On President Obama, Change and Leadership

[xocet]

It is correctly stated that President Obama cannot implement change by himself. However, President Obama has not used his office to advocate for progressive policies. He could have laid the issues out before the US populace during a series of addresses to the nation. He could have encouraged people to contact their respective Representatives and Senators, so that it would be clear to Congress that a large number of their constituents does indeed want progressive policies to be enacted. Most importantly, he could have clearly explained to the US populace why those progressive policies would be good for the future of the USA. All of these actions were and are within his power.

Instead, he chose and still chooses to remain in the background and not to advocate any particular, overt policy other than bipartisanship. That was fine for the first few weeks, but, at some point, he has to realize that the Republicans are never going to cooperate with him.

The Democratic majorities should have been enough indication to him that the people were behind him: one could plainly see the excitement after his election and the excitement at his inauguration. Had he had the courage to appeal to the public on behalf progressive policies, it would have come down to the public putting pressure on Congress to go along with him.

So, while it is true that President Obama cannot change things by himself, it is equally true that it is purely his fault that he is having to try to implement change by himself. Had he lead effectively, he could have gotten the public to apply pressure to Congress for him, and this would have taken the country a significant distance down the road to a better, more progressive future.

Though I support President Obama and still hold out some slight, naively-founded hope that he may learn (or even desire) to exhibit effective leadership, it has been maddening to have to have had to watch his administration throw its initial advantages to the winds.

[ProSense]

1. "it is purely his fault that he is having to try to implement change by himself" Wow.

Have you signed: I stand with President Obama to pave the way for a clean-energy future...

On the whole progressive thing, I disagree.

[babylonsister]

2. Did you cut and paste this from the HCR debate? Yawn. nt

[Political Tiger]

6. Probably from Larry Johnson's No Quarter site. n/t

[xocet]

10. I will reply to you in the same fashion:

No, I did not. With which part do you disagree?

Which part of the so-called progressive agenda has President Obama been highly effective in implementing:

A) Restoring Habeas Corpus

B) Ending Illegal Wire-Tapping

C) Closing Guantanamo Bay

D) Obtaining Single Payer Health Care or Medicare for All

E) Withdrawing the US Military from Iraq

F) Acting to strongly regulate the Banking Industry and Wall Street

G) Ending the War in Afghanistan

H) Asking the Justice Department to Open an Investigation into the Bush Administration's Policies Regarding Torture, War, et cetera....

I) Encouraging the Public to Support Progressive Candidates (i.e., Halter not Lincoln, etc.)

....

This list could be continued, but this should be example enough for any discussion.

[Political Tiger]

13. When did Barack Obama promise to carry out Dennis Kucinich's agenda?

And who are you to define the "progressive agenda?" I get tired of people like you telling people like me what the "progressive agenda" is, and I am equally tired of people like you complaining because Obama is not to the extreme left like you think he should be.

Using your standards, presidents like FDR would today be considered right-wing.

It's time already to get over this Utopian view of how you think things should be, join reality and start giving credit where credit is due!

I hardly consider lifting restrictions on stem cell research, allowing funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions, signing into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, working to end DADT, extending federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, naming Wilma Liebman chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board, nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, directing military leaders to end war in Iraq, allowing caskets to be photographed when returned from Iraq, establishing a Credit Card Bill of Rights, releasing previously secret internal Justice Department memos and opinions defining the legal limits of government power in combating terrorism, barring independent contractors from conducting interrogations of terror suspects, ending torture of suspects, releasing nearly a quarter of a million pages of records from the Reagan White House that were previously kept secret, giving tax credits for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars, supporting high speed rail, providing grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes, stopping raids on medical marijuana dispensers, appointing over 60 openly LGBT persons to positions in the executive branch, signing the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act, signing the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, increasing funding for the NEA, investing billions in alternative energy, cutting funding for a proposed U.S. nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain and reversing the USA's negative global image, among other things, to be anti-progressive!

[xocet]

14. Thank you for the reply....

If you examine my posts, I did not define the progressive agenda in its entirety. I mentioned a so-called progressive agenda (It is so-called since many agendas can overlap; i.e., it is likely that no single group can lay claim to a large-enough listing of goals), listed several points that I consider important and left an ellipsis at the end of the short list so that other points could be added: that leaves the list open-ended for other points like the ones you made in your post. My list was not intended to be comprehensive, and I took pains to indicate that in the post.

