What Lessons of Election Day?

I think Mr. Kuttner’s post,

“What Lessons of Election Day?”

 

(Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com//robert-kuttner/post_1183_b_776752.html) is a great one to think about at this election time.

Regarding his statement:

“liberals are dismayed with Obama not because this or that initiative was insufficiently lefty. They are mad at Obama for blowing what had to be a Roosevelt moment, and thereby ushering in a totally needless period of far-right resurgence, dominated by a lunatic right that makes Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove look like moderates.”

As a person of pragmatism and willingness to compromise for good (which may make me sometimes look too weak), I feel like I understand President relatively well. But at this point, I have to admit the deadly combination of destructive opposition, partially ill-spinned pragmatism of president, and the screw-up of his economic team (except dear Christina Romer).

I admire liberals for their eagerness for pregress. But sometimes, I also wish them to take accounts of barriers, limits too. I strongly agree with Mr. Kuttner that:

“Far better would be for Obama to draw the right lessons and surprise his critics now.”

Progressive Canaries in a Political Mine

Regarding Mr. Norman Solomon’s statement, “the president has empowered, not countered, the right wing by moving in its direction on a wide range of basic policies and governance formulatio­ns….Rath­er than staking out decent, progressive, populist positions and defending them with moral fervor, “

The statement, “the president empowering the right wing,” seems to be incorrect. The blind objections of the opposite political party against whatever the president’s agendas, opposition for the sake of opposition seem to have resulted in empowering itself. it sounds almost nonsense to state that it is the president who empowered the opposition party.

I believe liberals are people that are well informed, well educated of politics with passion for better society. But they also need to learn how to take in different contributing factors in judging policy outcomes. Also, sometimes, even the outcome may not agree to what they really wished for, for the sake of country, maybe sometimes sacrifice what they believe to certain extent and support their leader if there are still value on him. Choose Big One at the costs of small ones. It wouldn’t make things better if they let down their leader to let the opponents win.

In Asia, there’s a saying that if too many people row a boat, the boat will climb a mountain (instead of sailing water.) If there are too many voices and nobody know when to be silent, or give in, nothing works.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Election Countdown (in progress): Messaging Problem of White House?

Having the long to-do list and exploding head with all bunch of thinking, it is not easy to follow all news about politics and midterm-election facts by facts. But as the fate of this country and economy affect our lives in most tremendous ways, it seems almost personal obligation to try understand what’s going on in this country.

Current dominant news seems to be (a) President losing his support base that he had during his 2008 presidential election, including college students and others who became lethargic toward Democratic party (it seems to be impractical to expect that all old supporting base will be there like a sunflower, no matter what; they were supposed to erode sometime anyway to some extents); (b) the WH failure of messaging public.

Paul Krugman in NY times points out the WH’s mistake of wrong messaging to public. Other news point our Dem’s shifts of message to message for the last one year haven’t worked out to change public opinion.

At this point, as all political tactics don’t seem to work, wouldn’t it be time for the WH to come frank?, as Prof Krugman suggested:

-The WH has been in right track in terms of putting “Economic Recovery Package” to resusitate recession and unemployment.

-But the recovery package was too small, not strong/bold enough to promote economic recovery and job creation that resulted in current sluggish economic recovery and meager job creation (and explain what have been the major contributing / destructive factors to the current situation? the misguidance of the WH economic team, the stubborn opposition from other political party, the disarray of president’s own party);

-Address “we tried, but it was not strong enough; we need your help, we need to unite, not disassemble, to make it work better” for our own sake as “We”.”

-Get help from “FRESHIER FACES” (if Elizabeth Warren was not enough): Although I heard that the relationship b/ the WH and Prof. Krugman (and others) is not really friendly, for the sake of  country, ask his (and others’) help, their public appearances on TV, other mass media, or political rally to correct, educate wrong public understanding of the myth of economic recovery package, spending cuts, and big/expanded current government (correct the wrong message given out by the opposing party)(maybe “Emphasize/Repeat until public get it” the comparison of current economic recession/recovery and that of Roosebelt’s Depression, New Deal, and how Roosevelt’s later adoption of “Spending Cut” hurt the economic and drove into another recession) compare the current ). Educate public into right direction. As I am a very straightfoward thinker, I am not good at twisting facts or gics. The onlything I can think of is, just go straight. don’t twist. If old gics haven’t worked, why continue?

“If Political Strateging/Tactics Haven’t Worked to the Last Minutes, What else Left? Except “Straight Talk?” That’s what I think.

“Krugman’s View of President Obama’s First Year Sounds Reasonable.”

Professor Krugman stated that “The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.” -”What Didn’t Happen”, NY Op-Ed Column.

Prof. Krugman’s above statement sounds reasonable. Maybe it’s wise for the White House to incorporate his suggestions in modifying its policies & strategies. Pushing hard for health care reform and straigtening out the mistakes done in financial reform. Especially, although I don’t quite like blaming games, it seems to be “VERY” important to stress out “Who’s the Actual Cause of Current Economic and Job Crisis” and take that blame away from President. Regarding job situation, Prof. Krugman doesn’t seem to see any magic bullet at this point, as I haven’t seen any either (“US Job Situation: No Magic Bullet to Solve It; http://mikyunglim.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/us-job-situation-no-magic-bullet-to-solve-it/)

“What Didn’t Happen,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/opinion/18krugman.html

My Cure to “The Senate Health Care Bill: Leave No Special Interest Behind”

I read repeatedly strong interference of special interest politics in shaping the recent Senate health care reform bill as well as financial sector reform. Ms. Arianna Huffington at Huffinton Post reported that 13 former congressmen and 166 congressional staffers were actively engaged in lobbying their former colleagues on the health care reform bill.

To prevent corruption and the manipulation of industrial special interest politics in shaping US government policies, I wonder whether it is necessary to introduce a law that bans congressmen and congressional staffers from working as lobbiests for industries of special interests or industries that represent “Conflicts of Interests,” after these people finish their congressional terms or quitting their positions in Congress. Also when people are hired for these positions, they should be required to sign a contract that prevents them from working for special interests after they finish their congressional terms or quit their jobs in Capital Hill.

Update: According to a commenter (nickname Bernique) who replied to my comment at the Huffington Post, there was actually a law that, as I proposed above, banned congressmen or congressional staffers from working for special interests after leaving their public posts. According to him, Congress changed this law after the right-wing election of 1996.

Now, what we need is to “REINSTATE” this law again if we want to establish “Sanity” in Capital Hill, chnage the course of this country into self-destruction and bring it back to “One-Headed Nation by the President/Government.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost