Many of us have felt that Obama is a rather ineffectual
President, not able to take the offensive and rally the troops. President Bystander. Maurine Dowd is an outstanding avatar
of this view. (See also today’s
post from Not Running a Hospital on leadership and Obama -- http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-continuing-display-of-weak-leadership.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FmJlm+%28Not+running+a+hospital%29.) My own view has been that, aside from
his inherent elitism and probable introversion and inability to meet and have
fun with other people he doesn’t know well, he reached high office too
soon. He hadn’t met enough people
to know whom to appoint where, and he hadn’t found out yet how the game works
in Washington. An anti-LBJ.
On the other hand, my friend Michael Nacht says there is
nothing he can do. In the first
term it was crystal clear that the Republican game plan was to oppose
everything strenuously, even what were previous Republican positions. Michael thinks that this mindset
continues, that it’s all politics and nothing but. The failure of the Democratic leadership to reform the
Senate rules to make a filibuster be a real filibuster as of old – thanks Carl
Levin! – simply nailed the coffin further shut, as has the failure of
Democratic leadership to arise more broadly. Maybe this view is right, I don’t know.
That being said, one has to acknowledge, as was brought
forward pre-election, that the list of Obama accomplishments is more impressive
than immediately comes to mind.
Can’t list them now, because they don’t immediately come to mind, but
repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was one of them. (Transparency in government, honor to whistle blowers, and
freedom of the press are not among them – Eric Holder sucks. I saw a comparison to Alberto Gonzalez
today, as someone who holds on to his job because he retains the “confidence of
the President” … that’s a “wow” moment.)
Other people say that Obama is actually meeting his goal,
which was to exceed the record of the two previous Presidents, to get us out of
instead of into wars, and not to have a sex scandal. Low the bar might be, but passivity actually helps him meet
these goals. Who knows what
thoughts lurk in the mind of the President? The Shadow?
Nonetheless, say that Obama’s domestic accomplishments will
be low in this term. Say that his
foreign accomplishments will be low profile and subtle. What should Obama do to make his
positive impression on the history books?
I have what would have to be a very unpopular suggestion –
form commissions and make plans for the future! Set the future agenda!
That’s right, you heard it first here. What could be more unpopular than commissions? Those traditional means of doing
nothing? Those producers of paper
to sit on the shelves. Yuuuch.
But, on the other hand, Keynes said: “The ideas of
economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they
are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is
ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt
from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”
I’m not asking for something so deep as that,
philosophy. But what about
producing very official documents that might influence the future, the Obama
Project. The most prominent
problem has had a commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission on fiscal
responsibility. I don’t agree with
it, actually, and I would get a successor, Simpson-Bowles II, and have it
headed by Krugman and joined by Bernanke after he leaves office and Stiglitz
maybe. And add George Schultz for
balance.
The most important problem we face, as opposed to the
seemingly most urgent, is climate change.
Get an official commission and plot out a way that developing economies
can develop, China and India can get enough energy to continue rapid growth
specifically, new technologies can develop rapidly, what can be done
internationally, etc. There are
lots of plans around, but get something ex cathedra. Best
and the Brightest, however discredited that may be, but policy informed, not
self-inflated like the guys who got us into Vietnam.
You can think of four or five other commissions on other
issues pretty easily, I bet. And
then, a commission on commissions – what are the priorities? I go after climate change first, but
maybe that’s not right. Maybe you
would want to attack lower hanging fruit first, though I doubt it. The C on C would figure out how to
orchestrate the accomplishment of the goals of the commissions.
Yes, this is the piest in the skiest proposal one could
think of, ridicule-beset even as I write this. But it wouldn’t have to be a centerpiece of the
Administration. It could just be a
series of commissions that would be billed as an experiment in governance. At least the vision would be lifted
from shoe tops to horizon. Call me
a wonk, call me pointy headed.
Hey, that’s not so bad! At
least I’m thinking.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment