By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
Over the last week, liberal politicians and commentators took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to criticize the debt deal that Congress reached. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans but rather at Barack Obama, who they concluded had failed as a President because of his persistent tendency to compromise. This has been a running theme ever since Obama took office.
I think that liberals need to grow up.
As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry. In this view, writes Chait, "Every known impediment to the legislative process - special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion-are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech."
This does happen - if you're watching the American president - but not if you're actually watching what goes in in Washington.
The disappointment over the debt deal is just the latest episode of liberal bewilderment about Obama. "I have no idea what Barack Obama ... believes on virtually any issue," Drew Westen writes in the New York Times, confused over Obama's tendency to take "balanced" positions. Westen hints that his professional experience - he is a psychologist - suggests deep, traumatic causes for Obama's disease.
Let me offer a simpler explanation: Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist who understands that in a country divided over core issues, you cannot make the best the enemy of the good.
Obama passed a large stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Perhaps it should have been bigger, but despite a Democratic House and Senate, it passed by just one vote. He signed into law an unprecedented expansion of regulations in the financial-services industry, though one that did not break up the large banks. He enacted universal health care, through a complex program modeled after Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. And he has advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts.
Maybe he believes in all these things. Maybe he understands that with a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100% of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion dollars hoping that will jump-start the economy.
Perhaps he believes that while banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system, and that in a globalized economy, constraining American banks will only ensure that the world's largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese.
He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is in fact a crucial part of stabilizing our fiscal situation, and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts-cuts that are smaller than they appear because they all start with the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus.
Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence and appeasement, or is it common sense?
For more on this, you can read my column in this week's TIME magazine or at TIME.com (behind a pay wall). Tune into CNN on Sunday at 10am ET/PT for GPS. In the meanwhile, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
This president is doing a great job, against overwhelming opposition from congress. I personally think that one reason he has had this opposition is becasue our elected officials are acting unreasonably. If we want our politicians to act reasonably then we need to elect reasonable people. Not people who run on the fringe and are rigid in thier beliefs.
Also- a consequence of this is that may unreasonable people happen to be religious. I feel that a heavy religious background should be a neggative when running, not a positive as it seems to be. religious beliefs run counter to reality, and are in my opinion causing harm to this nation.
Doing a great job??? He could have shaved 3.5 Billion dollars per WEEK from government spending simply by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, which he initially promised to do. Name ONE democratic policy he is responsible for enacting. So called "Obamacare" does not count. It was essentially the same healthcare reform proposed by the Bush administration. Go ahead. I'll wait. And the republican bashers crack me up. Obama has done more to aid the conservative agenda than Bush ever did. And you will note with the same economic result.
A reasonable person would withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly...sorry that takes a while.
@Keith. Takes a while??? 32 months and counting??? And explain to me WHY it takes that long? There has been no gradual drawdown of the cost of those wars. We STILL spend more than 3.5 Billion per WEEK, and remember this is money the government never had to begin with. And another thing people seem to forget is just how much of that money gets siphoned off and funneled back to insurgents to help them finance their war against US. And the fact that, through CIA asset Osama Bin Laden, it was the US that built the network that allows the insurgents to finance themselves. Financing Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet economy, and it is aiding the destruction of the US economy.
@Don, it takes awhile to do it the right way or else militant and terrorist groups just come flooding back into those countries like they did many years ago during the last time we messed our noses around in those countries. And you know what happens if you leave a desolated, impoverished and defenseless society to just rot in those countries we bomb and then leave behind ruined? Things like 9-11 for one, and whole generations of hatred towards the United States and other countries who got involved. Obama said before he was even elected that "the bus has already been driven into the ditch, and it takes awhile to drive it back out." And then he got elected.
Not to mention it is just plain immoral and irresponsible for the worlds largest and most powerful and wealthy country to ignore the HUGE humanitarian issues in general that arise when you just up and leave a country immediately after a wars we started. All worry over their hatred aside, it is just plain wrong to leave innocent people and children to be left to fend completely for themselves. We are staying there longer to make sure the government, the police and the military of those countries are stable and strong enough to not fall apart in our wake. Things aren't always so cut and dry and easy when you take into consideration the ethics and human costs..
Well I agree we should have been out of there a LONG time ago. The whole war to begin with was CRAP and has cost us so much money and is continuing to cost us. Bush was to blame for creating this mess, but Obama needs to get us out 100% now. I'm confused why there is a hold up with leaving for good. I would think the expense to keep us there and wasted lives would expidite peoples minds to just leave! What are we doing there anymore?
Joshl-
I agree with most of that. I really do. And Bush surly placed Obama in a situation that we all knew he was going to have to "wear" publicly. I guess I just don't understand what you REALLY can do to not allow those groups to come back in. I believe nothing. If they want to come back...establish cells....well they will. We need to except the fact that this world has 6 plus BILLION people on it now...and you can't stop that train from moving anymore.
Don, we're talking pragmatic and centrist....not rash and stupid.
@don, just like the article says. you need to grow up.
Why don't you point your finger at the Republican's who initiated these two wars to begin with during the Bush years? How dare you!
We had no business to even step foot in Iraq to begin with. Yet, the ex-President Bush and his "entourage" dared to step their toes into Iraq first to find "weapons of mass destruction" just to get to Sadam Hussein . . . when in reality, he should have concentrated on Afghanistan before 9-11 took place.
You should also be aware that George W. Bush had a personal vandetta against Sadam Hussein. He desperately wanted to finish him off because Sadam had a "death sentence" over the elder Bush when he was in office.
I agree with Ron Lambert. President Obama is doing a great job! The Republicans (JOHN BOEHNER, et.al.,) will continue to bash President Obama because number one, he's black and number two, they can't stand to see a black man succeed in the WH. The Republicans are trying their damnest to discredit President Obama just to get him out of office. That's their intentions – deliberately.
Remember one thing: John Boehner, et.al., are in office to pacify their "rich" friends who continuously donate perks to their campaign. How do you think they got into office? This is why they WON'T agree to tax the rich – they need to protect their "friends" providing that they fight the President and his party tooth and nail to cover their butts.
Some of your comments regarding our economy . . . the overall decisions are based on what the members of Congress vote for and against. So why are you all blaming the President? When he gives them alternatives, the Republicans (JOHN BOEHNER, et.al), continue to take center stage and vote "NAY" to every suggestions he offers to them.
Regardless of his weaknesses whatever they may be, I will AGAIN vote for this President. Why? Because I focus on his strengths. And, if you people out there can criticize and put down our President, then I don't need to tell you what his strengths are. You will only continue to bash him anyway. This is the price of ignorance.
I find that many on the so-called "Left" or who call themselves, "Progressives" are willfully blind to the power and influence of the right-wing religious, political, and economic extremists and their corporate backers that have merged under the banner of the GOP/Tea Party Cult. They play on stereotypes, just like the "colorblind racists" on the right, who love to attack Obama as deficient in "leadership" abilities, etc., as if he could somehow "lead" the GOP away from its strategy to use or threaten the veto for almost every piece of legislation and political/judicial appointee Obama Supports. They're even holding quorums over the "recess period" in order to prevent Obama from making any recess appointments.
For more a different view that accurately analyzes the powers we're up against, please see my article, "CRUSADER CHRISTIANITY, TEA PARTY CULT, & THE LEFT" http://open.salon.com/blog/ronrobinson/2011/08/02/crusader_christianity_tea_party_cult_the_left_wip
Don, before you judge Obama, think carefully, whether you can name a president in modern American history, who had to deal with as tough problemes as Obama is facing?
@don. do you think President Obama sits in an office and comes up with the war plans?..Or would it be military planners who give the presiednt options and he chooses from these options....He is the President, not a General dude.
Tell em' shiloh. I'm voting for , and my whole family is voting for, Obama again as well!!!!
When oh when will we learn that a well organized military cannot, will not, win against insurgents? Hello! No one wants to have their home land occupied, regardless of the "good intentions" of the invaders, oops, I mean rescuers. Wake the blank up.
Perhaps the US should better consider the effort in getting out when in such a rush to go in.
what's the point. Even if we slowly give them back the country, they're just put another terrorist organization into power and commit another 9/11. If the US has a hard time with the taliban, how are a bunch of afghans and iraqis going to stop them? Maybe you people need to think before saying we can do anything meaningful. But i guess you liberals loved how those marines died earlier this week.
There is a withdrawal for Iraq.He made no promise regarding Afghanistan other than to stay until it was won.
@Don Who started that War ? it was Bush, the Gang of Four; Bush, Dick, Rumsfeld and Paul W.. Bush left a mess that even a republican president could not have fixed. Obama has been treated badly by republicans who are all racists. They did not accept his election and hounded him. Pulling our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq is conditional upon on-going events there. Iidiotic Bush and equally idiotic gang should have analyzed the consequences of invasions, they did not !
You are just a stupid guy like the rest of the republicans. Why did Bush not pull the troops out ? did he need a third term to do it ?
Check here. There are lots. Your statement is without merit. No promise was made to withdraw from Afghanistan and, last I checked, we're pretty much out of Iraq, per the Bush plan. Read a bit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
You mention about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? In the first place who promoted this two wars? Or perhaps you had a very long sleep you didn't know. Don't forget, these two wars caused America a big debt prize. It was predicted that the next president after GWBush will really have a very difficult time, and this is it now. Now you are blaming Obama for all of this? No one can solve this mess, not even the Tea baggers. No one can give a better solution. Look what is happening in Europe? Be more open minded.
I think the president is going an excellent job. I think he is taking the right stance. We need to cut spending severely and restablish taxes across the board. Liberals need to grow up. What happened to the American dream? Has it become the milking on the government system? I would be damned if it has.
"He could have shaved 3.5 Billion dollars per WEEK from government spending simply by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, which he initially promised to do."
Incorrect. He laid out a plan during the campaign for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, and an increase in troops in Afghanistan.
He is doing a great job???? You are insane. He is driving this country in to the ground. If anyone got what they wanted with the debt deal, it was the democrats. What actually got cut?? Nothing. The Tea Party wanted a balanced budget amendment and real cuts in spending. Neither of those things happened. If we would have gotten a BB amendment years ago, we would not be in the mess we are in now. This absurd notion that the President and the Democrats gave in to the tea party is pure BS. They got to keep spending without cutting any real programs and doing absolutely ZERO to bring down the spending or the debt! if the democrats would not have defeated the Amendment years ago, then the administrations that followed would have been forced to either live within their means, or raise taxes to fund programs. So even under Bush, congress would have been forced to do what democrats love, and that's raise taxes. Their would have been no alternative. We cannot keep borrowing money we do not have. Eventually the dollar will be WORTHLESS! And we will get exactly what is happening in Europe. Riots in the streets. We already have almost 50% of our country not working. When are you foolish democrats going to wake up. If you keep taxing more and more, eventually, the only jobs we have left will end up leaving. Eventually there is no companies left to tax and we will get exactly what is happening.
What makes you think that cutting spending will create a balanced budget? Even if we susspended all of our spending today it would never balance the budget, the only thing that would happen is even more dramatic stagnation.. It is not the answer to our problem. We a balanced approach.. Cut spending ( a little bit) increase revenue and (sorry republicans) we actually need more stimulation for the economy. Use your brains!
What makes you think that cutting spending will create a balanced budget? Even if we susspended all of our spending today it would never balance the budget, the only thing that would happen is even more dramatic stagnation.. It is not the answer to our problem. We need a balanced approach.. Cut spending ( a little bit) increase revenue and (sorry republicans) we actually need more stimulation for the economy. Use your brains!
What makes you think that taxing everyone to death will help stimulate the economy?
For once, a smart post on these blogs! Nice to see everyone is not drinking koolaid. As for the idiot writer, he needs to check his facts – the Tea Party has gotten the brunt of the blame!
Yes. I get it. Cut taxes to 0%. Everybody suddenly goes out and starts their own business and hires each other. We become the world's greatest superpower again. Every texan spontaeously has a wet dream and the world's 6 billion people start celebrating Ron Paul's birthday as Paulmas.
What a bunch of sh ite. No wonder the Indians and Chinese are catching up so fast. Some genetic mutation must have caused every grandchild of the greatest generation to become retarded.
@Joe – If you are so concerned with our debt, why did the repubs hold the country hostage in order to get their way? It resulted in a debt downgrade and over a Trillion dollars lost. This trillion dollars in in peoples 401K retirement plans and impact the US population. THe Tea Party might have some good ideas, but the trick is to know how to implement them. Signing a pledge not to raise taxes means no compromise. The whole system of government is based on compromise. Talk about being un-American.
Joe, The administration needs to create a business-friendly environment. An increase in business and jobs will create the revenue to make up for a cutback in spending. Balancing the budget is just one things the govenment can do. They can also stop talking about and/or threatning businesses with tax increases and instead talk about rolling back some of the obstacles they've created. Congress always wants to pass a new law to fix a problem or placate some group. I guess that's because most of them are lawyers. Someone once said "If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail".
A “REAL” compromise between two diametrically opposed ideologies is one in which both parties are unhappy with the outcome. As is the case with the recent debt deal, both the far right and the far left are unhappy. There’s no monopoly of common sense on either side of the political fence.
Ok, so, every law and policy that the President of the United States signs must first be approved by both The House of Representatives and The Senate. There are quite a few men and women involved in that process prior to the President even seeing the final version of said law/policy. So, why, please tell me, why are we focused on the President. He ultimately signs the law/policy into effect, but, only after the congress approves it. The way I see it, the congress is to blame for all of our issues seeing as how they are the ones who take their sweet time to get anything passed so that the President can then sign and approve.
so why didn't bush increased taxes to pay for his wars, he did the opposite and see the mess we are now. but people has to realize that the money spent in the wars actually stays in the US, it goes into the hands of contractors to the pentagon. it happen to be friends of the bush clan. these wars are just a scheme to make tax money paid mostly by middle and lowers class americans change into the hands of corporations owned by the same ones promoting the wars from office
Joe, what the Tea Party wants is bad economics. A balanced budget amendment sounds appeals but it is about the worst thing that could happen to this country. Economic cycles happen all the time, and when governments cut spending to balance their budgets, the main effect is to put more people out of work and cause a downward spiral. The deficit spending that Obama did at the beginning of his term was necessary; in fact many economist would say the biggest problem is he didn't spend enough. This was a terrible time to make an inssue of balancing the budget- That's what Herbert Hoover tried to do, making the Great Depression even greater.
Joe that's funny you say the dems got what they wanted when Boehner said in an interview that he got something like 90 % of what he wanted.
Massive, legislated revenue reduction, Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, NCLB, raising the debt ceiling 7 times, over 96 months. All unpaid for. Did you just wake up, or is it easier to blame the black dude whose had the reins for 32 months?
Thank you Ron for a rational and true comment...you are right on
You guys make me laugh
The army chief of staff recommended we don't leave and Obama over-rode that due to political pressure. Albeit, a slow withdrawal. Givne what his chiefs of staff recommended and what the public wants on this are polar opposites, he's doing the best he can.
ii'm gonna go out on a limb and say the chiefs of staff know what's better from a military standpoint than the general public. a huge downfall of our democratic system is that if the general public has a skewed view of what is best, politicians are more interested in keeping their positions and making a decision that isn't necessarily the best one in order to appease a crowd.
Man, are you blind? There is NOTHING Obama has done that he equate to a "good job". I guess that's why his job approval rate is falling off the cliff! Wake up!
OhGreat...those performance rating wouldn't happen to be performed by the same crowd of citizen that have my airwaves clogged with reality shows and teen vampires...WHATEVER you bunch of unyeilding, overconfident, armchair, morons!
Finally someone said it. It appears no one paid attention in civics or government classes, despite majorities Obama gets the best deal he can. it is not majorities that really matter it is VOTING MARGINS, 60 votes. and the dems in congress B.S. remember Max Bacaus, Ben Nelson, etc. Kent Conrad said day 1, "there are not the votes for a public option and never have been". Progressives are looking for Che Guevara or Malcolm X or any number of our former heroes, never gonna happen, where were the progressives to meet the Tea Party push in 2009, some weak Jon Stewart Rally? try getting more Progressives elected to congress 1st, local and nat'l.
OMG – heaven forbid – that would absolutely insure the country's demise!
I def. do agree with the religious statement though. There should be NO PLACE in this day in age, for religious bable to way in on decisions for a whole population anymore. That use to work fine long long time ago. No more.
You spelled babble wrong
You can't abolish religion, not all of it, there are some good suggestions, like we might be judged by how we treat the least among us , I think that's Jesus– be wary of letting that one go
Fareed makes very good points. BUT – compromise comes after you make a compelling case based on deeply held beliefs. What are the president's deeply held beliefs regarding our unsustainable debt – other than that we need to fix it?
For a pragmatist and a realist, none other are needed.
"Deeply held beliefs" can and get in the way of sound governance.
Uhhh, that it is unsustainable?
All religious and non-religious people are allowed to vote in our country. All far right and far left believers are as well. It is who we are. No one group should have rights superior to another when it comes to voting. Althought the percentage of our population that know nothing about how our economy works is frightening. Only congress seems to be more ignorant...or deaf.
I find that many on the so-called "Left" or who call themselves, "Progressives" are willfully blind to the power and influence of the right-wing religious, political, and economic extremists and their corporate backers that have merged under the banner of the GOP/Tea Party Cult. They play on stereotypes, just like the "colorblind racists" on the right, who love to attack Obama as deficient in "leadership" abilities, etc., as if he could somehow "lead" the GOP away from its strategy to use or threaten the veto for almost every piece of legislation and political/judicial appointee Obama Supports. They're even holding quorums over the "recess period" in order to prevent Obama from making any recess appointments.
They have done more to de-legitimize and undermine his Presidency than any President since Lincoln. Obama campaigned on "yes WE can." But these phony progressives expect him and the Dems to do it all themselves. Where were they for the months before Gabby Giffords got shot, when Tea Party extremists had taken over the block where her office is and daily threatened and intimidated her staff? And she's just a moderate. They've been using similar intimidation tactics around the country. THAT's what we're dealing with and THAT's why these phony progressives rather throw stones at Obama and the Dems than get organized and mobilize in support of our allies in Government – and that means Obama. They're afraid but what to appear tough so they demonize Obama. Stop demonizing him like the right-wing does 24/7 as an enemy etc.
For more a different view that accurately analyzes the powers we're up against, please see my article, "CRUSADER CHRISTIANITY, TEA PARTY CULT, & THE LEFT"
http://open.salon.com/blog/ronrobinson/2011/08/02/crusader_christianity_tea_party_cult_the_left_wip
Apparently you slept through the left's actions during the W years...
yea when i look around "great" is what comes to mind
Just as many unreasonable people happen to be non-religious. This is self-evident by reading typical posts on this website. Don't blame a lack of faith-driven moral compass for the unwillingness or inability to think through an issue.
Learn how to spell negative ya moran. R u completely dum?
Neggative is actually spelled with one g, Negative. If you can't spell simple words no one cares about your political opinion. Especially when it is so f&*#'d up.
"reasonable people"?
You mean, like 400 or so Barney Frank's?
Whatever your smoking, I want some NOW. He had control of Congress for two years and accomplished nothing. Now he cant compromise and even makes his leftist pals mad. He needs to dump Pelosi and Reid and start begin rational. He gives us the worst of the Bush policy yet offers nothing new. I'd swear if George Bush I had a love child, it would be Obama HUssein Baracka – not a foreigner btw.
Shiloh – #1, you're the racist here. #2, both parties have about the same number of corporate backers. In fact, Fortune 500's #1 spot (WALMART) favors the dems. So get your facts straight; otherwise, you're passing along rumors and looking pretty ignorant. Do your research.
14.7T Debt or no debt, Obama has appearently backed every Fed inflation that has been made during his presidency, many of them, not to mention how large they are. That hurts, it hurts us alot. The debt needs to be paid back, plain and simple. Not very many people stood up against Bush when he authorized the suicidal spending, perhaps because of the media, who knows, but still Obama has only added to it. 4 Trillion, and the only thing firmly accomplished by him was the assasination of Osama. Either way, as far as Iraq and Afganistan goes, we need to pull out. We have no purpose there anymore, the country lies in the center of terrorist territory. You cannot elimanate terrorists, you can fight them, regardless how terrible they may be, you can never fully rid a resistance, because the more you selectively exterminate a group of people for there actions and beleifs, the faster and stronger they grow. It's like cancer. If you cut it out, it will always mysteriously appear and attack something else. The war is not only costing us lives money couldnt dream of buying, but also costing us while they are there. We have to pull out someday, no matter how long it takes. But if we pull out now, it will save American lives AND save the money for having them just be there.
You nailed it, Ron! Great analysis. Thanks!
You're not alone Ron. The President is doing an exceptional job when you consider the negativity and intransigence he is facing with this Republican Congress. Their motivation is entirely political. Their allegiance is to Grover Norquist, over and above their allegiance to the country and that is alarming and dangerous. The President promised to represent the entire country when he won the election and he is a man of his word. A President's job is to represent and work on behalf of the whole nation, not just those that voted for him. He is a statesman more than a politician and I have nothing but respect for him. He's doing an amazing job despite the negativity, racism and obstruction he is faced with.
Good job?...
General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year, but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the United States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs.
I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.
Ron – -
I agree that the president is doing as well as can be expected. However, he needs to rally the country to the behavior of the WWII generation. In the three years of World War II the government spent $6trillion in 2011 dollars. The marginal tax rate for incomes over $2.4 million (in 2011 $s) was 94%. The government borrowed extra money (debt) from the American people. We need a declaration of war against joblessness and the Republicans and their Herbert Hoover economics be damned.
AMEN!!!!!!!! Great piece, Fareed. I'm s liberal and I could not agree with you more. GIve me a pragmatic, centrist President any day over someone who makes speeches without delivering the goods.
We need a leader with principles, not a wind vane. BHO gives pretty speeches, but he's never run, or lead anything in his life. He talks compromise, but that means that the oposition must agree to his position, not true compromise. Someone please tell me exactly what Obama believes in besides lots of spending...a 24% increase in the last two years...and NO budget. Now we borrow 40% of every dollar we spend. We're being lead down the path to being Greece 2.0.
You are proving exactly the authors point. The fact that liberals think Obama gives in to conservatives, and that fact that conservatives think he doesn't give in at all just shows that probably both sides are wrong, and Obama is probably the smartest one in the room.
You're not your.
THANK you. And it happened twice in that paragraph. You are a greater man than I for being able to get through the rest of the article – that lost me forever.
graaammmurrr nazis. If your smart enough to know what they mean, then wining about they're mistakes is just ego masturbation.
Hahaha...it's people like you that we have to thank for President Obama. Idiot.
Oh dear, not to be petty, but I have to admit that that stopped me in my tracks, too.
Zakaria should feel bad about these errors. If you care about your writing, you should be willing to take the time to proofread. If you don't care about your writing, you shouldn't publish it.
I try to write clearly, concisely, and according to recognized standards. A grammar error will throw a given reader off for maybe a few seconds; multiply those few seconds by a thousand readers, though, and I would be a jerk not to take five minutes to correct my errors.
That said, I still value Zakaria's opinions, even if he and CNN aren't showing us (their readers) the respect we would like.
I wonder if it was Fareed who made the typos, or CNN's paid professional copywriters that "corrected" it.
Now that I got my correction comment in, I have to agree with the article. Obama really is trying to come to the center, to pull people off the fringe, but people like Pelosi and Reed and McConnell and Boehner won't let them. Honestly if we could get an Independent, centrist candidate to run outside the party lines, I'd throw both parties out and get someone with a grip on reality in there. Unfortunately, I think Obama is the only one with a grip on reality...
Go Tea Party and bring this country back !!!! if you want Socialism ,, move to Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to agree Will. Presidents may campaign from the left or right, but in the end they govern from the middle. They can't afford to ride the ideological high horse. Personally, I think Obama may have given away too much on health care and on the debt crisis, but he's the one that has to be the adult in the room. He worked hard to obtain bi-partisan support in both areas, but the further he'd move to center, the more the opposition moved to the right. Finally, the far left of his own party became his worst enemy.
Democrats need to remember what they did to their party in 1979. By challenging and bad mouthing Carter in the primaries, they virtually guaranteed the election of Ronald Regan. If they expect to keep the presidency it’s time to shut their mouths and rally behind their candidate. The alternative is frightening.
Fareed is the best analyst out there. GPS is great, but too small a forum. He should be the host of Meet the Press instead of that clown David Gregory.
@Peter, i totally agree. Fareed Zakaria is brilliant, and he does need a bigger platform...Meet The Press would be great!
Finally a comment worth reading-Fareed Zakaria would greatly improve "Meet The Press" I don't have to agree with everything he says to appreciate his intellectual capacity. David Gregory just does not probe for answers to the issues he raises – his political guests appear too comfortable and not pressured at all to provide answers with substance.
Fareed, first...you rock!! Wish you could run for POTUS!! I have been folowing Obama VERY closely since his speech at the 2004 Dem convention and it has been obvious to me for quite a while that he is a centrist and pragmatist....even during his presidential campaign...I think a lot of folks merely heard what they wanted or didn't want to hear instead of actually understanding what he was actually saying.
Superb, I'm passing this on to FB. It's so sad that when we have a bullying right wing who is intent on squashing everything liberal, with Obama at the top of their list, his own party dumps on him for finding a way to work with that horrible situation. He deserves praise and support. The haters will only come to see how blessed we are that he didn't let the right throw us over a cliff. this is an anemic bill for sure but he worked with dinosaurs to get it.
The bill he offered himself was shot down by the Democratic controlled Senate 97-0.
Try again...
"This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington."
Seriously, CNN? Your editors can't differentiate the possessive "your" from the contraction "you're?" No wonder this country has gone to hell, when even the reputable news outlets can't grasp the fundamentals of the language they operate in.
Bye the bye, Obama *is* a failure as president. Compromise is NOT always the best nor even appropriate solution to a given situation, and its the mark of a successful, effective leader to be able to recognize when to use it.
I say this as someone who allowed myself to believe in the vision and message of the candidate, and who is beyond disillusioned with the actions of the man I helped get elected. Believe me, I won't be supporting his re-election effort.
It's "by the bye."
BOOM headshot
Also, I believe you wanted to say, "It's the mark..." If you're going to chastise people for typos and grammatical errors, please be sure to spell/grammar check your own work.
Your comment is comically hippocratic.
Thank God for someone with not only a grip on reality, but someone who has good values to boot! I don't think what the President says and does is motivated by self interest or greed. Though his paycheck might be better than most, that is not the point (you couldn't pay me enough to do his job). He has learned well what the majority of Americans and probably intelligent people everywhere, want, and he delivers. Kudos brother!
I agree with the overall theme of the essay. I just keep hoping that he doesn't believe the economic policies he's implementing are optimal. (starting to question this assumption) But if they aren't, I think he needs to articulate that instead of make everything seem so positive. Imagine back in 2008/2009 if he had said, "we got 700bn of stimulus, we believe this will help avert a disaster. However, we wanted 2.2tr. Here's why... " I get the compromise, I understand the political constraints, but I wish he'd at least be on the record with what he and his advisors think would be optimal.
Your opening premise–that liberal criticism of Obama has been to the exclusion of the Tea Party or Republicans–is convenient in the context of your argument, but factually wrong. To the contrary, while liberals have clearly been critical of what you describe as Obama's pragmatism, they have, as a group, been virtually (and understandably) apoplectic over the aims and behavior of the radical right. Accepting, for the moment, your view that Obama's performance thus far shows pragmatism (as opposed to what liberals might label a failure of leadership), are you suggesting that his "pragmatism" has been successful in advancing the causes for which he campaigned? And are you suggesting that "pragmatism" is itself a virtue? By your definition, would Chamberlain be worthy of praise as a pragmatist? Food for thought.
