Obama's Interview with David Leonhardt
This is a really remarkable interview.
But before I get to the interview, some 100 Days throat-clearing.
My basic and somewhat pessimistic take on the Obama presidency thus far has been that the presidency itself is a sprawling institution that has an odd and often misunderstood central mission — even though there is no sense in which the president can really manage and direct the economy, folk characterizations of the president’s role notwithstanding, the president is held accountable for the state of the economy. It is the accountability that actually matters. Decisions are made by bureaucrats and hundreds of millions of private actors, but someone has to be blamed: the buck has to stop somewhere. The president’s job is, in a sense, to be the object of blame, and, on rare occasions, of praise. Of course, the job has more than totemic significance. To tilt the balance of blame and praise, and of course to promote the general welfare, presidents intervene. Presidents draw on a variety of fairly crude levers to effect large-scale change, subject to democratic supervision that operates according to really short cycles.
Because of his intelligence and work ethic and (gently leftish) pragmatism, I can see how Obama might be better suited to this job than most plausible presidents. He suffers from a number of disadvantages relative to George H.W. Bush, who had extensive experience of the executive branch before coming into the office but he also has a number of advantages, including keen political judgment and considerable rhetorical gifts. All this suggests that Obama will do a fairly good job. And yet Obama also faces a series of overlapping, reverberating crises that will take a long time to disentangle.
Even if his program is the right one to pursue in every detail, and I’m pretty sure it’s not — actually, I’m pretty sure we’re making an extremely serious mistake by not allowing a much sharper recession and dispensing of various too-big-to-fail institutions through negative price bidding — it will run into the political calendar. There are at least two ways of thinking about this: (a) awareness of the political business cycle will undermine the integrity of “the program” or (b) “the program” will be disrupted by increasingly effective political opposition, and efforts to co-opt or blunt the opposition after the fact.
At the very least, the Leonhardt interview suggests that Obama understands the thorny landscape, and that’s saying a lot. My basic fear remains the same: I think we expect too much from government in general and from the president in particular. Still, it’s hard to argue that Obama doesn’t wear the mantle of “bearer of responsibility” fairly well.
I was going to parse Obama’s remarks more closely, but I’m thinking better of it. I was struck by his remarks on education and compensation, the broad conversation we need to have on healthcare, etc. But I think it’s best to parse these issues separately.
Mr. Salam seems to be suffering from “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Most of what Obama says is unexceptionable, and his level of analytic sophistication is about what you would get from Megan McArdle or Matthew Yglesias. You’d get about the same level of rhetorical skill and policy wonkery from Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich. (George Bush is somewhat less articulate, though I think he is about equally well-read.)
I myself am not on board with this “we” stuff, in which “we” “do things” about “our” educational system (meaning that the Salams and Obamas of the world take my money by force and spend it on trendy ideas generated by ed school grads), but that’s just me.
— y81 · Apr 29, 05:28 PM · #
I’m really, really tied up with swine flu stuff right now, but that whole bit from “you’d get the same level of rhetorical skill” to “equally well read.)” strikes me personally as baloney. Like him or not Obama is patently an exceptional politician.
— Sanjay · Apr 29, 06:15 PM · #
Agree with Sanjay – the interview is compelling in its evidence of some fairly nuanced, and quite candid, thinking around a range of issues – not as 10 point rhetorical skill and policy comprehension test. There’s a subtlety there that a Cheney simply wouldn’t display, even if he’s ‘well read’ enough to formulate competent arguments.
And frankly I don’t see what’s so miserable about the presence of Yglesias-level analysis at the top.
— Mitch · Apr 29, 08:43 PM · #
Mr. Reihan, Sir, you say about Obama “…Because of his intelligence and work ethic and (gently leftish) pragmatism…” There is nothing gentle about Obama’s leftism. He is the most left-wing president this country ever had, on the record. Time will prove to you there was nothing gently leftish about Obama. The burden of all young American lefties is their youth – they will get to live a long time under the future that Obama is preparing for them today. The old will die broken hearted, but it is the young that will suffer for the many years to come. The fruits of Obama’s nefarious and destructive agendas will not be easy to entangle, for decades. Time will make fools of Obama supporters and people who thought he meant well. I wish you well, and pray that you remain resilient in the face of the adversities that are about to be brought upon us as a nation.
— The Winter Solstice · Apr 29, 08:46 PM · #
“Time will make fools of Obama supporters and people who thought he meant well.”
Time has already made fools of anyone who voted for Bush or McCain.
— Mark · Apr 29, 08:58 PM · #
I would be very interested to hear Mr. Salam’s take on the view that the the “Center” of the political spectrum in America today lies somewhere within the Democratic Party, and not at the division between the Democrats and Republicans. In my view this observation stands has nothing to do with Mr. Specter’s announcement yesterday. This may keep Obama on his toes and be a blessing is disguise.
