Voting for President, for the wrong reasons?

[Berkut]

It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.

Berkut overestimates the House Republicans' ability, or desire, to be reasoned with.  They are not a particularly rational political species at this moment in history.

Huh?

I am pretty sure I did not say anything about reasoning with them.

[CountDeMoney]

It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.

Berkut overestimates the House Republicans' ability, or desire, to be reasoned with.  They are not a particularly rational political species at this moment in history.

Huh?

I am pretty sure I did not say anything about reasoning with them.

What else would a"strong" President do?  The days of LBJ arm-breaking are over.

When he's used the power of his office to bypass the Congressional boundaries, it's "shameless partisanship".

[garbon]

Yeah much better to admit that there is nothing to be done to fix Washington.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah much better to admit that there is nothing to be done to fix Washington.

Sure thing, Mitch McConnell.

[garbon]

Oh no that was your bud who said that.

[CountDeMoney]

Oh no that was your bud who said that.

The only way Congress is going to get "fixed" is if constituents stop sending douchebags, who in turn nominate bigger douchebags to lead them.  That goes for Pelosi, Reid, Cantor, Boehner, the whole fucking lot.

But as long as they're allowed to draw their own districts the way they want, that won't happen.

[Sheilbh]

Many more Senators now come from the House than used to be the case.  I think that's had a damaging effect.

[MadImmortalMan]

Many more Senators now come from the House than used to be the case.  I think that's had a damaging effect.

17th Amendment.

We should get rid of that thing.

[garbon]

Many more Senators now come from the House than used to be the case.  I think that's had a damaging effect.

17th Amendment.

We should get rid of that thing.

Because our state legislatures do a great job with the tasks they already have?

[MadImmortalMan]

Because our state legislatures do a great job with the tasks they already have?

They're doing better than the US Congress. At least mine is. I think the states could decide for themselves how the Senators were selected before the 17th though, so not necessarily the legislatures.

[Caliga]

IIRC in some cases they were appointed by the Governor.

[Razgovory]

Because our state legislatures do a great job with the tasks they already have?

They're doing better than the US Congress. At least mine is. I think the states could decide for themselves how the Senators were selected before the 17th though, so not necessarily the legislatures.

States aren't human being and thus don't need to be represented.

[garbon]

They're doing better than the US Congress. At least mine is. I think the states could decide for themselves how the Senators were selected before the 17th though, so not necessarily the legislatures.

I don't understand the comparison to congress. They'd be acting the same as people in deciding senators, not congress.

[Sheilbh]

I realized that I wasn't really voting for Obama because I think he is all that great personally - really, he has been mostly a significant dissapointment. I always said he had potential to be a great President, but I high likelihood of just being mediocre. Well, I think he is a lot closer to mediocre than great.

I wanted to return to this thread when I'd a bit of time.  But basically I think the base criteria to be a great President is two terms (or you get shot).  If you're a one term President then I think the best you'll be judged is 'under-rated'.

Part of this is what I think we're going to see now with Obama, which is that the achievements of your first term are cemented and secure.

But I think based on what we can reasonably assume about his second term (ie. no massive fuck up) that Obama will be viewed as a great President.  I've three reasons for this.

First of all I think history will place a lot more emphasis on the economic crisis when he entered office.  I think with a sense of historical perspective remembering that he came into office at the height, and the very start of the biggest economic crisis since the 30s, he'll be judged as a good leader.  Most Presidents have time to get used to office before they've got to deal with something of that magnitude.  There were many other leaders who'd been in office far longer who reacted far less well.  His personal characteristics - to go Kipling - that he kept his head while all about him lost theirs were a strength at that point.  He got a stimulus plan passed that did help.  The US economy has had one of the strongest recoveries in the developed world* and this despite the fact that the economic effect of a financial crisis, or a collapse in housing is always particularly strong: you've had both.  By 2016 when the economy's growing at a reasonable clip, and it should be even in Greece, with new financial regulations in place I think Obama's record will look different. 

Secondly his biggest reform hasn't taken place yet, Obamacare isn't in operation.  I think it's bigger than 1986 tax reform (because a significant part of that was just shoehorning the 1952 Tax Code into a Tax Code labelled '1986', though there were important changes) and welfare reform.  For me it's probably the biggest domestic policy reform since LBJ.  It'll be noticed over the next four years and historically, especially in 2014 when the mandate and the subsidies for the poor kick in and there shouldn't be any more uninsured - which is what 30-47 million Americans.  I think that's an impressive achievement.

Thirdly I think he's successfully managed American foreign policy in a difficult time.  There's two reasons its difficult.  One is that I think all future foreign policy decisions for the next few years will take place in a context of budget cuts or restraint, deficits and debt.  The US's foreign policy, after Bush, must necessarily be less ambitious because it can't afford much else.  Secondly I think what's happening in the Middle East is the most destabilising, worrying and hopeful change in many years.  I think Obama's foreign policy has been cautious and conservative in the best sense - as I say he reminds me of GHW Bush.  Which is what America can afford and probably the best policy.  I also think he's identified and started pursuing long-term strategic goals which, frankly, include building security cooperation in the Pacific to deal with China's rise, rather than, say, attempting to establish democracy in the Middle East.  The counter here is that I'm sure the left will sour on Obama over drones and civil liberties, but in my view the weakening of al-Qaeda and the death of Bin Laden are solid achievements that have been got relatively cheaply.

I think those three, from one term, secured in a second qualify as potentially great.  If he does what I hope, which is to push for a grand bargain on taxes-social spending and goes for immigration reform then I think he'll definitely be great and will actually be the liberal Reagan that the left want him to be.

* The one worry with this is that there are reasons this recovery should be slow, but the slowest three recoveries in the US 20th century history have been the last three.  Perhaps there's something to that idea that we're heading into a period of 'great stagnation'.

It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.

Well I'd say that far more serious than any Democrat behaviour during Iraq was the Republican's debt ceiling stunt.

But this argument from you and DGuller to me sounds like the domestic equivalent to the argument that Obama should have used more forceful language ('magic democracy words' as Dan Drezner put it) during the Green Revolution, because that would make a difference.  It's the argument that perhaps because he's a good speaker he could win the argument.  If only he was more aggressive in his language he'd get the public on the side - he wouldn't, the Republicans would attack him for hyper-partisanship and people would, fairly enough, buy it.  I don't know what legislative processes he had that he didn't use, maybe he underused recess appointments. 

The best I can come up with is that he should have embraced Simpson-Bowles and that he should have spoke (and campaigned) as he governed, a successful centrist and not a disappointed leftie.  But I don't think that would've got any more of his agenda passed or would've got any more cooperation from Republicans.

I think Republicans played the politics well and I worry it'll be a model for future Congresses with a President from the other party.  But I think they're now paying a cost because it didn't work.  As David Frum's pointed out many times Obama would've done anything for some Republican support on healthcare.  They could've rewritten chunks of that bill and passed their own priorities.  Instead they've let Democrats do it (with Baucus and Nelson as the rightie interlocutor) and now they'll have to deal with that law.  I suppose it's tactics vs strategy.  I think the Republicans got the right tactics but screwed up strategically.