“Are there any adults left in the Democratic Party?”
Posted: December 14, 2011 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Democratic Politics | Tags: Dump Obama, Harper's Magazine 32 Comments
So, the first thing I want to say is that I am an independent. The second thing is that the header is in quotes because it’s the punchline to a Harper’s Magazine essay written by John R. MacArthur. Harper’s Magazine is the second oldest magazine in the country. It was first published in 1850. It has a long place in US journalism history for publishing thoughtful essays and fiction of some of America’s greatest writers. John “Rick” MacArthur is its president and grandson of the founder of the magazine. You may frequently see the bug for the MacArthur foundation on all kinds of PBS programs like Frontline. The title of his essay is “President Obama Richly Deserves To Be Dumped”.
Wow.
The essay begins by quoting Bill Moyer’s recent comments about the Presidential speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. MacArthur characterized Moyer’s speech to Public Citizen as one that “puts the lie to our barely Democratic president’s populist pantomime, acted out last week in a Kansas speech decrying the plight of “innocent, hardworking Americans.” He then continues to quote Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men” as an example of showing how Obama is basically a product of a neoliberal system who has a penchant for picking the wrong people for the most important jobs on purpose. His argument is that picking plutocratic functionaries is actually what Obama was placed in the White House to do. He is a tool of the plutocracy that’s residing in the Democratic Party. MacArthur is most concerned about an Obama that rails against bankers on TV and then invites them to a mega fundraiser the next night. This is concern from a man that was born into the 1 percent. He believes that this hypocrisy should put an end to the presidency of Obama and argues that dems of the little d should start a movement to replace him immediately. This is the second time we’ve heard this call.
BostonBoomer offered up some similar evidence to this profile in a Politico piece that quotes Obama as saying that he had no idea about the full extent of the economic crisis. This is ridiculous on all levels. Obama had ongoing advice from Warren Buffet and Paul Volcker as well as many many insiders in Wall Street as early as 2007. The Confidence Men narrative is full of examples of how much Obama knew and to what extent the entire thing was minimized or just whiffed because of a lack of credible leadership. The backroom wranglings of Rahm and Geithner to thwart Sheila Bair and other regulators meant to hold account Citibank in particular just completely blows this quote right out of the realm of truthfulness. Bair was prepared to bust up Citibank ala what happened to GM and–if Suskind’s account is true–Obama felt that was the correct way to go. It is also evident from the book that Christie Romer couldn’t get Obama’s ear on her analysis of the crisis. Obama walked out of a meeting on the economic crisis at one point and left the decision making to Geithner, Emmanuel, and Summers. He actually told them to work it out amongst themselves and get back to him later. The book shows a President who did anything but attempt to grasp the depth of the crisis and make his staff handle Wall Street appropriately.
President Barack Obama said Tuesday he wishes he knew the full extent of the economic crisis when he took office, if only so he could have let Americans know just how tough the coming years would be.
“I think we understood that it was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was,” Obama said in an interview with KIRO in Seattle. “I think I could have prepared the American people for how bad this was going to be, had we had a sense of that.”
MacArthur characterizes the Osawatomie speech as “a new standard in deception” and calls the President a functionary for party and party donor interests.
But Obama’s hypocrisy in Osawatomie, Kansas, set a new standard in deception. Among other things, his speech blamed “regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this [the unfettered sales of bundled mortgages], but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all. It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system.”
What’s truly breathtaking is the president’s gall, his stunning contempt for political history and contemporary reality. Besides neglecting to mention Democratic complicity in the debacle of 2008, he failed to point out that derivatives trading remains largely unregulated while the Securities and Exchange Commission awaits “public comment on a detailed implementation plan” for future regulation. In other words, until the banking and brokerage lobbies have had their say with John Boehner, Max Baucus, and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. Meanwhile, the administration steadfastly opposes a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, the New Deal law that reduced outlandish speculation by separating commercial and investment banks. In 1999, it was Summers and Geithner, led by Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (much admired by Obama), who persuaded Congress to repeal this crucial impediment to Wall Street recklessness.
MacArthur fails to mention that Confidence Men also details the gutting of the Volcker Rule and the Consumer Protection Act by Chris Dodd with tacit approval from the White House. I don’t buy this reviewer’s take that it was just Democratic Senators who supported this effort.
Suskind’s reporting on what happened next is stunning: While the country endured a nail-biting period of doubt and even terror over the economy’s spiral, Democratic senators seemed not to have the best interests of the nation and their newly elected president in mind. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was denuded by Sen. Christopher Dodd, himself. Without the young and inexperienced president’s knowledge, Dodd “had discreetly gutted the Volcker Rule.
“Many were critical of the lame-duck senator (Dodd) for not being more aggressive in his reforms, alleging that his interests were inexorably linked with the lobby he so closely served. But Dodd remained steadfast, arguing that he simply wanted to produce the strongest possible bill that could feasibly withstand a vote.
“The Volcker Rule, with teeth, was dead,” Suskind writes.
