On Whether Liberals Are Nervous Because the Bailout Hasn't Worked Yet
Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 02.21.2009
No.
Just no.
It's tempting to leave it there, but no--no one who voted for Obama thought it would be fixed this quickly. It's not fixed this quickly. The only people who thought its not being fixed this quickly would be a reflection of Obama were hardcore Republicans who thought he was a colossal mistake.
There's nothing weird or strange about that. He's doing more or less what he said he'd do, if you thought it was a colossal mistake, you probably still do. What's weird or strange is that---not republicans but HUMAN BEINGS--believe the other side is NOW seeing their point of view because of what's going on and has now gone deeply on the defensive.
This is what frustrates you as a columnist, on either side. I know, I've talked to conservative colleagues of mine. The idea that everything you write is inherently propaganda and that it's not possible that you could be criticizing human failing that is NOT party affiliated. What's important, for example, about Michael Steele's new initiative is not that HE'S a Republican, it's that IT is stupid.
Isn't this sort of obvious? I feel like I have to explain this every column. And every time I stop, people start saying "I was starting to like you but now you suck again!"
Guys. Politics is a game where you try to win. You want more voters than the other guys. When I criticize Republicans, and I do so more than I criticize Democrats, decide whether you think I'm wrong because I'm WRONG not because I'm liberal but because I'm a human being.
And if you decide there's some grain of truth to what I say, that doesn't make you a bad person. What it does make you is someone who recognizes that both sides fuck up. A LOT. And you'd rather YOUR party fucked up less so that they'll WIN next time.
And if you don't think I'm someone who's capable of making points that you agree with a LITTLE bit, or even disagree with but on logical grounds, I would suggest you read a columnist you like more.
Here it is: My contention is that to win a national election you have to get some of the middle. Each side has its constituencies (either the panty-waisted government hand-out crowd or the fascist, minority-hating crowd) and these don't equal a majority of the electorate in either case. That majority comes from the middle.
For my money, then, the idea of Michael Steele's hip-hop campaign is offensive because it's stupid--it doesn't make the Republican party better. Can you really disagree with that? Does that have ANYTHING to do with whether Republican principles are sound? If you find yourself responding with something like "BUT DON'T YOU SEE WHAT OBAMA'S DOING"--isn't that completely beside the point? Would Obama being a fuck up make Steele more or less of one himself? Or is it just possible that we could live in a universe where both Obama AND Michael Steele could be a fuck-up....or neither?
This isn't about parties this is about people doing stuff and what you think of it.
And for my money, it doesn't matter whether you agree with the hard Christian Morals and Family Values right, of which Sarah Palin is the current figurehead, although of course I appreciate that if that's how YOU feel, that's what YOU want in power. Again we're talking about how to win, which is to compete for votes in the middle. For me it seemed stupid that John McCain tried to do that by choosing someone with a NARROWER appeal than he has.
Doesn't that make sense, purely logically? I mean John McCain's major strength as a candidate was that he had cross-party appeal. I think after what Bush did a more firmly Republican person would have been SLAMMED in the last election no matter what people thought about Obama--just my opinion. And somehow his logic made the trip to this destination Inclusive Person + Exclusive Person = BOTH the middle and the far right! The more natural progression would have been IP + EP = alienate the middle that we need. Which is WHAT HAPPENED.
This isn't right or wrong. This is what makes sense and what does not. It is not my purview nor my right to criticize how you cast your vote. This is UTILITARIAN--it is mine to point out why I think things won't WORK.
And how anyone could possibly believe that anyone who didn't already think Obama was going to fail would already think he's failing is just completely beyond me. Where are you people from? Of course you, who thought he was going to fail, detect signs of it happening already. Of course those of us who didn't don't expect anything to have happened already and remain where we are. If it still sucks in a year, hey, we'll talk about it. But nobody who is dumb enough to believe that anyone's changed their mind about Obama ALREADY because of the fact that the economy is still bad (as opposed to, say, what was in the stimulus, which probably did make some people change their minds) voted anywhere but against him in the last election.
