More cynical Democrats - What's the upshot of an Obama presidency?

Great Debates
1

I rarely venture into GD, so feel free to link to any similar threads. I ask this not as a Republican troll, but as someone who is woefully underinformed about politics, and carries the South Park view that we are choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

Not that it’s relevant, but if it helps eliminate any perception of snarkiness, I am voting Democratic. I align with the party on most major issues. But as I say, I am very uninformed about politics and bureaucracy and how things actually get done.

Anyway, in other fora, here and elsewhere, there seems to be a lot of hyperbole (some bordering on creepily reverential) about the changes Obama will be able to bring to this country. So, a couple questions for the more pragmatic among us:

  1. Assuming he doesn’t pull an about-face on anything, what sort of changes will Obama really be able to effect?

  2. With our system of checks and balances, why wasn’t the Democratic congress of the last two years able to effect some of the positive changes that you expect from Democratic leaders? Or did they?

  3. Do the Democrats in congress bear any responsiblity for the current economic crisis? If so, how are Obama’s policies going to turn the tide?

  4. Is this really the most important election in your lifetime (phrase that makes me :rolleyes: ), or are we, like I said before, just choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich?

2

Ok I’ll bite on a couple of these. Let me takeon some of your questions out of order.

**4. Is this really the most important election in your lifetime (phrase that makes me ), or are we, like I said before, just choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich? **
I’m in my mid-thirties yes, this is the most important election in my lifetime. My first bellwhether for this assertion is from my good ol’Dad. A lifelong republican leaning engineer type retired naval officer etc…etc… came over our house for dinner last April and asked me a serious question about Barack. Eyes wide I told him my reasons for voting for Barack, and outlined some pretty standard talking points that can be found readily on his website. Dads immediate response was what about the man’s character? I asked him who he voted for in 04’? Bush. What about Bush’s character dad? Point taken. You never know for sure until they get into office, but from what I can see in his mannerisms with his wife and kids I’d say the mans character is quite solid.
**

  1. Assuming he doesn’t pull an about-face on anything, what sort of changes will Obama really be able to effect?**

Perhaps we should look at the orchard that we call Washington D.C. that Obama will [hopefully] be walking into. It’s full of the stench from the last 8 years, millions of Americans don’t like Bush or his policies - so Obama stepping in would change the forum and look right off the bat. I think he would be more involved with civic initiatives, and really weeding out the programs that trend not to work. He’ll bring a fresh look at things like the billion dolalr bail out and how we can feasibly get over this mortgage crisis we are facing, and at the same time pull our troops out of Iraq, place many of them in Afghanistan, and bring the rest home. Just being out of Iraq will turn the money around that we are spending there back to domestic needs. What will he do with that money? I see him spending the first year or two reorganizing and restructuring Gov’t regulation and balancing the many budgets to the best of his team’s abilities.

2. With our system of checks and balances, why wasn’t the Democratic congress of the last two years able to effect some of the positive changes that you expect from Democratic leaders? Or did they?
Bush.

3. Do the Democrats in congress bear any responsiblity for the current economic crisis? If so, how are Obama’s policies going to turn the tide?
Of course they bear some responsibility, and we do not know right now how Obamas policies will change the trend we were on. hopefully someone will come in an lend a helping hand to this thread. Glad you are voting Democratic. Don’t expect a miracle worker, but expect a culture change that will effect you.

3

Cynical Democrat here, who is voting for Obama with absolutely no hesitation despite what I’m about to say.

1. Assuming he doesn’t pull an about-face on anything, what sort of changes will Obama really be able to effect?

This is the big question that’s been on my mind lately, and I fear the answer is ‘not much’. He’ll be able to bring at least most of the troops home from Iraq in fairly short order, as well as other foreign policy changes. But when it comes to domestic changes, I suspect he will find his larger efforts inexplicably stymied. The presidency has not been the real power in this country for some time, and whoever really is in power (people with lots of money) have decided to let Obama win to give the people just enough change to shut them up.

2. With our system of checks and balances, why wasn’t the Democratic congress of the last two years able to effect some of the positive changes that you expect from Democratic leaders? Or did they?