Also, if a further examination of my posts is made, I did not define President Obama as being anti-progressive as the end of your longest statement implies.

My earlier question to you was what you found that President Obama had been highly effective in doing. To some extent, you have answered that. There is no doubt that President Obama is much better than President Bush: they are of completely different calibers, and President Obama has changed many things for the better. I do concede that you have supplied a list of accomplishments. Kudos to President Obama for those.

Of the list that I supplied, do you believe that those items should not be considered as well? Are those things truly "extreme left"? Moreover, why adopt such terminology for a fellow Democrat who supported President Obama in election?

Do you believe that it is unrealistic to desire President Obama to use the "bully pulpit" to advocate for policies that could help the US? Clearly, the US Congress is extremely difficult to work with. To me, it seems that the only way to influence members of Congress is by way of their various constituencies.

As a brief aside, FDR suggested a second bill of rights shortly before he died. Here is a link to the video: FDR's Second Bill of Rights. Therefore, in no way, could FDR be considered a right-wing President.

Lastly, if you would care to continue this discussion, I request of you that you refrain from characterizing me in any particular way and that you focus your comments on my arguments, since I have neither attacked you nor accused you of plagiarism.

[xocet]

9. No, I did not. It is fair to say that you find my comment boring.

However, whether it is boring or not has no bearing on its validity. With which part do you disagree?

Which part of the so-called progressive agenda has President Obama been highly effective in implementing:

A) Restoring Habeas Corpus

B) Ending Illegal Wire-Tapping

C) Closing Guantanamo Bay

D) Obtaining Single Payer Health Care or Medicare for All

E) Withdrawing the US Military from Iraq

F) Acting to strongly regulate the Banking Industry and Wall Street

G) Ending the War in Afghanistan

H) Asking the Justice Department to Open an Investigation into the Bush Administration's Policies Regarding Torture, War, et cetera....

I) Encouraging the Public to Support Progressive Candidates (i.e., Halter not Lincoln, etc.)

....

This list could be continued, but this should be example enough for any discussion.

[Cha]

3. What the fuck ever.

[xocet]

11. I applaud your incisive style of argumentation and your focus. n/t

[Political Tiger]

4. What is the American public? A bunch of mindless zombies

who can't act on their own volition unless the president tells them what to do, when to do it and how to do it?

It's well past time we stop blaming Obama for our own failings! It's time we the people start taking responsibility for our actions, or our failures to act!

This is not North Korea! We don't need a "dear leader" telling us what our every move should be.

[dflprincess]

8. We don't need a "dear leader" who ignores us either.

Like when our opinions were shut out of the health debate because we supported access to care and not a sell out to the insurance companies.

[xocet]

12. Interesting question...

The US populace failed to prevent a war in Iraq, and a undeniably large number of people voted for President Bush twice.

The point is that the country is divided and that leadership on President Obama's part is necessary to persuade that recalcitrant/ obstinate branch of the government, the US Congress, to act on behalf of the citizens of the USA instead of largely on behalf of corporations and other moneyed interests.

My comments at the beginning of this thread have nothing to do with totalitarianism.

[zipplewrath]

5. It's about what kind of leadership

There are roughly three kinds. Autocratic, democratic, and Laissez faire. He seems to prefer the last. I suspect it comes from his experience in community organizing, and possible the law review background. It's about the only choice you have when you have no real authority and are trying to get widely different points of view and objectives to work on simultaneous goals. And from listening to some past presidents, you can get the feeling that as president, "you have no real authority" but are just herding cats.

But presidents do have authority, and lots of it. I just can't tell yet if he doesn't know it, or doesn't want to use it.

[depakid]

7. Ruh Ro- a critical opinion expressing some original thought

Expect a host of angry "enforcers" o' the orthodoxy to descend....

btw: I agree- he SHOULD have gone directly to the people and had them put the pressure on corrupt and recalcitrant senators and congresspersons. Far less unseemly and more effective than being perceived as grovelling to the likes of Lieberman, et al.