Obama, already bloodied from more than a year of contentious attempts at repair and reform, and the Democrats took a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections, losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans. With unemployment hovering around 10 percent, the lack of job creation hurt the president. “People liked the president, but only 32 percent felt real confidence in him as a leader,” Suskind writes.
A stream of wealthy traders and CEOs people this story of confidence run amok, including a JPMorgan investment banking head. After picking up the bill at an expensive extended family dinner, his 80-something steelworker father takes him aside: “Bill, is what you’re doing legal? I don’t see how it can be.” The banker retires and gets involved with financial reform — in London.
MacArthur continues his rant with a bit on Afghanistan which is interesting in the context of the President winding down the Iraq War on Bush’s terms and not his own. 
You may recall that Bush signed the agreement to get us out of Iraq right now. The announcement of that signing was met with two shoes from a journalist. Obama tried to negotiate further US presence. He is undoubtedly going to take credit for this too, however, as witnessed by his “mission accomplished’ presser complete with the requisite prop soldiers today. You can read more on that from Juan Cole at Informed Consent.
MacArthur’s essay calls for a Dump Obama movement akin to the Dump LBJ movement of 1967. He believes that a modern day Allard Lowenstein could arise and change the current dynamics of 2012.
You may say it’s too late, that Obama is impregnable. Consider Gene McCarthy’s obscurity on November 30, 1967, when he announced his insurgent crusade. At the time, many Americans confused him with Senator Joe McCarthy (R., Wis.), the notorious communist hunter, and in January 1968 a Gallup poll showed him winning just 12 percent of the votes in a presidential election. But on March 12, McCarthy nearly beat Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. The opposition was galvanized, Robert Kennedy jumped into the race, LBJ announced he would not seek re-election, and American democracy was revived.
Granted, there are big differences between 1968 and 2012 — for one thing, there’s no military draft to frighten the young — but the great issues are the same: an immoral war and a merciless money power. Moreover, high unemployment and the dominance of Wall Street do frighten the young. They need a tribune.
I was struck by this Eugene McCarthy quote.
“Party unity is not a sufficient excuse for silence”
Of course, RFK eventually became the frontrunner in that race until his assassination. (I have to admit to being too young to really grasp all of this at the time but I know that many of our readers can give fuller accounts than me so I’ll defer to them.) While the McCarthy run ushered in the Nixon era and is considered a huge black period in the time of the Democratic Party, the lesson here is that no one need accept an incumbent president as inevitable. Just as Republicans struggle with their terrible, horrible, awful, very bad choices in the Republican party, the Democrats provide no choice at all but a severely weakened and demonstrably inept incumbent President.
The most irritating thing is that any independent run is likely to be a gadfly like Donald Trump or NY Mayor Donald Bloomberg. Party entrenchment is killing the US during its most vulnerable time since the run up to World War 2. Are these folks really the only choices a country as big, educated, and powerful as the US can come up with? Just as the right wing media is attack the Gingrich insurgency, is there really any way for independents and fed up partisans to create a movement to get a real choice? I, for one, desperately would like a real choice. As far as I am concerned, the only people that are running for President right now are ones that I’d rather see completely out of public life. Is there anyway that a real leader could actually launch an authentic insurgent candidacy in this age of crony capitalists and pols?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
One thing that struck me in one of Obama’s interviews about a second term was him stating that he needed a second term to work on his campaign promises, but that not everything could get done even in a second term and it would take another term by another president to bring change about!?! 😯 WTF
Then why even ask for a second term, rather than putting out a half baked excuse about WHY he can’t get things done? Could it be, because he is tied to the Wall Street Rich, his ‘real’ base. And by the way, who is this president after him? Excuses, excuses…
Not to quibble but to reverse close to 30 years of going in the utterly wrong direction, Obama is quite possibly correct. I would prefer if that president wasn’t him though.
He apparently can do draconian things on fast track for his GOP base: NDAA and SOPA.
Passing real health care, well we know he blocked the Public Option & Medicare Buy In.
Please, the “public option” never existed. It was a stalking horse to knock out single payer and nothing else.
Excellent stuff, Kat. Once again, also depressing stuff.
Great post. Unfortunately, since Hillary is not going to run, I don’t know of a candidate who could get elected and would/could do the job in these times. Americans Elect sounds OK but, looking at who is on it’s board etc, it’s just a stalking horse for another plutocrat like Bloomberg.
I’m open to just about any suggestion though.
There’s been such purge in the parties of any one that’s not supporting the orthodoxy that it’s really hard to find any one that’s not too old to run that has the experience, the gravitas, and the kind of morality that doesn’t embrace the base and donor agendas.
