Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The tribute Obama deserves

has been delivered by Jonathan Chait:
What can be said without equivocation is that Obama has proven himself morally, intellectually, temperamentally, and strategically. In my lifetime, or my parents’, he is easily the best president. On his own terms, and not merely as a contrast to an unacceptable alternative, he overwhelmingly deserves reelection.
Chait understands that true pragmatism is the rarest and most powerful lever of leadership:
Obama’s résumé of accomplishments is broad and deep, running the gamut from economic to social to foreign policy. The general thrust of his reforms, especially in economic policy, has been a combination of politically radical and ideologically moderate. The combination has confused liberals into thinking of Obamaism as a series of sad half-measures, and conservatives to deem it socialism, but the truth is neither. Obama’s agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit. Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at once.

Bipartisan panels of economists had long urged Medicare to reform its payment methods to curb perverse incentives by hospitals and doctors to run up costs as high as possible; Obama overcame fierce resistance in Congress in order to craft, as part of Obamacare, a revolution in paying for quality rather than quantity. He eliminated billions of dollars in useless subsidies to banks funneling (at no risk) government loans to college students. By dangling federal public-education grants, Obama unleashed a wave of public-school reform, over the objections of the most recalcitrant elements of the teachers union movement. And he forced Wall Street to accept financial regulations that, while weaker than ideal, were far tougher than anybody considered possible to get through Congress.
 These accomplishments capture what I've called Obama's radical incrementalism. In his own terms, his focus on major policy issues is on how to move the battleship of state a few degrees in the right direction. By now, he has moved a fleet of battleships.  He only needs reelection to stay the course(s).

Pragmatism, like any virtue, is only effective when accompanied by courage. Here too, Chait (like Krugman shortly before him) is on the mark:
It is noteworthy that four of the best decisions that Obama made during his presidency ran against the advice of much of his own administration. Numerous Democrats in Congress and the White House urged him to throw in the towel on health-care reform, but he was one of very few voices in his administration determined to see it through. Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry. On Libya, Obama’s staff presented him with options either to posture ineffectually or do nothing; he alone forced them to draw up an option that would prevent a massacre. And Obama overruled some cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden.
The latter three decisions are all highly popular now, but all of them carried the risk of inflicting a mortal political wound, like Bill Clinton’s health-care failure and Jimmy Carter’s attempted raid into Iran. (George W. Bush, presented with a similar option, did not strike bin Laden.) In making these calls, Obama displayed judgment and nerve.
 Chait has made this case before, at greater length, but never with more force than now, when it matters most.

1 comment:

  1. And Obama overruled some cautious advisers and decided to kill Osama bin Laden.

    Dear. God.

    The propagandists have done a fantastic job on this one. By the end of his two terms I won't be surprised if the story becomes that Obama himself flew one of those choppers over the objection of every national security adviser in the history of the country, including the ghosts of the dead ones. Like Bill Pullman in Independence Day.

    There was no "overruling." Everybody at the CIA and JSOC responsible for the mission were on board from the beginning, except for Bush-appointed NCTC head Michael Leiter. A minority of people in the room wanted to use air/drone strikes instead of a raid. Bob Gates (yet another Bush holdover) was himself overruled on his objections by deputies in the leadup.

    The only adviser who wasn't all in when the time came was Biden, which should disqualify him altogether in 2016 (although it does explain his effusive praise for the President's backbone as well as his fucked up notion that the nation's soul is now finally at peace. Projection, much?)

    It shouldn't be that difficult to give the President proper credit for creating the circumstances that led to the attack and its successful execution without having to invent false drama. The "advice from much of his administration" was simply not against the mission.