Libs are disappointed because of many things not mentioned here, but which all add up to BO going down in history as the most disappointing president ever, such as:
. allowing executives of bailed-out companies to keep their ridiculous bonuses
. pushing cash for clunkers (a stupid, stupid waste of money)
. time and again refusing to kill the Bush Tax Cuts
. failing to deliver single-payer health insurance
. failing to stand up to the republican attack machine
You can go week-by-week through his presidency, and identify instances after instance where he gave in to either/both Republican interests and the right-wing media machine. It's far less easy to find instances of him working hard to support liberal interests, especially when it comes to increasing revenue.
Right wing media machine. That's rich!
ct ssn
@yellow shark...my friend, I know lots of regular people that LOVED cash for clunkers......Two farmers I met loved it. Many car freaks loved it too.....my only criticism is that in talking to people who actually have purchasing power, u discover that they would have liked the program to go on for four years.
Here is a question for Fareed or one of his ardent supporters: What does "Far Left" mean and what does "Far Right" mean? If you answer honestly, you will see that the spectrum of our politics has taken a massive shift to the right.
** On another note, I can't really take Fareed's opinion very seriously when he has decided to censor commenter from his website. I guess that whole First Amendment Free Speech thing doesn't mean anything to Fareed as long there is compromise!
Ten years ago it took only 66 workers assisting robots to make 300 Lexus cars a day! The jobs haven’t gone overseas, for over 30 years they have been gradually taken over by machines and they are not coming back. We have to reshape our economy to function in this new reality. Corporations must market to the masses to survive and the 400 or so rich of America can’t support them. Murdoch and the Koch brothers will have to become feudal lords if the world chooses to go back to the past and I suspect they know this. So, do we go bravely forward into the future with President Obama and work on developing new occupations through scientific research and infrastructure repair or do we return to the past where the uneducated poor beg any employment they can get from their rich overlords. It’s your future and your choice.
Um, I don't know who told you what, but I've worked in the IT industry for years, and the jobs most certainly have gone overseas. In fact, I've been at places where they've had to train the people from overseas that will be replacing their job!
We are and have been constantly losing jobs to India and Mexico. Mind you, while the big corps. have been making hundreds of millions in profits, if not billions. It's not that they can't pay a good salary with benefits, they just don't want to. Pure greed.
Fareed, I love your show and the thought you put behind your opinions. However, I think that a little proofreading might be in order. For those who pay attention to such things, the fact that you use the word your (beloging to you), when you mean you're (you are) could undercut much of the rest of what you say.
I really find this article condescending and poorly argued. Liberal bloggers, columnists, and hosts may be hard on the President, but shouldn't someone be arguing liberal and Progressive positions? I'm happy for progress in a liberal direction, no matter if there are concessions. I'm also mad that the President has to sacrifice good policy in order to compromise with a rather radically ideological right-wing. These statements are not mutually exclusive. The President earns my and other liberals ire not because he compromises, but because he's so (seemingly) bad at negotiation. The massive unforced negotiating error back in 2010 when the Bush rates were renewed is one example of Obama's inability to start negotiating from a position of strength or achieve ancillary goals in exchange for Republican demands. The debt ceiling should have been raised back then; the leverage of a tax increase on the wealthy would have been enough to push the intransigent Congressional Republicans of that Congress to an agreement on the debt ceiling. Plus, the Republicans and Democrats would have had plenty of political cover for doing so: both the passage of tax cuts and passage of time between the debt ceiling action and 2012 elections. However, Obama basically started with "I give up; the rich can keep their tax rates," and he got nothing in return for it (besides unemployment benefits that Republicans would have been forced to give in on just due to politics and optics). Essentially, Obama capitulates without achieving even "the good."
You forget the START treaty. If Obama had not agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts the GOP would not have approved the treaty with Russia.
SPOT ON Fareed!....Liberals Need to GROW UP. We cannot afford to just finance every social cause out there, villify all rich people and corporations, etc. There must be some fiscal responsibility, accountability, and restraint. And Conservatives, especially this new virulent strain that is wreaking havoc on our country, need to remember that PEOPLE trump POWER, POSESSIONS, and POCKET BOOK. Spending some money to take care of our PEOPLE is not an evil thing, because we all know that Conservatives love to spend, spend, spend just as much as Liberals do....it's just WHAT they love to spend on. And that would NOT be the PEOPLE.
GOP: Bush unilaterally destroyed half the country in 8 years, and we want to destroy the other half of it now.
Obama: Let's compromise and only destroy 25% more.
It took 225 years and 43 presidents to reach the $ 7 trillion deficit. This administration has doubled it in one year.
I'm sure it was for the best.
Fine job!
Sure, if you are going to make up figures, let's say he was responsible for the whole thing.
When Clinton was in office, he balanced the budget and had a surplus. When Obama got into office, he inherited trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt. Bush spent 8 years undoing Clinton's financial responsibility and left Obama to deal with it, which he couldn't seeing as a recession had set in and the only way to get OUT of a recession is to spend money!
that isn't accurate. Obama still has yet to add to the deficit as much as W.
one other thing obama inherited from bush........................AAA rating
"He enacted universal health care, through a complex program modeled after Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts." Really? You need to read a little bit more about what universal health care is. He enacted a bill that effectively forces people to pay for insurance and gives big corporations every reason to drop there coverage for employees.
"Let me offer a simpler explanation: Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist". If he is the center I would hate to see the left
Indeed, Mr. Obama is a better Republican than any of the "Republicans" preparing to challenge him, *and* more of a Democrat than any of the "Democrats" crying that he's too soft.
If that's the case, we're screwed!
Oh, what an absurd laugh! People like you are part of the problem we are now facing!
Why does the author of this post write: "This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington."?
The possessive pronoun "your" – means "belonging to you", whereas clearly the author means "you're", an abbreviation for "you are". Therefore, "your watching" means the "watching belonging to you" (a valid construct only if used in the same way as " my watching" or "our watching"). If the author intended to abbreviate "you are watching", then there is only one correct way to write this, and that is "you're watching".
Similar issues exist between "its" (possessive pronoun, "belonging to it" – no apostrophe) and "it's" (abbreviation for "it is" or "it has"). e.g. "It's the dog that's licking its paws."
If we're getting solecisms like this from major news channels, what hope is there for us teachers to educate our charges on correct usage?
All these posts about 'your' instead of 'you're' make me nauseous. Haven't you ever heard of typos? You guys are all commenting on a typo and ignoring the message in the article. Stop being so high and mighty.
If YOU'RE going to try to present YOURself as intellectually superior, as Fareed Zakaria likes to do, then you should get the grammar right. How am I to take him seriously when I have grammatical errors jumping out at me? Fareed Zakaria is another left-wing, pseudo-intellectual nitwit.
Thank you for the English lesson.
Thank you! I believe in the end the largely silent block of people in the middle will prevent the nuts at either end from taking over this country, but I do start to worry sometimes when reading or watching TV these days.
This post needs some major copyediting. Sorry but someone had to say it. "Your" for "you're" more than once ... it's like reading a high school essay ... that hasn't been proofread. It's just depressing.
Didn't we just learned that Obama does not run the country. It's the Legislative who run things. Bunch of corrupted rich
old dudes who don't care about the little people. I'm surprise the un-employed (people) have not riot yet. Or is it because the US gov. is not as broke as it claims and little people rather just collect unemployment benefits and food stamps.
Does the writer of this article not have an editor? There is a difference in meaning between "your" and "you're."
Fareed you and the President can kiss my ... There is a difference between a pragmatist and a wus.
Fareed is not the best analyst out there. He’s a liberal spinner like the rest. Obama’s a pragmatist? What a joke. And people that think he’s doing a “great job” and imply that he’s “delivering the goods” is even funnier. Obama is all over the place. How can he be a pragmatist? First he says he’s against something. Then he’s for it. Here are some examples. He was against raising the debt ceiling (as a senator); now he’s for it (as president). He blames the bush tax cuts for the deficit and says that it didn’t help the economy (granted the tax cuts are partly to blame) then he extends them last December and tells everyone that they will help the economy. Which is it? He doesn’t know.
If he was such a pragmatist then why did he propose a budget that got voted down 97 -0 only to follow up with something (more serious) after Paul Ryan released his plan? If he was serious about the deficit and cutting costs why didn’t he say what he was going to cut? He offered no specifics; he had no plan. All he does is give meaningless speeches where he stirs the pot. He talks about the need for bi-partisanship but refers to republicans as his enemies and tells them to sit in the back of the bus. He vilifies big business and the rich but wants them to create jobs and contribute to his campaign. He tries to create class warfare by saying that the rich need to pay their fair share. If the top 10 percent are paying 70 percent of the taxes while half the population pays nothing (but many are on some type of aid) who really isn’t paying their fair share. I agree that the tax code needs to be modified. There shouldn’t be loopholes were companies like GE pay nothing. But this isn’t how Obama explained it. Instead GE’s Jeffrey Immelt (who ships jobs overseas) is head of Obamas job council. Are you kidding me?
Mr. Hope and Change lied to you. Gitmo is still open. His administration has lobbyists in it. He signed bills with earmarks. He didn’t take the “scalpel” to the budget. There is no transparency (bills on cspan). He said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Since he’s been in office the average unemployment rate is 9.4.
A pragmatist takes the best overall solution in a given situation. Obama tries to please everyone and in the process makes no one happy. That is not leadership. If he was a leader he wouldn’t have delegated his agendas to the congress. Look at the health care mess. That was all Reid and Pelosi. “You have to pass it to find out what is in it”. But being the truthful guy Obama is he’s going to tell you that it was congress that racked up the bills. It wasn’t his agenda (that the democratic congress pushed) or signing bills into law that exploded the deficit. He wasn’t the one responsible for spending more than 4 trillion dollars in less than three years
Ddaamm, I credit you with providing more specifics than most people here, but there isn't much that I agree with. The problem is that you cherry pick your points and leave out the context. Take one example, the Bush Tax cuts. Yes they were a terrible idea when passed and yes they are the biggest single cause of the current deficit, but no it makes no economic sense to cut taxes during an almost depression.
I wouldn't say cherry pick. I could go on alot more. To keep it brief I give a few examples.
I 'm not convinced that the tax cuts were the biggest contributer to the deficit. The fact is spending has outpaced everything else. Also I don't follow your logic. It's okay not to raise taxes during an "almost depression". But it was a bad idea to impliment the tax cuts after the tech bubble popped and we were in a recession. Was that recession not deep enough? Also we were never at the point of an "almost depression". The numbers would have to be a lot worse. The only numbers that are comparable are in housing. All of this doesn't change the fact that obama is incompetent.
Nice... I wish I wrote all of that. Unfortunately, we will need one party to dominate before we can get anything done. Fortunately, it is going to be the Republicans/Tea Party in November 2012. Please do not write that the Tea Partiers are crazy. They are Americans with an agenda that they believe in.
I guess I'll just have to keep repeating myself until it takes: Obama has no agenda on any issue whatsoever other than the process in Washington. One can no longer discount his pre-election remarks as mere campaign rhetoric, for he was giving it to us straight: he wants to "make Washington work" more than anything else.
So he makes major policy proposals, then he refuses to fight for them, and as a result, no real (and desperately needed) reform has emerged. We've seen three years of this, and three years of the GOP take advantage of him because of it. Obama is not a centrist, but then he isn't a liberal either. He doesn't care about any of this, but he cares a lot about the process itself. This isn't pragmatism-tempered ideology, because "getting something done" is often enough worse than doing nothing at all, and the author misses the point entirely.. It is something else; something unique.
For those of us who actually do care about some things, however, he's a bitter disappointment. While I can see elements of nobility and grandeur in someone who stands disinterestedly for the democratic process, real people are in very real distress (and it's getting worse, regardless of earnings reports), Obama's real agenda is utterly beside the point.
Obama's sense of history is flawed as well. The GOP tactics we see today are exactly how things have worked in our republic since Adams and Jefferson spent our first thirty years going toe-to-toe.
Try googling "James Thornton Callender"
Of course Fareed will defend Obama. Better check him for bombs...don't want another Fort Hood.
That remark is racist and doesn't belong in this conversation. Shame on you!
While this is good analysis, I believe you give too much credit to the President and do not highlight any of the shortcomings of this administration. We could call Obmacare "Universal" health care in the sense that everyone will technically... be insured, but this reform did not begin to deal with cost and the fact is being insured has nothing to do with the fact that many Americans aren't able to afford the basic health care they need. It is a victory, but basically kicks the can down the road a few years for true health care reform.
Also, he's largely towed the line of Bush Administration policies (which I agree you can't tout as truly conservative), failing to fight on most issues for liberal or even "pragmatic" policy. It was clear the debt ceiling show down would co...me and that the President should have picked his fight over taxes and let the government shut down, something which would have led to a political and policy victory for the President given what we saw in the Clinton administration and the academic literature which has addressed similar situations at the state level. We would have had better fiscal policy which involved cuts and higher taxes and would have avoided the political mess which led to S&P's credit downgrade.
Liberals aren't necessarily wrong to question Obama, given that with the exception of the super-rich he wanted to continue Bush's tax cuts (and by extension poor fiscal policy) and was not willing to fight very hard for taxes on the ultra rich (irrespective of the road blocks, his administration justified continuation with the fact that he wanted to continue the tax cuts for others and did not want the gov. to shut down), there' also the issue of the debt ceiling debate (which has already been talked about ad nauseum recently) and his continuation of the Bush policy to increase (or perhaps fail to challenge) the military-industrial complex. The ramping up of the war in Afghanistan and long pull-out timetable is ridiculous from a pragmatic standpoint. Beyond the issue of money and losing good Americans and the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians, it's defense benefits are highly questionable given that Osama Bin Laden is dead and the degree to which the threat of Al-Qaeda and the "Radical Islam" is extremely overstated (something which you've covered before Fareed). Although we have defense cuts now, they are small in comparison to cuts to programs which benefit poor, working or middle class people (which contribute to state's debt issues) and are not enough. I have a sense that Robert Gates (a Republi...can mind you) left the administration due to the lack of administration support for cutting wasteful defense programs and lack of willingness to listen to him about the War on Terror.
