Jan 30, 2010

Endangered Species

Librarians - The thin blue line between you an...Image by Travelin' Librarian via Flickr
News librarians are a dying breed

When it comes to the layoffs and buyouts that have hit newspapers over the last couple of years, copy editors seem to be the most at risk of losing their jobs. So it wasn’t too much of a shock when Leslie Norman’s husband was laid off from his copy editing position at The Wall Street Journal.
But then last year she was let go from her job as a news librarian at the Journal, and suddenly it seemed as though they were both working in at-risk, or perhaps even endangered, roles. (Her husband has since been brought back to work on contract for the paper.)
“We didn’t [think that way] until we were laid off,” she said. “I never saw my layoff coming—it was a total surprise.”
The loss of copy editors has been the subject of much lament and debate in this corner, as in other places. But the plight of librarians seems to attract less fanfare and hand wringing, as if we’ve all been shushed from saying something.
Norman doesn’t think things will ever be the same for news librarians.
“I see the news library as it once existed as probably dying,” she said. “But in many newspapers, it’s evolved into something else.”
According to data collected by Michelle Quigley, a researcher at the Palm Beach Post, over 250 news librarians (sometimes called news researchers) lost their jobs in the U.S. since 2007. Membership in the Special Libraries Association News Division, an organization for news librarians, has fallen to below 400 from over 1,000 in the 1990s. Entire news libraries have been shuttered and replaced by consultants or outside vendors.
Last year, the Detroit Free Press got rid of its last three librarians, eliminating the department entirely. Also in 2009, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution let go of fifteen librarians, which also resulted in the closure of its research department.
It’s not hard to see why newsroom budgeters cast an eye towards the library when cuts have to be made. Most news librarians are never given a byline, though some receive research credit at the bottom of articles. The perception is that they mostly help archive a paper, a task that can, to a certain degree, be automated. Just as copy editors get the hook because they don’t generate content and therefore can’t fill space or generate pageviews, news librarians are shown the door because they’re seen as a holdover from a time when newspapers kept detailed clipping files on major topics and personalities, and when the “morgue” was a critical part of a paper’s operations.
Now that every reporter and editor has access to Google and a wide range of search technologies and online databases, the thinking is that they don’t need to call upon the Boolean expertise of librarians. You can see how it makes sense—except then the facts start to get in the way. In fact, the modern news librarian seems in many ways more important than ever. Even those old clipping files still come in handy.
When I spoke with Amy Disch, chair of the Special Libraries Association News Division and library director of the Columbus Dispatch, she said her team had accessed clipping files and hard copy photo archives more than ten times that day alone. But that’s the least of what they do at the paper. In addition to providing research services to support reporters, the library runs a newsroom intranet and wiki, provides data analysis for investigations, and offers a range of other useful services.
Then there’s the reality that just because reporters can access Google or search Nexis and other databases, it doesn’t mean they know how to use them properly.
“Reporters are on deadline and they want to do things as quickly as possible,” Norman said. “Over years, they’ve come to feel, ‘I can do my own research, I don’t need an intermediary anymore.’ Some of the problem with that is they don’t have time to get the best research if they do it themselves. Also, because of the amount of information out there, they may not have the understanding or wherewithal to go through and filter out what’s good and what isn’t.”
True, reporters and editors often make mistakes because they couldn’t find the best information, or because they went with whatever came back on the first page of a Google query. At a time of information abundance, it’s essential that newsrooms have information experts on staff. That’s what news librarians are.
“We can find the information in a lot less time because we know how to drill down in a database,” Disch said. “We know good sources to go to where you can quickly find information, so we can cut a lot of time for [reporters] and leave them to do what they do best, which is interviewing and writing. I have my specialty, and they have theirs.”
Members of Disch’s four-person team are embedded within the newsroom. They sit with reporters and editors and take part in meetings and discussions. If someone needs to find a particular kind of information, they can do it right away. They also fill another increasingly important role: training.
“The paper holds a yearly editorial clinic, and this year our department is getting a featured spot,” she said. “We decided to call our presentation ‘Keeping Current and Paying it Forward’.”
The session will focus on “using RSS feeds and Web monitoring tools, and sharing content via Facebook and Twitter.” The librarians have also given seminars about using Excel, Facebook, and Twitter, and on how to create alerts in Nexis.
That’s not what they were trained to do—and all four Dispatch librarians have masters degrees in library sciences—but Disch said it’s essential they evolve their skills and knowledge to meet the needs of a modern newsroom. That’s true for every position in journalism: evolve or prepare to move on.
Disch makes an effort to keep her team front and center within the organization, rather than hiding away in a musty library. Recently, for the first time, librarian Julie Albert received a full byline in a major front page story about domestic violence. (Albert performed data analysis of court cases.)
The most famous story about a news librarian didn’t involve a full byline. Liz Donovan was working as a librarian at The Washington Post when two young reporters were hunting down a story about a burglary. Yes, I’m talking about that burglary.
At one point, later dramatized in All The President’s Men, Woodward and Bernstein were trying to track down information about a specific person. Off they went to the paper’s library to ask for the clipping file on one Kenneth Dahlberg. Here’s how the scene unfolded, according to a post on NPR’s As A Matter of Fact blog:
The long-haired librarian tells him they don’t have a clip file for Dahlberg. OK. But I checked the photo file, she said, and we do have a picture of him. The photo identified Dahlberg as a Republican fundraiser, and was an important early clue in the unraveling of the Watergate plot. Woodward didn’t ask her to check the photo file; but librarians don’t wait to be asked!
Donovan died in December, at the end of one of the worst years ever for news librarians. The tributes to her, relatively few though they were, reminded me of the obituaries for one of the last great newspaper proofreaders, Audrey Stubbart of the Examiner in Missouri. (Unlike today’s copy editors who often have to perform with pagination and other tasks, her role was to check grammar, spelling, and facts in every part of the paper.) She retired in 2000, and died not long after at the age of 105. Here’s an anecdote from a story about her retirement:
“When we first got computers in the newsroom, it was suggested that we wouldn’t need a copy editor,” said [former sports editor Tom] Dickson, now a professor of journalism at Southwest Missouri State University.

“Well, the first issue came out after that and we found out we needed one. It was a mess,” Dickson said with a chuckle. “Audrey was again asked to read stories.”
Desktop publishing and computers vanquished the newspaper proofreader. Let’s hope news librarians can evolve so they aren’t felled by the Internet and digital archives.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Jan 28, 2010

Tell The Nation: Obama at One

watching the State of the Union speech last nightImage by daphne31 via Flickr

January 27, 2010

In response to our "Obama at One" forum, readers from across the country wrote to The Nation to share their thoughts on Obama's high and low points from his first year. For many readers, Obama's high point came during his inauguration. But now that the first year has passed, the hope and inspiration they once felt for Obama have turned to feelings of betrayal. Obama has sided with the corporate lawyers and the big banks instead of with the people. His slow progress is much too slow for a party that voted him in for change and reform. Still, there are some that are more forgiving, and hopeful for year number two. Below, read a selection of submissions to The Nation.

Nowhere to Go But Up

Our world outlook has gone leaps and bounds, but maybe it had nowhere to go but up. To me, the high point started with the healthcare issue. Although I do not fully agree with the bill up for discussion, it is still groundbreaking in nature, and we wouldn't have gotten this far without him. I think he will be one of the greatest presidents we have ever had and I can't wait to help him get elected again.

Kelsey Freeman, 25
Everett, WA

We Must All Have a Choice

I voted for Mr. Obama. Seems to be a likeable guy and all that, but I'm very disappointed that he has surrounded himself with advisors that seem unable to think outside the rut of their training/experiences--mainly, in the financial and healthcare sectors.

