Again, no one was for "just letting them fail", excepting conservatives who believe in the spontaneous self-correcting power of the market.
^^^^^ CB: Ok so I misinterpreted you when you said
Why couldn't the administration have let some of the big banks, insurers, and auto companies fail - I'm not persuaded Armegeddon would have resulted - and redirected the stimulus towards a massive program of investment and job creation in infrastructure and emerging industries?
^^^^
The issue on the left and even beyond was whether to prop up failing banks, insurers, and auto companies in the interests of investors at taxpayer expense, or to wind these down while a) cushioning the effects of joblessness through improved severance, unemployment, and retraining benefits and b) offsetting the job losses in these sectors by a massive program of public investment in infrastructure, social services, and alternative energy and other promising new industries. The administration opted to keep the zombie banks and corporations afloat and to heavily subsidize the entire financial industry, much to the dismay of it's supporters.
^^^^^^^
This overlooks that the bankers, conservative Democrats and Republicans were not as emboldened in January as they are today. They were anxious and on the defensive. Politics can be understood primarily in terms of the balance of forces and other objective constraints, but there are moments when bold leadership can affect these, and Obama's election seemed to present such an opportunity.
^^^^^^^ CB: This seems to be a bit wishful. The conservative Democrats and Republicans may have been anxious and on the defensive , but they weren't about to vote for the program you are talking about ! And following the lead of a Black, "socialist' President, young and new. You gotta be kidding.. Have you noticed the response to his leadership on healthcare ?
^^^^^^^^
His choice of key advisors, particularly Summers and Emanuel, was an early indication that he was not going to use the momentum coming out of the campaign nor his office as a bully pulpit to rally and broaden his base as a prelude to significant reform. It was an indication that he would, like his predecessors, take his base for granted while pursuing a more cautious course designed to attract these forces to his right in order to secure a second term. He bears the responsibility for the choices he made, and at this stage they do not look to be good ones, both in relation to the public interest and the narrower partisan interests of the Democratic party.
^^^^^ CB: Use his office as a bully pulpit, like Teddy Roosevelt, uhhhhuh
I'd say you have an inaccurate assessment of what was possible. We have just been through 30 years of Reaganism, 8 years of an extreme rightward swing. The campaign gave no indicaton to think that the US population which in its majority had supported all that Reaganism and rightwing shit was ready to make a giganitc lurch to the left as you describe ;or that , what can I call him, a President under suspicion for a lot of things including being a "socialist" by a whole lot of people, could win a majority of Congress, conservative ( or even liberal) Dems and Republicans for a radical social democratic program.