arrogance

Interviewing with ABC News's Diane Sawyer, Barack Obama said,

I would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.

My first thought was to question the premise:  What's Obama trying to do that's "really good"?  Why does it sound like the better Obama does, the less likely he is to get re-elected?  Somewhere in all this is the implication that whatever Obama's trying to do, voters aren't going to like it.

I've always thought the majority of voters on both sides want the same things.  Jobs, opportunity, prosperity.  Security, justice.  To me, the difference has always come down to a disagreement over policy:  Liberals believe policies like the minimum wage reduce poverty, while conservatives believe such policies cost jobs. 

On most any matter, liberals and conservatives could argue over whether a given policy would create the proper incentives to reach a common goal.  Both sides both want prosperity and an employed, well-paid workforce, we just disagree over how to achieve them.  But it's the policy and the incentives that divide us -- not the goal.

With that in mind, Obama should be insisting that his policies will solve any number of social injustices that we all want solved, with the disagreement centered on what those policies will really accomplish.  He should be pleading with us to pass his policies, reasoning that we will like the results when we finally see them.

But what Obama's telling Sawyer is that we're not going to like the results.  We're no longer unified in a desire for prosperity and an employed, well-paid workforce -- benchmarks that would get any president re-elected.  Obama wants something else.

We no longer disagree about whether Obama's best policies will get him tossed out by a miserable electorate -- he's just implied that they will.  Obama agrees that we're not going to like the results.  Is that the kind of change you were hoping for?  Because I believe it's exactly the sort of agenda Limbaugh would like to see fail.

Last night, from the Associated Press:

In a remark underscoring the political sensitivities Democrats have about their two top issues, Rangel said, "The major things we're talking about now are, one, don't let health care even look like it's not on the front burner. And don't forget that the priority of people in their districts is jobs."

These are not Democrats' two top issues.  One is the politicians' top issue, and the other is the people's top issue.  In fact, they are conflicting priorities.  The healthcare situation is made worse by unemployment, and the Dems' idea of healthcare "reform" is a jobs killer.  As is Cap and Trade.

At this point, I'm confident the electorate understands that what the Democrats want is not what Americans want.  I just wonder if they've figured it out in time.

And I'm pretty sure of one other thing: It will be a long, long time before we see such a big Democrat majority in Congress again.

Comments

[shane maness]

Would you consider mirroring your blog posts to the tea party patriots "ning" site? I'm just a member there, but I'm certain your posts would be well received.

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com

just "add a discussion" in the forum.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

A very insightful piece. I have just recently found this site and am enjoying it thus far.

[Hank Rearden]

I respectfully disagree with you here John. I think Obama is doing one of two things. First, and most likely, he’s simply asserting that people WILL like the end results of his policies while simultaneously implying that said results might not be seen until after 2012. Normally this would be a reasonable (if politically risky) assertion. However, in Obama’s case, it doesn't jive with what he promised on the campaign trail. So now he’s admitting to his supporters that he was mistaken (to put it lightly) about how quickly he could turn things around while trying to buy time with the fence-sitters. “Give my policies a chance and you’ll come around, even if I’m not in office,” is what he’s saying. In so doing, he’s claiming credit for long term success, regardless of whose success it is. I personally think he’s just setting himself up for failure in the short term, period. Why? The harsh reality is that there is NO SUCH THING as a "really good” one-term president, unless you're killed in office.

Alternatively, he could be intentionally tanking his chances at a second term. The point of which would be to risk/sacrifice his popularity with Americans in order to garner popularity on the international stage. Then he could conceivably 1) “step down” after one term, 2) claim ex post facto credit for any subsequent economic recovery, and 3) claim a high-ranking post within the UN now opposed to a vastly weakened, slowly recovering, and internationally-dependant American economy. I don’t buy this, but it would fit his pattern of, “get elected then seek higher office”.

What do you think?

[John Galt]

Option A: Obama knows you won't like his ideas at first, but in the end you'll live better even if we end up rejecting him in 2012.

Option B: Obama knows you won't like his ideas because you live better than you should, and he means to fix that.

If you're asking whether I think we could really just be dealing with situation A here, Hank, then I'd have to say no. Obama is B. You live an immoral, decadent life for any of a number of reasons that are liberal priorities to fix. You owe.

[A Freeman]

Comparison of Arrogance versus Capitalism

Walmart has 300,000 million in revenue and 2 million employees. The US government has 2,600,000 million in revenue and 2 million employees. Walmart supplies a job with every 150,000 of revenue. The U.S. Govt supplies a job with every 1,300,000 in revenue. Walmart is 9 times better than the U.S. Govt.

Walmart has 85,000 million in debt, which is 43,000 million per job. The U.S. Govt has 117,000,000 million in debt (including the unfunded liabilities), which is 59,000,000 million per job. Walmart is 1,400 times better than the U.S. Govt.

The main difference being Walmart uses prices and economic rationalism to constantly adjust its behavior, (Read F.A. Hayek’s The Use of Information In Society Essay).

Conservatives should refuse to allow the budget to be any higher than the projected revenues. That means a 2.6 Trillion dollar 2011 budget.

Conservatives should demand an actuarial value freeze on promised Social Security, Med A, B, & D payments to their current levels. This means:
A - cut eligibility or benefits or
B - schedule future events that can offset these payments (build federally owned Nuke plants, sell the post office to Walmart, sell the FDA to Carl's Junior.)