren't getting the job done.
So much of the falling poll numbers are because we, the majority are getting very disgruntled.
We expect to get this passed in the next 3-4 weeks, if not, hold on to your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride!
Broken Obama
Judge Latreille once again provides learned insight to the current and future problems facing this nation. The unbalanced and polarized congress is much at fault. This nation should never have a total majority administration/congress. Fortunately this problem will resolve itself over the next few months. When sanity returns to Washington the fiscal responsiblities of our elected officials will hopefully scale back to reality the hugh deficits they are planning. We can no longer afford to be subjected to the irresponcible meanderings of elected officials filled with self importance. Government "of the people, for the people, by the people" must always prevail.
Polarized? So what's new?
Yes, Congress is sharplly divided, as is the nation. I am reading a history of the U.S. and note how volatile things were in the new nation--the Federalist v the Republicans. Democracy is an untidy business, but think of how lucky we are to able to speak like this and argue about politics. As we speak (or write) people in China and Iran are being denied this right.
Thanks for your comment.
Take it with a grain of salt
After reading Stan’s article it leaves one with the feeling Stan has his entire library filled with Glenn Becks books. People, who read Stan, need to learn: A little salt may be good, no salt healthy and to take Stan with a grain of salt.
Stan who do you think should be the next president, since we know you will not be voting for Obama?
Remember, salt is good for seasoning
Take me with a grain of salt? Of course. Blind trust in anybody except the Almighty is unwise. As for my vote next time around, who knows? President Obama is intelligent, quick, and hard working. He may yet develop into a seasoned veteran and our best president ever.
Use Herbs
Justice is blind?
“Blind trust in anybody except the Almighty is unwise.”
Stan, people learned that when you were on the bench.
Better than salt, use herbs
http://1stholistic.com/Recipes/condiment_herbal-salt-substitute.htm
Obama and baseball
Thoughtful and spot-on analysis, Stan.
We'll have to see where history takes his presidency, but so far, Barack Obama reminds me of a brilliant AAA pitcher who was rushed to the Major Leagues before he was ready. I think he's a brilliant man and an excellent advocate of liberal causes. I also think he wasn't ready to be president yet. He could have used another 10-20 years in the Senate.
He had the potential of being a truly great liberal president (not necessarily a great president, but a great liberal president) in 2016 or 2020. Right now, though, he's crashing and burning.
Your fantasy is showing
Talk about fantasy, crash and burn? You have got to be kidding!
Drama
The pure drama with which you write makes it difficult for me to even finish your post. Shards of broke glass? Really?
There is no "Extreme Makeover" as you put it going on. The Democrats who won in 2008 see the importance of Health Care reform and are working to repair a broken system, which by the way will happen. Maybe it is the broken health care shards of glass you really are meaning to discuss?
There will be Clean Energy and Climate Protection legislation that hopefully will be bi-partisan, but I am not counting on it.
President Obama will stop "Don't ask, don't tell" in our military. I expect immigration reform to happen closer to the election when people can really see how much we really care about human rights issues in our own country. It is a perfect issue for human rights and our American ideals.
While I agree Massachusetts is a wake up call that Dems need to better organize in all races.
Your picture of those angry faces, do you really think they are representative of all Americans towards our President?
The fact is that very few if any Republicans had town hall meetings to hear people like myself. I think is a question you need to ask yourself, what do you think would happen if Mike Rogers held a town hall to hear the questions of Democrats? I know thousands of people would love to give him a piece of their mind. Think Fox news would roll the cameras for it?President Bush used reconciliation to push through those tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans, we need to use this way to push through legislation that we find necessary for our country, I think a simple majority can work faster and better than the 60 votes we struggled with all year. Democrats have a huge majority, we need to use it.
A picture worth a thousand words?
Alas, I did not choose the picture that ran next to my piece, but it sure caught the eye, didn't it?
I don't have the energy to fisk you entire post...
So I'll trust that the majority of your readers know how delusional (or disingenuous) you are.
But please, elighten us as to which policies President Obama is left of center. Unless you consider the center to be the "fair and balance" ideology of Faux News.
You pretend that Obama is too far left, and yet at the same time state that the Massachusetts senatorial election shows that people are rejecting his administration. How exactly can both those statements be true, when Massachusetts is as politically left as they come? A statement much more based in reality is to say that President Obama has disappointed the left by playing too far to the center.
