- This topic is empty.
-
If you measure Obama’s accomplishments against what many of his pre-election supporters thought he was going to do, the record is pretty dismal.
On the other hand, if you measure Obama’s record against the Bush criteria for getting a “mission accomplished,” things look quite a bit better.
True, Obama hasn’t actually ended any wars. (The draw-down in Iraq was in the works before Obama came in, and in any case the war is still on there as far as I’m concerned.) In fact, Obama has actually escalated one of the two wars that he inherited.
On the other hand, at least he hasn’t started any new wars (yet), and his rhetoric is decidedly less bellicose than Mr. Bush’s.
Health care reform was a very shallow victory for Obama, no matter what he says. My biggest disappointment was that he didn’t even fight for the public option and that he left the insurance companies firmly in place so they could keep screwing things up.
On the other hand, the net effect will probably still be more people insured than before. Was the health care “reform” a step forward? Or was it a detour? It’s really too early to tell.
Let’s see . . . what else?
— Financial reform? That was a wash. The old guard was pretty much left in place, and, with the exception of the new Consumer Protection Agency, the rules of the game have not been rewritten such that they cannot be subverted by Wall Street all again in a few years.
– Guantanamo Bay Prison is still operational, despite specific promises to the contrary.
– Bush and Company were not indicted for war crimes as they should have been.
– Bush tax cuts might be repealed, but the jury’s still out on that.
– Stem cell research has resumed with the Administration’s blessing. That’s a plus.
– Obama still gives a good speech and hasn’t been caught up in any brouhahas involving personal morality or (perhaps more importantly) race. That’s a plus.
Am I missing anything here?
Oh yeah. We’re friends with Russia again.
Or at least I am, anyway . . .
http://www.youtube.com/user/hotforwords#p/u/112/DSOmbcv4f34
sarelly: Those are all good questions, but something tells me you’re posing them rhetorically.
The answer to each one of them, of course, is “yes.” But there’s another factor involved in the Obama sell-out too, which is public pressure . . . as in, we don’t put nearly enough of it on our elected officials.
Unfortunately, it looks like all the “people power” that was behind Obama in the months leading up to the election just went POOF! once he got into office, and that is why President Obama turned out so different from Candidate Obama.
Consider this:
Had there been massive and sustained demonstrations in favor of a single-payer health-care system, we’d have that already, wouldn’t we?
Had there been massive and sustained demonstrations against illegal detentions and surveillance, those things would be abolished already, wouldn’t they?
But alas, there were no such demonstrations, because here in America, people seem to feel that political activism extends no further than voting, with the occasional petition drive or public demonstration thrown in for diversion.
I am reminded of this fact each time I stand at the Junction with our little West Seattle peace group and all kinds of hippies and other lefties walk by without even saying “hi” or offering to talk about what we can do, collectively, to change things.
I am also reminded of it every time I hear someone on this here Blog say something like: “Sure, Senator/President/Representative XYZ isn’t doing what we want, but I’m voting for him anyway, because the other guy is so much worse.“
Well of course, if voting is the only politically conscious thing you do, then voting for the lesser evil makes complete sense. Just don’t be surprised when the lesser evil you voted for turns out to be kind of . . . well . . .
— evil.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.