President Tabula Rasa

In her response to Obama's ascent to power, Katrina vanden Heuvel invoked the following "resonant and relevant words" from the Nation's 1933 editorial response to FDR's inaugural address:

"Never in our national history has there been so dramatic a coincidence as this simultaneous transfer of power and the complete collapse of a system and of a philosophy."

But here's what her own personal Jesus actually said yesterday:

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.

I can't quite put a finger on it, but somehow—somehow—this second quote doesn't remind me of the first one.  Rather than indicting an entire system and philosophy, Obama offered us an economic few-bad-apples story as he called the current crisis "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some" (though to be fair, he did also cast a wider net as he lamented "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age").  So to summarize Obama's view:

1. The economic crisis is the fault of a few greedy, irresponsible people, and also...
2. ...all the rest of us collectively, but...
3. ...doesn't call into question the inherent goodness of the market.

Not quite the 1933 Nation editorial, is it?  Closer to the opposite; in fact I'd say that rhetoric like "the complete collapse of a system and of a philosophy" sounds an awful lot like Obama's boogeyman of "worn out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."  But as usual, when Obama speaks, the actual words don't matter.

Comments

[steve m]

obama's rhetorical strategy there of spreading the blame around is what repels me the most.
of course, a lot of elitist liberals are fine with that, as the alternative (truth, that is) would constitute class warfare in their tiny, classist minds.

[SteveB]

Did you know Obama was calling on all of us to embrace a new culture of responsibility?

I'm not sure what this new culture of responsibility entails. Does it mean holding members of the previous administration who committed crimes responsible for their actions? I sure hope so! And I suppose it also means finding which Wall Street criminals were responsible for fucking up our entire economy and punishing them, too.

And you'll be pleased to hear that Obama's "Inaugural call to greater responsibility and renewed national purpose is one that all Americans can unite around." That's the Wall Street Journal editorial page talking, so you know their call for "responsibility" is genuine.

[KDelphi]

Katrina has SO sold out lately. Maybe she always did, and, I didnt notice.

Yes, alot of it seemed to be a "lecture"--especially to those who DARED to "hope" that they could ---buy a house!! And were STUPID enough to think that their appraiser wasnt lying!! Damn home-wanters!

Damn poor people!

I especially hate the "put away childish things" part---wtf was that? It is "childish" to oppose the govt when you see your country collapsing all around you?

Well, apparently that is not the country THEY see. The "Nation" is already hounding me about re-subscribing--not a chance, Katrina.

[John Caruso]

For clarity's sake (since in rereading the posting I think I pretty much entirely failed to get this across): the phrase "to be fair, he did also cast a wider net..." was supposed to be withering sarcasm. It just doesn't come out the same without the smirk and the giant-sized comedy wink.

Anyway, I'm with you completely on the repugnance of Obama's determination to spread the blame around and to call for "responsibility" from those of us who weren't actually responsible. This is how it always works, of course; responsibility comes into vogue whenever it's time to start sticking it to the public, and goes right back out again when it's time to shower corporations with tax breaks, incentives, bailouts, and other goodies. Obama's just following the standard script—but it sure would be good to see some of the nice liberals at the Nation noticing that.

KDelphi: Yeah, I'd say KvdH has always been this way (or at least she's been this way for as long as I've been paying attention). I once amused a liberal friend when he asked me if I read the Nation and I replied "No, too conservative."

I was lucky in that my political awakening happened during Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia, and so many progressive outlets got that wrong that it quickly dispelled any illusions I might have otherwise maintained.

[KDelphi]

Maybe i have become more "progressive"?? I have been a socialist for a few years, but, maybe it was the Dems caving to Bush that really broke my heart..

I have to admit, Clinton was a big disappointment, but, I just thought that the Dems were the only alternative. I voted for Nader once, and, Jesse Jackson once before Bush made me hate preachers..

I was a "Clinton fool"---I supported the welfare reform (before I knew what DC-speak was for "reform"--cuts and abolishment) and de-institutionalization (before I knew that the promsied group homes would never appear...on and on). Yugoslavia, ...I think I figured he "knew what he was doing"...sigh.oh well, one can only know when one knows..

I casnnot go back to pretend..

[NomadUK]

For clarity's sake (since in rereading the posting I think I pretty much entirely failed to get this across): the phrase "to be fair, he did also cast a wider net..." was supposed to be withering sarcasm

For the record, the sarcasm was quite clear from the context. In addition to everything else, I despair at the apparent decline in the ability of even supposedly sophisticated readers to be able to discern sarcasm and irony in the printed word without accompanying inane punctuation or follow-up explanations by the author. One pictures Swift's A Modest Proposal in which every other sentence ends in a ;-) for the benefit of the illiterati.

I'm not sure what this new culture of responsibility entails.