You didn't win the last election. You need more votes. That's all I'm saying.
Full disclosure: For my money, the right should throw out the hard core fringe because it makes sense. That doesn't mean I do or don't find them morally objectionable--that's not RELEVANT. That's my opinion. This is a political column aimed at the world. No, it's because that hard core fringe isn't acceptable to the middle. Is it so weird that, even though I'm left, I want a right that can compete for the middle? Competition is good for everyone. Keeps everyone sharp. But hey, that's just an opinion.
My point is it's not an opinion because I hate the right and want it to do poorly, it's because I think that would make the right a more palatable party--which would help it to win elections. Which if I'm not completely out of my gourd is what it wants to do.
In the end, it's up to you. If the far right thinks it can win with it has, it shouldn't listen to anyone. If it think that alone will bring in the numbers, it's in fine shape. If you don't--and you probably shouldn't, because it doesn't have the numbers--you might want to consider how to fix it. All I'm trying to point out--and argue with me if you think I'm WRONG not because you object to me pointing it out--is what doesn't make logical sense to me. And changing the subject won't help. I'm not your enemy, I'm your ...frienemy.
Posted By: Ron Mexico (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Wow, Ron Mexico with the eloquence.
Andrew, I have found myself agreeing with you more often than not. I consider myself a center, left-of-center voter mostly based on social issues. I come from a family of right wing Palin voters. I too get frustrated with the Screaming Ninnies on both the Left and the Right. It does nothing to help anyone and just placates the base who wants to be reassured that everything is either wonderful and roses or horrifyingly bad and a sign of the Armageddon. It frustrates me to watch my father scream at his tv anytime anything positive or even neutral about Obama is on, and only listen intently to Fox news (i refuse on principle to capitalize "news"). However it is equally annoying to watch super liberal friends go banannas over Olberman (who I still can't really see as anything other than That Sportcenter Guy) and scream racism at even the basest arguments of philosophy against the Left.
It is a traditional and vicious cycle of cynicism and disrespect to the operation of government that has gotten us to this point, and I can only hope that we can climb our way out of it. Here's to hoping the Screaming Ninnies become quieter every day.
Posted By: Lefty McRighty (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Thank you for contributing Ron.
I for one always thought that this would take time, but I knew people would start whining the moment things didn't get fixed as quickly as they wanted it to.
I am sick and tired of Republicans who HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to make intelligent decisions and truly repair their party pull this crap. I am sick of Eric Cantor and other Republicans celebrating defying the Stimulus bill, despite being slaughtered, and I am ALREADY SICK of Michael Steele.
Posted By: The Nitin (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 02:21 PM
And for the record, I am not a heavy-Dem, I just want to see politics in America actually return to something intelligent, instead of it just being the equivalent of dumbasses throwing crap at each other.
Posted By: The Nitin (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 02:23 PM
What in God's name are you talking about?! Obama hasn't done a DAMN thing that he said he would do!
"I'll bring Change to Washington!"
ALL corrupt Washington insiders!
"I don't agree with Senator McCain."
Yet he uses McCain's housing plan!
Let's not even get started on all of the pork in that "stimulus" bill! He was so quick to push a bill to prove that he could, he wasn't using his head to think about whether he SHOULD!
Now, I'm registered Republican, but more and more lately, I'm leaning towards Libertarian!
But this spending bill was unnecessary the way it was written!
Even Obama's cabinet said that a crisis is the best time to push your agenda and push forward the programs you want!
You all are completely and utterly BLIND!
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 05:39 PM
....And Spyke completely misses the point. If you ever have trouble with reading comprehension, I suggest asking an adult for help. *blinks*
Posted By: David (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Get a life, Tobolowsky.
Posted By: Guest#1369 (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 09:57 PM
I think recent history shows otherwise. The Republicans who get elected are all hard-right-wingers: Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2. The ones who lose elections are the centrists: Bush 1, Dole, and McCain. It's the same with the Democrats. Strong lefties like Carter, Clinton, and Obama win elections; moderates like Gore and Kerry don't.