Also, how does Mr. Salam reconcile the idea that the institutions are “too big to fail” – If they fail, who will it hurt the most? The poor or the wealthy? Also, would Mr. Salam support stringent regulation, which will prevent corporations from growing “too big to fail”? Without such regulation, is it not absurd to say that Government should let these entities fail, despite the obvious ripple effects of such collapses?
In effect, isn’t Mr. Salam arguing (or at least alluding to an argument) against pragmatism, in favor of ideology in his response? Isn’t Mr. Obama’s observation about being “free from politics” (beyond obviously getting things passed in Congress) particularly pertinent in this regard?
Besides, of course Presidents are not directly responsible for the economy? But does that also mean that Presidents and the executive branch in general, can do nothing (or should do nothing) to rescue it?
— D · Apr 29, 09:01 PM · #
“what’s so miserable about the presence of Yglesias-level analysis at the top[?]”
Nothing (though I would prefer McArdle-level analysis). But I don’t consider something you could find in any Harvard or Penn dorm room to be “remarkable.”
— y81 · Apr 29, 11:01 PM · #
— y81 · Apr 29, 07:01 PM ·
From what I remember the conversation in dorm rooms at an Ivy wasn’t quite on the same level. But it’s very obvious you’ve already made up your mind and aren’t about to change it. The anger on the right of which this is a fair example is palpable because the guy is dominating the political scene like no president since Kennedy or early Johnson. I don’t see it ending anytime soon.
— John · Apr 29, 11:23 PM · #
“He is the most left-wing president this country ever had, on the record.”
You forgot, you know, FDR and LBJ. Heck, even Carter and Kennedy. Maybe Ike too.
Oh right, defense spending isn’t Spending. My bad..
— jackal · Apr 30, 01:32 AM · #
Also, um, we’ll have to ignore the whole Nixon Wage and Price Controls in 1971 thing…
— jackal · Apr 30, 01:33 AM · #
Jackal,
I’d say Obama is more liberal than Carter in some ways, but less in others, Same for Nixon, JFK and Ike,
Only a hopeless wing nut could claim with a straight face that Obama is to the left of LBJ, Truman and FDR.
— eric k · Apr 30, 04:04 AM · #
“In effect, isn’t Mr. Salam arguing (or at least alluding to an argument) against pragmatism, in favor of ideology in his response? Isn’t Mr. Obama’s observation about being “free from politics” (beyond obviously getting things passed in Congress) particularly pertinent in this regard?”
This sets up a false dichotomy. Reihan’s perception—as well as my perception, your perception, everyone’s perception—of what is pragmatically optimal is necessarily informed by an ideological framework. Reihan believes that the ultimate long-term health of the country is best ensured with some short-term pain now. This both a pragmatic and an ideological judgment about what is best for America. Now, I don’t agree with Reihan. I am skeptical about the ability of any democratic system to effectively manage short-term pain/long-term gain scenerios. But that doesn’t mean that Reihan’s opinion is somehow hopelessly unpragmatic. We just disagree.
— salacious · Apr 30, 11:45 AM · #
I don’t think it makes sense to try and compare people from 50 years apart (like Eisenhower and Obama) and try to say which one is more to the left. Obviously on some issues (e.g., abortion or gay rights) Obama would be well to the left of anything that Eisenhower would have imagined. On the other hand, I don’t suppose Obama would ever dream of raising tax rates to the level that obtained during the 1950s.
Issues change over time. We have more sexual freedom and lower tax rates than we did 50 years ago. On the other hand, we have less freedom to engage in many other activities, such as cigarette smoking or driving without a seatbelt.
— y81 · Apr 30, 12:55 PM · #
If it’s “left-wing” to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy bankers’ companies, attack terrorists in Pakistan with armed Predator drones, increase troop levels in a war zone above the previous Republican administration’s troop levels, conduct a more states’-rights-friendly policy towards state approved medical marijuana, etc., then what, exactly, would be right-wing behavior?
— Mike · Apr 30, 07:49 PM · #
“On the other hand, we have less freedom to engage in many other activities, such as cigarette smoking or driving without a seatbelt.”
More like we’ve finally understood what the externalities associated with these activities is?
— jackal · Apr 30, 10:19 PM · #
ATmBuZ <a href=“http://hmkazyipphhz.com/”>hmkazyipphhz</a>, [url=http://weukohrdlwnu.com/]weukohrdlwnu[/url], [link=http://brhvpriolvaa.com/]brhvpriolvaa[/link], http://eekyagbparkt.com/
— rtjpoovg · May 13, 05:54 AM · #