Beyond policy feeding this large liberal discontent is the large disconnect between rhetoric and policy agenda, Obama has been a large proponent of creating jobs, especially in clean energy and science and technology to help the economic recovery, if anything else cuts and lack of new policy on the agenda has hurt those sectors, high on the rhetorical agenda was also the closing of Guantano Bay which the administration initially failed to do and hasn't touched since. Pragmatism is a desireable trait, but so is leadership, and although I agree the President's ability to make a speech or overcome road blocks has been overstated by liberal pundits. His inability to articulate or demonstrate that he will at least fight for working/middle class people is unfortunate. Because pragmatism in creating bargains also involves political astuteness which the President has shown that he lacks leading to economic policy which is not "Pragmatic" but the least confrontational way to secure re-election.
funny. ...the democrats are mad at obama for compromising. ..and mad at the tea party for not compromising.
No, the Democrats are mad at the President for rolling over and giving the GOP basically everything they wanted without getting anything meaningful in return, and mad at the Tea Party for almost causing the United States to default on their obligations.
ftfy
Bruce, The US got down graded because the compromise didn't do enough to tackle our debt. The Tea party wanted more debt deduction, while Obama got to add several more trillions to our debt. You blaming the Tea party just don't make sense.
Where do you people come from? Massive cuts in spending during a recession deepen the recession. You cut spending when you first reduce the deficit in other ways...like increasing revenues. These irresponsible people who believe that a budget can be balanced without increasing revenues and spending cuts are just that: irresponsible. To create jobs some one has to spend the money...and there are many things in this country's infrastructure that need work. A jobs bill along with responsible revenue enhancement and spending cuts woule be a start. And as for "driving the country into the ground" this President had a hand in saving this country and the world from sliding into an abyss of an economic catastrophe. Never blame the tow truck driver for driving the car into the ditch!
Where's the piece for conservatives to grow up? Is that too much to write given the prepubescent blowback you'd get. This piece is a low blow and misplaced given who really needs to grow up and stop being obstructionist in the beltway.
There is no hope for them. Have you seen the tea bagger rallies?
Great Article!!! People are so used to extremes that they don't understand how a President can be centrist. This is the whole point of COMPROMISE. It might not be the best debt deal but it is a first step.
I'm a liberal frustrated with Obama, but not for his pragmatism and willingness to compromise – I admire and appreciate both of those qualities. What frustrates me is that he sits to the side while Congress debates the issues, while Republicans get out front with their hostile messaging, and he only steps in after the situation is already heated up and out of control, at which point his message of reason is drowned out, his ideas ignored. I would like him to step up and take the lead, to get in front of the issues, to state his position and his demands early on in any debate, rather than sitting back and trying to "lead from behind." It has repeatedly proven ineffective both for working out compromises as well as establishing himself as a leader who can get things done.
I think you should consider the 'type' of leader the President is: a TEAM leader vs an autocratic leader. This is his style. Not everyone leads the same. As the President, he can suggest and probably does alot of that behind the scenes. But it is up to Congress to make the laws and for the President to yay or nay them. Tho I prefer he stand firm on getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts for example, I trust this very smart, articulate President. A breathe of fresh air from Mr. King Bush who couldn't string two words (???) together.
this guy fareed, no matter how much he speaks in support or writes in support of obama, i dont think they are going to hire his in the administration. so its better for him to calm down his obama love
Well at least he can express a coherent idea instead of posting some Twitteresque ignorance like you just did.
Learn to write.
Funny how everyone wants to blame Obama for this tea party downgrade. The republicans wanted to show the baby sitter who is boss. As a result they aired our dirty laudry to the world and now have to suffer the consequences. You cannot show the world that you would rather not pay YOUR OWN BILLS rather than WORK with the president and expect nothing to happen.
The Republicans only control 1/3 of our govenment and the Tea Party is just a small fraction.
The president had a solid majority on his side for over 2 years and waited 800 days to come up with a budget.
Obama: "it's everyones fault but mine!"
Next thing, he'll tell us it's "malaise".
Americans need to grow up – You would rather die a partisan death than come together to fix a nation. This is the new racism Democrat vs Republican and it is disgusting. Think about your children and bring back the word liberal as something to be proud of – it means free- have you all forgotten???
Shame on you!
Now go fix the country and stop bullying each other in the school yard!
"Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist who understands that in a country divided over core issues, you cannot make the best the enemy of the good."
Problem is, I didn't vote for a Centrist. I voted a Liberal.
And compromise it great...if you're not the only one compromising. At some point, you gotta stand up for what you believe in.
I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I actually think a lot of left-wing liberals were the caricatures of the far right: swept up in the emotion of the candidate Obama and attributing all sorts of values to him he never had.
As a president, Obama promised to expand the war in Afghanistan, to very slowly end the war in Iraq, to raise taxes on those families making over $250k, to stablize the banking system with new regulation, and to unify the country. He never promised to push the radical left wing agenda. I voted for him because he was a moderate willing to use the levers of government at a time when we needed to get control over the markets again.
well i dare not disagree or the liberal powers that be will censor my comment so i will just say pres obama is a great prompt reader, tadaaaaaaaaaa
His and Clinton's centrism is becoming passe and ineffectual in this highly partisan political environment of no-compromosie, my-way-or-the-highway. Add to that the rise of the myopic and arrogantly ignorant Tea Baggers and you'll see more and more gridlock and non-action in American politics.
Yes! Thank You Fareed for saying this!
Its funny, Liberals say Obama should have stood his ground and not caved on his principles. Then they call the Tea Party "terrorists" for standing up for what they believe in. What hypocrisy!
Guys, its called compromise.
It's funny, when the GOP gets everything they ever wanted and the President basically capitulates on every single point, and moreover abandons every core progressive principle he's ever claimed to have and won't even defend something as fundamental as infrastructure spending and increased deficit spending during a recession to stimulate GDP but rather gives into the "cuts only, no tax increases" deficit reduction manta of the far-right, they call that "compromise."
When the Tea Party is ready and willing to send the United States into economic oblivion by turning a routine debt ceiling vote as a vehicle to push their entire economic agenda (and some of their social agenda as well), that's "holding true to principle."
Hypocrisy, indeed.
Gotcha, Fareed! "This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington." Hard to believe! "your" where "you're" is meant! Ah, well, no one is perfect!
this guy fareed, how had he trys to think what obama does is all correct, however hard he trys to speak and write in support of obama, i dont think they will hire his in the administration. so calm down your love for obama and think rationally. obama is speaker in chief and not commander
I think, Mr. Zachariah, that you're missing the two big things Obama did wrong with these negotiations, and neither of them has to do with some theoretical stirring speech. The first is that the president responded to the Tea Party's offer to burn our house down by giving into their extortionate demands. They promised economic ruin for us all if they got what they wanted, and he handed it to them on a silver platter. The second is that for all your trumpeting of Obama's putative "centrism" that he got a bum deal even from a centrist perspective. Not even the loopholes for yacht purchasers got closed. No matter how ridiculous the tax break, Obama couldn't get it into the budget. This wasn't a deal for Obama: It was a carefully negotiated surrender almost the whole way across the board. The president just got rolled, and all of America with him.
Obama does a great job, given the barrell of crap that was given to him. The economy was broke over 8 years and it wont' be fixed in 2.5 either. Much like a person who becomes overweight rather quickly, losing that weight takes much more time, effort and commmitment than it ever did putting it on.
8 years? Really? In 2006, just before the Democrats toke over Congress, people were buying SUV's, houses, trips to Europe. Unemployment was under 6%. I long for those days, except for the whining of the left-wing media.
i dunno... it's true that the president is not omnipotent but it seems like he could do more to wrest the discourse from the yahoos on the right. he allows his enemies to frame the discussion and then, whether he is enacting the policies he would have anyway, he lives within that framing. he doesn't use the bully pulpit to strenuously beat down that which is untrue and instead just goes along for the ride others have prepared for him. i think that kind of passivity is the thing that rankles the most. it matters whether you are acting within the environment you create or you allow others to portray you and current events the way they please. imo, he needs to unsheathe and go for the jugular... every time. but we'll see if his playing with kid gloves cements his reputation with centrists or makes him appear weak.
What this President has done is nothing remotely close to compromise, Mr. Zakaria. He has effectively let the right-wing fringe of the republican party (which only controls one house of Congress) hijack national policy. Basic economics 101 states that deficits do not matter, especially in the time of a recession. We need more government spending, not more spending cuts. Liberals have every right to be outraged with the President, who instead of standing firm gave in to radical conservative pressure and signed a bill that will further depress our already weakened economy. So the only "growing-up" to be done is by Mr. Obama himself, who should stick by the more progressive values he ran on in 2008. He needs to grow up and listen to the nation's top economists who say this debt deal is an economy crusher and stop listening to those who bark the loudest (Tea Party members). So there is growing up to do–and it needs to happen at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
i think the democratic party are silly,acting like my 10 year old. so much for much for supporting our president. why did they want to envoke the 14th admenment only if the GOP's did not sign lthat bill. democratic grow the h..l up.
"This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington."
I'm sorry but I can't get past the misuse of "your" twice to read any further. You're obviously going to have to check behind your editors.
Glad I'm not the only person who was annoyed and distracted by this by this.....
Mr. Zakaria –
I have a great deal of respect for you. I think you're an incredibly intelligent commentator, and that's refreshing in this age of bombast and personal assassination. However, I think you got this one wrong, in general. The objection to the President is largely based on fundamental liberal ideology, more specifically with the President's apparent abandonment of basic Kensyian economic principles. He should not be out there talking about how important deficit reduction is, because deficit reduction doesn't mean a darn thing in the face of 9% unemployment. He should be out there talking about job investment and protecting the government spending we have. If he wants to reduce the deficit, fine, but take it out of the pockets of those for whom a modest tax increase won't affect in the slightest. What is he? Is he a Chiago school of Economics free market fundamentalist, or does he agree with the macroeconomic principles that saved us from the Great Depression and led us to become the most powerful economic force the world has ever known? The President might be making deals, but he's very much sacrificing the intellectual high ground. Our debate now focuses completely on the idiotic notion that it's somehow a *good* idea to drastically cut spending in the face of 9% unemployment.
Obama isn't doing enough to raise taxes. He needs a different tact- maybe the extra money from taxes will go to paying off the debt so the next generation doesn't have to carry the heavy burden? More spending cuts need to be made and America should demand efficiency from the public sector- there is so much money being wasted, we could get a whole lot more done for less money!
Yeah, liberals do need to grow up, but to become libertarians, like I did, not to become neo-cons, like Obama!
As a liberal I disagree with this article. I am beyond frustrated and angry with the right in this country, I place little to no blame on President Obama for the debt ceiling crisis which was completely and wholly manufactured by the right to distract from the fact that they refuse to focus on what they were elected for....jobs!
I used to be slightly left of center – the GOP, republicans, tea party, conservatives, etc...whatever group you want to attempt to differentiate them as, they are all one in the same, and have all seemingly come together for what they believe is "the good of the country" only to show rational people just what that "good" is to them. That has done one thing for me; it has pushed me further to the left than I used to be in my own frantic attempt to distance myself from some of the worst people in this country.
Not just their politics or their ideology, just that they are bad people in general. They want the policies they want not because of some sense of they are right and the other side is wrong – they simply want control over everything and everybody in order to build the world in their own vision...which does not in any way include diversity, equality or fairness.
What a load of BS. Obama is a pushover and Republicans know it. It doesn't matter how much he compromises. Republicans will insist he's an extreme, marxist, communist who hates America and is secretly a terrorist trying to destroy America from within and the tea baggers will eat it up all up. The tea baggers will not compromise. Neither should Obama.
Democrats are the blue team. Republicans are the red team. That is the extent of most American's political knowledge. They paint their faces and cheer, as if politics were a football game, without any regard for the consequences. That is why we elect amazingly horrible leaders, like John McCain, and Barack Obama.
Sadly, you are correct. Every study has proven this. No matter who the candidates are 40% will vote for the Democrat and 40% will vote for the Republican. Only 20% of the citizenry actually care about issues and solutions, and that is far too small a number to make any real difference.
Barack Obama came to the Presidency of the United States with almost no applicable experience. He's never really run anything significant. He's a great speaker, but that's where his expertise ends. He has spent his career surrounded by handlers, yes-men an sycophants. When he took office, he basically took all his cues from Nancy Pelosi, squandering his opportunity to make any significant progress on a host of issues by concentrating entirely on her health car plan. Just as she manipulated the Congress to get her way, the Republicans manipulated the issue to highlight its bad points, and turn public opinion against Obama. Meanwhile, economic and environmental issues were ignored, and foreign policy became little more than an extension of all the Bush mistakes.
Now, everyone in Washington is looking ahead to 2012. Nothing will get done without real leadership, and there is little of that to be found in either party. Obama appears weak, and in reality he probably is.
I wish that Fareed knew the difference between "you're" and "your" but I guess this is his personal blog. I'll let it slide... THIS TIME!
Oh, I've seen plenty enough typos and grammatical errors throughout this website to blame CNN's supposedly paid, supposedly professional copy editors.
A few good insights on the relationship between liberals and their president...but Obama is a centrist? Someone please name a few folks that are left of Obama? Obama is delivering exactly what he said he would. People who voted for him are upset becasue in reality when the hope-change rubber meets the road you get trillions in debt, massively expanded government, uncertainty and unemployment.
wow what a wackjob.
atleast he isnt calling us racist for not agreeing with Obama...
"This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington." <- It's hard to read an article like this when the author misses some basic grammar errors. "You're," not "your." I don't care about the opinion; get your literary stuff together when you publish for CNN, please.
I think that the President did more than his fair share of compromising recently. Perhaps the conservatives could take a shot at it? Or are they too busy signing pleddges which remove their ability to do so?
