DO NOT WANT
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
this has been another installment of Why Obama Creeps Me Out.
posted by anne @ 7:48 AM
12 Comments:
The whole interview This comes around 18 minutes. It comes after he talks about how he was the most requested campaigner for democrats in swing districts, because he can sell the liberal agenda better than anyone else. He isn't saying he wants to return to the Reagan agenda, he's saying he thinks he can be what Reagan and Kennedy were for their parties. Or, what Yglesias said..
The next paragraph:
I think Kennedy 20 years earlier moved the country in a fundementally different direction. So I think it has a lot to do with the times, and I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren't working; that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful and the Republican approach, I think has played itself out. I mean, I think it's fair to say the republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years, in the sense they were challenging conventional wisdom Now we've heard it all before, look at their economic policies where they've been debated between the presidential candidates; Tax cuts, well we've done that, we've tried it, it's not really going to solve our energy problem for example.
(Hand-trancribed, so pardon the errors)
He isn't trying to be the Return of Reagan, the way all the republicans are. He's trying to be the next political earthquake.
And, to finish the thought, I badly want an earthquake. I really can't stand the Democratic party as it presently stands.
thanks for the entire interview. i didn't have one.
choosing reagan, though i suppose i understand why he did it, leaves a sour taste. reagan packaged himself as this optimistic uniting ray of sunshine, and he did it by setting people against eachother. the class envy and hatred he fostered is still fucking us up today, but no one ever talks about that part of reagan's legacy, they just swoon over his wonderful communication skills.
reagan perfected the dogwhistle, and divisiveness cloaked by affability. creating a parallel between reagan and obama just makes me more uneasy about obama -- not because i expect to see the same policies from obama, but because i see the same thing happening with obama: lots of idealistic kids and people tired of squabbling signing on to something essentially sight-unseen, allowing that president a free ride on questionable policies.
also, what "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" did he mean, exactly? and what would the parallel be today?
i don't like the way the democratic party is operating these days, either. i see the path obama suggests just leading us to more of the same, though. i think we have to take a look at where partisan politics has gotten us -- and how it got us there and why -- before we can get past it. the republican definition of "bipartisanship" is still essentially "date rape", and unless obama acknowledges that, i don't see him going anywhere with any reforms at all.
even now, in a congress controlled by democrats, reid is too weak-willed to fight against the communications bill. that's not "bipartisanship". that's rolling over. that's what i fear that we'd get.
Thanks, Tim. I'm probably not the only person reading all the blogmass political reports and trying to sort out my own feelings. It helps to have background on things like this.
At a guess, the excesses of the 60s and 70s would be war (Vietnam: the draft) and drugs, since Reagan was the big Just Say No War on Drugs president. I am not sure what that says about Obama's feelings of what we want and need now, though. Or of what he thinks of Reagan's policies and attitudes. I'll say that both Reagana nd Kennedy were very good politicians, though. Certainly better than the people in between them (though Nixon was surprisingly good just for having managed to get elected). Note here that good politicians aren't necessarily people I want in control. I still feel like although I don't agree with any of the candidates really, it wouldn't be the end of the world if Obama won and managed to do what it sounds like he wants to do. I get the impression he really wants to get people open to working with each other instead of against each other. I never got the feeling Reagan wanted that.
i miss carter.
hell, i miss nixon.
By way of context, Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html
I'm amazed Carter didn't pull an LBJ and fail to run for President in 1980. I'm also amazed the Dems ran his VP in 1984. They served the Executive Branch to the Republicans on a platter in the 80s.
I just learned that Mondale was Carter's VP. I hadn't known that before doing my research on possible VPs this year. Funny old world, anyway.
Just Say No War On Drugs.
Jimmy Carter says I got what America needs right here
OMG HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTER HAS A COLUMN IN THE ONION
::turns blue in the face::
Trying to imagine even Dan Aykroyd as Onion Carter is rough going, which is a big part of why that made me laugh so hard.
TGIF, with the time to dig into this.
Worth reading: The post Yglesias was responding to, and the comments there:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263
So there's the past.
In the headlines I keep hearing about the past. Not the present, and not the recent past of Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran and nose-thumbing at the rest of the world, and the economic mess leading the current government to call for pocket money by tax rebate, and nose-thumbing at people who can't afford the "ownership society." But instead the 80s and 90s, as Obama and Clinton fight to put themselves in historic contexts that are irrelevant to me now.
There are some nice platform documents out there, I've heard. But is there solid evidence that the candidates know what is going on in the world outside of their election bubbles?
And is there a hint that they might screw up on their terms to the accidental benefit of the common good, as Eisenhower did when he appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court?
Whoever moves in to 1600 Penn. Ave NW next year is bound to fail. A lot. More than anything else I want workable failures, instead of the stagnant mess we have now.
Post a Comment
<< Home