Comments on: Obama’s Radicalism: Breaking The “Big Versus Small Government” Frame

By: Texas Aggie

Texas Aggie — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:38:44 +0000

During the last eight years government increased tremendously. In the absence of government hiring, Bush would have had almost a flat or negative employment growth rate. So the new “paradigm” (if I may coin a new word:) is functional government vs. inept government. Forget size as long as it works.

By: onecrappyusername

onecrappyusername — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:05:59 +0000

But Obama IS radical! As in rad. TO THE XTREME!1!1

By: OGLiberal

OGLiberal — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:32:54 +0000

@nathan – I often referred to Bush’s policies as “radical”. I called the neo-cons “radicals”. Still do. In those cases, though, I viewed them as “radical” in a bad way. But “radical” change isn’t always bad.

By: MKS

MKS — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:45:49 +0000

Even a government of the people and by the people should have clearly defined restrictions on what it may do for the people.

Why? Because otherwise, the people grow weak, and the government grows very powerful and corrupt.

By: Redshift

Redshift — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:37:16 +0000

Yes, absolutely, Bush’s policies were radical. They were actually called that, and not just by opponents. Google “Bush radical” and it’ll turn up quite a lot.

By: nathan

nathan — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:09:07 +0000

If Obama’s proposals are radical, then you have to call what GW Bush did radical as well. Democracy in Iraq? Largest tax cut in history? these were radical proposals. but somehow i never heard that word associated with bush, or other conservatives for that matter. it seems to be a liberals-only word.

By: jawbone

jawbone — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:55:14 +0000

My problem with the speech is that Obama spoke of taking action on great issues, but I’m not sure what those actions will be.

However, he still has his eye on “reforming” or “fixing’ SocSec, which doesn’t need fixing. But it seems he’s making it tradeoff of taking on healthcare? I’m not sure, but am worried about that.

Re: the Lowry statement, “He’s trying to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism, and if he succeeds, might well shift the center of American politics for a generation,” that’s what Bill Clinton said was imperative as well. He worked very hard to make the governement effective, efficient, and working for the people. Competence. Doing what was logical and pragmatic.

He believed that unless the public viewed govnment as accomplishing what they needed to have done, it would be difficult to pass new programs to help the people.

By: Redshift

Redshift — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:53:11 +0000

One quibble, Greg — I think you give McCain too much credit. He handed his campaign over to the Rove-Atwater acolytes, they didn’t “hijack” it. His repeated willingness to run with blatantly false GOP talking points about the stimulus should leave no doubt about which of the “bipartisan maverick” or “anything to win” is the “real” McCain.

By: Redshift

Redshift — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:49:40 +0000

I have to disagree, Armando. There’s a difference between saying “I’m against big government” and “I’m not in favor of big government.” One is defensive, the other is part of an honest statement of the Democratic position.

The reason “big government vs. small government” has to be transcended is that it has always been one of the standard conservative false dichotomies — issues where one side is their core belief, so they are absolutely convinced that if we disagree, the opposite must be one of our core beliefs.

They profess belief in “small government” (usually code for unrestricted corporate power and allowing states to perpetuate discriminatory policies, but let’s leave that aside for now.) We disagree that it’s always good, and they try to paint us as lovers of government for the sake of government.

Or they declare their opposition to all taxes. When we point out that’s insane, and would turn the whole country into Alabama, they take this as evidence that we are committed to raising taxes because we like them as much as they hate them. And the list goes on.

None of these things are remotely true, but since they are BS arguments, responding to them directly or trying to smack them down with logic only strengthens them. By refusing to engage in their argument and instead talking directly about what we really believe (and with the massive failure of the past eight years), I hope that Obama may be able to move us beyond them.

By: Armando

Armando — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:10:37 +0000

Greg:

You claim Obama was not defensive on this, when in fact he was. I point you to this early passage in his speech:

” As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am. . . .”

That is clearly defensive.

By: Bernie Latham

Bernie Latham — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:52:34 +0000

“Henry at Agincourt”
I understand that The Bush Legacy Project has applied for copyright protection on that metaphor.

By: Kathleen Hussein in Maine

Kathleen Hussein in Maine — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:41:54 +0000

Universities: commie, homo-loving sons of guns.

Obama on TV again. This is what I love. He is front and center almost every day. And good at it. No wonder his approval is so high. It’s leadership. It’s Henry at Agincourt.

By: Bernie Latham

Bernie Latham — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:29:19 +0000

Notions about Johnson are a bit muddied by the PR campaigns (contemporary and post) about him. As one observer put it, the “War on Poverty” might be better described as the “Skirmish on Poverty”.
***
On the notion of reframing and populist targets, Todd Gitlin has some notes from the speech posted at TPM. The first one reads: “When was the last time a president said that universities were part of the solution?”
In the 60’s, populist anger was building with the targets being consumerism, corporate values, and the foreign involvements of the US, particularly military involvements, which were in aid of corporate interests. The Chamber of Commerce crowd (sorry, a simplicity but not an inaccurate one) had to redirect attention and anger to mitigate against the danger of their preferred system collapsing. One of the prime targets they pushed were the universities (pansies, dreamers, Marxists, atheists, etc). All of this is ubiquitous still in rightwing rhetoric with David Horowitz and Dinesh D’Souza building their present careers with this schtick.

By: Kathleen Hussein in Maine

Kathleen Hussein in Maine — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:05:37 +0000

William — Good points. I missed that bit on Scarborough, but I’d hate for that to stick, because that is going to be a clarion call for the Repub dead-enders and anyone else who thinks Great Society is code for enabling dependency and irresponsibility. And affirmative action and all the rest of their betes noir.

That’s why that line connecting finishing your education and patriotism was profound and powerful.

By: Tena

Tena — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:03:48 +0000

Joe Scarborough was actually right this morning when he said Obama “is raising the Great Society from the ashes.” The thing is, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was derailed by the culture war that was triggered by the Vietnam War, not by any intrinsic failure on its part

this is a discussion I’ve had with people many times over the years – was LBJ a failure or a great president? I happen to think The Great Society had the potential to make him great and the war is what ruined it and I still think he was a right-thinking man. He chose not to run again in the face of an almost certain victory because he couldn’t take having to run that damn war that derailed his grand ideas for this country.