When the crisis is over, banks that didn't fail could buy up these loans that the government made. The big bad bankers will have been spanked, their toys taken away and grounded, or their banks will have failed. Take healthcare reform. Is expanding insurance coverage the only way? The British have satisfactory healthcare at one-third our per capita cost--apparently they are three times healthier (stronger, disease-resistant, less coddled) than we are. But we don't want to follow their success. Are our leaders nuts? Costs will never be contained by expanding coverage through private insurance, because the main culprit is the medical business, not insurance.

The problem is hospitals that bill our PPO fifteen times what they are entitled to, anesthesiologists that bill $88 more for the elderly, ambulance services that pad their mileage and services performed, doctors that bill $140-240 for a five-minute exam--under the twisted ethics that since the insurer is paying, they aren't stealing from the patient. To contain healthcare costs, we have to remove the profit incentive--which means government-owned clinics and hospitals staffed by civil servants. And since we must all have choice, let there be private networks (no subsidies direct or indirect) and charity networks (for those who don't want to or can't be in either of the other two networks). Seems like we are sheep following a billy goat.

Ray Kawano, 80
San Jose, CA

Start Pleasing the Citizens, Not the Banks

Let me start off by saying I am an avid fan of The Nation. The high point for Obama in my point of view has to be his demeanor. He always stays calm, cool and collected during the toughest of times. I like the fact that he takes time to understand the information inside and out. I like that fact that he doesn't just jump out in front of a camera. For instance, after the Christmas Day attempted bombing, he took the time, got all the information that he needed and then came out and spoke about what happened.

I think that he is trying to please too many people. The people he needs to worry about pleasing are the citizens, not the banks, not the insurance companies, not Congress, but the people. He needs to get that fire back in his belly. He needs to stand up for what he believes in.

I know that it is hard to get things accomplished in DC. I didn't expect him to have all his policies in place by first year's end. But I did expect him to fight for the average person. He still has time to turn things around, though. And I believe he will. I am the type of person who waits to judge somebody. So I am going to wait to judge this president until his term or terms is complete. I think that this healthcare bill was a start. I would have preferred that he started fighting for single-payer from the start instead of the public option, because maybe things might have been different. Maybe we would have a public option at this point, instead of no public option.

I think he needs to fight harder on financial regulation. We need to end TBTF and treat these bank CEOs as the criminals they are. What they have been doing over the years is a Ponzi scheme. All in all I give the president an A- because of the situation he came into. There is still a lot of time left in his presidency. JFK started off with the Bay of Pigs, he was starting to do great things until he was assassinated. I believe Obama can do the same.

Jason Edwards, 21
Philadelphia, PA

A Full House of Disappointments

The highest point was his inauguration. It was a moment I never thought I would see so soon. Unfortunately, much that transpired between election and inauguration days suggested that little good would follow.

His economic ignorance and the appallingly conservative appointments he made were, and have proven to be, huge deficiencies. His stimulus proposals and actions were woefully inadequate, and we are living with the results: few new or returned jobs and an economy really going nowhere. We also are faced with no consequential changes to our decades-old and disastrous trade policies.

Perhaps my biggest fundamental disappointment has been his adoption of many of the Bush policies regarding state secrets and discarding fundamental constitutional protections as well as his failure to rid himself of the politicized Bush US Attorneys (especially in Alabama). As he is supposed to be a professor of constitutional law, I am astonished by the actions of his seemingly clueless attorney general.

His lack of forceful leadership on healthcare reform is also deeply troubling. He had a significant majority of Americans on the side of serious reform. But he bailed on us. He let DLCers like Emanuel run the White House effort. He let himself be rolled by all concerned.

I no longer expect strong leadership from this man. His insight is hugely suspect. I never confused him with a dedicated progressive or liberal. But when you are dealt a hand full of aces, I do expect strong, intelligent action. He waffled instead and got bluffed out of winning hands on so many fronts. Unless he changes course (and there is still a little time to do so, as did FDR), his excessive caution and his retreaded Clinton administration advisors with all their lessons learned incorrectly will have doomed his presidency to failure.

Norm Conrad, 64
Seattle, WA

Obama Isn't a Fighter--He's a Liar

I contributed donations to his campaign and believed his rhetoric. I voted for him because I felt that he was a man who was trying to stand outside of the establishment and to see what Washington could do for America by looking at Washington from outside the boundaries of the capital from a citizen's perspective. Instead, he surrounded himself with the establishment. He has done everything to help out the corporations. Economically, he gives American tax money to Wall Street without conditions and does it through back channels.

I've heard a lot of people try to blame it on Geithner, but Geithner works for Obama. Obama picked him, and you can't tell me that Obama has no idea of the underhanded back channels that Geithner is using to funnel as much money as possible to Wall Street. If Obama is so smart, how can he not know this? He taxes the banks, which will just be pushed onto the customers, instead of taxing the bonuses like England and France did. He knows these options and purposely chooses against them.

With healthcare, he actively worked against the public option that he promised us. He gives American tax money to the pharmaceuticals so that they won't work against the bill. He is mandating that Americans purchase private insurance without regulating their prices. There are plenty of empty houses on the market. I have access to them. I don't go out and buy them all because I don't have access to them; they are on the open market. I don't buy them because I can't afford them.

He has shown no sign of being a champion of the people and hasn't fought for the people. He didn't even talk about "rolling up his sleeves" and working to get healthcare done until after the Senate came up with a bill. He isn't a fighter.

In hindsight, if I knew then what I know now, that I would be getting an establishment insider, I should have chosen one who was at least a fighter. If I could go back I would instead voted for Clinton. At least she has a pair.

Obama has shown that he is a "Blue Dog" and that he is more worried about helping the corporations than the American middle class. He isn't progressive at all. He hasn't even begun to set up the green jobs and change in industry that he promised us, and isn't giving the progressives anything because as Rahm Emanuel feels, we'll always be there for the Dems. who are we going to chose... a Republican?

Well, if this is what the next three years is going to be, in 2012, I have chosen. Since Obama isn't working for me, one of those that worked for him, then in 2012, he can do it himself.

Scott Jahner, 31
Jacksonville, FL

Some Advice from Europe: Do Not Compromise

Looking at Obama's first year from the viewpoint of an American who works in Europe much of the year, I can say that his marks are considerably higher from a European point of view than they are at home. This is remarkably similar to the situation when Bill Clinton was in office.

The willingness to have a meaningful dialogue with allies, to listen as well as lecture, especially when the American president has a full command of English, was a breath of fresh air. The shrill, hyperbolic tone of the Republican opposition struck a highly negative chord, especially in Germany, where so much of the rhetoric of the Republicans in Congress and their right-wing media arm of Fox "News" reminded the Germans so much of what happened to their country when such people were allowed to attain power almost eighty years ago. This, in itself, is not an assessment of Obama, but his willingness to stand up to it did not go unnoticed.

Indeed, if there has so far been any kind of low point to Obama's first year, it is the disappointment that he appeared to bend over backwards as a gesture to an opposition that was clearly not in the slightest inclined to compromise on its hard-line positions. Obama is not at fault for extending a hand to his opposition, but he is expected to cease extending that hand when fingers start getting bitten off. Bush (i.e., Cheney) used every trick in the book, whether legal or merely questionable, to run roughshod over a minority Democratic opposition.

Obama, on the other hand, seems reluctant to use powers at his disposal to act in accordance with a large Democratic majority in both houses in Congress. There is great hope that he will use these powers decisively in the next year, not only to shore up his own support but also to underpin those members of his own party up for re-election this November.

The healthcare reform movement seems to have gotten stuck in some kind of mire, with special interests practically lining up at some proverbial cashier to buy off those legislators they deem susceptible to such sway. Their willingness to be so brazen about it, along with their apparent success, is troublesome, to say the least. On the other hand, the economic stimulus seems to be bearing fruit, and although this will never be fast enough to those out of work and without benefits or stricken by catastrophic illness, it is slowly but surely proving its detractors wrong.

The biggest disappointment was allowing White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's personal animosity for Howard Dean to exile Dean from his coveted position as secretary of health and human services. The country had perhaps no one else with the perfect combination of dedication, expertise and experience to fill this position. Obama, fairly or unfairly, and though he owed Dean his fairly smooth sail into office in 2008, owed Dean no obligation to appoint him to HHS, but he certainly owed it to the people of the United States to have such a uniquely suited individual in that position. That Dean was shut out of that position for what seems to be a petty vendetta is a black mark on Obama's record that is in no way mitigated by the fact that Emanuel is most likely the guilty party. If Obama is the place where the buck stops, then this was ultimately his call, and I think he blew it.

Other than that, I think that if Obama would pay a little less attention to the shrill extremes of his opposition, and a little more to the kind of people that worked tirelessly, and for free, to get him into the Oval Office, I think he'll be fine. Still, that is one big "if."

Marc Emory, 57
Dallas, TX/Duesseldorf, Germany

No Policy Reform? Buena Suerte, Obama

Obama's election was a signal of hope within moments of great despair. The neoliberal economy was resulting in a social quagmire for the great majorities of the US population. The highest moment is yet to come, but healthcare reform is a step in the right direction.

The greatest disappointment is how slow this administration has moved to get rid of the most infamous policies of the past administration, especially in foreign policy. For example, it seems a cold-blooded attitude--their silence over the Gaza Massacre and their veto over the Crimes of War report in the UN.

Policy toward Cuba, Haiti, Honduras and Puerto Rico are stagnated in the cold war era, which is preposterous. Obama is slightly to the left of Clinton, but far right to Jimmy Carter's era. It appears that those who worked so hard to get Obama elected--organized labor, center-left grassroots organizations, etc.--have been paid with a cold shoulder when advancing their principal political objectives. Buena suerte, Obama.

Rafael Arroyo Mercado

You Are Either With Us or Without the Will to Change

The high point has been that he and his family are actually occupying the White House. I think it made many black Americans proud and simultaneously shocked that such a thing could happen in a racist country like America. Hopefully, the longer they are there, the more it will serve to unite us.

However, I'm sharply disappointed that any one of us Americans is subject to become "disappeared" according to the way the Bush administration ruled over the country. Yet President Obama has done absolutely nothing to roll back the dictatorial, subversive and militaristic way in which law enforcement is encroaching upon our freedoms.

We're going down the wrong road and not even a man of Obama's integrity can make it right. I know that most Americans understand what integrity is, yet the ruling minority attempts to obfuscate the majority by using Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin etc. to foil such extremely important qualities. That's where Obama needs to use some audacity of the type Bush brandished when he declared that you are either with us or with them. For example: you are either with the majority of Americans, 70 percent of whom want single-payer healthcare, or you are with them, the minority who don't want change.

Thomas Davey

A Gifted President with a Dysfunctional Congress

Even a gifted president with national support cannot cancel out a dysfunctional Congress that is bought and sold by corporate and other special interests. They have special privileges and little accountability since few are removed. They forget that they are elected to represent us, not to make fortunes, to get re-elected or for other sundry purposes that are generally labeled "self-interest."

What has happened this year reveals how the system works and how it uses power. Perhaps the phrase "common good" is not understood. The high points include hope of something different as well as a nominee for the Supreme Court; Obama's willingness to take his time and think, not just react (for the most part); his openness; his insistence on healthcare. I see Copenhagen as starting the conversation.

Low points include his bowing to military solutions and allowing detention centers, military bases, etc.; not using the bully pulpit when needed with Congress and corporate and financial enterprises.

Lisa Smith, 66
San Diego, CA

The People in This Country Need a Voice

In my opinion, the highest point of President Obama's first year in office was his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his reluctance to accept it because of his rather meager record and contribution on the world's political stage. It is amazing to me that the mere utterance of his aspirations for a more equitable world garnered him this most prestigious prize. He received a lot of flak for this and he took the high road instead of firing back to his critics, especially on the right.

The sharpest moment of disappointment for me was President Obama's relenting to omit the public option from the current healthcare bill, which is now being negotiated by the House and Senate for final passage. This option should never have been taken out of the bill. It would have made the lives of millions of poverty-stricken Americans much better. And it would have made President Obama a more respected political figure. Political expediency is often not a good thing for people in this country who have no voice whatsoever in Congress. Too bad. It speaks volumes for how our political system can be a detriment to Americans.

Antonio T. Pangelinan, 56
Castro Valley, CA

Media Madness

I think President Obama's high points are many. He has provided changes to actions made by George Bush that hurt mankind, both physically and environmentally. He has worked hard to repair relationships with countries we need in our corner. Do we hear about these things? No! which brings me to my sharpest moments of disappointment, and who perpetuates them:

The media! Who continually promote those who wish to harm hard-working middle-class families by sucking the tits of Wall Street. The media persistantly giving an open mike to "birthers," "deathers," reporting BS like Sara Palin's death panels, the ex-vice president (who should be in jail) and all the other factless morons who invade our living rooms every damn day. They are allowed to spread unfounded rumors and down right lies, without question.

In his first year President Obama has done more for this country than any other in recent history. Those who are truly uninformed will always be uninformed and we can't change that, unfortunately, but why do we allow our media to be the ones who perpetuate the lies?

Fran Balasquez

20 Points

Here are the high points:

1) Healthcare reform, including children (CHIRP)
2) Establishing a national electric grid.
3) Funding electric car development
4) Funding green jobs development
5) Allowing state medical marijuana
6) Restoring Community Block Grants to fight poverty
7) International consensus before action
8) Ending missile defense in Eastern Europe
9) Scrapping F-22 funding
10) Ending no-bid contracting for defense
11) Withdrawing from Iraq
12) Closing Guantánamo
13) Ending CIA secret prisons
14) Re-affirming Geneva Conventions
15) Appointing first Latina to Supreme Court
16) Appointing first openly transgendered person
17) Lifting global gag rule on abortion
18) Ending twenty-year ban on neededl exchange to combat AIDS
19) Authorizing the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act against Big Coal

Here is the low point:

20) Failed to rein in moneyed special interest groups and their lobbyists, which weakens all progressive reform efforts.

Metteyya Brahmana, 47
Santa Cruz, CA

Highs and Lows of a Nobel Prize

Lowest moment: accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
Highest moment: winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Without a doubt, in my mind, the Nobel Prize event is both his highest and lowest moment. It's high because it shows how much faith or perhaps desperation the world has for a potentially strong leader like Obama. Winning was a culmination of at least his foreign policy rhetoric, positively marking his one year of presidency. However, the fact he accepted a prize symbolic of humankind's most formal aspiration of peace, and that much of the world went along with it, is a very low point during his time in office and for all of us.