And please, one last question. Was President Bush wrong for the "Mirandizing and criminal trial[s]" of terrorists when he was in office? Or did something change from January 19th to January 20th, 2009 that made identical policies somehow more dangerous?
Really
Wht policies are left of center? Really? What sociualist entity owns big chunks of the banking industry? Who currently owns GM? Who bought Chryler and forced a sale to a foriegn investor? How is taking iver the health industry, one sixth of the economy not left of center? Do we really need to go on? How far left do you have to go to be too far left for Massachsetts? And in response, to your last question, yes Bush was wrong, or at least failed to show leadership in the last two years in office, and where did it get the republican party? Let's hope the same fate awaits the current party in power.
You're not even a good poe.
Let's all pretend we don't know which President did what, and start to attribute President Bush's actions to President Obama.
You started off with: "What sociualist [sic] entity owns big chunks of the banking industry?"
I'll see that, and raise you: "And how dare President Obama push through his marxist philosophy by not funding the largest increase in health care spending in decades, Medicare Part D"
Your move.
Whoa! Let's Talk about Facts
Somebody's been listening to Glenn Beck, filling our favorite retired judge's head with rhetorical excess.
Obama has been in office for one year, and has had to cope with the three trillion dollar swing (from budget surplus to economic disaster) created in 8 short years by his predecessor. To expect him, all by himself, to "fix" the economy and put everyone back to work--in good-paying jobs, no less--in a few months is ludicrous. It will take years to correct immoral banking excesses, and recalibrate the economy back to a sustainable slow-growth model. Blaming the current administration for economic failure is wrong and counterproductive.
Not sure what "leftist agenda" you're talking about, either, Stan. About two-thirds of the American public was solidly in the public option camp, wanting to fix the most embarrassing moral and economic lapse in American society--the fact that 42 million Americans don't have health insurance-- until Sarah Palin invented the concept of "death panels" and Fox News went off spinning. Even now, when you read pieces of the two existing health care plans to Americans, they agree--yes, we need a better system. But they've "heard" that "Obama wants socialized medicine." Where have they heard it? Good question.
I do agree that this is an uphill rhetorical battle for Obama--Americans love to rally the troops, and fight against a common enemy. But positioning Obama as part of the "elite left"--excuse me? Don't you want a president who was Harvard Law review, rather than a hotheaded cowboy? I feel vastly safer, knowing that diplomacy is our first response, not launching another pointless war, a war that has cost us lives and treasure that could be better used to put people to work.
I loved Obama's willingness to take on the Republican members of the House. I do think he's been too cool and too polite, hoping for bipartisanship that the Republicans will never give him. Time to stop playing filibuster and start addressing our real and critical problems.
Public option
Nancy, two-thirds of Americans favored the public option until Fox News and Sarah Palin talked them out of it? Do you have any source on that?
American Views on a Publicly Run and Financed Health System
Keeping in mind that (according to James Kwak, author of "13 Bankers") that the current health care reform bills-- whose cost-cutting measures are based largely on proposals from the administration, particularly Peter Orszag -- are perhaps the biggest deficit-reduction bills of all time--- and the very telling, bumper-sticker logic of "Keep the Government's Hands Off my Medicare"...
Here is an assortment of polling data revealing that an even larger percentage of Americans once believed that government management of health care, a single-payer system, was the way to go. And once the debate began--a debate about fixing a broken, out-of-control system, critical to the economic health of our nation-- right-wing media spared no time or expense to make "Obamacare" fail.
"Majority of Americans Favor National Health"
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/october/majority_of_american.php
Americans by a 2-1 margin prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
Support Grows for U.S. Health Exchange, 1-13-10 Wall St Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126335072507627217.html
The overwhelming majority—75 percent, according to an October 2005 Harris Poll—want what people in other wealthy countries have: the peace of mind of universal health insurance.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/health-care-its-what-ails-us
Health care now--one plan, one nation
http://www.healthcare-now.org/
Polling data over time--a compendium:
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
Health Care Polling: Correct Information Needed
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/health-care-information-gap-more.html
Is that enough? Because I have a huge file with about 50 more links.
