As many of you know, President Obama gave his first address to Congress a little bit ago. I watched part of it, but I couldn't bring myself to watch all of it because listening to politicians is as entertaining as watching pubic hair curl. Regardless, I was sitting with my dad when he mentioned he doesn't like Obama or what he's trying to accomplish. I asked him why he wouldn't want someone to succeed who's in a position to possibly jump-start our economy (sooooo many people use the word "fix" like the economy can simply be repaired like a car... dumb)? My dad paused and said, "Well, when you put it that way, I guess, I want Obama to succeed even though I didn't vote for him." My dad immediately followed that statement with: "He's going to be a one-term President."
Most people who lose any election want the opposition who won to fail, or at least, this is what I can gather from various media sources and friends/family I've spoken with. This makes no sense to me, and this is also a reason I hate our political system, which is completely reliant on partisan opposition. I understand questioning the government. My dad was doing the same while watching President Obama's speech. I do the same no matter what's going on. But in the end, don't we want those who are elected to succeed? It would seem those who lost elections are so bitter and hell-bent on stopping those that won. Why? People have disagreements. Granted. But when our economy is in such a state as it is, wouldn't it make a little more sense to stop bitching that you lost and start working out the differences?
This creates constant counters (alliteration is fun!) to anything coming from the winning party. If candidate A gets elected, wouldn't those who voted for candidate B want candidate A to succeed? I can understand the reasons why people wouldn't, but it just irritates me to no end! Do I think Obama was good choice? Naw. Do I think McCain would've been better? Naw. But now that Obama's in office, I would like him to succeed because he's THE PRESIDENT OF MY COUNTRY. Wishing him to fail is like wishing for me to fail. Argue against him. Protest him. Do whatever makes you feel like you're fufilling your obligation as a citizen. But flatout hoping your country's leader will fuck up makes no sense.
Personally, I oppose President Obama's (and Congress') huge, rediculous "stimulus" package a.k.a pork bill. But does that mean I don't want it to succeed now that it is going to be enacted? No. I realize that spending is going to happen whether I disagree or not, so why not put some confidence in it? People need to oppose things they don't believe in. I get that especially if it's something really is going to harm a lot of people. But I honestly see no point in bitching over a bill that doesn't affect civil liberties in anyway (that I can see...) and is only trying to improve the state of living for everyone. You may disagree, as I do, with the way in which this stimulus package is going to operate, but the fact remains: it's going to happen. Might as well hope it works, right?
I know this post is a rant, and there are some holes in it. But I had to get that off my chest.
Great points.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there is a fundamental disagreement about what success includes. That doesn't negate the reality that many are just bitter and want whomever won to fail in all aspects. An example would be the Clinton haters who enjoyed his fall from grace for totally non-job related issues.
An underlying assumption, I think, that many share is that a strong economy is universally recognized as such. But really, what is a strong economy? Is it one with full employment, some inflation, low distribution of economic disparities, government rules for what consumers can purchase, slow but steady growth, and strong enticements for energy independence? Or is it one with some unemployment, some deflation, high income disparity (yet higher median levels), no government intervention in consumer choice, erratic but higher growth rates, interdependence with other countries? i must admit I side with the latter but many feel differently. The point is that people have different views of what failure/success is.
On the general point, maybe people should hope the opposition accidentally accomplishes the goals of the loser. Bush (besides the wars and the silly gay marriage amendment) really did very little different than a Democratic president. In fact he increased regulation by 40% while simultaneously telling people he was a deregulator. Liberals could be secretly happy that he discredited his views while accomplishing their objectives.
I totally agree with both points by Jared and then by Sean. I especially like the point where even politicians do this too. I feel like some people on the Repub side of congress or whatever are out to make sure that Obama doesn't do well. Why? It is stupid. I guess they want their views seen and done rather than Obama's but it doesn't get the country anywhere when people just go against whoever's in charge just cause they're the other side of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Sean i hope you see this, but what do you think of Ron Paul? Did you like him when he was running? I think his economic outlook is pretty interesting.
