It has become routine for liberal economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich (both of whom I happen to like) and others to suggest that progressives need only to push President Obama to do "the right thing." The way this line of reasoning goes is that the president WANTS to do the right thing or would be open to it, but feels it is not politically expedient to do so.
There are a two variations of this push. The first is that the president needs to be educated as to what strategies would best serve the needs of the vast majority. I find this rationale to be quite ironic!
Both supporters and [serious] opponents tend to agree that Obama is a smart guy. He has an Ivy League pedigree. He is well-spoken. He carries himself in an erudite manner. So, if this fellow is so damn smart, why would he need a basic economics education? Surely he must know that severe austerity measures without adequate regulations on corporations and no significant increases in federal revenue will not serve the general good. What could any of us tell him that he doesn't already know?
The second variant is that progressives must convince Obama that they are a threat to his reelection campaign. By threatening not to vote for him at all or, at least, not campaigning stridently on his behalf, the thinking here is that this threat will convince him that doing "the right thing" is in his political best interests.
Of course, this threat has no teeth to it. Most of the people flapping their jaws indeed WILL vote for him and a quite a few of them will be loud cheerleaders in the months to come. So, this lack of genuine commitment provides the president with the political space simply to ignore the threat out-of-hand.
But there is one issue that few liberals want to confront: Why should they have to push the president to do "the right thing" to begin with?
If he agrees with the rationale behind the theory of "the right thing," but refuses to honor it, why should he be supported in any way, shape or form? If he doesn't agree with the rationale, then he has proven he's not the people's champion and this alone is a reason not to support him.
Finally, if a person must be browbeaten to do "the right thing," what does this say about the person's morality and ethics? It says to me that the individual is a calculator. He or she will only entertain the thought of doing "the right thing" IF it benefits THEM.
If we only do "the right thing" when it benefits us -- and disadvantages others -- can it be said that "the right thing" was done for "the right reasons?"
In my experience, "the right thing" done for the wrong reasons will, in the end, turn out to be the wrong thing because the wrong reasons often pollute the right objective.
There are a two variations of this push. The first is that the president needs to be educated as to what strategies would best serve the needs of the vast majority. I find this rationale to be quite ironic!
Both supporters and [serious] opponents tend to agree that Obama is a smart guy. He has an Ivy League pedigree. He is well-spoken. He carries himself in an erudite manner. So, if this fellow is so damn smart, why would he need a basic economics education? Surely he must know that severe austerity measures without adequate regulations on corporations and no significant increases in federal revenue will not serve the general good. What could any of us tell him that he doesn't already know?
The second variant is that progressives must convince Obama that they are a threat to his reelection campaign. By threatening not to vote for him at all or, at least, not campaigning stridently on his behalf, the thinking here is that this threat will convince him that doing "the right thing" is in his political best interests.
Of course, this threat has no teeth to it. Most of the people flapping their jaws indeed WILL vote for him and a quite a few of them will be loud cheerleaders in the months to come. So, this lack of genuine commitment provides the president with the political space simply to ignore the threat out-of-hand.
But there is one issue that few liberals want to confront: Why should they have to push the president to do "the right thing" to begin with?
If he agrees with the rationale behind the theory of "the right thing," but refuses to honor it, why should he be supported in any way, shape or form? If he doesn't agree with the rationale, then he has proven he's not the people's champion and this alone is a reason not to support him.
Finally, if a person must be browbeaten to do "the right thing," what does this say about the person's morality and ethics? It says to me that the individual is a calculator. He or she will only entertain the thought of doing "the right thing" IF it benefits THEM.
If we only do "the right thing" when it benefits us -- and disadvantages others -- can it be said that "the right thing" was done for "the right reasons?"
In my experience, "the right thing" done for the wrong reasons will, in the end, turn out to be the wrong thing because the wrong reasons often pollute the right objective.
I'm curious as to what exactly you like about Paul Krugman. The man's solutions range from "print money" to "print more money" and he buys into that awful fallacy that war boosts and economy.
ReplyDeleteRight, nothing boosts economy and wealth like death, destruction, and murder.