Some of You Aren’t Going to Like This Either!

Imagine Barack Obama seated in a dunk tank.  Given the current state of affairs, many self-proclaimed progressives would literally elbow aside their Tea-Party brethern in their fervor to fire off a few fastballs, as their compatriots dump bags of ice cubes into the tank itself.

This writer, like many, has been extremely disappointed with Barack Obama, however, unlike many on the left, was unimpressed with his legislative accomplishments at the time of his 2008 presidential campaign.  The search for any meaningful indication of political courage, any instance of swaying others to support a differing point of view, or exerting real leadership on any matter of substance was in vain. Some of us hoped, based upon faith alone, that once safely esconced in office, the promise conveyed by his soaring rhetoric would translate into meaningful action.  

This writer would be among the first to contend that Barack Obama has fallen short in many, many respects.

Despite the incredible gravity of his stirring speeches (which were undoubtedly well rehearsed), during spontaneous give and take situations Mr. Obama seems far more pedestrian. He has remained curiously reticent to extol his own accomplishments (yes, there are a few), as well as exposing the skullduggery of the pure, unadulterated corporatists on the right.  

Perhaps our error was that of choosing a Senator to serve as president, but in 2008, except for a few mostly inconsequential fringe candidates, it was a foregone conclusion that a Senator would prevail. So what is the track record for those ascending directly from the Senate to the Oval Office? Let’s see, there were two before Barack Obama — Warren G. Harding in 1921, who died in 1923 and forty years later, John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963. Neither would complete their third year in office.  

The Senate, that dark, forbidding hospice where legislation passed by the House typically goes to die, may not be the best incubator for presidents who will make a difference.  To the extent that success in office can be defined as serving two full terms, only 13 of our 44 presidents have achieved this standard (however, I would place an asterisk beside the name of the most recent two-term occupant of the White House).  

Of those 13 two-term presidents, 9 had previously been governors, 3 had held significant leadership positions in the military during pivotal wars (i.e., George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower).  The Father of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, James Madison (1809-1817) was the only outlier.  But in Madison’s case, he did serve as the Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson for two terms (1801-1809).

The Secretary of State is considered the most prestigious Cabinet position of all and is the first non-elected official in the line of succession to the presidency behind the Vice-President, Speaker of the House and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.  Although the scope of responsibility was likely much narrower in the early 19th century, at present, the Secretary of State oversees nearly 50,000 employees and a budget exceeding $16 billion.  So it could be argued that those serving as Secretary of State occupy a significant leadership position.

The list of presidents serving less than two full terms (31 in all) who also exerted an impact is remarkably brief. Of those, for better or worse, perhaps none were more successful in enacting their agenda than James K. Polk from 1845-1849.  Abraham Lincoln’s brief role was highly significant, and, to a lesser extent, Harry Truman played a vital role while serving almost two terms from 1945-1953. Lyndon Johnson may have been one of our greatest presidents had it not been for the millstone of the Vietnam War that he tragically chose to wear around his neck. Unless this writer has missed something, the other 27 presidents exerted far less of an impact than those previously referenced.

So, history would not seem to be on Barack Obama’s side.

We have long been told that there are two sides of every story. Those residing at all points along the political spectrum have likely been inundated with strident denunciations of Obama’s lack of effectiveness. And, other than some rumblings of support over at the oft-derided La Naranja Grande, there seems to have been little, if any, mention of any meaningful accomplishments by Mr. Obama.

Does that mean that there have been none?  Perhaps we have missed something in all the loud clamor.  Tom Dickinson swims against the tidal wave with his article in the October 28, 2010 issue of The Rolling Stone, entitled, “The Case for Obama”.

Although some of you may instinctively recoil in response to the title itself, we could all conceivably benefit by considering an alternative point of view. This writer would strongly encourage all to carefully consider Mr. Dickinson’s words with as open a mind as we can. Like it or not, this lengthy article is, without a doubt, thought provoking and provocative.  