Bush. Or in other words, he got rid of some of our checks and balances in favor of his [del]dictatorial[/del] unitary executive nonsense. He also has had a massively effective PR plan in place that spun (read: “bullshitted”) anything he didn’t like into unpatriotic anti-Americanness.

3. Do the Democrats in congress bear any responsiblity for the current economic crisis? If so, how are Obama’s policies going to turn the tide?

They probably do bear some of it, from what I’ve read about legislation in the last 10 years giving financial corporations more freedom in lending money and so on. I don’t know if Obama’s financial policies will turn the tide. I only know that McCain’s won’t.

4. Is this really the most important election in your lifetime (phrase that makes me :rolleyes: ), or are we, like I said before, just choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich?

No, the most important election of my life (since I came of voting age) was 2004. This one is a close second. (All of this is qualified with “so far”, of course.)

4

Rather than re-type a bunch of stuff I’ve already posted, I hope you don’t mind if I direct you to read a few previous posts I’ve made on the subject of Barack Obama’s effectiveness in accomplishing balanced, bi-partisan legislation. The posts may contain duplicate information, but they all have at least one aspect that’s not included in the others. Also, keep in mind that most of these posts were made during the rather contentious primary season, so please disregard any snark contained therein, it’s certainly not directed at you.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9498045&postcount=7
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9624098&postcount=33
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10140013&postcount=88

And thanks for your vote!

5

I generally have a strong dislike of South Park Republicanism and all of its false equivalencies and “I’m above it all” faux-aloofness, but you’ve come here in good faith, so I’ll give you my take.

  1. What sort of changes will Obama really be able to effect?

In no particular order:
[ul]
[li] Appointment of next two-three Supreme Court justices - putting excellent progressive jurists on the bench, who will at least keep the status quo on the Court, and so ensure it won’t be hijacked to the right in the immediate future as would be a real danger under McCain. [/li][li] Health care reform - expect to see greater efficiencies through economies of scale which will be introduced by government bargaining. [/li][li] A return to a multilateralism, and a real treaty-accession agenda. Expect to see progress on the Law of Sea, the ICC, possibly some other human rights treaties. [/li][li] A genuine U.N. reform and engagement agenda - rather than the faux-Bolton agenda of setting up the U.N. for failure and using it as a political punching bag for domestic politics. [/li][li] Rollback on warrantless wiretapping, FISA-compromise and other Schmittian national security agendas introduced over the last few years.[/li][li] A depoliticisation of DOJ and the OLC, and a return of the career lawyers who were replaced under Bush.[/li][li] Depoliticisation of the public service more broadly - including important offices like OMB, Treasury and FEMA.[/li][li] The appointment of a swathe of justices to the Federal Courts to balance out the conservative stronghold.[/li][li] Explicit repudiation of the Bush National Security Strategy, and a return to decades of bipartisan consensus on the international norms of proportionality, and working constructively within the collective security regime.[/li][li] A general return to foreign policy realism / enlightened realism - which is involves tough diplomacy with enemies and dealing constructively with allies again. [/li][li] As above - a revived attempt at a Middle East peace process, possibly ambitious grand bargain with Iran and Syria involving some normalisation of relations in exchange for measurable progress on interfering in Iraq, dealing with terrorist proxies and nuclear disarmament. [/li][li] Repudiation of the Unitary Executive theory and other fetishistic outliers introduced over the last 8 years.[/li][li] Full respect for the Convention Against Torture and other international norms jus cogen obligations against torture (cf. McCain who supports the CIA having full reign in terms of enhanced interrogation and rendition.)[/li][li] Closing GTMO; return to rule of law based approach - enhanced internationalised effort against terrorist networks. [/li][li] Graduated exit strategy from Iraq, more redeployment to Afghanistan.[/li][li] A more constructive and balanced approach to regulatory issues, whilst still basically conservative in philosophy, it will be less myopic.[/li][li] Passing Obama’s tax cuts, and expiring Bush’s, which will introduce better progressivity in the US system. [/li][li] Probably can expect more invigoration of NATO and other regional alliances in response to SCO China’s intergovernmental mutual- security grouping. [/li][/ul]

  1. With our system of checks and balances, why wasn’t the Democratic congress of the last two years able to effect some of the positive changes that you expect from Democratic leaders? Or did they?