I think this is because it's not about winning the political middle. It's about winning the non-political. The people who don't watch the news or read poli-blogs, combined with strong base turnout on your side, combined with weak base turnout on the other side, are enough to constitute a majority.
Moreover, what is the point of playing for a party win if the only way to get it is to abandon your principles? The goal of a conservative is to get conservative leaders in power, not Republican ones. Tell me, Mr. Tobolowski, if you're someone who thinks Sarah Palin should be president, not just any Republican, how do you effect it?
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on February 21, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Andrew,
The rambling journal format of your posts makes it hard to read. My humble suggestion would be to style yours after Enrique.
There's nothing wrong with the content, but it seems the topic shifts in a way that makes it hard to respond.
Posted By: Distinguished Gentleman (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 12:21 AM
You suck Tobolowsky
OBAMA = EPIC FAIL. Dont worry, America will see in 4 years what a horrible mistake electing a lefty was.
By then we will have atrue republican candidate on our side. Someone who believes in family values and true conservatism unlike McCain...
(If the liberal media elite didnt slander Palin last election she would be perfect for the role)
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 06:21 AM
A lot of the House and Senate gains by the Democrats in the last 2 elections came because they defeated MODERATE Republicans, the ones that tried to run to the center. They got their asses handed to them.
Here's why I think you're WRONG about Obama:
1. He put a tax cheat in a position to oversee the IRS. I don't care how good he might be at the job (and judging by the first few public appearances, his talent is questionable too), THAT is stupid!
2. He said "the days of pork as policy are over", and he said he would go "item by item, line by line" in the budget and cut out the fat. And then he got behind this horrible, bloated stimulus bill. THAT is stupid!
3. He said "no lobbyists" and immediately started putting lobbyists in place
4. He ran on "change"...right up until he actually took the oath. At that point, he turned to the exact same fear-mongering D.C. dirtbag that Bush was. We got "fear-mongered" into Iraq by Bush (WMD WMD WMD OMG OMG WE HAVE TO GO IN THERE). We got "fear-mongered" into that horrible TARP I (OMG OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING OR THINGS WILL GET REALLY BAD...and then they got really bad anyway!) And now we are getting "fear-mongered" into a whole new set of bloated spending initiatives that WON'T WORK AND WILL ONLY DELAY THE INVEITABLE.
I don't expect you to be nervous. I don't care if you are nervous. You guys think this will work? Great. Knock yourselves out. You won. You have the power.
But make no mistake...this is YOUR BILL. And if (or when, IMO) it doesn't work, it will be YOUR problem. And the 2010 election will reflect that reality.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 08:54 AM
Excellent post Eric.Andrew,quit being a defense attorney for the"awesomeness" himself.
Posted By: John (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Interesting point, Paul. I was thinking about this the other day and I suppose the question is how fast do you think politics changes? I mean on the one hand, like you say, Reagan was a hard righty, but was it the same America then as it is now? it's only twenty odd years but Reagan won, what, 49 states in his second election bid? Could that happen to anybody from either party now? I kind of doubt it.
Eric's point and your point also converge a bit, the difference being the president is for the whole country which is a broader mix of people and the senators come from constituencies that so often stay the same---of course it's the moderate seats that get overturned. They're the only ones vulnerable to political winds.
Here's my contention, and I don't think about it as anything more than one man's opinion. There's a difference between hard right the way Carter, Bush II and Reagan did it than the way Sarah Palin does it. It's sort of like Obama and the black vote. He didn't mention it and he didn't gun for it. He gunned for the middle. Because he knew the black vote would be their anyway. Just so, Bush by making gestures to the evangelical right without actively claiming that the rest of America was awful (a la Sarah Palin) he got the fringe as an ADDITION to the center. That put him over the top. On the other hand by trying to ride BOTH horses, McCain lost out on votes from both sides. A better strategy, a la Bush (good ol' boy), Reagan ("the great communicator"), and Obama, is to keep your fringe in your pocket, tip them the wink on the sly, and keep talking to the middle.
