Betty Winston Bayé Discovers "A Meanness Gap: Why [POTUS Barack] Obama Disappoints His Backers".
A meanness gap: Why Obama disappoints his backers
By Betty Winston Bayé
At the White House press conference that he called on Tuesday to explain, or some would say to rationalize, his reasoning for signing onto a tax deal that a whole lot of Democrats are convinced rewards Republican obstructionism, President Obama responded to his critics.
“I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed,” he said. “… In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”
An interesting choice of words and certainly intentional.
But no sooner were they spoken than it occurred to me that by their rhetoric and their votes in last month's mid-term elections, a not-too-shabby percentage of those the President considers “hostages” apparently dislike him more than they do their own personal or economic circumstances. These people didn't just re-elect the “hostage-takers” already in Congress, but voted to add many more.
Whether or not their double-wides faced foreclosure, the hostages voted for a lot of candidates whose over-arching philosophy seems to be that it's every man and woman for himself and herself and that it's only the strong who deserve to survive these tough economic times. Some of these “hostages” are unemployed and yet voted for people who are scandalized by the very idea of extending unemployment benefits without knowing how those benefits will be paid for. Yet, the people whom they elected articulate no such concern about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, no matter how much it adds to the deficit. Still other “hostages” who rely on Social Security, Medicare and government farm subsidies were all up in arms about “socialism” Obama-style.
Some time ago, I wrote that Obama's critics on the right were flummoxed by his cool-school political style. But two years into his presidency, I believe it's fair to say that it's the President's critics within his own party and independents on the left who are rattled by his style. After being demonized — and more recently, by the President's own admission, “shellacked” in a mid-term election season dominated by big-money anti-Obama special interests — many Democrats and progressives are saying, “What the hell. Let's have a good fight.” If Republicans really want to take average Americans hostage, many are saying, then let them feel the wrath of the millions who will suffer if government services, subsidies and checks were shut down, even if only for a few weeks.
But this president refuses to fight in the ways that most Americans are accustomed to.
He also takes angry exception to any notion that he compromises too much, which is what's frustrating many people who otherwise agree with the President. If giving some to get some — or, in other words, failing to compromise — is “the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done,” Obama said Tuesday. “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.”
What Mitch McConnell seems to have figured out about Barack Obama is that the President isn't as mean as he is. Meanness isn't just McConnell's trump card; it's always seemed to me also to be a quality that he's very proud of — a quality that has served Kentucky's senior senator well over his years in Washington, and at no times more than when McConnell has felt obliged to do the elephant stomp not just on Democrats, but also on Republicans who don't fall into line.
Some economists and pundits argue that in securing, for example, a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits and $150 billion in tax credits for middle- and low-income workers, Obama struck the best possible deal at the worst possible time. But he is not feeling the gratitude that he seems to have expected from members of own camp. And on that score he's got a lot more explaining to do if he expects many who supported him previously to rally around him for a second term.
Betty Winston Bayé's column appears Thursdays in the Community Forum and online at www.courier-journal.com/opinion. Her e-mail address is bbaye@courier-journal.com.
Editor's comment: While the POTUS CAPITULATED to the GOP on the tax issue, it was actually a good move on his part even if it incenses his base. This is because he can always claim that he did it for the middle class (to get the tax cuts for them, and to extend their unemployment benefits), while the GOP was only interested in helping the rich, and the compromise was the ONLY way to achieve those goals.
In the end, this will prove to have been a smart move on his part.
By Betty Winston Bayé
At the White House press conference that he called on Tuesday to explain, or some would say to rationalize, his reasoning for signing onto a tax deal that a whole lot of Democrats are convinced rewards Republican obstructionism, President Obama responded to his critics.
“I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed,” he said. “… In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”
An interesting choice of words and certainly intentional.
But no sooner were they spoken than it occurred to me that by their rhetoric and their votes in last month's mid-term elections, a not-too-shabby percentage of those the President considers “hostages” apparently dislike him more than they do their own personal or economic circumstances. These people didn't just re-elect the “hostage-takers” already in Congress, but voted to add many more.
Whether or not their double-wides faced foreclosure, the hostages voted for a lot of candidates whose over-arching philosophy seems to be that it's every man and woman for himself and herself and that it's only the strong who deserve to survive these tough economic times. Some of these “hostages” are unemployed and yet voted for people who are scandalized by the very idea of extending unemployment benefits without knowing how those benefits will be paid for. Yet, the people whom they elected articulate no such concern about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, no matter how much it adds to the deficit. Still other “hostages” who rely on Social Security, Medicare and government farm subsidies were all up in arms about “socialism” Obama-style.
Some time ago, I wrote that Obama's critics on the right were flummoxed by his cool-school political style. But two years into his presidency, I believe it's fair to say that it's the President's critics within his own party and independents on the left who are rattled by his style. After being demonized — and more recently, by the President's own admission, “shellacked” in a mid-term election season dominated by big-money anti-Obama special interests — many Democrats and progressives are saying, “What the hell. Let's have a good fight.” If Republicans really want to take average Americans hostage, many are saying, then let them feel the wrath of the millions who will suffer if government services, subsidies and checks were shut down, even if only for a few weeks.
But this president refuses to fight in the ways that most Americans are accustomed to.
He also takes angry exception to any notion that he compromises too much, which is what's frustrating many people who otherwise agree with the President. If giving some to get some — or, in other words, failing to compromise — is “the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done,” Obama said Tuesday. “People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.”
What Mitch McConnell seems to have figured out about Barack Obama is that the President isn't as mean as he is. Meanness isn't just McConnell's trump card; it's always seemed to me also to be a quality that he's very proud of — a quality that has served Kentucky's senior senator well over his years in Washington, and at no times more than when McConnell has felt obliged to do the elephant stomp not just on Democrats, but also on Republicans who don't fall into line.
Some economists and pundits argue that in securing, for example, a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits and $150 billion in tax credits for middle- and low-income workers, Obama struck the best possible deal at the worst possible time. But he is not feeling the gratitude that he seems to have expected from members of own camp. And on that score he's got a lot more explaining to do if he expects many who supported him previously to rally around him for a second term.
Betty Winston Bayé's column appears Thursdays in the Community Forum and online at www.courier-journal.com/opinion. Her e-mail address is bbaye@courier-journal.com.
Editor's comment: While the POTUS CAPITULATED to the GOP on the tax issue, it was actually a good move on his part even if it incenses his base. This is because he can always claim that he did it for the middle class (to get the tax cuts for them, and to extend their unemployment benefits), while the GOP was only interested in helping the rich, and the compromise was the ONLY way to achieve those goals.
In the end, this will prove to have been a smart move on his part.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home