| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Governing: It's Harder Than It Looks
Crossposted at Right Minds
In 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised that the newly elected Democratic Congress would be the “most ethical in history.” It wasn’t. After Pelosi and the Democrats took Congress, Washington corruption didn’t end. William Jefferson became infamous for hiding cash in his freezer. Pork projects continued abated—in fact, the Democrats introduced even more of them.
Likewise, when Barack Obama ran in 2008, he promised that his administration would renounce the corruption and dishonesty he saw in the Bush Administration, and would usher in a new pragmatic, whatever works era of government. (In contrast to George Bush’s “unconscionable ineptitude.”) If Bush represented old Washington politics (greed before accountability, and partisanship before efficiency), Obama represented the new—he was supposed to bring integrity and efficiency to Washington.
Thing is, though, Obama hasn’t been able to bring either quality to government. A simply staggering proportion of his cabinet choices are guilty of some ethical lapse. Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Commerce, Bill Richardson, was forced to step down after being caught up in a “pay-for-play” scandal similar to that of former Illinois Rod Blagovich. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner neglected to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years. Tom Daschle managed to “forget” to pay over $100,000 worth of taxes on a limo service, which forced him to withdraw his nomination. (And made Obama admit he “screwed up.”) And his proposed chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer, was also forced to withdraw her candidacy after embarrassing tax issues came to light.
(And, of course, there is the issue of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Her work with her husband’s foundation would seem to indicate some severe conflicts of interest—but after years of Clinton corruption, Congress seems to have thrown up its hands and simply nominated her without a fight).
Sometimes it seems as though Obama didn’t even bother to vet these candidates. But he did—he must have. (Although given that his goal was to hit the ground running with his Cabinet already assembled, his vetting must have been rushed.) But governing is harder than it looks—and corrupt politicians are good at getting away with dishonesty. Obama didn’t want to nominate dishonest people for his cabinet, and the fact he did was due more to inexcusable, if inevitable, human error than calculated malfeasance. But Obama promised more than that—he promised a totally open, honest administration—and he has been unable to deliver.
Similarly, Obama hasn’t been able to deliver on his promises of a competent, efficient government. One of the reasons he tried to rush his Cabinet nominees through was so that he could hit the ground running and pass a stimulus bill quickly. (In fact, there was some hope that Congress could have a bill ready for him to sign his first day in office). Obama made passing his stimulus bill quickly a priority. And he has utterly failed.
In Keynesian economics, the fact that money is spent at all during hard times is much more important than where the money goes. (Keynes even went so far as to declare that it is better for the government to waste money during recessions than to not spend it.) But Obama got a little carried away, or rather let his allies in Congress get carried away. Spending $hundreds of million on new roads is something most Americans can support. Spending that money on contraception funding, however…not so much.
What does Obama’s failure tell us? That governing is hard. The opposition party has no executive responsibilities, meaning that it can stonewall and agitate without having to come up with its own solutions. (Think the Republicans would be so strongly opposed to the stimulus if they were the ones in power?). In addition to placating the Republicans, Obama must also satisfy his own Democrats. And of course he has also got to keep the base enthusiastic, the middle content, and the opposition placated. It’s not an easy job. And so far, Obama hasn’t been very good at it.


Comments
Gallup 38% Denocrats/26% Republicans
I think that perhaps we should wait more than 2 weeks and 1 day before saying Obama is not very good at in light of how the last 8 years have gone.
I agree with your points regarding Pelosi and the fact that things did not get better after 2006 and I hope she goes the way of some other govering officals BUT I do feel that Obama has been more willing to listen to the GOP than any President in my lifetime. That alone makes me feel we may still be able to have some imput over the next 4 years. Yes, he does have to answer to his party but we would be remiss to not realize it would be easier for him if he did just blow off the GOP yet he dosen't and as an American first? We should give credit where credit is due.
With the Gallup poll that out today stating that 38% identify as Democrats and only 26% as Republicans? We must sop throwing stones and start making a difference.
Note the..,
Note the qualifier "so far." It's quite possible that Obama will learn from his early mistakes and the rest of his Presidency will be a textbook example of how to get things done. But my point was that it's doubtful his first two weeks have gone as he and his supporters envisioned.
And no, I don't think Obama is particularly bipartisan, at least not on the stimulus. He actually did try to blow off the Republicans--but when every single House Republican voted against his bill, he realized that he was settting himself up for a lot of blame if it didn't work.
nah, you miss half the cards
the republicans vote the way Rush wants them to, at first, then after he's gotten all the ... anger he can out of people, they vote the way their district wants.
Of course Obama isn't bipartisan on the stimulus, there's no way to be. Either you go Keynesian, or you switch over to a gold-backed currency. The tax cut only crowd is utterly without economic research to support itself. Friedmanianism is dead, and the conservatives didn't have another respected theory.
PELOSI spent her capital making sure that we got a 5-day
work week out of the lazybones in congress. I'd say that's progress. I'd say not letting lobbyists write rules is progress.
And removing SYSTEMATIC ORGANIZED corruption (aka abramoff scandal, among others) is a damn good job for Madame Speaker!
I won't be saying much about Murtha bein' clean, because we all know full well he ain't, but Pelosi? She cleaned things up, not everything, fo sho, but enough.
Gallup Obama 55-44 McCain
Gallup...sucks. I don't doubt he's popular, but the Bushes had 90% approval ratings at one time. At the least, the opposition needs to point out the follies of the governing party (Dems).
CBO says 2 to 1 return on condoms.
you sure you ain't for EFFICIENT EFFECTIVE gov't.
WIC costs a TON of money. PRENATAL costs a ton of money.
Condoms be cheap, folks.