Short answer, they did do a few things like raise the minimum wage but it’s very difficult to actually set an agenda without the bully-pulpit of the Presidency and a super-majority to override the pocket veto.

Congress has the purse strings, but anything dramatic they would do, especially on the war, would leave them vulnerable to the charge of undermining the troops, as you saw McCain try to do over the non-timetable bill Obama voted against. Some might rightly argue Reid is too accommodationist, but looking at their impending victory I think they played their cards pretty well.

  1. Do the Democrats in congress bear any responsiblity for the current economic crisis? If so, how are Obama’s policies going to turn the tide?

No. There are some issues there with Frannie and Freddie Mae, but Republicans trying to press this issue look ridiculous. Their supposed bill was killed in committee by their own party’s lights, and only from that safety did McCain ever jump on board. The reasoning for the financial crisis is complex, but the strongest case for blame goes to a conjoint failure between wall street institutions, risk assessors and trading desks, the rating agencies and a lack of regulation (most of which can be traced to the anti-regulatory agenda of Republicans). Without all those factors - it wouldn’t matter about the CRA or poor lenders with bad credit histories, because predation would not be possible, and the institutions would not be allowed to leverage derivatives as much as they did, so you’d have fewer sub-prime or vulnerable mortgages, and then the complex MBSs would be rated properly, and endlessly reinforcing credit swaps would not create such bad, unsustainable practices in lending.
4. Is this really the most important election in your lifetime (phrase that makes me ), or are we, like I said before, just choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich?

No. There are significant differences between the parties. They both have establishment problems and interest groups, but the modern Republican Party is basically corrupt, is contaminated with bigotry and ignorance, and invested in bad governance. There are moderate Republicans who I hope can retake their party - but they are a dying minority.

Democrats aren’t perfect, but there’s no real comparison.

6

Standing O for IClaudius!

::Rousing Applause::

7
  1. Assuming he doesn’t pull an about-face on anything, what sort of changes will Obama really be able to effect?

Getting out of Iraq ASAP will be a big start. Frees up lots of wasted money, vastly improves our standing world wide and enables us to get support in Afghanistan and maybe even allows us to help Dafur and other places that have been relegated to the back burner.
By removing the tax breaks Bush put in for the rich, along with removing the bill for Iraq, there should be some money to start investing in alternative energy and education. His health plan should be ready within about two years, and simply updating Medicare with computer software will help immediately.
I would expect immigration issues to be dealt with fairly quickly. Although hardly discussed by either Obama or McCain, both want this to be dealt with swiftly and before any next election.

  1. With our system of checks and balances, why wasn’t the Democratic congress of the last two years able to effect some of the positive changes that you expect from Democratic leaders? Or did they?

I think part of the problem was that every proposal the Dems made had to have lots of little Republican addendums attached to get passed through both Houses, and when the bills came back, they were unacceptable. Even if 90% of the original bill is great, but 10% turns around and bites you in the ass, it is hard to vote for it and it doesn’t get passed.

  1. Do the Democrats in congress bear any responsiblity for the current economic crisis? If so, how are Obama’s policies going to turn the tide?

**Nobody is totally blameless, but assuming Obama gets in and Dems have control, they will be able to mandate changes without having everything watered down to become ineffective. Plus, the Dems will have no one to blame but themselves, so my guess is those bills will be rock solid from day one and sail through quickly. It will be up to the voters to decide in four years if it worked.
**
4. Is this really the most important election in your lifetime (phrase that makes me ), or are we, like I said before, just choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich?