Which still, in my mind, demonstrates the efficacy of the middle rather than the fringe. It's not an easy balancing act to pull off. It needs, basically, a populist.
And Eric, if you're reading this, I'd be curious to hear what you think "the inevitable" is. Not being offensive, just curious. Was it inevitable no matter what was done? Or do you think it is because of what wasn't done...
Enrique is some good shit.
Ron Mexico, you have herpes.
(And hhhh, as always, my heart cries for you and Sarah Palin.)
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on February 22, 2009 at 02:51 PM
The "inevitable" I refer to is twofold
1. The bottom of the housing market
2. The bottoming out of the recession
(frankly, #1 pretty much has everything to do with #2)
At the end of the day, the market will decide the housing bottom, no matter how many housing bailouts and stimulus plans we pass. The sooner we hit bottom, the sooner we can begin to heal and climb out.
These plans will only delay us hitting that bottom, and they will not fundamentally lessen where that bottom is (anyone here think we're NOT going to 10% unemployment, regardless of TARP, TARP II, Stimulus II, Stimulus III, nationalization of banks, etc etc etc???)
Thus, they are just delaying the healing process that can only take place once we hit bottom.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 05:12 PM
Andrew,
Very good points brought up. And for the most part, I agree with you. I think the problem is most people on the extremes let their label define them as opposed to them defining their labels. They look at whatever their party or label says (i.e. Liberal/Conservative)and just walk in lock step with it without having to do any thinking for myself. "I can do whatever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Randi Rhodes tells me," or whomever is touting the party line you agree with. They don't take it issue by issue. They look at it as "this is what the party-line is...this is what I will tout."
I think one of the problems come...the definition of "conservative" and "liberal/progressive" change over time. Most people find it hard to believe but Prohibition back in the 1920's started as a "progressive" movement and idea. It was during this time that Christian Evangelicals allied themselves and defined themselves with the "progressive movement". Scary huh?
Back in the 1960's Barry Goldwater was considered to have been the standard bearer of the "conservative movement" in America and was considered the "extreme right" of the Republican party. Given the nickname "Mr. Conservative". By the 1980's, Goldwater was railing against the Republican Party's affiliation with the Evangelical Christians. When the issue of Homosexuals in the military came up he said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." As a matter of fact in 1996, he was quoted as saying to Bob Dole during his campaign, "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?" Actually, a lot of what Goldwater says now falls in line of what we call the Libertarian point of view. But I just him as the example as to how standards change over a few generation.
Posted By: Elliot (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 09:05 PM
Andrew,
I definitely agree that there is little surprise in hearing those who did not believe Obama's policies would success arguing that Obama's policies have failed. What surprises me is how many folks believe that a reasonable solution to excessive debt starts with issuing more debt. Or that the solution to the downside of an inflated real estate/housing market are additional policies designed to inflate the real estate/housing market.; all with more debt.
Nobody tells a sailor when he has had too much to drink, because only a sailor knows if he has had too much to drink.
Thanks for the column. Since the inauguration, the number of pro-Obama columns at 411 has dropped to a trickle. Plenty of stuff about the Republicans but not sure how compelling it is to watch people "beat-up" on the fat kid. Like you say, they lost the election.
It is also very likely that global left-right political opinions shift between the poles rather than the elected leaders shifting the poles toward a static center.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on February 22, 2009 at 09:34 PM
It’s so nice to see there’s some people who understand that there are two sides to a brain. A left side and a right side – and we are actually capable of using both at the same time.
Of course, there are some (Ron Mexico, hhhh, Eric, John, Spyke, Guestrandomnumber) who are wholly incapable of processing any information that doesn’t allign with their already hardened “ideals” – LIBERAL THINKING: DOES NOT COMPUTE! BASH! TRASH! YOU SUCK! SHUT UP! MESSIAH! VALUES!