Joe Sabet, 28
Garden Grove, CA

A Smile and Stiletto

The high point was his election and inauguration and his seeming willingness to try to extend the New Deal and Great Society. Knowing full well our history, I still shudder with profound emotion upon thinking of that election night and the gathering in Chicago (I'm a middle-aged white guy, by the way). My major disappointments are two: the capitulation to the bankers, the hiring of Geithner and Summers (although great credit must be given to the hiring of Elizabeth Warren), and turning a deaf ear to the likes of Paul Krugman and Stiglitz. I was astounded that Obama did not see that we needed (and need now) an FDR-style works program. I was and am astounded that Obama put his complete faith in Reaganomics and nothing in Keynesian economics. This is gonna bite him hard and may well make him a mediocre one-term president.

Second, and in regards to healthcare, the "Tea Party," etc., his timidity to call people out; his lack of fight; his lack of passion (when people are dying); his innate diplomatic impulses to immediately compromise and concede. I didn't expect this or see it prior. I am still somewhat understanding because I suspect his handlers--one in particular--have been busy playing politics (Clinton era) and not encouraging true leadership.

Someone said recently that FDR carried a smile and a stiletto in his pocket---Obama needs to go beyond the love affair with his smile (which is fantastic) and learn how to use that stiletto--he has to learn how to kill; because his opposition knows and does it as easily as first morning's breath over a cup of coffee.

John Lawrence, 55
Key Largo, FL

Won't Get Fooled Again

The high points of Obama's first year in office was the fact that he won the election, that the nation once again had reason to hope, that change was possible. I should have known better. That's what a charismatic public speaker can do. Damn! Hoodwinked again!

In his first year in office our semi-black corporate shill of a president has been just a continuation of Wall Street business as usual. Even more spending on militarism, habeas corpus denial, healthcare in an even worse quagmire. At every step he's played the hand of corporate America. And the military-industrial complex marches on under a new banner. I'm sorry I wasted my vote on Obama, and now you must excuse me, for reverse peristalsis is setting in. I won't be fooled again.

John R. Hall

Obama Brings Some Relief

I hit a high point every time the media covers President Obama, negative and positive. The eight years preceding last year I could hardly read or watch without feeling deeply embarrassed (and worried!) for the United States--in regards to terrorism, economics, baseball, substance abuse, education, etc. I essentially breathe a sigh of relief every time President Obama is brought up as a topic of interest. Because no matter what our president's critics say, they can't accuse him of being illogical, unintelligent or poorly spoken.

I suppose my biggest regret is that the Republican Party has so rallied itself around opposing President Obama that they have alienated a man who has more closely aligned himself with professed Republican policy interests than with his own Democratic party. Then again, of course the people, the independents and the pundits cry for a moderate candidate to unite Congress, only to cry louder to protest said moderate candidate after they elect him!

Natalie Morris

Nice Swing, but No Follow-Through

President Obama's high point is his well-crafted speeches. The president's low point is his follow-through. From the start it seems that those who would ignore him knew that they could get away with it. Nut-and-yahoo refused to stop new settlements at the request of the president but was more than pleased that the US vetoed the UN resolution calling Israel guilty of some war crimes in the Gaza invasion almost immediately thereafter. This was the start. Since then everybody realized that Obama may be "disappointed" in them, but that would be the extent of his reaction. Oh, and by the way, he is still talking about a bipartisan solution to our problems.

Norman Buchanan

A Failed Promise

The high point? That's easy: his election. Such promise, such potential, such hope. I felt proud to be a citizen. It appeared as if we had irretrievably rounded the corner of racial biases, as if we finally had someone in the White House who reflected our progressive dreams.

The low point? That's a little tougher because there's so many of them. It started with his appointment of Summers and Geithner and the bank bailout. But I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt. Maybe it was better to put the foxes in charge of the chickens. Maybe he knew something I didn't. Then he escalated the war in Afghanistan and my confidence was seriously shaken. And all the while he failed to lead the healthcare effort, despite his campaign promises. By the time Lieberman, Nelson and their ilk had dictated their terms on a pliant Senate, I had lost all faith in him. And lets not forget his failure to act on "don't ask, don't tell" and to bring the war criminals of the Bush years to account.

But I guess the absolute low point would be his statement two days ago that Congress should not "jam" the healthcare bill until Scott Brown was seated. That takes real gall! The Democrats control two branches but legislating in accord with the majority of the voting public is considered "jamming." He is either delusional or just another paid front man. I'm done with him and his stooges. He'll be a one-term president, and good riddance. Let's hope a real populist rises from the ashes of Obama's failed promise.

Stefan Athanasiadis, 57
Milan, IN

We Want a Pitcher, Not a Glass of Water

No question, Obama's first year has been a disappointment. Not because of the economy; nobody could have fixed that right away. But because he doesn't stand up for what he believes. Instead of taking a lead on everything from the ineffective way or "war on terrorism" is being waged to the drive for real healthcare reform, he has either kept the status quo ante or hid behind Congress. As we used to chant in Little League, we want a pitcher not a glass of water. Obama seems barely even to be a glass, with no water in sight.

Tom Hutton

Beneficial Bo

The high point: Obama selects the family dog.

The low point: Everything else.

Alex Hendrick, 47
Los Angeles, CA

Desperate, Not Disappointed

"Disappointment." How typically American to choose such a limp and measly word to use in light of the truly frightening point in history that our country, and the world, finds itself in. But since that is the word you have chosen: I have no "disappointments" because Mr. Obama has performed exactly as I expected him to, which is why I didn't vote for him.

My "disappointment "continues to be with the woefully and willfully uninformed, ignorant, arrogant and childish American people who allow themselves to be lulled into submission by increasingly astute spin doctors who function at the behest of powerful corporations, to the detriment of us all (and by "us," I mean the world). One can only hope that our national somnambulism will end and true leaders like Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Cynthia McKinney, Alan Grayson and a handful of others will leave the confines of our corrupt political system and start a new party that is truly democratic, that they will enlist the aid of some of our own, and other countries', great thinkers (Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Joseph Stiglitz, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy), and that they will promote an intelligent, free and independent press (Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Flanders, Al Jazeera News, Mosaic News, LinkTV).

Our country, as it stands now, is an imperialistic bully that squanders trillions of dollars for a military budget that brings no security, but instead endangers our own citizens and slaughters millions around the world. Meanwhile, thousands of Americans are dying from lack of adequate healthcare, our children are woefully uneducated, our economy continues its steep downslide and our infrastructure is crumbling. Those are the facts, and we'd better face up to them very, very quickly. Disappointed? I think we're desperate.

Terri Tafreshi, 57
San Rafael, CA

Still Holding on to Hope

The sharpest moment of disappointment is obviously the Massachusetts election. But even before that I was dismayed to see that the Obama administration was choosing to ignore its base and any kind of progressive change in this country. The healthcare thing was a horrible experience for everyone, Democrat and Republican alike. The polls were showing that the public wanted the public option. They got it when the president and the Congress didn't. The easiest thing would have been to enact Medicare for everyone. It would have been long done and moved on down the line. Obama has dithered and waffled and used too many words and not enough action. Wall Street and the Banks continue to run amok. People are still getting screwed and they know it.

Right now is our lowest moment, I hope. There is nowhere to go but up. The president's reaching out to other nations has been the high point. Also, he and his wife are a class act. For those two things we can be proud.

Sharon Rasey

Downhill Since Election Night

My high point was being part of the ecstatic crowd in Times Square election night. It has been downhill since.

My biggest disappointment was how Obama did not start off with a strong, symbolic step that he could have easily and unilaterally done, such as ordering the Joint Chiefs of Staff to end discrimination against gays in the military. Disappointment has continued unabated, especially with his healthcare betrayal and bank sellout.