ABC/WaPo poll
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/abc-news-poll-more-americans-prefer-public-option-to-bipartisan-bill-.html
And to be fair, everyone should be sourcing their statistics -- not just the people with whom you might disagree...
Look at the question
Thanks for the link, Kelly, but look at the question that was asked in that poll:
"Which of these would you prefer – (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?"
They asked an either/or question (and a very bad, biased one). They didn't simply ask if the government should take over a large portion of the health-care industry, which is the central question here.
And most of Nancy's examples seemed to be from 2003-2005.
Current Examples
" ...most of Nancy's examples seemed to be from 2003-2005."
Except for the ones from ABC, the WSJ, Fivethirtyeight (which was posted on 2/2/10). And the information you asked me to provide was how Americans felt about health care **before** they were being misled about the actual bills being proposed. Which is why I chose polls from mid-Bush era data: What do Americans say they want in a health care plan? Back then, they were pretty clear that they wanted the government to "take over" health care. Somewhere in the 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 range.
It wasn't until bills were actually on the table that false and misleading information (including the use of the inflammatory word "takeover") began to be part of the discussion. I just threw Sarah Palin in because she always goes right for the jugular. Often, the uninformed jugular--but that's another argument.
BTW, I think the question asked in the poll Kelly posted is precisely the question we need to be asking: public option or no public option (with or without support from Republicans)? And a public option is not a "takeover"--the bills currently on the table were created with input from the health care industry and do perhaps too much to preserve their domination--the "leadership" that's costing us far more than other nations for less-effective health coverage.
And I appreciate Kelly's call to source statistics. In the future, I'll be careful to do that.
Fact and fantasy can't dance together
As usual, a thoughtful comment by you, but suggesting that President Obama does not operate from the left end of the spectrum is like arguing that Rush Limbaugh is really a liberal in disguise. The liberal position is an honorable one that can and should be discussed and debated honestly. Let the Ameridan public decide. And they are deciding.
As for the overwhelming support for Obama's health care plan and other agenda items, what did Massachusetts mean if not a rejection of his ideas? Why are the Democrats (in Obama's words) running for the hills? It's not enought to say that his message was twisted or that he failed to communicate. The voters knew what he meant and they didn't like it.
It truly is a shame. We need to do better on health care, and the economy does need repair. A success for Obama would be a victory for all of us.
Here's what happened in Massachusetts
SL:"...suggesting that President Obama does not operate from the left end of the spectrum is like arguing that Rush Limbaugh is really a liberal in disguise."
My area of expertise is education policy. And many educators have been bitterly disappointed by Obama's steadfastly center-right education policy ideas--more tests, more market forces in public education, more privatization, a turn away from professionalizing teaching.
In fact, I see most of Obama's policy ideas as right down the middle, and occasionally drifting rightward, compromising to get things done. He is hardly a flaming liberal--that's media hype. Nor do I believe the two pillars of Fox Philosophy this month: #1) The U.S. is not a a "center right" country--and #2) After one year, all problems must not be attributed to the person in power. (Because if you believe that, then I guess 9/11 was George Bush's fault, right? And we know that's not true.)
What happened in Massachusetts? Pretty much the same thing you suggest happened with Obama: the blank slate (the good-looking, truck-driving blank slate) theory. Voters decidedly did not like Coakley, who took the election totally for granted. They decided to go with the new guy in the barn coat, who promised them the world. Exactly what you accused Obama of doing.
As for health care--again, remember that 95% of the citizens of Massachusetts are covered by state-mandated health care, a much better and more comprehensive plan than either the House or the Senate offered. MA citizens stand to lose with either national health care plan.
Fantasy and Reality
Want to see a real work of fantasy? Download a copy of the Republican's "Better Solutions", it is a real knee slapper. It is just ideas and platitudes. Then compare it to either one of the Democrats health care bills on the whitehouse.gov and see who is trying to dance with fantasy.
If the Democrats wanted a march on Washington for a health care bill with a strong public option, you would see a crowd closer to the size of President Obama's Inauguration than the smaller size of the Tea Party. The biggest problem is most of us, just aren't so excited about the watered down senate bill, you know the one that is more Centrist.
I for one think they should pass it and add the public option with reconciliation, that would get the Dem's Mojo back!