The Economist says it’s not the Obama they expected
Having endorsed Obama, The Economist is now having regrets:
Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.Empty posts, weak policies
There are two main reasons for this. The first is Mr Obama’s failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: too much of the money will arrive too late to be of help in the current crisis. His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor’s, is wildly optimistic. And he has taken too long to produce his plan for dealing with the trillions of dollars of toxic assets which fester on banks’ balance-sheets.
The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled. This is not the Senate’s fault. Mr Obama has made a series of bad picks of people who have chosen or been forced to withdraw; and it was only this week that he announced his candidates for two of the department’s four most senior posts. Filling such jobs is always a tortuous business in America, but Mr Obama has made it harder by insisting on a level of scrutiny far beyond anything previously attempted. Getting the Treasury team in place ought to have been his first priority.
Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that’s not how he has behaved. His stimulus bill attracted only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. This bodes ill for the passage of more difficult projects, such as his big plans for carbon-emissions control and health-care reform. Keeping those promises will soon start to bedevil the administration. The Republicans must take their share of the blame for the breakdown. But if Mr Obama had done a better job of selling his package, and had worked harder at making sure that Republicans were included in drafting it, they would have found it more difficult to oppose his plans.
And don’t get me started on foreign policy.
James points out,
Obama, alas, is the worst of both worlds, having neither gubernatorial experience nor much Washington experience. He’s been an incredibly talented dilettante, getting elected to one job and then the next without learning the ropes. He’s a fast learner and will get the hang of it but, to come back to the Hillary Clinton quip that starts the Economist piece, “the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job-training.” Except, as already noted, that it usually is.
But now we’re hearing “buyer’s regret” from The Economist – and it’s not even 100 days yet. Mark Steyn thinks it’s going to be a long four years:
This is the point: The nuancey boys were wrong on Obama, and the knuckledragging morons were right. There is no post-partisan centrist “grappling” with the economy, only a transformative radical willing to make Americans poorer in the cause of massive government expansion. At some point, The Economist, Messrs Brooks, Buckley & Co are going to have to acknowledge this. If they’re planning on spending the rest of his term tutting that his management style is obstructing the effective implementation of his centrist agenda, it’s going to be a long four years.
Not Like We Didn’t See this Coming.
Tags: Fausta's blog
March 28th, 2009 at 9:35 am
[...] as Fausta points out, even The Economist has been driven to admit they were wrong about Obama, who’s AWOL on the [...]
March 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The problem wih Obama’s OJT is that each lesson taught by his more experienced advisors chips away at what Obama thought were his core values. He always danced around this when he was out of the international spotlight. He could be for the poor and promote social justice while pursuing support from the rich. He could advocate for a softer, more humble, more understanding political style while taking deadly aim at opponents. He has never been forced to confront these contradictions in public. In fact, he seems to be using the word pragmatism to elevate his contradictions to a plain of greater wisdom. Now as people learn that what they heard wasn’t what they got, the disappointment and criticism will become harder to ignore. People are starting to apply some Mr. Clean to Mr. Clean. It remains to be seen whether anything is left when the oil is removed.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:58 am
And like Pres Clinto in the years after having left office Pres Obama will calim that he would have been a great president if only given the chance. The problem is that he is in the midst of these challenges and seems to be handling them like deciding what color to paint his house in an area with CC&Rs.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
O stands for Oh No after the man-crush. ObamsCons are dropping like flies. They must have that silly, red-faced feeling you get upon realizing you’ve been fleeced by the con man.
Dr. Thomas Sowell nailed it before the election when he posed a simple question to Peter Robinson:
“Just what evidence do you have,” Sowell replied when I asked, shortly before the election, whether he considered Obama a centrist, “that he’s anything but a hard-left ideologue?”
Facts are stubborn things…
March 29th, 2009 at 6:49 am
I’ve recently begun believing that Witch Doctors are more competent than left-wing economists.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I read that the head of the AFL-CIO has visited the Oval Office at least once a week since Obama has been in office. Also, Obama has received George Clooney (Darfur) and Brad Pitts (150 homes in New Orleans).
It appears to me Obama is already running for 2012.
My friends who are leftist continue to bash Bush.