Steve Juniper, 71
Berkeley, CA

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama at One

January 13, 2010

Looking back at President Obama's first year in office, what do you think the high point has been? And what has been your sharpest moment of disappointment? On this occasion, that's what The Nation asked members of our community, and beyond. Now we want to know what you think. Share your take on Obama's highest and lowest moments in the form provided here .

President Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009, ignited the hopes of millions of Americans seeking real change. One year later, many progressives are worried that the Obama administration's commitment to change is not as strong as it should be. Some of his stalwart supporters feel anguish at what they see as a betrayal or delay of his campaign's promises, while many of his longtime critics feel vindicated in their initial skepticism. Other progressives, however, take stock of the advances that have been made in Washington and urge the left against making definitive pronouncements on his presidency so soon. Here at The Nation, Obama's politics and policies have been at the center of vigorous, persistent discussion and debate among our writers, editors and contributors. How one views Obama's first year is no doubt guided by one's political beliefs, but also by sensibility and intuition. On this occasion, we canvassed an array of opinions from our community--and beyond. We asked the simple question: Looking back at President Obama's first year in office, what do you think the high point has been? And what has been your sharpest moment of disappointment? The answers appear below... from:

Michael Tomasky

Editor, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas

In straightforward policy terms, healthcare reform is the best thing Obama has done. Yes, expectations were raised for more, and the process was painful to watch, but the changes in this bill are greater than anything the Clintons tried to do, anything Al Gore ran on, anything John Kerry ran on, anything Howard Dean ran on, etc. It's a big, big, big deal. Assuming it passes.

The civil liberties area has been his worst. This is the one area in which the president's actions don't remotely match the candidate's promises. On everything else, whether you like the policies or not, he's doing pretty much what he said he would do (yes, even in Afghanistan).

In terms of style of governance, Obama has if anything over-learned some lessons of history: it was good that he didn't want to dictate a health bill to Congress, but he ceded too much authority; it was good that he didn't want to mollycoddle Israel, but he alienated even some friendly Kadima and Labour elements, etc. Those who pay too much attention to history are doomed to... well, maybe we'll see.

A difficult but good first year. His fate will be 80 percent dependent on the state of the economy. That's where the effort needs to go.

Back to list


Glenn Greenwald

Writer, Salon

The overarching attribute of Obama's first year in office was his eagerness to accommodate the various permanent power factions that have long ruled Washington, and one can view both his high and low points through this prism.

His high point came in mid-April, when he announced he would declassify and release four memos from the Bush Office of Legal Counsel that authorized and graphically described torture techniques used by the CIA. He did so in the face of furious opposition from the intelligence community and with the knowledge that he would be accused of endangering our security. Release of those memos revitalized debate over Bush's torture regime and was an all-too-rare instance of courage and commitment to transparency from the new president. American presidents simply do not disseminate to the world memos detailing our national crimes committed in secret, but Obama did exactly that.

Obama's low point was when he got caught in August having secretly negotiated various deals with PhARMA over healthcare reform. Substantively, the deals banned what he long vowed he would institute--bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation. Worse, they were a blatant violation of his pledge to conduct all healthcare negotiations in public (even on C-SPAN), in order to prevent exactly this type of sleazy deal-making with industry interests. Massive giveaways to the most powerful corporations, effectuated in the dark, were what Obama most railed against as a candidate, and what he has repeatedly done as president.

Back to list


Chris Bowers

Blogger, OpenLeft.com

The main hope for any administration is that it will
take the American people's side in the fight against the antidemocratic corporatists who are picking our pockets. During 2009, Obama chose different sides in that fight at different times, forming the lowlights and highlights of his first year.

The most negative example came in mid-December, when Senate Democrats agreed to a Medicare buy-in for Americans aged 55-64 as the compromise of a compromise in the grand fight over a public health insurance option.
Joe Lieberman, who had proposed the idea himself only three months earlier, flipped and swore a filibuster. Later that same day, the White House pressured the Senate to take sides with Lieberman and the health insurance industry, getting the Medicare buy-in stripped from the bill.

However, in October, Obama's FCC appointees began to draw up regulations to ensure net neutrality after Congress refused to restrain telecoms from controlling speech on the Internet. In addition, in December, Obama's EPA began
to draw up regulations to reduce emissions of the six most dangerous greenhouse gases, in the face of Senate inaction. These new regulations will bypass Congress and its corporate lobbyists.

Perhaps these are just glimmers of hope, but at least twice the Obama administration used its authority to circumvent a pro-plutocracy Congress. Those moments were the political highlights of 2009.

Back to list


Adolph Reed Jr.

Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania

In January 1996 I wrote the following about Barack Obama in my Village Voice column: "In Chicago, we've gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program--the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics."

In 2007 Matt Taibbi described him as "an ingeniously crafted human cipher, a man without race, ideology, geographic allegiances, or, indeed, sharp edges of any kind. You can't run against him on the issues because you can't even find him on the ideological spectrum."

In 2006 Ken Silverstein noted Obama's deep financial industry connections. Glen Ford, Paul Street and many others have stressed those and other disturbing connections, including his penchant for supporting more conservative Democratic candidates against more liberal ones.

Obama indicated no later than the summer of 2007 that he intended, if elected, to extend the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The only surprise about his presidency is how many ersatz leftists cling to the fiction that he's anything other than a superficially articulate neoliberal Democrat in the Clinton mold and that his administration would act in any other way.

Back to list


Hendrik Hertzberg

Senior Editor and Staff Writer, The New Yorker

No-Drama Obama--remember him? Remember that admirable temperament, that ability to peer over the horizon, that poker player's cool? That chess player's sense of where the game will be several moves ahead? That matter-of-fact, unsentimental empathy? That serene immunity to the 24/7 cable/talk-radio/Internet hysteria machine? These qualities of mind and character, which I admired in candidate Obama, I still admire in President Obama. Perhaps that's why I don't see his first year in terms of high points and sharp disappointments. There have been some of each, of course, but he's still up on the bridge, holding a steady course in a violent storm, even as many of the rest of us are clutching the railings and puking over the side.

I seldom miss a chance to bitch and moan about the flaws of our wheezing, rusted-out, barely functioning electoral and governmental machinery. So I haven't been terribly surprised at how difficult it has proved for Obama to get his modest, moderately liberal program through Congress, especially the Senate. These difficulties are not his fault. Blaming him--accusing him of cowardice, of not having "balls," of being a corporate shill, etc.--is infantile. To the extent that the left component of the center-left is indulging in that sort of self-destructive, misdirected petulance--well, I guess that's my "sharpest disappointment" of this president's first year.

Back to list


Marcia Angell, MD

Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School

President Obama's greatest success has been to show the rest of the world a new face of understanding and cooperation. Still, count me among those who are disappointed in his first year. He seems to lack the courage to push for the fundamental reforms necessary to deal with the enormous problems we face, and instead appeases the very forces that have gotten us into the mess. By appointing Geithner and Summers, for example, he ensured that Wall Street, but
not Main Street, would be rescued. More dismaying, he extended Bush's policy of detaining certain terrorism suspects indefinitely, and he is well on his way to expanding
the self-destructive war in Afghanistan.

As for healthcare, my area of expertise, the reform bill Obama is cobbling together wrongly retains the central role of the private insurance companies and requires millions of people to buy their products at whatever price they charge. True, some of the industry's discriminatory practices would be outlawed, but if that adds to their costs, they can simply raise premiums. The pharmaceutical industry can also continue to charge whatever it likes. If the bill is fully implemented (which I doubt), it may restrain the growth of government health spending, which is all the CBO cares about, but it will surely increase inflation in the rest of the system. Obama knows that a single-payer system is the only way to provide universal care while controlling costs, but he was unwilling to throw his weight behind it. All he seems to want now is the political victory of getting a health bill passed--any bill, no matter how untenable.