Incidentally, Mr. Zakaria, you should fire your copy editor-
"if 'your' watching the American president"
Fareed is getting too much like David Gergen. What is open and obvious to everyone is that someone opened the nuthouse doors and out came the current breed of Republicans with their new version of purity and anti-government crap.
This guy probably started at the National Enquirer – he should have stayed there.
the only worse "journalist" out there is Sara Palin.
Dear Mr. Zakaria,
The only people who feel compelled to tell others to "grow up" are those individuals who've not accomplished that goal themselves.
Perhaps you feel that your argument isn't as powerful without name-calling?
In that case, I'd say your argument is weak....and you make it weaker by resorting to childish name-calling.
Do you really consider yourself a professional journalist?
I sure do not. You sound like the mal-adujusted folks in Congress.
Sir,
To answer your question, I think that for the first time in a long time we have a president who has a log of good ol' common horse sense. And the strength to pull the wagon. The Bush administrations didn't take care of one of the most viscous criminals who attacked our country. President Obama did. He made sure the job got done.
Give me a break, Fareed. I'm all about compromise, balance, and centrism, but that's not what we're seeing here...we are seeing the complete surrender of the President to the whims of a small group of conservative extremists. If it's not our national policy to negotiate with terrorists who would do harm to our country's citizens, why is it our policy to do so with radicals in government who are just as likely to bring us all to ruin?
Agreed, Morgan. Now that it's clear that the President isn't a champion for progressive economic theories, it seems that the "pragmatism" of Fareed Zakaria has led him to abandon Keynes as well.
The GOP, as much as I disagree with their policies, completely outmaneuvered and out-negotiated the President. They got everything they wanted. They even got the President to publicly crucify progressivism and now they got Zakaria to call that "pragmatism."
Obama a CENTRIST, what a laugh! He's the most socialist leaning president ever... And till he and the rest of the old hippies who don't believe in reality leave the leadership of this country it will never get any better. Hey folks look at what's going on in England as a prelude for this country in the next 10 years! You cannot social engineer with any kind of success. Just read ALL of the history books or at least the ones that explain the downfall of previous civilizations!
I'm sure the Republicans would love for Obama to clearly state his goals, and how he wants to get there. Then they could have specific programs/efforts to foam at the mouth over/impede/make unobtainable. If he says he wants it, they will make sure it is dead. If he leads, any solution he proposes (even if obviously the best solution) would be condemned to failure.
And so the media campaigning for Obama in 2012 continues. The media knows that America does not want a radical leftist, so they lie and call Obama a centrist. This media whoring is truly sad and pathetic. Thankfully, many Americans have become aware of it and no longer buy the lies. Therein lies our Hope for Change in 2012.
do not forget 16% voting participation in the mid-terms? even Nancy Pelosi told very one to vote but not progressives,m stayed home and let the republicans take over because Obama did not get a public option – be for real!!!!!!!!!
The Republican candidates, to the last man (and woman) raised their hands at the debate signifying that they would not accept $1 of tax increases along with $10 in spending cuts to reduce the deficit and debt. Barrack Obama is the the sitting president; to dump him after 4 years for Hillary Clinton would be admitting defeat, and handing the 2012 election over to the best Republican candidate, who might just be the proverbial 'can of peas'. Obama, the compromiser, the centrist, for President in 2012. Or no compromise at all.
I agree completely with this article (bad grammar aside), only I'll add that EVERYONE on BOTH SIDES need to grow up. At times I can't tell the difference between our government – as well as political junkies and the comments I've seen on this site – and a room full of cranky infants.
I would go into the reasons for this, but I have a feeling that will be pointless.
Thanks, Zakaria, for airing our dirty laundry. I've also noticed how quickly many of Obamas supporters are are willing to throw him under the bus when things don't go our way. I think what his point boils down to though has a name: naivete. Both liberals and reactionarys are guilty of it. Both sides want to draw a line in the sand and shout, stare or charm the other side down. The reaction of many black voters in particular has been interesting – they seem to have voted for Obama, actually believing that his presidency was going to wash away their troubles like a tide washing away a sand castle. Silly. This is why I've said from the start that I knew Obama would break our hearts. We expect too much. We secretly want to behave like the reactionaries.
And while it's true that sometimes we need to fight fire with fire – it can be a dangerous proposition. Ultimately, we have the majority in this country, if we stick together, support our President,. I don't agree with everything he does either – I'm thinking of the health care thing for example – if we cant't get national health, then it's better to regulate the for-profit companies that take up our health care dollars than to flog a plan that no one likes.
But overall, Obama is doing a good job in the face of vicious, mindless, opposition that would rather sacrifice the will and well-being of the nation just to try and pin it on him, than behave like great Americans they're always gobbling about and making themselves out to be.
We need to rip THEIR sorry performance – not Obamas.
Americans must wake up. its easy to heap blames on one person because its easy to do so. But nobody in this country ever really stand up for what they believe in. If you throw the president out, then you will replace him with even worse GOP/Tea Party who will finally knock you out and change your life forever. Its your choice. So you guys can go vote as your emotions guide you instead of using your head. The GOP are in no pretense as to what they stand for. They have thrown everything they can to derail this presidency, If that makes them a better option, GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!
All these are weakness in my personal view. It's true most successful presidents before him made compromise but they won they stuck by their issues and somehow found way to won against their opponent. Bitter politics is not an issue. If you loose a political argument, you loose a lot. So it is suppossed to be bitter. This is why the whole S&P argument for downgrade didn't make sense. Government can't treat dissent like corporations. Civilized government will entertain dissent even if it's a distraction to the process.
One wonders why didn't Obama do the practical thing and cave in months ago and avoid this whole debt ceiling debacle. He could have preserved our nation's and his credit and credibility and gone on to move other legislation more to his liking as well as create more jobs just by not having created so much uncertaintly, to say nothing of the additional cost to the tax payers of hundreds of billions of addtiional interest on the national debt as a result of the lowering of the US credit rating. Isn't anybody in the White House thinking more than five minutes out? Or is Obama passively allowing the whole financial system to run aground while appearing to care by making sweet speeches?
Obama is not a pragmatist. He's more like a saloon door. Whichever way the pressure pushes him to he moves. And if things don't work then he blames someone, or something, else and if necessary throws someone under the bus. As a columnist said recently he is "leading from behind" which of course is not possible. He may be a great orator, a leader he is not.
Arianna Huffington even came onto Fareed's show and said that Obama's strategy isn't working with independents. If you don't believe it, just watch the clip on this website. Let's stop pretending to be a Very Serious Person and acting as if liberals are loony and lost their minds, shall we? Independents are just as dissatisfied with Obama as liberals are.
Fareed, you need to take your head out of the sand. According to this model, President Obama is very likely to lose the next election because he doesn't stand for any principles, just as Drew Westen said. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_president_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.html)
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/12/294914/a-switcheroo-election/
Excellent article, excellent analysis. It seems to be (American) human nature to think our problems are short term and binary: do the right isolated thing, and the problems will vanish overnight. Not gonna happen.
The hard place we're in isn't because of this administration, and not entirely because of the previous one, or the one before that. It's because we've been on a long slow path with a predictable trajectory, and course corrections are politically dangerous. To Bush II's credit, his response to the financial crisis was to position us for a softer landing than free market economics would dictate. Similarly, Obama can't make the problems go away, and is doing as well as any government in easing us through. Painful? Yes, but not irrecoverable.
And there's nothing wrong with Social Security and Medicare – but when they were conceived, fewer people lived to advanced ages in poor health. That's medical progress, but those programs expected people to be relatively healthy till they reached a natural end-point, and those assumptions have to be adjusted. It's not because they're bad programs, we just have to figure out how to pay for them realistically.
Again, it's politically risky to point out the facts and do what's necessary, but it's the responsibility of our leaders to deal with it. I'd agree that Obama is fulfilling his responsibilities in the best interests of the country, even if it's not apparent to individuals with an axe to grind.
Excellent, what would you say about rising costs of living, as well as rising costs to try to become self sufficient. It seems to me the possibilities are severly limited when the barriers are set too high.
Wow. Fareed Zakaria surprises me. Here's a person who claims to know what's best for the United States but can't even tell the difference between 'your' and 'you're.' And frankly, these aren't typos. If you're a journalist, then act like one, otherwise go back to grade school.
Wow! That's original. NOT
I've been a life-long registered Republican (though I've not always voted Republican) until I changed sides in order to vote in the Democratic Primary in 2008. Obama has been criticized from the start, unfairly, in my opinion, and he'll continue to be criticized. I think we've come to expect our President to be god-like–all knowing. However, I think a more humble person who admits he doesn't know everything is better. I also think if we are to make any progress at all it will take a very talented individual to orchestrate solutions to so many problems, and compromise will be required.
I've supported Obama, because I looked to him as someone who could orchestrate for positive change. I think that instead of expecting our President to play each instrument with the mastery required to coax the most from that particular instrument, both in sound and artistic flair, we simply need someone to guide the musicians of the orchestra, and to conduct and work with them in such a way that their expertise, combined with his expertise, and those of others, might result in the most beautiful music we have ever heard. The problem with my thinking is, I expected more of the musicians and didn't anticipate so many who would refuse play.
When you come up against those whose only goal states: “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.”, and others who have vowed to say "NO!" to everything, then there is little hope that a President can do much at all.
What liberals and Obama don't appear to have figured out is that it's important to make timely deals, even it they are not perfect, and then move on to the the next deal, and the next, and so on, and that's called governing. There are no perfect deals. But there is momentum and that's good. Digging in and just stopping everything because it isn't perfect is the worst and most stupid thing to do as we have just seen. The president above all absolutely must govern, must cut timely deals, not so for congressmen. You can't stop making deals because that's the grease that keeps everything running, governing is making deals. Stop dealing and you stop governing. Stop governing and you get run over and thrown out. This debt ceiling deal was months late and became a needlessly ruinuous dedbacle because the White House doesn't get timely deal making and momentum as a critical part of governing.
If everyone would try to get along in this government we wouldn't be where we are now. There are a bunch of major big egos in the House and Senate which are just bringing this country down and it's very sad!
> "This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington."
Mr. Zakaria, it's irritating to see that a professional journalist commits stupid grammatical and stylistic mistakes like the ones in this sentence.
What pragmatism? President Obama was months late on making this debt ceiling deal, and he ruined our nation's financial credibilty and credit rating in one fell swoop! How is that pragmatic? The time to be practical was months ago. He allowed himself to fall into an obvious snare laid by some stubborn members of congress, but they don't have to govern, the President, on the other hand, really does have to govern. So he should have looked ahead months ago and seen where this was going and cut a deal and moved on. Instead we have a real expensive mess. One wonders when the undergratuate slacker lib arts students in the White House will finally get the picture, that is, assuming they really care.
This.
The President should have, in May, invoked the 14th Amendment or minted a few $1 trillion coins and simply cut the legs out from under Boehner before he was able to use the debt ceiling vote as a vehicle for pushing the GOP agenda.
That he refused to do so shows he still doesn't get the difference between being a legislator and an executive...
It's funny, when the GOP gets everything they ever wanted and the President basically capitulates on every single point, and moreover abandons every core progressive principle he's ever claimed to have and won't even defend something as fundamental as infrastructure spending and increased deficit spending during a recession to stimulate GDP but rather gives into the "cuts only, no tax increases" deficit reduction manta of the far-right, they call that "compromise."
When the Tea Party is ready and willing to send the United States into economic oblivion by turning a routine debt ceiling vote as a vehicle to push their entire economic agenda (and some of their social agenda as well), that's "holding true to principle."
Fareed Zakaria should STFU!
HEY FAREED EVER HAVE TO HEAR YOUR PARENTS WORRY ABOUT THEIR PENSION AND SSI AFTER THEY WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES?
EVER SEEN YOUR MOTHERS HANDS BLEED?
WE HAVE 3 USELESS WARS AND MY MOTHER CAN'T SLEEP BECAUSE O'BAMA AND THE REPUBLICANS KEEP TALKING ABOUT CUTTING OFF THE PITTANCE SHE GETS EVERY MONTH AFTER 48 YEARS OF HARD LABOR.
HOW ABOUT WE JUST WORK FOR THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS FOR FREE? JUST PAY OUR TAXES TO THEM? YOU WORRY ABOUT A "VIBRANT BANKING SYSTEM" THAT SITS ON TRILLIONS WHILE 15% OF THE COUNTRY CAN NOT FIND WORK.
YOU ARE THE PORTRAIT OF THE ELITE. YOU ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY WITH YOUR PABLUM.
I didn't always feel this way but enough is enough. I don't want to hear that one more of our brave soldiers has been killed from these loonies with neanderthal brains. If more of their civilians have to die to cut our soildiers deaths too bad. Start bombing areas where these creatures are hiding and if they are in where civilians are too bad war is war. This is a war and we are paying a huge price with our soildiers lives not to mention the $$$$ blown that has put our economy where it is. The special ops guys have their own funding separate from anything else so leave them alone. GET OUT OF THESE RIDICULOUS HUMAN DEATH TRAP WARS THAT WILL NEVER END. ITS JUST TOO BAD ITS NOT 100% FOOL PROOF. OUT OUT OUT AND SHUT UP ABOUT HOW WE CAN"T BECAUSE BECAUSE BECAUSE.JUST DO IT.....
*you're...fourth paragraph. More proof that Fareed is another liberal pseudo-intellectual. Don't expect me to take you seriously with such simple grammatical mistakes.
For all of you who blame Obama's policy for increasing the debt, and how hes spent more money than any other president, you're simply wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
Bush's tax cuts account for a loss in revenue equal to the cost of all of Obama's policies combined, even when estimated until 2017.
I often wondered how Fareed was able to accomplish so much until I realized that this article is almost verbatim from the Charlie Rose show last night.
All of you who blame Obama's policy for increasing the debt, and how hes spent more money than any other president, you're simply wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
Bush's tax cuts account for a loss in revenue equal to the cost of all of Obama's policies combined, even when estimated until 2017.