I think anything that gets us away from the Disaster Known As Bush is vitally important. But I have to agree with Spatial Rift 47 that 2004 was very important and a dismal failure by the American voting public. Sure, most regret it now…the vast majority as a matter of fact…but for those of us who saw disaster in the making and had to live through a Bush re-election, well…consider that the reason Dems are waiting six hours in the sun to vote this year. The memories of that crap sandwich in 2004 still have people waking up in cold sweats.
**
An Obama victory will be a great day for me. No, I do not expect a magic wand to solve all ills in an instant. However, I do expect this huge cloud of cynicism and malaise to disappear, and an era of hope and change to begin. Besides, I think it is time we had a President who is more intelligent than a fifth grader and understands that, as great as America is, we cannot continue to pretend we are the only country on earth.**

8

But if he does reverse all Bush’s “security” and wartime policy changes like torture and wiretapping, won’t that make him look weak on terrorism? Might reinforce the baseless fears of some Repubs, anyway. I like him and I’m gonna vote for him, but I don’t have high hopes he’ll really change much. He ain’t Hercules, and these stables are very dirty.

9

Obama will be in position to place at least one, and possibly up to three Supreme Court Justices. Since the most liberal of justices are the ones closest to retirement (or, heaven forbid, death), a vote for Obama would maintain balance on the bench. McCain would try to cram a right-winger in there. We’re voting for a four-year Presidential term… but what we’re gonna get is a lifetime Supreme Court appointee or two. Yes, it’s important.

The much-vaunted “Democratic Congress” was the tiniest of tiny majorities in the Senate (49-49 plus 2 independents who caucused with the Democrats). Calling it a “Democrat Congress” is pretty much a technicality, in my view. The Republicans were in position to block anything they damn well wanted, and block they did.

There’s enough blame to go around for every politician in Washington for the last 30 years. Blaming it on “this Congress” (2006-2008) because George W. Bush tried to fix the financial system back in 2001 is pretty foolish, though.

Yes, this is an important election, if for no other reason than to repudiate the tactics of smear-and-lie which the Republicans have trotted out for 3 presidential elections running. If we vote McCain now, we’re saying to the smear machine, “Hey, keep using those smears! We’re fools! Go ahead, lie to us, we don’t give a shit! Nobody wants to hear about the issues!”

A vote for Obama makes the Republicans say to themselves, “Look, the smears aren’t working. We need to put our party in order and figure out what we stand for again.”

Even though I’m not a Republican, such a move can only be good for the country. We need both points of view to promote moderation. Polarization of the kind we’ve seen during the Bush years just creates more gridlock, and we need to move past that.

10

Well fortunately a lot of those issues are not easily understood and do not attact public attention in the same way as legislative programmes might. Indeed, that’s precisely the reason they’ve been so problematic - they aren’t legislative programmes, they’ve been occurring behind the scenes without accountability.

I mean, how many people on the street know about Bush’s prolific use of signing statements to arrogate to himself vast unaccountable executive power? How many people know of the internal machinations within the Office of Legal Council and the Department of Justice (apart from the firing scandal), and things like the Yoo-Bybee torture memo, or David Addington’s success in promulgating the Unitary Executive Theory.

Much of that can simply be swept away by Obama placing credible career lawyers in all the key positions at the OLC and Justice, refusing to abuse signing statements and appointing Justices who do not have outlier views on the constitution or CiC powers. The latter point is the most public, but realistically liberals will always cop nonsense about that. At the end of the day, what counts is that the US Administration, for the first time in 8 years, won’t be fighting the Court system over a pet theory and the Courts won’t themselves be dependably deferential.

11

I think he can get us out of Iraq, or at least significantly reduce our committment there. And in foreign policy in general I think he’ll take a more measured, humble approach. Less ideology and bluster should produce better results. Hell, just taking over for Bush is going to increase America’s stature in the world.

On the economic front, I think whoever is the next president is in for it. Things are going to get worse for a long while yet. We need investment in infrastructure and the public. I expect Obama to move in that direction. I believe Obama will try to deliver on his campaign promise to make health insurance much more widely available.

An important consideration is the government itself. It’s not widely understood how much damage the Bushies have done to functionality. It’s not just FEMA. That was just cronyism and neglect and that’s widespread. Plus regulatory institutions have been deliberately degraded. I expect Obama to undo this damage as Clinton dealt with the damage from previous unfit Republican administrations. Many governmental functions have been recklessly privatized and these contracts cannot just be broken so Obama has a job to do there.