My sharpest moment of disappointment came when the administration supported the prohibition against buying lower-priced drugs from Canada and Europe. During his campaign, Obama promised to end this absurd restriction, but now he's siding with the pharmaceutical industry.

It's not enough to understand what needs to be done; the president has to be willing to fight for it and, yes, take political risks.

Back to list


Katherine Newman

Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University

For progressives who supported John Edwards--before his personal implosion--the first year of Obama's presidency has been, more or less, what we expected. The symbolic victory of our first African-American presidency gave way to disappointment over his centrism, which comes as no great surprise, since Obama never advertised himself as a man of the left. And indeed, he isn't.

Accordingly, we should not be surprised that Obama did not bring to heel the Bush administration's Great Giveaway to the nation's banking sector. This is a travesty of the highest order, a betrayal of millions of taxpayers whose savings have been swallowed by those well-heeled Wall Street tycoons busily doing "the Lord's work." Thousands have seen their savings go up in smoke, their homes fall into foreclosure and their jobs evaporate, only to witness the spectacle of stratospheric year-end bankers' bonuses. Efforts to bring the wildcat financial industry back under strict regulatory control appear to have taken a back seat to the "needs" of the industry to retain the best and the brightest. Why not let them go job hunting on their spectacular record of institutional collapse?

On the plus side of the equation, and with a nod once again to the erstwhile Mr. Edwards, we have to count the deeply flawed but nonetheless historic healthcare bill. It is
no panacea and may even drag the Democrats down if its benefits do not kick in before 2014. But the extension of health insurance to millions who were previously left on
their own is a social policy victory.

Back to list



WARD SUTTON


Andrew Bacevich

Professor of International Relations, Boston University

As a conservative who voted for Obama, I hoped his election would signal a clear repudiation of his predecessor's reckless and ill-advised approach to national security policy. A clear break from the past just might create the space for a principled debate about the proper direction of US policy after the cold war, after 9/11 and after the passing of the neoconservative moment. Out of that debate might come a more prudent and realistic appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of military power. Washington might wean itself from its infatuation with war--at least so I fancied. This has turned out to be a great illusion. Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan indicates that he will not break with the existing national security consensus. The candidate who promised to "change the way Washington works" has become Washington's captive. Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009, was truly a great day, for all sorts of reasons. But it's been all downhill since then.

Back to list


Zbigniew Brzezinski

Former National Security Adviser

I think Obama's greatest moment was his speech rejecting the "war on terror" as an excessive and dangerous way of responding to the kind of terrorism that has been directed at the United States, because it was increasingly pitting the United States against the entire Islamic world. I think that was a wise course of action, I think it was a wise speech, I thought it was a wise redefinition of America's foreign policy. And the disappointment doesn't come with a single moment. I think it comes with the fact that his efforts to get the healthcare plan adopted have consumed so much of his time that he has slowed down his efforts to change American foreign policy.

Back to list


Ariel Dorfman

Chilean-American Author

Surely, even if there were no conditions for deep, radical transformations, we could have done better. I am most disappointed, in foreign policy, not by Afghanistan (I expected a surge of sorts, no matter how disastrous) but by the woeful mishandling of the Honduras coup, a botched chance to ensure that such adventures were a thing of the past. The best, internationally: Iran has not been bombed (yet!), the interceptor missiles in Poland were canceled, the radar in the Czech Republic was not deployed. And Obama's speech in Cairo was inspirational. Words still matter!

Nationally, his highest points may be the rejection of the F-22 bomber, his energy initiatives and all the people (not enough, but each of them is important) who are working because of the stimulus. I was distressed by how easily Van Jones was sacrificed, not only because we need wonderful men like him in the White House but because it is symptomatic of a lack of leadership and fighting spirit on far too many issues--healthcare being perhaps the most salient. Finally: I sent an open letter to Obama (through Amnesty International) asking that those who ordered torture in the name of America be brought to justice--and there has been, up till now, no reply. Lack of words also matter!

Back to list


Antonio Gonzalez

President, William C. Velasquez Institute

Naming the first Latina/o to the Supreme Court was definitely the highlight of Barack Obama's first year in office. Both symbolically and substantively meaningful, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's appointment will reverberate for years to come
in the consciousness of Latinas and Latinos, who have long yearned for that all too rare commodity in American society--respect. Furthermore, and perhaps more important, Justice Sotomayor will add a common-sense, ethnically aware perspective to the "out of touch" highest court in the land.

An equally obvious choice for lowlight of Obama's
first year is his continued delay of a push for justice for
12 million undocumented "indentured servants" in our midst. Having committed to immigration reform that "included legalization" in Obama's first hundred days, the administration shifted that promise to "first year" and now to the spring of 2010. But to repeat the well-known civil rights-era slogan, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Even the most loyal of Latino Democratic leaders know that facing Latino voters empty-handed on this priority issue in November is a risky proposition.

Back to list


Glenn C. Loury

Professor of the Social Sciences, Brown University

From where I sit, the high point of President Obama's young administration was its inauguration. Much seemed possible on that glorious day, but it has been downhill since. Hope, it would appear, is more easily inspired than it is justified. And those eloquent speeches about change during Obama's historic and euphoric campaign look now to have been precisely what the candidate's detractors said they were--just words.

Specifically, my hope had been that elevating a progressive African-American Democrat to the nation's highest office would do two things: help to bring about an effective engagement with America's unresolved problems of racial inequality, and begin to reverse our headlong march toward a Hundred Years' War with radical Islam. I did not expect these things to happen overnight, but I did expect to see movement in this direction. This administration has shown scant inclination to do either, which is disappointment enough. But worse--far worse--is the likelihood that Obama's failure even to attempt such changes will discredit the very idea that these are worthy objectives for any Democrat.

Obama has said little of substance about racial inequality since moving into the Oval Office, and what he has said leaves much to be desired. His speech to the NAACP convention was a rehash of his by now familiar "family values" homily. His comments on the arrest last summer of a black Harvard professor were shockingly inept. Our black president seems eager to address the American public with passion about the race issue when his "friend" has been mistreated by the police, but not if it means stressing policy reforms that might keep tens
of thousands of troubled black men out of prison.

As for the new American militarism, Obama has not really changed the direction in which we are headed. Indeed, and ironically, his speech in Oslo accepting the Nobel Peace Prize attempted to justify American military hegemony as the necessary precondition of global security and prosperity in the second half of the twentieth century. His conduct of the "war on terror" and, most distressing, his escalation of our involvement in Afghanistan's civil war is eerily reminiscent of the approach of his immediate predecessor.

This is not change of any kind, let alone of the kind that we can believe in.

Back to list


Deepak Bhargava

Executive Director, Center for Community Change

The healthcare bill is, for all its flaws, a momentous accomplishment. It is the first major expansion of the federal safety
net since the 1960s, and not only extends coverage to more than
30 million Americans but reverses the conservative string of successes in shrinking the role of government. In light of the economic crisis, President Obama had an easy excuse not to pursue a grand healthcare agenda. Indeed, reports are that some of his close advisers told him to play small ball; that he ignored their advice is a credit to his leadership. Though I wish the president had fought harder for key progressive priorities, holding him solely to account for the realities of the Senate (and a closely divided country) is to forget that he is a president, not a magician. Progressives and community organizers can be proud of the role we played. Had we not outmatched the tea-baggers in our advocacy, and pushed hard for the public option, we would have ended up with a thin gruel or perhaps nothing at all.