Funny coincidence but I was watching a new Ron Paul speech when I read your comment. Love his economic / liberty views. In particular I like is support for the abolition of the Department of Education, non-interventionist foreign policy, and focus on individual liberty (and the responsibility that goes with it).
ReplyDeleteHis views on the gold standard are a little too extreme but it would be a nice restraint on monetary policy. And he takes the good book literally which is a little strange but I respect his right to do so.
What do you guys think?
I can completely understand wanting the president "to fail". Its not that you want to have a bad economy or want bad things to happen to the country. Its that you believe that what the president is doing is wrong, and how the economy ends up changing is how the majority of people will view it as a success or a failure. Now I guess you could say if the economy strengthens and you thought his policies were wrong, doesn't that mean you were wrong? Not exactly. There are many factors that contribute to the economy. The economy will recover, pretty much regardless of what we do. From the economics classes I've taken, based on history, monetary policies usually don't take effect until after a recession is over.
ReplyDeleteSo, I don't know if I got my point across or not, but here is a summary. I have no trouble with people wanting the president "to fail", because if his policies really are wrong and the economy could have been better off without them, he can still be seen as a success if the economy improves. This could lead to more representatives being voted in that hold the same views as the president. Therefore, they actually do want the country to succeed, but they are just taking a more long-term approach.
Interesting points by all. I know my post was focused on Obama's recent plans, but my annoyance is much more general. My viewpoint can apply itself to school district representatives as much as a president.
ReplyDeleteI guess, my main beef is focused on people's desire for an elected official to fail, rather than providing appropriate levels of criticism to help mold policies more to one's liking. I know people who would literally rather have the economy become much worse simply so President Obama will look bad. That's more of what I'm talking about. Why would someone wish hardship for others simply so they could say they were right?
Dobson, you're right... to an extent. I'm perfectly okay with people wanting someone to be unsuccessful in the sense of views or bills being blocked or not well received. That makes sense. Just how I didn't want Obama's stimulus package to see the light of day. But I think there comes a point (like when that package went through regardless of opposition) that I have to pass the torch to Obama and wish him luck. For me to say, "Oh, I didn't like that plan, and now that it's actually going to be put in practice I hope fails!" just doesn't sit right with me...
What I mean is: Even if Obama's plan does absolutely nothing and the economy recovers on its own (a very real possibility), I still don't understand the thought of hoping for failure simply so his successors don't share the same views. I don't think that's a long-term outlook, really. I think that's a short-term bitterness disguised as a long-term goal of change. Maybe, that's just me.
I think I agree with Dobson's view. If Obama's policies are indeed detrimental to the US in the long run, I do hope we feel those effects in the near future. For example the prevailing wisdom until Friedman's research in the 70's was that FDR's new deal helped the US come out of the depression. Had he "failed" we wouldn't have been working under false assumptions for the next 60+ years and our GDP per capita would be much higher today.
ReplyDeleteThats not to say I would have wanted personal problems for FDR or anyone but we might be better off had that happened.
I'm a little skeptical about Boardman's claim that Bush actually increased regulation. If he did, then how did he allow the housing market and home loan situation to get so out of hand, and then fail to monitor and regular irresponsible investing that led to the banking collapse? Hmm.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little skeptical about the sheer size of Obama's stimulus bill, but I hope it succeeds...and honestly, I'm ready to try something different. I'm glad he's trying to tackle the big issues he wanted to address--health care, decreasing income disparity, environmental change, increasing scientific research, increasing education funding--at the same time, even if it comes across as "pork" to you guys. These are all issues that have sat by the wayside for faaaaaaaar too long in this country, and it's about time that someone addressed them. Sometimes you can't just hope that the free market and individual greatness will lift society up by their bootstraps and get it done...I believe that sometimes you need the government to give everybody a kick in the pants and get things going and get things caught up with other countries in the world.