I am; I'm sure you are, too. It entails coercive volunteerism; not unlike the current plans in the UK to force immigrants who wish to become citizens to endure additional years of uncertainty and taxation without representation whilst they 'volunteer' in their communities in order to become 'integrated'. It would be interesting to compare the level of volunteerism and integration amongst immigrants versus that of the general population; I think I know the answer to that one, too.

[John Caruso]

I'm certainly not going to judge you, KDelphi; I spent years defending wise, wonderful Clinton against the attacks of my conservative friends, and if Obama had been president then instead of now I'd have been right there in his corner.

Nomad: I'm not sure if anyone missed it, actually, but I'm glad to hear it came across; not every posting gets the same loving care and attention, so I expect that my intentions might sometimes be obscure.

[LA Confidential Pantload]

Responsibility? I know the answer to that one - responsible people go along with having their Social Security and Medicare axed.

[KDelphi]

I think the "culture of responsibility" means, keep up with caitalism or f-you!

Glad I am not the only one who bought into Clinton...

[KDelphi]

Forgot one thing, John---lol--I also believed that NAFTA was going to really help Mexico's economy! Wow..I shouldve realized it was a con job to allow multinatl corps to buy up indigenous peoples' land, water and resources, and give them a chance to "choose McDonald's"!

[Gnome Chomsky]

I spent years defending wise, wonderful Clinton against the attacks of my conservative friends, and if Obama had been president then instead of now I'd have been right there in his corner

Well, it's like what Molly Ivins once said - something to the effect of, if left to her own devices, she'd be happy to point out all his shortcomings, but the sheer demented, obsessive, deranged attacks on the man forced her into defending him by default. The right's single-mindedness didn't allow for any nuanced discussion; you found yourself just having to say, "No, he didn't sell nuclear secrets to China; no, he's not a super-ninja who has assassinated several dozen shmoes who KNEW TOO MUCH; no, he doesn't have American flag-design toilet paper in the White House and the collected writings of Marx on the bedside table."

Forget trying to critique him from a leftist perspective; attacking him for being a corporate warmongering whore would have gotten you the same befuddled, blinking stares as if you ranted about his connections to the mole-men and the cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers (though that might have gotten you an hour on Art Bell's radio show and a book deal).

It'll be the same with Obama - I find it hard to sit there and listen to blatantly racist attacks on him or his wife, or insane rants about how raising the top tax rate to 39% is communism, or how closing Gitmo means releasing hardcore terrorists to wreak havoc, and so on. It's like...you can't begin to start teaching basic reading, writing and 'rithmetic until you get the kids to stop eating paste and lead paint chips, so that's what I'm resigned to doing for a while.

[Duncan]

I agree, Gnome C, it's hard to defend someone against right-wing lies and still attack him from the left. But I guess we're just going to have to learn.

[John Caruso]

I highly approve of the C.H.U.D. reference, Gnome.

I didn't find it that difficult (once I'd gotten a clue) to defend Clinton from right-wing lunacy while still criticizing him for his actual crimes. I think it's going to be much harder with Obama, though, mainly because I don't think Obama is going to be the cynically calculating, vicious, lying bastard that Clinton was. It'll be more like the Carter years. And it'll be even harder now than it was with Clinton since we're basically going from the worst possible Republican to the best possible Democrat (within the confines of mainstream electability), and so the contrast looks as dramatic as it ever has.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens (and what Obama's first major betrayal looks like), but at the moment my guess is that he's going to be a competent and generally unobjectionable imperial manager—a perfect salesman for the status quo, as I've said before—which is going to make it difficult to explain why there's anything wrong with his approach.

[Thomas Daulton]

Yeah, during the fiasco of the 2000 election, I heard the argument several times from “progressives” that Clinton and Gore absolutely _must_ be liberal champions, because they make the Right foam at the mouth so much. Why would the Right hate them so badly unless they had good reason to fear Al Gore’s determination to move the country Left?

Alas, the answer – which I explained, only to receive the “befuddled blinking stares” you’re talking about – is that most everything the Right does basically boils down to power plays, rather than ideology. (Or, basically, that _is_ their ideology.) Everything they say is a Straussian lie. If I don’t believe anything the Right says is true, then why should I believe Rush Limbaugh when he says that Al and Hillary would “socialize” health care?

(‘course, the grassroots seem incapable of understanding, that power plays also explain _nearly_ everything that Washington Democrats do, too – but again, befuddled stares.)

[Harold M]

There's a quality of fundamentalism to the befuddled stare responses. They act like victims of a tightly controlled, controlling collective. Progressives are perfectly capable of figuring out how and why the right wing plays stupid power tricks, and many take that risk, but if they take it far enough for a systemic critique the response from within their pecking orders is invariably a vicious flurry of shaming and shunning. The punitive shrieking and offhand calumnies take their toll; they learn to embrace whichever community-approved defensive dissonance keeps them smelling sweet.