On the downside, the president has put together an economic team that has delivered for Wall Street but not for hurting communities. Their caution in light of the unfolding unemployment crisis has created the conditions for a right-wing populism that could be the undoing of a progressive agenda for a generation. Unless we force Washington to reverse course and pursue a bold full-employment agenda, the window for big change could close very quickly. The president's odd decision to demobilize his base in 2009 in favor of an insider approach to governance was a colossal mistake, and underlines the critical role for independent movements to create political space.

Back to list


Edith Childs

County Councilwoman, Greenwood, South Carolina

My greatest moment of excitement was when Obama was given the oath to be the president, not just the black president but the president. He's not just some people's president but president of all of us, commander-in-chief of all of us.

My low moment has been the stimulus. In South Carolina, the money did not get down as far as it should have gotten. We are thankful for what we did get, but it is not as much as
I thought we should have gotten. I was hoping we could have done better job-wise.

I still have not, will not, give up on him as president, because I know he came into a lot of challenges from the outset, and it's going to take him a while to correct much of what was there when he became president. I still believe that we're going to get through it. And it's not going to take him alone. It's going to take his staff, and the House and the Senate working with him, as well as people down on the state and local level. As I told President Obama during the campaign, we all be "Fired Up and Ready to Go." We're going to work together and do what we have to do to move forward. And that will be what will get us through this recession.

Back to list



STEVE BRODNER


Eduardo Galeano

Author

The highest points have been his incarnation of the fight against racism, still alive after the long battle for civil rights and his plan for healthcare reform.

The sharpest disappoints:

§ Guantánamo, a universal disgrace

§ Afghanistan, a poisoned chalice, accepted and celebrated

§ His raising of the war budget, still called, who knows why, the defense budget

§ His nonanswer to the climate and yes-man answer to Wall Street, a contradiction captured perfectly on a poster outside the Copenhagen conference: "If the climate were a bank, it would be saved"

§ His green light to the authors of the military coup
in Honduras, betraying Latin hopes for change after
a century and a half of US-fabricated coups against democracy in the name of democracy

§ His recent speeches praising war, hymns to the ongoing butcheries for oil or the sacred cause of racketeer governments, so utterly divorced from the lively words that put him where he now sits

I don't know. Perhaps Barack Obama is a prisoner. The most powerful prisoner in the world. And perhaps he cannot notice it. So many people are in jail.

Back to list


Krishnan Subrahmanian

Former Field Staff, Obama for America

As a medical student, I am most thrilled that health insurance reform is closer to being a reality now than at any point in generations. When the House announced that it had passed a bill, it was an emotional moment as I began to think of the many people on the campaign who told horror stories about their experience with health insurance. I thought of the young mother of two who, lacking health insurance, ignored a pestering stomachache until it presented as a ten-inch tumor. The end of discrimination against pre-existing conditions and the insidious process of rescission is nearly at hand. Reform would expand coverage to include 94 percent of Americans.

This reform is not perfect, and I am sure improvements can and will be made. Current proposals lack a public option, and I am skeptical that pilot programs and comparative effectiveness research alone
will yield necessary reductions in healthcare expenditures. Despite imperfections, the president and his team have kept the complicated and unglamorous topic of health insurance reform at the forefront of public discussion and made monumental reform a real possibility.

Disappointment struck me most at a moment that should have been joyful: the presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama in December, just days after he announced troop escalation in Afghanistan. This paradox highlights the great gulf between the idealism of politics and the reality of government. Just as we had unyielding faith in the campaign, I hope Obama is right on Afghanistan. I hope that 30,000 additional troops can ensure the safety and security of Afghans and Americans. I fear the consequences of his being wrong--for Afghans, for Americans and for our brave men and women in uniform.

I was saddened because the symbol of the peace prize represents for me unambiguous good without the burdens of being politically correct or viable. It is an award of ideals. The presidency is an office of problem solving and pragmatism. Watching great ideals settle into the compromise of legislation and governance is a sobering reminder that Obama is no longer a hopeful symbol for so many of us but someone with an incredibly difficult job before him.

Back to list


Howard Zinn

Historian

I' ve been searching hard for a highlight. The only thing that comes close is some of Obama's rhetoric; I don't see any kind of a highlight in his actions and policies.

As far as disappointments, I wasn't terribly disappointed because I didn't expect that much. I expected him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that's hardly any different from a Republican--as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike. So in that sense, there's no expectation and no disappointment. On domestic policy, traditionally Democratic presidents are more reformist, closer to the labor movement, more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people--and that's been true of Obama. But Democratic reforms have also been limited, cautious. Obama's no exception. On healthcare, for example, he starts out with a compromise, and when you start out with a compromise, you end with a compromise of a compromise, which is where we are now.

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

Back to list


Ellen Miller

Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation

The president has established a new, very high standard regarding the use of technology for greater government transparency. He set a high-water mark on his second day in office, and now his early pledge has been followed by the Open Government Directive. It represents a fundamental shift in government's role in making information public, reversing decades during which government held its information close and conducted its policy-making almost entirely behind closed doors. The directive orders each cabinet-level agency to create plans and protocols for the release of government data online in tech- and citizen-friendly formats. It also charges the agencies to begin making data sets available to the public within a short period of time. Already the administration has established data clearinghouses such as data.gov and recovery.gov and dramatically strengthened lobbyist disclosure of contacts with the executive branch. There are positive harbingers.

But the president hasn't invested himself personally in the fight. And it will take his involvement to truly turn the culture of secrecy around. If this unfolds, it has the potential to dramatically alter the way Americans interact with their government. It can break the chokehold that insiders have on Washington, as information is put directly into the hands of citizens.

The administration clearly understands that "public information" means that it's online. This can mean nothing else in the twenty-first century. Now it's our job to hold the administration to its promises.

Back to list


Benjamin Jealous

President, NAACP

Barack Obama came to Washington riding a wave of movement activity that had been building for many years. It culminated in his successful insurgent primary battles and presidential campaign. The power of that surge has carried our nation forward on many fronts, including: stemming massive job losses, increasing women's ability to ensure fair treatment in the workplace, rebuilding the Justice Department's ability to protect Americans' basic individual rights and setting the stage for what appears to be the imminent passage of major healthcare reform.

The greatest victory of Obama's first year, in other words, occurred months before it began. It happened when he decided to stitch together the dreams of many stripes of American idealists into one powerful force for change.

The greatest failure of his administration's first year rests
in the hands of all of us who are committed to manifesting
our nation's dream of liberty and justice for all. In too many instances in the past twelve months we have powered down, left the field for the bleachers and chosen to play armchair pundit rather than continue leading.

Like every great wave, the one that brought change to Washington must be regenerated or it ebbs. More important, our communities' and families' fortunes, which in so many instances were already in perilous condition, will ebb with it. Real change emerges from the collective power of a robust and inspired movement. 2010 must be the year we begin to fight at scale again.

Back to list


Robert Caro

Author

Instead of a high point or a low point, how about a too-early-to-tell point? This is where I think we are during the first year of a four- or eight-year presidency.

Back to list


Randi Weingarten

President, American Federation of Teachers

What stands out in the president's first year is his tremendous leadership on the economy. While there is still a long way to go, his actions helped put us on the right track. From the start, he recognized the need to act quickly to save and create jobs. That's why he worked with Congress to enact the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided an infusion of funds into state budgets, thereby helping states avert draconian cuts in education, law enforcement, healthcare and other critical services. Further, by investing ARRA funds in our schools, the president helped protect a generation of young Americans from the harmful effects of disastrous school-budget cuts.