Sounds like nothing more than the usual distortions, lies and republican, childish, whining .... "Blame Obama for everything".
The only problem with the compromises the President makes, is that he starts from just to the left of center and the right starts at the extreme right, so the meeting in the middle is always on the right. Just look at how Boehner was happy the deal got 98% of what the Republicans wanted. C'mon. What sort of negotiation was that?
Yikes! Fareed needs to remove his lips from Obama's rear-end! Obama has made nothing but bad decision after bad decision, and it is blatantly apparent that not only is he way out of his depth, but that he has surrounded himself with incompetents! We can't afford another four years of this, and we can't even afford another 1-1/2 years of his current term. Call your Reps and Senators folks, Republicans or Democrats, and tell Congress to get back to work! We need to change our course immediately, and they're all out on vacation!
Of course Fareed is supporting him. He always does. Not surprising though, a recent gallop pole showed that 80% of Muslims think Obama is doing a fantastic job. Fareed is just supporting his own...
Wow. I didn't vote for Obama and I think he has had both good and bad moments in office. But holy smokes, this piece was a breath of fresh air! I salute you sir!
@Jason, I made the comment above that "MANY" on the Left underestimate the power of the right-wing and how religious, political, and economic extremism had merged, thereby making obsolete a strictly secular approach that exempts religion from political analysis and strategizing. I also made the point that these same progressives who underestimate right-wing power have been contributing to undermining Obama's presidency by placing unrealistic expectations on him to confront the right-wing without mobilizing themselves to support Obama in these efforts. Rather than self reflect on their own unreasonable expectations (i.e., their underestimation of the right-wing power confronting Obama) they rather throw stones at Obama and the Dems and accuse them of not having "backbone."
Here's your response to me:
"Apparently you slept through the left's actions during the W years..."
That has NOTHING to do with my point of what's happening, not with W., but with OBAMA, and how these "progressives" are behaving NOW. You remind me of a young progressive I know – JS – and other "secular fundamentalists" who have NOT confronted the religious right on the only terms that can undermine the "moral authority" they use to cloak their extremist agenda – political theological terms – which aggressively confront the glaring contradictions of how they have made Jesus an "inconvenient truth" (because of his advocacy for the poor and vulnerable) while deifying Ayn Rand, and avowed atheist and Christ-hater, accepting her now as their "lord(ess) and savior" etc…(cont’d)
Obama a "CENTRIST" omg.....doing a great job?
Where do you people live....in fantasy land?
Thank you Fareed.
Below – Perhaps the greatest and most insightful comments EVER. Required reading, and should be made viral.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/chumps031457.php#comments
Tom on August 11, 2011 10:54 AM:
The predominately white progressive intelligentsia don't see Obama clearly because of our racial blind spot. We don't see the role of race in how he seems to understand himself and how other perceive him.
First of all, we think that he understands himself as one of us. A progressive activist, heir to the radical and New Left movements most of us were raised in. He is not; I think that he understands himself (and certainly his real base understands him) as the first African American President. We're thinking Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. We should be thinking about Harold Washington, the first African American mayor of Chicago. Washington was elected and immediately faced a solid wall of opposition from most white aldermen in the city. Washington understood his role as breaking down that wall of opposition and assembling a governing majority, which he finally did after his re-election. Unfortunately, he died shortly thereafter. By the way, one of Washington's political strategists was David Axelrod.
How does Obama break the iron unity of the GOP opposition to assemble a governing majority in the US Congress?
If we progressives were not blinded by our own assumption that our history is the only history, we might see how Obama may be seeing his situation.
White progressives often think that African American elected officials are politically naive. We will far more credit to Cornel West, who has never been elected to anything, than to an elected state senator, or even the President of the United States. We think that Obama does not understand the nature of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor, as though he has not sat across the table from them. He doesn't understand how mean they are, we think.
Obama acts entirely within the tradition of mainstream African American political strategy and tactics. The epitome of that tradition was the non-violence of the Civil Rights Movement, but goes back much further in time. It recognizes the inequality of power between whites and blacks. Number one: maintain your dignity. Number two: call your adversaries to the highest principles they hold. Number three: Seize the moral high ground and Number four: Win by winning over your adversaries, by revealing the contradiction between their own ideals and their actions. It is one way that a oppressed people struggle.
Obama has taken a seat at the negotiating table and said "There is no reason why we cannot work out solutions to our problems by acting like responsible adults. That is what people expect us to do and that is why we have entered into public service." That is the moral high ground.
Honestly, I have been reminded more than once in the last few months of those brave college students sitting in at a Woolworth's lunch counter, back in the day. Obama sits at that table, like they did at the counter. Boehner and McConnell and Cantor clown around, mugging for the camera, competing to ritually humiliate Obama, to dump ketchup on his head.
I don't think those students got their sandwiches the first day, but they won in the end.
Obama is winning. Democrats are uniting behind him, although some white progressives think that they could do the job better. Independents are flocking to him. Even some Republicans are getting disgusted with their Washington leaders. Obama is not telling us about lack of seriousness of the Congressional GOP; he is showing us the vivid contrast between what we expect of our leaders and their behavior. The last two and half years have been a revelation of the essential conflicts in our society and politics.
If white progressives understood much about the politics of the African American struggle in the United States, we would see Obama in the context of that struggle and understand him better. And you don't have to be African American to know something about the history of the African American struggle. The books and the testimony is there. It's not all freedom songs. But you have to be convinced that it is something that can teach you something you don't already know.
Amen Amen! I am so tired of what Tim Wise has called the "white privilege," "colorblind racism," and "implicit bias" of so many on the Left and how quick they are to use implicit racial stereotypes and code words to question his competence as a leader because of their own incompetence in accurately assessing the power of the right-wing and in directly confronting the right themselves. So they do what the cowards on the right do: they throw stones at Obama to undermine his Presidency because he's NOT a Messiah.
When you get a chance, please see my article, "CRUSADER CHRISTIANITY, TEA PARTY CULT, & THE LEFT"
http://open.salon.com/blog/ronrobinson/2011/08/02/crusader_christianity_tea_party_cult_the_left_wip
and also," PRESIDENT OBAMA TO PAUL RYAN/AYN RAND: 'IN YOUR FACE'"
http://open.salon.com/blog/ronrobinson/2011/04/13/president_obama_to_paul_ryanayn_rand_in_your_face
I wish this country were more economically literate. A lot of the harshest criticism of Obama has been hurled against Obama for his response to a severe recession when he took office. The fact is that his actions made good economic sense, except that perhaps he should have done more. Even the Republicans thought he was doing the right think until they found that they could gain political advantage by blaming Obama and labeling him a big spender. The Republican line is a big lie, but it did win them a lot of votes.
Completely agree with you, Tom. Economics should be required in both high school and college. It's the central issue in every election, but very few voters know anything about it.
I sure wish people would form their own opinions from the observable facts and not from some loud mouth talking head. I for see Mr. Obama winning the 2012 election, albeit by a far closer margin that I would of hoped.
Illegal aliens exempt from ICE enforcement
July 13, 2010 4:37 PM Law Enforcement Examiner Jim Kouri
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m7d13-Illegal-aliens-exempt-from-ICE-enforcement
"If you ask me, the Obama administration is attacking the wrong people. But I'm not surprised... liberal-left politicians always side with criminals, terrorists and other malefactors," said Det. Franes, – Former NYPD Detective.
"Arizonians are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Holder said after filing the lawsuit in Phoenix this week. He added that “setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility.”
Not surprisingly, Holder didn’t address the shameful ICE memo that reveals the federal government is in fact ignoring its responsibility when it comes to immigration enforcement. That means more states will probably follow Arizona officials' lead in creating their own measures and the feds will spend more tax dollars to fight them, according to Judicial Watch.
President Obama somehow cannot understand that the Republicans and the Tea Baggers are not ever going to like him or compromise with anything he says or does and the sooner he realizes he cannot get them to agree to anything and goes on the offense (and forget this bipartisan BS) and tries to get his concept into the face of the public he will never get anything done except lose the 2012 election.
TW
Obama only pauses because his teleprompter slows down. He only reads the words people, he obviously doesn't know what he's saying
You know because all them big word from his days at the Harvard must have scrambled his thinkin goo.
The only person happy with Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter.
I'm happy with him and I voted for Reagan twice, Geroge H.W. Bush twice, and George W. Bush twice. I think Obama is a better president than all of them with the exception of Reagan.
It should be "...if you're watching The American President..." not "...if your watching..." Yes, it does matter.
The GOP have become the Hooverites of the 21st. century. During the Great Depression, Hoover tried austerity, to right the ship of State, to catastrophic results. He caused unemployment to rise from 9 to 25%. Todays Republicans, are offering that same old,Hoover tried, failed fix for all our ills. Sure, you can cure a patients cancer by killing them– but at what cost? To cure the disease that ails us, we must first diagnose the cause. since we were almost fiscally sound 10 years ago - the diagnosis is not that difficult. First, prosecuting two wars, while enacting tax cuts is fiscal insanity, bound to create massive deficit. During WW11, and during every other conflict in US History, the Govt. raised taxes - demanding of its citizenry, sacrifice. My parents, had ration cards, and saved rubber, and cans for recycling. Today's politicians , instead offer a Polyanna world, where war is sold as without cost, and most of our citizens never have to experience, either its damage or atrocity. Second - Deregulation added trillions. Imagine, a small Govt. world, like Somalia, where citizens police their own world/? What utter nonsense the press allows the far Right to fabricate as fact. The solution to our deficit is tax reform, tax reform, tax reform. End Income as our progenitor of Revenue, and end the two Party, debacle of division. We need , either a flat tax, or Vat, or Fair tax, with appropriate exemption/stipends for the poor and elderly. this would allowq us to tax imports without breaking Intl. trade agreements. It would also allow us to tax the Illegals. We also need to lower all Corporate tax and expand the base. Till wee change the system we will continue this Roller Coaster of Partisan Parrots.
As a foreign observer, I fully support Pres Obama and even symphatise
with him for having to face the barb wires put up by the Republicans
and the saw dust brainy Tea Party people.
Pres Obama critics dont want to talk about HOW AND WHY America
become such a big debtor in just a decade – before Obama became President.
Let me reiterate this – NO MAN OR GOVERNMENT is able to solve a
US$14 trillion debt problem, overnight, or even within 10 years!
And when you have manyy politically and economically naive Americans
at large going against you – it's even harder to solve this huge monstrous
national debt of America.
as an american observer, we dont care
btw, it was 10 trillion when BHO took over, you do the math if they teach that in your country
Thanks for standing up for the obvious truth. Anything he does will be criticized. Anyone who takes on the task would be thrown under the bus. The public should find solutions, and offer them. It's not an easy job for anyone! And no one knows the answers to all the problems we face. It takes a nation, working together.
Fareed I agree with that substance of what you say, however, Obama is a politician and should know that perception is reality and he needs to be perceived as tough and fighting for the issues of his base if he wants to win in 2012. So far he's not doing that. Instead he puts down his base as being too tough on him as they should be. He made a lot of very grand promises during the campaign, promises which many believed, and to many he's not living up to his word. We were promised a public option, we didn't get it. We were promised the closure of Guantanamo, we didn't get it. We were promised a repeal of the patriot act, we didn't get it. We were promised strong financial regulation to keep these banks from going crazy again, we got some of it. But its not just him many progressives are frustrated with its the democratic party. We see the republicans who were in the minority in congress still holding sway because they stuck together. But on our side we see democrats wanting to bend over backwards just to pander to the republicans. You can understand how this is frustrating.
There's not much to defend for Obama, considering he has "flip flopped" on almost every campaign promise that he made! ...he's not even a good community organizer, let alone a leader!!!
/ / / Community organizer? More like the front man the Republican slumlord sends out to inform the community that their neighborhood will be razed for "urban renewal".
Obama is fragmenting and dividing America and the Democratic party. You can't defend that!!!!
MrT
What makes you think that taxing everyone to death will help stimulate the economy?
If taxes were to be raised on stagnant money, personal and corporate, like money in accounts over a certain amount or capital gains or things of that nature then rich people or businesses would have an incentive to putt the money to some use. Like in the stock market or in a business.
The losers...are all libs.
We tend to get the leaders we deserve. As Americans increasingly run for each end of the political spectrum, President Obama is better than we deserve. I worry about that that means for 2012.
Excellent post. Please fix the typos in the sentence below!!!
This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington.
Yes they do, because that criticism is primarily anti-GOP BS, and has no basis in fact, given the debt deal that was carved out. Obama got 90% of what HE wanted. He made i APPEAR that he was making concessions......but in truth......the GOP were forced to fall in line, to avoid default. They got almost nothing, when you get to the bottom line.
The bottom line is that Obama got 2.4 trillion more dollars to squander, and the savings only amounted to a few billion.
Anyone who really think the GOP got the better end of that deal, has been deceived, by the Dems. The Dems gave very little indeed.
Allowing a default would've had far more devastating consequences for everybody than making concessions.
Finally...someone speaks the words I've been screaming at my TV as I listen to outrageous Dems & Repubs speak as if it's so simple. We have divided govt that definately can't do what the Dem House&Senate couldn't get done when they HAD the majority. This IS a democracy, not a dictatorship, remember.
I think the problem with the compromises is best exemplified by the Healthcare legislation. The Republicans fought against the one item that would provide cost control which is a single payer option or government priced option. In doing so they assured that Healthcare costs would continue to rise and then will argue that the Dems did nothing to contain cost. All they did was create a "socialist" system. If you must compromise and I assume it is necessary you can NOT compromise on the one item that would have controlled the run away cost of Healtcare. And, for me that's why we need someone to fight for those core issues or points that would bring some success.
Exactly! It's not compromise: It's sabotage. Obama is a Trojan Horse, a closet Republican. He gives the R's whatever they want, then, when these Republican policies fail, Obama obligingly takes the fall and ensures that Democrats get blamed. .