Another point I want to bring up is whether you think Obama is full of himself and thinks he's god's gift to politics. My boss at work, who thinks that Obama's health care and small business policies are going to run his business into the ground (I think he's overestimating things, and you know what, fuck that cheap motherfucker anyway, he pays me, a college grad, $7/hour with no benefits, he deserves to go under), thinks that Obama thinks he already belongs in the pantheon of great presidents next to FDR, Reagan (he was a good president?), Lincoln, etc. I pretty much batted down every one of his points, but it upset me that there's a perception out there that Obama is this arrogant, ego-inflated guy. Is he probably confident that his plans will lead to good results, and thus hopes that he will succeed like those other great presidents? Of course, I would be a little wary if he didn't have that kind of confidence. Do I think that he thinks he's already one of the greatest presidents of all time? No way.
I'll try to add data to make sure I don't start speculating myself.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bush took office, the World Economic Freedom index had America second only behind Hong Kong. Now we are 8th behind Chile and Canada.
Nominally, during Bush's term 13% fewer regulations per year were enacted. However, inflation adjusted increases in regulatory expenses increased 62% during Bush's term vs 31% during Clintons. Think Sarbanes Oxley. Only Nixon came close to costing the nation more with new regulations.
The housing bubble and financial bubble had nothing to do with a lack of regulation according to my research and the teaching of my liberal and conservative professors. It would make little sense for a lending agency to lend too much to someone who can't pay it back. Thats just silly business.
What happened was that Freddie and Fannie (government owned companies) offered to buy mortgages from lending companies, package those mortgages, and resell them to large banks as AAA quality. Therefor the risk was socialized while the profits were privatized. Those that bought the bad securitized mortgages are the ones hurt. Besides dismantling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae there really wasn't a regulation that would have stopped that.
This link has the best comprehensive story about all this.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/130328.html
I don't think that Obama is full of himself. He is very confident that he is doing the right thing, but I just don't get the feel that he believes himself to be the end-all superstar.
First, Boardman: assumptions are just that. To say our economy would be a lot better if FDR had done nothing post-Great Depression is huge speculation. Sorry, I have to completely not believe your point here. And the lending issue is not exactly as you say. That is a piece of the puzzle. I won't go into it here (way tooooo long), but I've talked with my mom, who's been in banking for over twenty years and is now a VP, and blames no one but the lenders and consumers. There is no amount of gov't that could've prevented this housing bubble. Only better business practices.
ReplyDeleteAs for Matt, I don't think Obama is some ego-centric person. I don't think Bush was either. Do I think they have large egos? Hell, yes. You have to have a huge ego if you're going into DC especially if you're the Prez. And his bill is pork, and it is fucking huge. He's setting up initiatives that will end up costing people a lot more money down the road. I simply have no idea where he thinks the money to keep that going is supposed to come from (Tax cuts? Thanks, for the $60, and the millions we'll all owe down the road.). Also, one reason people like myself are complaining that its a pork bill is because he's trying to pass it off as a stimulus package. Call it what it is: a reform package. Just seems shady even if it's supposed to help. If the bill really did just concentrate on areas that need some help to get USA moving again, go ahead and call it a stimulus bill. BUT if you are going to address issues that are not crucial to getting the economy back on its feet, call it a reform plan. I agree that all the issues you mentioned need addressing, but address them in separate bills so they don't get clumped together and Obama doesn't get slapped with "pork" bill.
I completely and utterly believe the economy can and will right itself without very much help-- if any. I don't think this bill of Obama's will get the economy moving. It may accomplish other things on his agenda, which is fine, but not much else. I have yet to learn of an instance where gov't intervention in any economy (with the exception of actually creating a unified currency) has helped that economy let alone worsened that economy. There are far too many cases where gov'ts have failed for me to believe this bill will be anything but coincidence when we get out of the slump. (Props to Dobber on that!) Obama has not mentioned one thing outside repairing our roads and bridges (WTF? This is not the 30s!!) that will actually create jobs. Pay increases to teachers and reforming health care does not create jobs for the millions who are unemployed like myself. While a lot of businesses are cutting back, there are a lot of businesses willing to expand in this economy. I'm counting on them to get me a job-- not Obama or anyone else in DC.
I think we are actually agreeing Jared, though my garbled post may have obscured that.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of bridges and roads, this article mentions more effective projects to fix our 'crumbling' infrastructure. Anchorage is mentioned as a good example
http://www.reason.com/news/printer/131413.html