Your question answers itself. In a parliamentary system we could expect the party swept into power to be able to get things done. With our checks and balances the GOP has been able to obstruct the Democratic agenda despite being repudiated at the polls in 2006. Checks and balances also provide a convenient excuse for Democratic inaction. Since they don’t have all the power they can continue to blame the GOP for things that go wrong.

Also, the main item on the Democratic agenda is to maintain the party’s power. Doing things their supporters want takes a back seat to that prime directive. Thus they don’t take advantage of every option they do have. Defunding the war, for instance. That would be politically risky, after all. Better to let the blood and treasure keep flowing into the sand rather than impair their chances of taking the White House in '08.

Sure. There is plenty of blame to go around. The main problem is that long term prosperity has been sacrificed for short term gain. The special interests that are raping our future for their current profits have a large stake in both parties. That way they will still have a seat at the table no matter who wins. However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the GOP are more dedicated servants to their corporate masters.

False dichotomy. I think this is a less important election than 2000. This has been a long time coming so we would still have problems now if Gore had won. But we would be in a better position to deal with them not having thrown away fiscal restraint, ground down our military effectiveness, and tarnished our national reputation.

And, while Obama is hardly someone I’d vote for without reservations, he is a lot better than the other option.

12

I’m not looking for any specific policy, I’m looking for a politician, not a “leader.” Leave leaders to communists, monarchies, and dictatorships. I believe the mere fact of Obama being elected will help us internationally in that regard, and secondarily that as a very capable politician he will help restore America’s place in the world, politically.

As a politician, I expect him to appoint thoughtful people, not idealogues, in cabinet positions and listen to them.

Much like Bush tried to toss religious folks a bone or three, I expect Obama will push for some “reforms” that I would personally find questionable on the economic front in order to appease folks, but I hope that at the end of the day he will expand free trade (e.g., NAFTA) and loosen immigration policy. (One of the things I really, really agreed with W about, once upon a time.) My fear is that terrorism blather will prevent some of these useful reforms on the latter front.

Overall, after he takes office he will learn a lot more than he knows now about the state of America, and I have every confidence that, in the aggregate, he will make sound choices, whatever they are, even though I anticipate disagreeing with some of his policies. It may end up that he breaks some campaign promises (like Bush, Sr’s lips) upon hearing the facts. I’m ready for that.

13

I rarely do this, but I also have to applaud IClaudius
Well said.

::Rousing Applause::

14

I’m assuming that the OP meant “pessimistic” in place of “cynical”.

Allow me to point out that we have a national tendency to over-value the significance of leaders. We don’t really elect leaders, we elect representatives, we elect the people most likely to make our views manifest.

To tirelessly repeat: when the people lead, the leaders will follow. We are currently in the process of determining our marchng orders.

If the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes, Obama will be elected, and with sufficient legislative support. We can then truly begin the process of repairing the ghastly damage done. But it is “we”, not “him”. He is only a man, and we are the people.

15

Thanks for these insightful responses. I’ll probably never be a political person, so it’s nice to have people around who put a lot of thought into these things. :slight_smile:

elucidator: I guess it depends on your perspective. Maybe I should have said “rational” or “grounded.” I’m not necessarily pessimistic myself, but I perceive a lot of people as being overly, manically optimistic. After all, as you imply, each election is just a small step toward achieving popular goals.

16

Perhaps your cheerful, happy-go-lucky username is confusing. Rather Pollyannish, don’t you think?