One of our best thinkers, Benjamin Franklin, offered this advise to his fellow statesmen on compromise: "Be willing to sacrifice, not your principals, but your overwhelming urge to be right. It’s a republic if we can keep it." Being a statesman is not the easy path. The easy way is being a politician. There are many politicians unwilling to stand up and lead or even sit across the table with their adversary. It's easier to polarize and strike populist sentiment to get re-elected than to sit down at a table and work out what's best for everyone. What we need is an educated electorate that can identify and elect Statesmen.
republicans are to blame for everything. First, obama had to spend to save the economy because if he didn't, the economy would have died and we would have been in a great depression. so the stimulus package saved our economy. and obama didn't even really get what he wanted in that stimulus package cause it wasn't enough spending and half of it was tax cuts. and the last 10 years the wealthiest americans have payed the lowest taxes in the last 50 years and have better tax rates than the middle class and the working poor. i just read that warren buffet has less of a tax rate to pay than a cleaning lady works at a hotel who probably gets paid minimum wage, tell me how that is fair. so ending tax cuts for the rich is not a bad thing, its the fair thing. and republicans like to say raising taxes on the rich is job killing, well when clinton did it the economy boomed and when bush gave them the biggest tax cuts in history, the economy went down. also raising taxes on the rich is not job killing, but what is job killing is spending cuts. i am all for spending cuts as long as it doesn't kill jobs and it doesn't hit our economy. but these tea party people want to cut everything and they don't realize by doing that you will kill the economy and jobs will be lost and in effect our debt and deficit will grow even more. so we need reasonable spending cuts that doesn't hurt our economy and we need to end the bush era tax cuts for the rich. there is not a lot obama can do except i would like him to lower the corporate tax rate to 20-25% but if doing that, cut all tax loopholes and subsidies. and i would like him to offer tax incentives to companies that hire.
I thought they were critical of the president for doing to the democratic party what W did to the republican one.
/ / / The R's say "Cut spending in a recession!" Obama responds "Let's compromise! Let's do whatever you say!"
/ / / In effect, we have a one-party system. The D's exist so that the R's have someone to scapegoat when their policies destroy the country.
I take issue with Fareed's scolding of progressive liberals. President Obama campaigned as a crusading progressive, but once in office, failed not only to sell the progressive policies we needed at the time, but went on to defend regressive policies embraced by the same conservatives who caused our financial crisis in the first place.
No liberal is calling for Obama to be intransigent; we just want him to stand for those principles he used to get our support three years ago.
PALEEEEZE, GET OUT OF WASHINGTON GUY... Obama was our last hope to turn the corpocracy around... what did we get, excuses and he sat quietly by as the corporate lackeys pushed their agenda with little resistance, wringing his hands and complaining " they won't negotiate with me".. The truth is he sold out to the dark side..??? He became a great president
but too bad for us, he became the greatest republican president since R. Reagan??? We are mad because there is NO difference between them??? Quit being an apologist and come down to the real world... Disgusted
Obama is not a centrist. I love to watch your program but you are way off on this one. He intrinsically socialistic – Centrists definitely do not believe in the re distribution of wealth. Come on man ... was this an attempt to change the reality which is independents, and centrists are dropping support and you know it.
This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington.
"Your" does not mean "you are"
How does a man who meets with obama regularly and advises him then go on the air and report anything free of bias? You call this news? I call it a president using the media to craft a narrative....can you say goebbles? what nonsense from CNN. Get fareed off the air. He is COMPROMISED.
FAREED'S A SHILL FOR OBIE.
Those of you who say he has come into the worst situation any president has ever had to deal with (blame Bush) are the same people who say he is the smartest president we have ever had. If he is so smart why is it that he and his staff say no one knew how bad the economy really was (not really all that smart are they). If he is so intelligent why two years in is he only now asking for an infrastructure bank when he was given 800billion in stimulus that should have all been spent on infrastructure but 84% was spent on non infrastructure spending. ("I Guss they were not so shovel ready") Health care is not a centrist. How the stimulus was spent was not centrist. President Obama is not a centrist, leader, the smartest President, or the President facing the worst situation. George Washington had to hold the Nation together during its formative years, Lincoln presided over the civil War and Roosevelt WWII all three bigger problems than what we face now.
worst president since jimmy the anti semite peanut farmer carter.
Fareed is supposed to be a neutral CNN journalist. He should resign CNN, and join the Obama Press Office.
I don' t buy this argument. Fareed is saying that the left needs to be silent on important issues, insuring that only solutions from the right will be entertained. It's funny because this line of thinking has lead to a huge smackdown by Obama supporters of things like single payer health care reform, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, in the name of Obama, we must all become republicans and nothing progressive may be considered. Why does it matter who is in the White House if only one side will ever be considered? It's a completely circular argument and should be rejected by all Democrats.
Wow Fareed. Compromise? Kind of like the compromise from Obama, Pelosi and Reid before the "slaughter of the Pelosi House" in 2010. No thanks, there are no "time out" cards with "Regime Change 2012" right around the corner. Where were you and Obama with that compromise talk a couple of years ago...? Right!
My frustration with the Obama is that he is impossible to support. He offers sensible policy options which contain many options to be laid out before they may be practically implemented.. We see them as good but needing deffinition and are preparing for the discussion when a side channel abrogates them. (groan) Two weeks later rather than building from the facts we get an adoption of the Republican language with all their embedded false premises and hear an offer of surrender. He can't be supported because he turns on his supporters and adopts the language of those who wish him the worst. Rather than recovering from the disaster to America of the past decade. Barack Obama is solidifying the right. He gives than more than they could hope. His positions are never on the board.
How did the drive to put money on Main Street turn into tax breaks for Paris and Lindsay? Where is the return to the rule of law? Where is health care as something other than a piñata? He doesn't even have a representative on this twelve person board for which he will be blamed. Somehow Bush took us whereever he wanted with a bear majority in the Senate, while Obama makes the Republican minority the winner. The American people suffer from it.
Oops, bare.
IF all the reasons you gave for his "not" doing what the people thought he would/should do......why hasn't the President explained himself to the people. Leaving us to second guess his reasoning has only resulted in our viewing him as a weak President who is very different from the President the people thought they had voted into office.
Some of the reasons you gave made sense, but I watch politics way more than is mentally healthy and I've never heard these reasons before you said them. Therefore, the President doesn't really seem to compromise. Instead, he is seen as giving in to all demands form the Republicans in Washington.
I've been told that the President likes to surround himself with "yes" staff members so he has no one that can tell him when "he's not wearing any clothes". If they are telling him, he is certainly not listening. He needs people who will tell him 'like it is". That applies to all managers/executives, not just the President.
The reason I could not vote for him in 2008 was his lack of real world managment experience. It seems I was right. I do hope he can learn soon though as I would like to vote for him in 2012. For now,the Amercans Vote .org site, seems to be my only acceptable option for getting a decent candidate for 2012.
To Gloria: It is not being weak, didn't you know that the GOP is mostly Repiglicans? They control the House. And Obama, not trying to be dictatorial (punishable by impeachment – whatever) makes people think he is weak. We are a democratic country so everybody should have a voice especially the majority. The Repigs know it going to be bad, and they don't care anyways because the president is not Repiglican.
This from Zakaria, the hack who supported the invasion of Iraq.
USA
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The president doesn't get to be free from criticism !
You or he may not like the critique or agree with it or believe it,
but this is America, - no one "has to shut up" for you- or believe you are somehow their "new poppa" !
Obama acts like a snob sometimes and like he wants everyone to like him, including or especially some greedy crazy republicans who imagine they are above and beyond, can't ,won't be taxed-
But Obama needs to do the right thing for the whole country.
His speeches sometimes sound like threats to inspire fear in people, to control them. Like "noy pay the military" not pay social security, change medicaid , medicare, and make it better for who? People get angry. They are not children.
There is real human need and a system in place that helps people cope when they need it. There will always be criminals who will take advantage of a system or try to, you can't avoid that– But you don't have to punish everyone, and I hope you wouldn't be able to. "Beyond Words" can be a dangerous place – Americans have been known to fight and die for freedom, and their rights.
Perhaps it is you who does not understand, or see the whole picture !!!
Thank you, Fareed. Your cogent comment made me weep. Wake up people!!
I think Fareed got it only partially correct. Yes, President Obama is trying to take a moderate course, but that was not the reason for the Progressives' ire. They were angry with the President because in the end he appeared to give into everyting the Republicans wanted. The problem stems from the asymetric nature of the negotiation. A significant portion of the Republicans (the tea part faction) were willing to default or didn't believe we would default a week ago Tuesday, but the Democrats believed they had to come to an agreement by the end of that day or face dire consequences. This meant the President had to give in on everything he said he wouldn't give in on, leaving Speaker Boehner to correctly crow that they got 98% of what they wanted.
The Progressives would not have liked a moderate outcome, but had there been a middle of the road agreement, I don't think they would have complained so loudly. In the face of this asymetric negotiation, I believe they wanted a Clinton-like approach, to threaten to shut down the government. They wanted the President to go toe to toe with the Republicans to get what he said would be a balanced plan. Now if 12 representatives don't agree on a "balanced" plan, which means at least one Republican has to break ranks, there will be an accross the board cut and no tax increases by the end of the year, which is very close to what the tea party originally wanted.
With regard to the budget crisis, keep in mind this is 1937 all over again. Under pressure from the Republicans FDR agreed to attempt to balance the budget. The resulting cuts pushed what was a falling unemployment rate back up to almost the height of unemployment in FDR's first term, and prolonged the great depression up to WWII. We appear to be doomed to repeat history.
Thank you so much for writing this! Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. He is no dummy. He knows the problems America is facing and he also has some real limitations in doing what he wants to do in the sense the presidency itself defines what he can and cannot do. I wish people would quit thinking of him as not doing his job due to some 'personal failure' and see him as he is, a man of the times, doing the best he can in the situation he is in. It doesn't help when you have his party, political pundits and media blaming him for our country's ills. The blame game is just that, a game.
There is nothing wrong with the President's persistent pursuit of compromise. It is his strategies that are troubling. For example, why did he begin his pursuit of compromise on the debt issue by telling the Republicans that the 14th Amendment remedy was off the table. I think he is naive when it comes to assessing the intent of Republican legislators.
"This does happen – if your watching the American president – but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington."
I realize this is off-topic, but it's pathetic that a news organization with the resources of CNN allowed such an obvious grammatical error to make it to press. The possessive is "you're," not "your." That's a concept you should have mastered by the fourth grade. If everyone involved in the writing or editing of the article does not feel embarrassed, they should consider a new line of work. Still, thanks for keeping us informed about "what goes in in" Washington.
Oh my, Fareed is defending his brother, Obama. Who would have guessed? Fareed is a sock-puppet of George Soros, who chose Fareed and Obama as the faces of his war against Christianity and capitalism because of their boyish looks and toothy, disarming grins. Fareed comes from a Godless, overcrowded land where people are as plentiful as ants, there is no such thing as liberty or individuality, there is a caste system that prevents hundreds of millions of lower class people from ever even hoping to improve their lot in life, and the best most of the nameless, faceless horde can hope for is to die and reincarnate as something other than an insect. Who cares what he thinks.
Liberals need to grow up? Watch what you say sir.
http://americandeal.blogspot.com/2011/08/usap-10-point-plan.html
allahdad, you are right.Obama may be incompetent. But he he has his priorities rigtht. We need to fix medicare and the American way of medical payments – real soon. Medical prices are rising and NO ONE in Congress is planning for the HUGE increase in expeditures for Medicare as the Boomer generation reaches 65. Is anyone is Congress smarter than a fifth grader? The deadline was 2011 (1946+65). The Democrats over the last 3 years may have proved that their policies are no more reasonable than the previous administration, but neither party (in their enthusiasm over attacking each other) are address the real, and inescapable, problems we face: America's aging population, Asia's rise to compete with the West on an equal ecomoniic basis, the stagnation of the American middle class, whose rising consumer power drove the 20th century rise of the American dream, while Americals top 2% grows richer.
The guy got voted in with no real political experience and has spent his entire presidency increasing political and racial divisiveness and we should give him another chance? Ummm.... no.
I was surprised by the statement you sited "As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry." This is an egregious straw-man argument. No one serious I have ever heard has suggested this. We have suggested that President Obama use the bully pulpit aggressively over time to rally progressives and educate others to the need for Progressive programs. A prolonged political process, not a magic bullet.
Fareed, I usually love your insight and your commentary, but this one is a little too "cavalier" to use your term in its defense of Obama's, yes, lameness!
To take just one little line of yours, as an example, you write "He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right." You know what? Yes, we all make mistakes, but if your mistakes brought down the world economy, I'm sorry, you get no second chance. So, no, no matter how many things they got "right," they did NOT earn another turn; maybe be should have tried some other fallible human beings, but ones that did not play a major role in global misery over the last few years. Just one example of where Obama's "pragmatism" has been simply counterproductive and ineffective.
Oh, and the idea that he didn't have a filibuster-proof majority during the wasted two years of Democratic dominance is nothing but a sorry cop out! Are you suggesting that we now hope for a dictatorship of one in order to get things done around Washington? Is that what we need? What a great accomplishment that would be for the world's "greatest democracy...!" (If I recall, Bush didn't have a filibuster-proof majority and yet he found a way to get Democrats to play along... Sure, it was disastrous for the country, but Bush didn't hide behind the smoke screens of super-majorities!)
the republicans don't want to work with him so they don't. we voted a democrat in, but we get junk out because they keep trying to listen to (compromise with) the republicans. are ya nuts? republicans don't want to compromise. they want what they want (money mostly).
"Pragmatism"? Is such a word acceptable in Washington, or anywhere these days for that matter? "Show me someone who is pragmatic, and I'll show you someone who will be voted out of office." Who said that quote? Answer: me.
