04-27-2022, 07:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2022, 07:09 PM by Eric the Green.)
(04-27-2022, 03:26 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Your boldface comment seems to be a lesson that Obama himself had to learn once he assumed office. And although he no doubt meant well, the fact that we didn't even come close to getting all that we wanted is strongly laid at his feet nonetheless. Same during the Clinton presidency, the one plus being that the former of those mentioned didn't quite become the Republican in Democrat's clothing that the latter did. Therefore, despite being a detriment, it can be easily understood why so many do ending up voting for None of the Above. May be the same this time around too.
It is easy to see that this is mostly misunderstood. That we didn't get all we wanted is mostly due to the voters, who stayed home in 2010 and thus voted for none of the above, as they will probably do this year, and thereby left the field to the Tea Party, enabling the Republicans to gerrymander congress and stop any further attempts at getting what we want. Obama had only 7 months of power. This was not Obama's fault; it was the voters' fault entirely. How can young people expect much to get through even a somewhat-friendly congress in 7 months? The main goal took up most of the time, but just before his congress was lost to him he got Obamacare passed, plus Wall Street reform and a stimulus which saved the economy after the crash. He also put mileage standards on cars and subsidized solar energy, getting this vital industry off the ground. Historians are already rating him in or near the top 10 among presidents for even getting THAT much done.
Much the same can be said about Clinton. He got less done, because unlike Obama for 7 months, Bill Clinton never had a filibuster proof congress, and he lost his weak majority after just 2 years to the previous Tea Party, called the Contract with America. The power of Reaganomics neoliberal ideology was even stronger in the 1990s, and it was hard for Clinton not to compromise with it, which he did. He did manage to raise the minimum wage and the earned income credit, which are among the policies that slowed down or reversed slightly for a while the slide toward the gross inequality which afflicts the USA today, and he got some minor gun control. For a couple of years, Clinton's budget management created the only surplus we've had for many decades. His successor promptly ruined all this.
The problem lies with the voters, who are not willing to back a Democratic president once we manage to elect one. Just like today, the Democrats in congress would not have been willing to bust the filibuster, being more fearful in their policies of the Republicans than vice versa.
Both Obama and Clinton also had their faults which Republicans are not directly responsible for. "Obomba" continued deadly drone attacks, until he was persuaded to stop, and did not stop the Bush wars as soon as he promised. He continued the post-9-11 surveillance regime that many objected to, and was unfriendly toward whistleblowers. Wall Street crooks went unpunished. Clinton carried out a harmful sanctions regime on Iraq which many died from. His cabinet frequently included Wall Street friendly folks who enabled further financial misconduct and harmful investing later, and so did Obama's. Still, those who accuse either one of starting wars are incorrect. Both had a much-more peaceful and less deadly foreign policy than the Nixon and Reagan-Bush regimes did. The difference in corruption between the Democratic and most of the Republican administrations is staggering.