We have Americans Elect, presumably a ‘No Labels’ party but from what I’ve read on line the board is composed of a bunch of rich, presumably well-meaning people, who feel they need to control the names rendered up, the ones that are ‘suitable.’ Democracy? Not so much. For instance, Christy Todd Whitman [former Governor of my native state of NJ] is reportedly a huge Jon Huntsman fan. She sits on the board and the rules say no board members are to show favoritism. But she’s managed to mention Huntsman’s name a half a dozen times in public. There’s a blog–Irregular Times that’s been running a series on AE–what they say and what they do. To keep them honest, I guess. The candidates that are floating at this point are Obama, Buddy Roehmer, Jon Huntsman and Bloomberg,
The newly formed Justice Party is running Rocky Johnson, former mayor of Slat Lake City. From everything I’ve read he’s an actual progressive, who officially left the Democratic Party because of the lily-livered compromises party leaders [including Obama] have made. He pretty much hates both legacy parties. But he has no money and what appears to be little organization. From what I understand you need loads of both to even get on the ballot throughout the country.
There’s a Jill Stein running as the Green Party candidate. Don’t know a lot about her but she sounds like a liberal. I wouldn’t be surprised to see other 3rd parties pop up. No one except the lapdogs like the selection for 2012. But the system is rigged in behalf of the two major parties. Personally, I would love to have someone to support for POTUS. I live in a red state. Obama will not win here. The only Dem candidate with enough clout and prestige is Hillary Clinton. She made her choice clear several months ago. I’ve resigned myself to that.
Loved MacArthur’s comments–tell us how you ‘really’ feel. :0) He nails Obama for the fraud he truly is. I thought the Kansas speech was shameless pandering. Obama a populist?? Hahahaha. But then, I would guess everyone here knew who and what the man was in 2008. He works for Wall St. and the big corporations, a Repug posing as a Dem. The Trojan Horse.
So, when it comes to choices, we’re f**cked.
Great post, Dak!
I have a soft spot for Buddy Roemer. I’ve been following his twitter feed. He’s got obvious issues but I have to admit that I like the way he says Goldman friggin Sachs.
I’d vote for him — especially over 0bambam
He’s a mixed bag on a lot of issues but he’s better than any of the other Republicans. Actually better on a lot of things than Obama.
http://www.issues2000.org/Buddy_Roemer_VoteMatch.htm
Right now I’d feel better voting for an old fashioned Republican — rather than this new crop of nitwit, demented, sociopath Republicans or the dem’s chosen one — 0bambam.
The old school Republicans were more liberal than even the “modern” Dems.
My mother’s family have been Republicans since the days of Andrew Jackson — and the Trail of Tears.
“Goldman friggin’ Sachs” — that alone shows that this guy is at least aware of the biggest problems the US is facing.
I kind of like Roehmer. I could forgive a lot of little things if a candidate got the big issues right and he looks like he does.
Huntsman on the other hand sounds reasonable but his policy positions on those big issues are terrible. He’s the real tea partier in the race on regulations anyway.
He’s definitely interesting and sounds reasonable. I know he came out and said he agreed with the Occupy people [that’s enough to get you stoned by the Republicans]. He has started and run his own bank[s] and says money and lobbyists have ruined the system. He also has plenty of DC experience.
I’m sure I’d disagree with him on a number of social fronts but we’re all having a Diogene’s moment at this point. And dare I say, the man actually appears to be what he says!
But will he be on the ballot?
Who was he flipping?
Classy!
Chuck Todd looks like a total wimp, even when flipping the bird. Look at his pinkie finger.
Twitter has officially crashed as many people began posting their disbelief, disappointment in President Obama saying he will not VETO NDAA and SOPA. Yup, it is still down…I give you the last communication before it went down.
Please note POTTY MOUTH Language (click w/caution), but it could be his last RANT:
“Life, Liberty, & Indefinite Detention Without A Trial” – M.O.C. #100
Well, the language sort of goes with the rant. And frankly, Obama’s position is f**kig outrageous. A Constitutional scholar gone rogue.
What’s next?
No, forget about it. I don’t want to know.
But he couldn’t veto them! If he did, he would have kept a bit of one campaign promise and broken his perfect record!
Did people actually expect him to veto those things? Lord, the naivete about this man is still stunning to me. Have they still not grasped that he is a warmongering, authoritarian sociopath?
I read up on Rocky Anderson. If he gets on the ballot in NY, he’s got my vote. Oh hells yeah.
Madamab writes:O is a “warmongering, authoritarian sociopath. . . ”
You forgot narcissistic, back stabbing, jerk.
LOL, Northwest! Those adjectives work too.
Not exactly on-topic. I just read Juan Cole’s October post about the US leaving Iraq. There’s a line at the end that is a true pearl.
I love it. “should expect at least moments of great cooperation with Tehran.” Bwahahaha.
Truly brilliant piece. And I actually find hope in it. Call it “Revenge of the Sane”. The hunger for this is deeper than the MSM or 2 headed monster called the 2 parties will ever acknowledge.
There is a hunger for it, but there are also still a lot of people who are going to give in to the lesser evil. Esp. on the Dem side, imho.
Dak…damn woman, this was brilliant!
Hillary 2012
Good to read you!!!!
🙂
Haven’t had time to post here lately, but I read as often as possible. We had a lul here at work which gave me a chance to catch up. I have been hurting for the posts and the comments here. Without SkyDancing, I feel so out of touch with the news here and around the world….
Hillary 2012