President Obama caved on a public option without a fight. He caved twice on increasing taxes on the wealthy. He doesn't utilize the bully pulpit. Instead, he gives broad outlines and tells Congress to work it out. Early on, Democrats in Congress asked him on several occasions to step forward and take a proactive roll in accomplishing a more progressive agenda. He never answers the call. Instead, he retreats into his office and scolds Congress. For the GOP, he's the next best thing to a Republican president. Witness the smiling faces of Republican leaders after the debt ceiling deal was finally reached–they were beaming! Dems, meanwhile, were glum. As Boehner said, "I got 98% of what I wanted." OK, so maybe he didn't get 98%, but he certainly got plenty. Unfortunately, there's really no one to run against Obama for the nomination. Even if, say, Hillary ran, it would fracture the Democratic vote. And I ain't no liberal–I'm an independent who supported and was thrilled with Obama's campaign. Count me among the many disappointed.
Fareed,
It is not a fantasy for liberals or moderates to expect this president to effectively negotiate with Congress. While Obama cannot control the opposition, he can do a MUCH better job of negotiating in general. The republicans communicate and operate in absolutes, so he needs to negotiate in absolutes.
With respect to the debt ceiling issue, he should have given Congress the option of
1) Delivering a bill he would be willing to sign (with specific CLEAR parameters, such as producing deficit reduction plan consisting of 50% revenue increases and 50% spending cuts) by a certain date, or
2) He would simply invoke the 14th amendment and ignore the debt ceiling.
Obama time and time again has STARTED negotiating from a position of weakness, He starts the process by offering "compromises", with no clear goal, objective, or timeline. He also has not articulated consequences to his opposition, much less followed through on them. He needs to roll up his sleeves and fight for what he believes in or he will lose in 2012.
What do you call a president that compromised on everything he promised before he got voted in.
Oh yeah, not what you voted for.
Does anyone know how the Tea Party plan to resolve the current high unemployment? In fact do you know of any idea the Tea Pary might have to settle America's astronomical national debt?
I dont.
This is CNN, can we at least use the correct forms of "your" in the articles... Honestly, grammatical and typographical errors at this level of exposure are ludicrous.
Amen, my friend. I also pointed that out. Since they haven't corrected it, they probably aren't concerned with looking like morons.
i think fareed has mistaken compromise with capitulation. the problem isn't that he's a compromising pragmatist, it's the extent to which he's willing to overreach in an attempt to appear as though he's compromising. what did the left get out of this debt debate? the right got nearly everything they wanted, while the richest keep their destructively low tax rates and overfunded "security" and "defense" industries continue to reap huge federal expenditures.
II didn't see any presidential pragmatism. I saw him engaging in the same brinksmanship as the congressional congressmen.
While I am in fact a fan of compromise, I can't agree that this is what Obama has done. At least not with the recent debt crisis. It seemed a whole lot more like caving. What did liberals get out of this latest deal? As I understand it, little if anything in the way of revenue, and lots of cuts.
I found your comments defending Mr. Obama a complete sham, Mr. Zakaria. You insult my intellegence. You pretend that people such as myself weren't witness to the compete abdication by Obama to most of his campaign pledges. His promise of ending wars turned into uping the anti in Afganistan by 3 fold. He essentially hid from sight during the vital healthcare debate and the limp debacle, Obamacare, that resulted meerly tinkered with a very broken healthcare system. And let's not forget Wall Stree reform – just for giggles – ever hear of the up-tick rule? If not I suggest you do your homework. I have previously held you in high esteem. Your comments this past Sunday resulted in my turning off the TV. Please explain just how you could be so dishonest? Are you that affraid of the spector of the Republican Pres. candidates?
I'm just going to leave this here.
Everyone needs to see CENK on this video – TYT! I promise CNN will delete SOON!
It the political format and breakup in the United States that prevents Obama from getting things done.
That's why the United States is falling behind China.
China has a one cental voice, they are very pragmatic and are able to pursue their agenda.
While back here it's impossible to get anything done.
I wish we had an Obama running Canada,
Wake up people.
The last time the Government was close to a shutdown was Bill Clinton was in the White House.
Coincidence. I think not.
He has no clue what he is doing look what he did for Illinois when he was a Senator.. Nothing absolutely nothing.
So you would rather have another 4 years of ObamaCare and ObamaEconomy?
Are you people dead from the neck up or just believe in that the Change Obama talked about and promised you.
Will come in the next term?
Do you really want to suffer through 4 more years of Obama Change.?????
Wouldn't you measure presidency based on growth and unemployment? Democratic party's answer to republicans' limited government is effective government. Clinton-Gore is the model for that effective government. You'd often hear that Americans diss elites. However, you'd hardly find any person who diss Clinton-Gore administration. Most americans face lit up when they talk about Clinton-Gore. If people are saying Obama-Biden are as effective as Clinton-Gore, Great. Maybe they do deserve one more term
Well said Fareed! I am a liberal, but I sick of liberal commentators and media. They focus on what the pres didn't do, instead of what he has accomplished. Also as much as they hated W they want Obama to be like him ; inflexible and narrow minded. These people live ivory towers and have time to split hairs, but the rest of us are too busy working to focus on idyllic outcomes. We compromise daily just to survive.
I'm afraid you completely missed the point, Mr. Zakaria.
What has we liberals mad at Obama is NOT at all that he was forced to compromise, it's that after doing that he then sells the compromise as great policy. Instead of fighting for the American people, he has taken to telling us Republican lies about how the problem with the economy is too much government spending.
President Obama has conclusively demonstrated that he is willing to compromise. He's made four mistakes, such as not letting the Bush tax cuts expire, staying in Afghanistan too long, not having a strategy to bring jobs home instead of shipping them to China, and not putting forth a plan to balance the budget over a decade. He can fix these in his second term, as the Republicans are too far right to be serious about higher office.
Grow up as in... give in to everything the rethugs want every time the rethugs open their mouths like good little slaves. No, sorry. I'm not as gullible as you rethugs.
Fareed, liberals don't need to grow up, you need to grow up. Compromise means nothing when the Democrats are the ONLY ONES compromising. The Republicans refuse to compromise even when the compromise offered is what they originally wanted and asked for. What the Republicans are doing is called stonewalling, look it up. It means unyielding, which is the opposite of compromise.
Maybe he just cares about getting re-elected and is pandering to everyone at once?
and we give 2 hoots about fareed... why? hes about as credible as martin roland. they both drool to see the US crushed
Liberals fantasize that Socialism can be made to work this time. The other guys got it wrong, but we can do it because we're smarter. It's a form of Creationism, actually. The economy was designed by the forces of history just for us.
Obama is a great president at a terrible time. It is not he who is the problem. It is Congress...both parties.
The fact that Fareed Zakaria believes Barack Obama is a "centrist" tells you everything you need to know about Fareed Zakaria.
The President believes in balance. I believe in balance. We need balance. There are too many extremists on the right crying out for the country to go back to the way it used to be. And too many extremists on the left just plain crying about everything and demanding the future NOW. We are in the present. We have to work with reality. The reality is pretty ugly but it's all we've got. Fact is there was low voter turnout in 2010 and that's the reason the President is having a hard time moving anything forward. This situation could have been avoided if the Progressive base had got off it's collective behind and gone out and voted. Less whining more voting. Now there's an idea.
PS, I do know it's quid-pro-quo. get a little ahead of the thought. But to put a name out there, how about Condolica Rice? Knows the system, intelligent, has dealt with world leaders, and has enough all around experience to do the job without needing training wheels. Look into her service and see what she has done, you will be impressed. Forget your party, look at the lady.
Both Obamacare and the Omnibus Pork Barrel Act of 2012 (oops, stimulus for preservation of local government bureaucrats and paybacks to Democrat's supporters) were written and passed by Democrat controlled houses of Congress with no guidance or leadership from the president. Prior to the the repudiation of rampant liberalism by the voters in 2010, Obama was led along and whipsawed by the left leaning leadership in Congress. Now, out of self-preservation, he runs around trying to figure out which way things are going so that he can try to look like he is ahead of the issues.
Obama is neither pragmatic nor a leader, and his supporters and former supporters are beginning to realize it.
I recently became employed at the VA Medical Center in Minneapolis and joined Union 1969. At the first union meeting that I attended, we were informed that legislation was being considered to extend the federal wage freeze for up to another 5 years. Union leadership encouraged the attendees to call our representatives in Washington to protest the bill and demand that they vote against it. I’m not so sure.
In the economic downturn, I had been a victim of downsizing twice in 3 years time, and was unemployed for 42.5 months. I suffered the embarrassment of bankruptcy, separation from my family, and living in a H.U.D. facility with little prospects for improvement. Tomorrow, I begin week two of a four week orientation and I am thrilled at my pay scale and the benefit package. It seems to me that the pleasure of finally having enough is lost by wanting more.
I am not an economist, but there have been several indicators lately that America is in trouble. I am not here assigning fault or blame. For decades of our employable lives, unions have sounded the bull-horn rhetoric: “What do we want? When do we want it?” We have learned that in doing so we get some of what we want but not all, and we attribute our success to our tactics. Although we can see that the train is going at full steam, and we can see that the bridge ahead is collapsed, we are in denial and continue with well-worn methodologies. My sister died of diabetes some years ago. In the late stages of her disease, her husband continued to heap demands upon her. After her passing, I stopped by the house and he told me, “She was standing over there one night and she fell to the ground. She just fell down. I guess she really was sick.”
At the risk of never in my remaining employable years receiving a pay raise, I expect our politicians to review the information available to them and to make their decisions based on the data and on what they believe is best for the greater good of the United States, and not necessarily for the benefit of our union or other individual groups. This is a time of sacrifice and we would all do well to remember the words of FDR when he said, “To some generations much is given, from other generations much is expected. This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.”
Download Videos from YouTube Hey Bud, I am really doing my best to rank my videos for anything with the phrase "convert YouTube" and " record YouTube". I was maybe hopeful I wouldn't bother you by putting this up here, WAIT!, I am happy to offer a Page rank 4 link in trade from my gaming site. So shoot me an eMail if you want one.
Fareed, I remember President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I think the point needs to be made that he was not able to bring this country out of the Great Depression during his first term in office, but he did get us through it very successfully. President Obama has done a lot which he needs time to complete and Congress needs to do their job by helping him do it.
Your maturity is showing.
Absolutely. And I suspect it was no "accident" that Ohio and Florida held their primaries "too early". I suspect that the industrial military complex and big oil were far more comfortable with Obama at the helm than Clinton. Obama's biggest contributor was BP. A for lucky coincidence for them it turns out. We seem to have forgotten that Clinton was actually the democratic nominee, not Obama. We didn't speak out about it at the time, because everybody thought Obama was a democrat; not Bush cafe' au lait. And it also seems that controlling Ohio and Florida is the key to controlling an election.
I have a question about your sources saying that Clinton actually won the nomination. I've never heard that before and since I had CNN on 24/7 during the whole primary season I thought I would have heard that.
Clinton carried the Florida and Ohio primaries. That gave her more delegates that Obama and enough for the Democratic nomination. But the Democratic party "invalidated" those two primaries, saying they were held "too early", and split those delegates evenly between the 2 candidates, giving Obama the nomination. All the delegates should have gone to Clinton, giving her the nomination. And to date NOBODY has explained legally how holding a primary before party officials say you can invalidates them.
You probably did not hear it because they were to busy saying how great Obama was.
yet another conspiracy starting. Now they are going to say his mother rigged the election from the grave
Hey Barbara, I don't think even if Hillary is the president, things will be better. When GWBush left, the economy was already bad, still recuperating until Aug. 2. The Repiglicans took advantage of the situation. THEY REALLY WANT TO PUT THE ADMINISTRATION DOWN. That is the bottom line. The Tea baggers are having a grand party to celebrate the suffering of the Americans. Does that make sense enough?
Take the quotes off from "too early" and you will "not be lying". The primaries were moved up, out of the proper schedule. The state parties had to take the consequences of their actions: penalties against their delegations. They presumed that they could bluster and pressure the convention in allowing the full group of delegates. They lost and so did candidate Clinton.
In truth, this is problem of moving primaries up out of their schedule will probably be cited as reason #72 for the decline of the USA. State parties try to push the primaries earlier and earlier in order to garner influence. Already there is talk of Republican primaries/polls occurring during Christmas time (yeah, I know about the Iowa straw poll).
The answer would be to rotate the sequences. This time New Hampshire starts, next time Vermont, next time Nevada, etc. The first two primaries/caucuses are ALWAYS small and compact states. That would allow candidates to not spend a lot of money at the start and pick up momentum (George Bush the elder's "Big Mo") before hitting the first big expensive state (California, New York, etc).
The Democrats are a club. In clubs, there are rules and procedures that the club may enact to police itself. The club is also responsible for determining its own actions in case a member or members violate those rules. The two primaries in question violated the party's rules, and when given a choice to invalidate the primaries or open up a can of worms that lets *every* state go whenever they darned well feel like it, the Democrat club elected to chastise some of its members by invalidating their primaries. This is not difficult math.
it's not math at all. it's politics.
Really? a club? I think that club is much better than the Republicans who miscalculated the downgrading of the credit rating from AAA+ to AA+. Had it not been the childishness of the Republican club it could have been a different scenario.
Here's the NAKED TRUITH! Both Bush and Obama got it wrong! You don't take tax-payer money and give it to rich people! That is Robin Hood in reverse! Reagan was wrong about "trickle-down-economics." Rich people don't make poor people rich. Working-class and poor people make rich people rich. How? Through commerce. We buy what they sell and if we can't or don't buy what they sell, they go out of business! Look around Businesses need customers. If the tax-payer money had been given back to the tax payers, since it's our money anyway, we , the tax payers would have stimulated the hell out of this economy!!! And which ever president Bush or Obama would have been reguarded as a true president of the people.
You sound like a teenager, at best. Barack Obama has had three years to fix things. He hasn't. It's worse now. He's a colossal failure and you know it. But, your child-like, fragile ego just won't let you accept the truth.
Good point, allahdad.
.so why don't u run for PRESIDENT...the candidates we have don't seem like they can't do anything... go ahead run for president, still early. to sign up lets see what u got in your magic hat for this country... i can sit here and critique your ideas... there's a job opening for president for 2013...unemployment maybe on the rise, but the president's position is open for grabs...