Here is the simple point. Your side LOST the election. There was something your side did wrong and TURNED OFF VOTERS. Andrew is pointing out events recently that may lead to your side losing MORE. You want to win, right? You want more people to see things your way, right? You want more people to believe that conservatism is the way to go?
Maybe, instead of foaming at the mouth, waiting for a “liberal” to post on here so you can pounce on him, why don’t you look at your party, MAN UP – take RESPONSIBILITY (that’s what you’re about, right?) and say, “ok, the way I see how things work was not seen to be ideal by the majority – but it should, how do I appeal to the masses?” Sell, man!
Think of it like this: The Oscars were last night. People were PISSED that The Dark Knight was not nominated for best picture. The reasoning: It was very good and a LOT of people saw it and liked it. Why wouldn’t the Academy recognize that? Well, it doesn’t matter in the long run, because a lot of people STILL saw it and a lot of people STILL liked it. You can’t argue with RESULTS.
You guys are “mad as hell and aren’t gonna take this anymore!”, not because of what Obama is doing, but because Obama WON in the first place. Him winning means your side lost. Your ideas were “rejected”. Oh, sure, you think your ideals are sound, and a LOT of people voted for them, so why doesn’t the country recognize that? Well, because you guys are the MINORITY. It’s true. It’s okay – you can admit it. See, the reason civil rights always work in the end is because the MINORITY always rise up to assimilate themselves into the MAJORITY. Then the old majority dwindles.
So, don’t hate Andrew, don’t even hate liberal thinking. Why complain about the guy who’s driving a Lexus when your Ford is losing its muffler? You need to fix YOUR car. Don’t change the subject. Don’t deflect YOUR problem, which is you LOST and need to position yourselves to WIN.
Of course, the easiest answer is to just ignore Andrew altogether – maybe, - I dunno, do something about the fact that your line of thinking, this whole “conservatism” thing you think is so wonderful, is, and I hate to say this, but it’s dying a slow painful death. But that would defeat the purpose of having your internet-soapbox to stand on, I suppose.
Posted By: Hello! (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 07:30 AM
I would like to add that these comments are among some of the best I've seen here at 411 in a LONG time. It is always thought-provoking and interesting to get both sides of a debate.
Posted By: JAM Renaissance (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 08:22 AM
follow up to my follow up...this article says it better than I could ever hope to say it - the bottom will come no matter what the idiots in D.C. try, and their actions are just delaying the eventual outcome (and pissing away billions we DON'T HAVE in the process)
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 08:43 AM
this is too stupid of a column to even post a comment....................................................damnit!
Posted By: anti-messiah (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 08:50 AM
So now that Obama is our President it seems only fair that liberal democrats will go around championing their boy, and trashing the other side.
An article in 2009 about the two party system is absurd. Your view of our country and of the world is antiquated. Your column only perpetuates the idea that anybody screaming and waving flags for their "side" is an idiot.
Our country needs less politicking, and more respect. Respect for each other, respect for each other's religion, respect for the environment, respect for speed limits for chrissakes.
This column was a waste and you sound like you're 18 and this was your first election. Go back to RVD jokes.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Dear Nintin,
Your request for politics to return to something intelligent was rejected. You good sir are a flaming liberal and need to be dealt with accordingly. Politics haven't been intelligent since the f****** framers.
-God
Posted By: guest (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 10:02 AM
You are clearly biased in an unhealthy way.
Posted By: Mc (Guest) on February 23, 2009 at 01:02 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how GW Bush is a conservative when he went right along with the dems on just about every domestic policy you can think of. If not for his stance on Iraq, he's nothing more than a Pro Life Liberal as far as I'm concerned. Is it because he cut taxes for those that actually PAY taxes? I'm just trying to figure this all out.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on February 25, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Why is this a must read? It's just a regular rant you'd see on a blog anywhere.
Posted By: serp (Guest) on May 22, 2009 at 01:35 PM
I agree with gwpbrian. Move on.org and the war protesters must be Soo Happy with Obama!!!!!!
Posted By: danman (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 02:36 PM
STAY CURRENT