While Dickinson recognizes the significant anger and disappointment that prevails among disgruntled progressives, before listing Obama’s most important accomplishments, he writes in the following two paragraphs:

But if the passions of Obama’s base have been deflated by the compromises he made to secure historic gains like the Recovery Act, health care reform and Wall Street regulation, that gloom cannot obscure the essential point: This president has delivered more sweeping, progressive change in 20 months than the previous two Democratic administrations did in 12 years. “When you look at what will last in history,” historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells Rolling Stone, “Obama has more notches on the presidential belt.”

In fact, when the history of this administration is written, Obama’s opening act is likely to be judged as more impressive than any president’s – Democrat or Republican – since the mid-1960s. “If you’re looking at the first-two-year legislative record,” says Ornstein, “you really don’t have any rivals since Lyndon Johnson – and that includes Ronald Reagan.”

Something like 88% of U. S. citizens do not realize that Obama signed into law a substantial tax cut, which also provided relief to the lower and middle classes…

Along the way, Obama delivered record tax cuts to the middle class and slashed nearly $200 billion in corporate welfare – reinvesting that money to make college more accessible and Medicare more solvent. He single-handedly prevented the collapse of the Big Three automakers – saving more than 1 million jobs – and brought Big Tobacco, at last, under the yoke of federal regulation. Even in the face of congressional intransigence on climate change, he has fought to constrain carbon pollution by executive fiat and to invest $200 billion in clean energy – an initiative bigger than John F. Kennedy’s moonshot and one that’s on track to double America’s capacity to generate renewable energy by the end of Obama’s first term.

The political environment with which Obama has contended has been hostile, to say the least…

What’s even more impressive about Obama’s accomplishments, historians say, is the fractious political coalition he had to marshal to victory. “He didn’t have the majority that LBJ had,” says Goodwin. Indeed, Johnson could count on 68 Democratic senators to pass Medicare, Medicaid and the Voting Rights Act. For his part, Franklin Roosevelt had the backing of 69 Senate Democrats when he passed Social Security in 1935. At its zenith, Obama’s governing coalition in the Senate comprised 57 Democrats, a socialist, a Republican turncoat – and Joe Lieberman.

Mr. Dickinson then proceeds to delineate the historic progress that Mr. Obama has been able to achieve in eight key areas.  That said, I would encourage you to read the article, if for no other reason than to better prepare yourself to counter the arguments of those on the left you might label as Obama apologists.  These eight areas are…

1 | Averting a Depression

8 | Launching a Clean-Energy MoonShot

Although this article is undoubtedly not without its flaws, if most, or even maybe some of what Mr. Dickinson says is true, perhaps we have unwittingly joined the Tea Partiers in unfairly ignoring the accomplishments of the past two years.  

Regrettably, many of us are likely to register our disappointment by staying at home on Tuesday, or voting for a fringe candidate who has no chance whatsoever of mitigating the damage that the corporatists intend to inflict upon us, in their never-ending quest to extract what remains of our dwindling wealth, all to further augment their already unimaginable riches. The hard-fought, but less than hoped-for gains of the past two years will vanish like a soap bubble uncermoniously pierced by a needle.  We stand to quickly lose everything that has been gained during the past two years, and much, much more as well.

Some may comfort themselves, and perhaps justify their abandonment of the Democratic Party by convincing themselves that doing so will hasten the day that the masses, in the parlance of Twelve Step philosophy, finally hit bottom. Since this nation has bounced back from adversity at other times in the past, one could easily assume that this will be the case again this time. They may visualize that bottom as a huge trampoline (which might be thought of as the careful set of checks and balances carefully set in place by our Founding Fathers), that once reached, will dramatically reverse the nation’s downward trajectory.  

I would submit that times have changed and would contend that, again using the trampoline metaphor, this time the corporatists have removed the trampoline, only to expose the bottomless abyss that lies below.  One need not think long to cite numerous visible sign that could lead to such a dire diagnosis.

Adopting the attitude that we need only concern ourselves with our own safety and wellbeing seems to be in fashion these days.  Perhaps such individuals resemble those in World War II era Germany who initially chose silence, hoping to remain undetected, only to be whisked away to a concentration camp during the latter stages of the war.  

Like it or not, we are all part of a much larger community and it is us, who by our actions (or lack thereof) will shape the landscape for those generations yet to come.

Will our legacy be one that those yet unborn will someday look back upon with pride and gratitude?  

That vital decision lies with each and every one of us.