On 11/10/2010 11:42 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
> I evidently can't persuade you or Charles or Woj that the
> administration was in a stronger position than the Republicans and the
> bankers when it first took office, and that seizing the initiative as
> Roosevelt did in similar, albeit not identical, circumstances would
> have almost certainly have produced a better outcome.
Actually, when you put it this way (focusing on the very beginning of Obama's term), I sort of agree with you. I don't think it ever dawned on Obama that the economic crisis marked a break with the past, that it would last for a long time, and that politics would not be the same afterward. Except for attending to the necessary policy measures (stimulus, bank bailout, financial reform), he basically stuck to exactly the same game plan he would have executed had there been no economic crisis. He still thought his presidency would be about health reform, cap-and-trade, rescinding the top-income Bush tax cuts, and presiding over an advertised Iraq withdrawal -- just like in his 2006-era daydreams about being president.
On the economy, he paid lip-service to the idea of never going back to "the old way of doing things," but implicitly he made it clear that the "old way" he had in mind began in 2001, not in 1981 or 1974. Basically, like most DC liberals, he thought everything was fine in the late 90s, that there were no termites in that basement.
And I can't imagine he ever realized he would be presiding over ~10% unemployment throughout his whole term (though he should have). Had he realized that, I think his only rational option -- cautious centrist though he may be -- would have been at least some sort of feint at radicalization. If he did realize it but still did what he did, then the man has no political judgment. Or maybe he thinks he's got a trick up his sleeve in spending the next two years baiting the Republicans into painting themselves back into the evil-crazy Gingrich role. That's the only thing I can think of.
SA