Obama taking centrism too far?

[Anders Hallin]

Obama praises Reagan compared to Clinton's presidency (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_reagan_changed_direction_of_country_in_way_b ill_clinton_didnt.php)
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
That sounds well and good, but not for someone who should be aware of the fact that all this "accountability," "clarity," and "optimism" led to distinctly anti-progressive values and a total meltdown of government finances. Isn't it enough that the Republicans mindlessly pray to the altar of Reagan in every campaign speech?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/obama-compares-himself-to_n_81835.html

[Hugin]

That's not particularly what I got from his statement. It doesn't come off as an endorsement of Reagan or his policies, but more a recognition that some Presidents extend or change the government at an, for lack of a better word, micro policy level, but some change the entire national narrative or philosophy. They are capable of reframing, at least temporarily, what the American people predominately feel America should be "about". He's also admitting that a lot of it is about being at the right place when the populace is ready to make that change and is willing to follow the leader who expresses a desire to execute it.

Now, I'm not saying the statement isn't political and part of the campaign, there's no way you can cluster yourself with JFK and Reagan and cluster the husband of your current opponent and Nixon and it not be calculated. But from a sort of academic poli-sci point of view I think it's an interesting point, and one that even has a bit of a self deprecating angle (in that he admits these attributes only have their special appeal when the circumstances make the electorate especially hungry for them, in other times, a managerial or caretaker stance might be more persuasive).

[Gordon Cameron]

It seems to be good form to profess to like at least one president from the other side. The deification of Reagan continues apace; meanwhile I have heard some Republicans claim admiration for Truman.

[jeffd]

Ezra Klein sums up why this was good stuff (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obama_and_reagan)

[Jeff Fries]

What do you mean you can't elect a leader for his rhetoric, what about that one guy.

Edited to add: and out comes three decades of repressed progressive admiration

[Anders Hallin]

The thing is, I don't see much saying that he's a leftist Reagan, that is, a good talker tapping into a perceived need of the populace and proceeding to tear down as many of the achievements of the [other side]. Sure, he might be, because part of that is of course shutting up what you really want, but it is to put a rather messianic spin on the Obama campaign, and it is, in any situation, a bad reason to vote for a president, in my mind.
I totally see what he's saying, but being the "candidate of change" and talking about how centrist he is, really isn't doing it for me.

[Dirt]

It's an attack on Bill.

[BlueJackalope]

It's an attack on Bill.

Your brevity is exceeded only by your stupidity.

[Miramon]

Also, for some insane reason, Reagan has become the gold standard for US Presidents as far as mass communications goes. You don't see even Democrats criticizing him where they can be quoted, it's just taboo, so it seems. I suppose it's because Reagan crushed his political opponents so badly in the elections, so they don't want to annoy people who voted for him.

This is despite Reagan's insane economic policy, and many grievous criminal and unconstitutional acts undertaken by his cabinet, either with his consent, or worse, without bothering to let him know about them. Clinton was 10 times better than Reagan. Remember Meese at all?

However, I must say that Obama's remarks as quoted were rather lukewarm, and were to my mind pandering to pissed off Republicans more than anything else.

[JeffL]

I know precisely what Obama was referring to. If any of you were adults at the time that Carter was president (and I say this with a grimace, as I worked for Carter's camaign when he was elected) you remember that the entire nation was in a totally depressed, head's hung down mood. Your mortgage could be at about 16 - 18%, interest rates on everything were out of control which meant the economy totally sucked, Iran was thumbing their nose at us with the hostages, and more. People just felt bad about the country and where we were going as a nation. (sound familiar?)

Reagan came in with the "It's a new morning in America" approach, and you can debate all you want from here about how horrible he was, but when he took over he made America feel good about itself again. He was indeed a superb communicator, he often spoke very effectively to the American public, and his charisma with the American people has only been matched recently by Bill Clinton. The change in the nation's mood from the Carter years to the Reagan years was like night and day.

And that is precisely what Obama is attempting to refer to, a president's ability to change the entire mood of a nation.

[jeffd]

What jeff said.

Taking that one step further: not only did Reagan change the mood of the nation - he also managed to use that change in mood to implement a pretty conservative agenda; to the point of actually shifting the nation's politics rightward. The interpretation that some folks have of Obama's comments is that he sees himself like Reagan. Not only will he improve the nation's mood, but he'll use that to push a progressive agenda.

[StGabe]

That sounds well and good, but not for someone who should be aware of the fact that all this "accountability," "clarity," and "optimism" led to distinctly anti-progressive values and a total meltdown of government finances. Isn't it enough that the Republicans mindlessly pray to the altar of Reagan in every campaign speech?

This is just punditry. Just because you (and I) don't like Reagan doesn't mean that he didn't get some things right and wasn't effective as a politician. I find it refreshing to see a candidate that knows that it is possible to praise their opponents without compromising one's own values. While I am extremely liberal that doesn't mean that I think there shouldn't be an opposition to keep liberals honest nor does it mean that I disagree with every conservative value.

[Gordon Cameron]

I can't wait till I have enough money/income to be worried about mortgage rates.

[JeffL]

I can't wait till I have enough money/income to be worried about mortgage rates.

Hey, I currently have two mortgages, want one? (damned housing market!)

[Dirt]

Your brevity is exceeded only by your stupidity.
Your expectations are misplaced.

[BlueJackalope]

Your expectations are misplaced.

Nope. You can always be counted on to deliver the inane and stupid.

[Dirt]

Nope. You can always be counted on to deliver the inane and stupid.
Just call me Big Ben.