17
  1. I hope we can undo much of the harm Bush and the repubs caused. reinvigorating financial regulation, getting out of wars, revisiting the bankruptcy bill for examples.
  2. between Bush and filibusters there was very little they could accomplish.
  3. All pols bear some responsibility. They act as agents for lobbyists too often. If they start to work for the people again. we have hope.
  4. I hated when Reagan came in. He was a damn actor and did much evil. Bush made him look good. So if we can actually get some good done for the people ,it will be an important election.
    If McCain wins we are doomed. Another 4 years of thieves in charge of our tax money. He is really much like Bush. He will stay in Iraq until he wins it,whatever that definition is. Then he will get all up in Irans face. If he starts that war we will never recover. Our freedoms and economy will be evicerted due to a pretend defense of America from terrorists.
18

Neither. The most important election was in 2000. George Bush turned budget surpluses into large deficits and handed us an unnecessary war (eventually costing us $3 trillion) and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

A Democratic President may have fumbled the ball, but I would think that by 2006 some curbs on no-documentation loans and the like would have been put in place. Still, it’s highly unlikely that the Investment Banks such as Goldman Sachs would have been subject to substantial regulation.

Now they will be. Obama will take advice from a range of financiers and academics. McCain has some academically qualified contacts (eg Rogoff), but seems to prefer lobbyists.

Competent government will still be imperfect, just like competent business administration is. But there’s still a world of difference between Warren Buffett (who makes mistakes) and Carly Fiorina, formerly of HP. Similarly, there is a difference between a mild financial crisis (eg the Mexican Crisis, under Clinton) and the one we face today.

19

If there was one question I would’ve asked both candidates at a debate, it would’ve been “Will you promise to never use signing statements?”

Has either candidate gone on the record about this?

20

1. Assuming he doesn’t pull an about-face on anything, what sort of changes will Obama really be able to effect?

Not a lot. Best case scenario is that he isn’t able to do much, the economy recovers on its own, and he claims credit for it.

Obama, as has been pointed out repeatedly, has no executive experience, and has no significant national legislation to his credit. So he has shown no particular ability to shepherd legislation thru the process. The only significant legislation that has passed in the last two years are things that are so stupid that Democrats and Republicans agree on them. Shit like the stimulus package, for instance. Obama has carefully avoided any serious discussion on the pending entitlement crunch. He has no idea how to deal with it, and he is going to spend all that he expects to get (and more) from the tax hikes.

On energy, he may waste more money we don’t have on stuff we don’t need, like ethanol subsidies. He will have to confront the radical greenies in his party if he is serious about nuclear power, so that will probably languish in committee from now to Kingdom Come.

On foreign policy, as Biden and I said, he will be tested early. Iran or North Korea or someone like that will try something, and see how he reacts. He may be dumb enough to squander the successes of the surge in Iraq, and if things go to hell and Iran invades, then all the blaming Bush in the world isn’t going to fix anything. And the Democrats won’t have something like Watergate to distract the public, like they did with Viet Nam.

Like I say, the best we can hope for is that he is ineffectual and lucky. Of course, he could turn out to be a diamond in the rough, and a great President. But he won’t.

2. With our system of checks and balances, why wasn’t the Democratic congress of the last two years able to effect some of the positive changes that you expect from Democratic leaders? Or did they?
They did. This is the best they can do. They aren’t going to do any better under Obama than they would under McCain (or Bush). They controlled Congress for the last two years, and all they did was jack up the deficit. If they were going to do anything about the credit crunch, they would have, but didn’t. If they are going to do anything about future crises, they would be doing it now. But they aren’t.

Obama’s got a shot at appointing a Justice or two. (Or maybe he will fuck up so bad that Republicans regain control in 2010. But I suspect the conservatives on the Court will hang in there as long as they can, if they think some liberal ninny is going to take their seat.

3. Do the Democrats in congress bear any responsibility for the current economic crisis? If so, how are Obama’s policies going to turn the tide?

Of course they do. And they won’t, respectively. The Dems were the ones pushing for mortgages for poor credit risks. Bush wanted to regulate the industry like Reagan wanted to re-regulate the S&L industry. Jim Wright stopped Reagan; the Dems stopped Bush. (Of course he didn’t push very hard.)

4. Is this really the most important election in your lifetime (phrase that makes me :rolleyes: ), or are we, like I said before, just choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich?

No. It’s just unusual in that it appears a liberal Democrat, and not a Southerner, is going to win.

But the Democrats are going to control all three branches of the federal government, and possibly by filibuster-proof margins. Whatever happens for the next two years is their fault.