I haven't agreed with every action of the administration this year; no doubt, even among allies there will always be disagreements on aspects of policy. Through it all, though, we'll continue to respect this president because of his stewardship of the economy, his tangible support for public education and the respect he has shown us--even when we disagree.

Back to list


Ilyse G. Hogue

Campaign Director, MoveOn.org

It's hard to separate 2009 from 2008, because MoveOn's staff and members never missed a beat after the election. Despite being exhausted, we--like millions of progressive Americans--recognized that the window for transformational change could be brief and that seizing this moment required redoubling our efforts. What amazes me most is the sense of individual and group claim that people had on this new government. Millions of those who turned 2008 into a referendum on our entire system of governance went on to demand accountability from bank CEOs and insurance industries. From directing outrage at bank CEOs to account for missing TARP funds to insisting that legislators address the grave need for real health reform instead of pandering to the insurance industry, the renewed sense that government must protect its citizens from corporate abuse and greed was visceral. And to a degree, it was successful in cutting through the political gamesmanship.

What disappoints is that all this collective effort simply has not been enough to overcome the unfettered corporate influence that has governed our country for so long, or to move our new president to reject incrementalism in favor of more bold progressive change. The systems that govern Washington politics are too deep-seated to be overturned by a single election or a single president--even one more inclined toward radical reform than this one. Despite the tidal wave of momentum demanding accountability and change, progress proves to be modest and gradual. While this frustrates, I am buoyed by the fact that, having tasted their ability to affect their individual circumstances, people haven't stopped fighting for what they believe is right. Our 5 million members are proof of that.

Back to list


James Carr

Chief Operating Officer, National Community Reinvestment Coalition

President Barack Obama's election promised a fundamental policy shift away from the interests of America's wealthiest toward the needs of working families and historically disenfranchised communities. In his first year, Obama successfully steered the nation away from a second Great Depression. But the pursuit of fundamental change has not yet lived up to the inspirational pre-election rhetoric. The administration's reluctance to tackle adequately the foreclosure crisis that claimed 2.8 million additional homes in 2009 and will likely claim millions more in 2010 is disappointing.

Worse, however, is the reluctance to address economic challenges directly that are facing the most vulnerable communities and acknowledge the indisputable connection between race, injustice and economic outcomes. African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and other people of color are experiencing foreclosures and unemployment at alarmingly disproportionate rates. Yet people of color will represent more than half of the US population within thirty-five years. Targeting economic resources to communities most in need is not only just and humane; it is critical to the future competitiveness of America. Many argue that expectations for the president are unrealistically high. But candidate Obama set the bar, and those expectations sealed his victory. The question remains, Will he rise to the challenge of this tumultuous economic time for America?

Back to list


Gara LaMarche

President, The Atlantic Philanthropies

The high points of the past year were not so much a moment as a steady series of them: seeing the country led by a gifted, progressive, eloquent, centered figure moving the ball forward each day on a range of huge, untended-to problems without allowing himself to be distracted too much by a virulent, nihilistic right or by elements of the left who seem not to have the stomach to fight their enemies for too long without turning fire on allies. The stimulus and coming healthcare bill represent massive advances for social welfare--something the right seems to understand better than we do, and we will pay a big price for that if we don't come to our senses and own our victories soon.

The disappointments have also been many. I don't believe many of us anticipated how fragile and fleeting the "transformational" moment might be, or how deeply sown the hostility to government would be, as a result of concentrated right-wing attacks over thirty years. Neither Hurricane Katrina or, it turns out, the financial meltdown, was enough to overcome it. Whatever the state of the "real" economy--which ought to be our primary focus, in human and political terms--the easing of the Wall Street crisis took the air out of the supposed Rooseveltian moment, and the president finds himself almost apologizing for each extension of government into a sick economy. If the president doesn't turn his considerable teaching talents toward making an overarching case for positive, strong, democratic government, and if progressives don't support and elevate that narrative, the next three years will be even tougher than the first.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Jan 27, 2010

Centrism Died in Massachusetts

BOCA RATON, FL - MAY 22:  Democratic president...Image by Getty Images via Daylife


The surprising results of last week's special Senate election in Massachusetts have exposed all manner of Beltway shortcomings, but none so forcefully as the terminal exhaustion of the professional pundit corps.

Consider the wretchedness of the advice presently coming in from all quarters of the Washington establishment. It might be summed up as follows: The Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's old seat was beaten by a Republican, Scott Brown. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this, apparently: that the public has gone decisively to the right. Ergo, so must the president. Barack Obama must capture the center, even if it means leaving his party behind. He must do as Bill Clinton did. When faced with opposition, capitulate! When that opposition grows, cave faster!

The president needs to pick a fight with members of his own party in Congress, the Sunday talk show sinecurists have murmured. That will surely help matters. He must embrace a sort of transcendent bipartisanship, suggests Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post. He needs to learn, like the New York Times's David Brooks believes our ancestors did, to "tolerate the excesses of traders" because that's the only way to have "vigorous financial markets." Thomas Friedman, a man as consistent as he is banal, opines that the way to turn things around is by . . . embracing entrepreneurship.

The awkward thing is, President Obama has already spent a year following this traditional script. He has repeatedly let down his party's base. His all-important economic team is filled with protégés of Robert Rubin, the centrist hero of the Clinton years—whose image should be irreparably tarnished thanks to his role in bank deregulation, that great centrist endeavor of the '90s.

But not only is this advice wrong, its premises are, too.

Here is an actual bit of data from the Massachusetts debacle. The AFL-CIO conducted a poll in the state and, according to the union's pollsters, it revealed that the election "was a working-class revolt" driven by a "huge swing among non-college voters," who went for President Obama in 2008 and for Mr. Brown this time around.

Here is a second data point: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, together with two other liberal groups, did a poll of Massachusetts voters who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and then for Mr. Brown last week. Health-care reform was, as everyone knows, the most important issue in the Massachusetts race, and yet if this poll is to be believed, an incredible 82% of these swing voters favor the late "public option," a bête noir of the centrist punditry. Even if the poll is off by a few points, that number is shocking.

A third bit of data: A nonpartisan national poll of 800 voters who closely follow politics by Clarus Research Group in December found the Obama administration's most prominent centrists—its economic team of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner—to be its only members whose "disapproval" numbers were higher than their "approval" ratings.

And yet what our genius centrists are calling for, in effect, is to hand over even more authority to these least popular and least successful elements of the Obama administration. They are basically telling Mr. Obama that the way to court alienated blue-collar voters is by extolling entrepreneurship and toning down the administration's occasional anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It is like suggesting someone kick smoking by going from one pack a day to two.

I have my own suggestion for Mr. Obama as he prepares for his State of the Union address: Instead of knifing your allies, try fighting for the principles of your party. It's true, that's not what Mr. Clinton did. But it's what Franklin Roosevelt did, and Harry Truman, and John Kennedy—and it worked for them. In those days, "working-class revolts" helped Democrats, not Republicans.

Last year's dream of bipartisanship was an attractive one, but it should be clear to you by now that you will never win over the GOP. As you gaze over their contemptuous faces tonight, wondering what clever insults they will spontaneously blurt as you pause to take a breath, try to remember that, for the most part, they are not your friends; that many of them took the financial crisis as a signal to dedicate themselves even more wholeheartedly to the laissez-faire superstition. You cannot appease these zealots. No one can.

What you need to do now is pick a fight, preferably one that forces the obstructionists of the right to take the side of privilege. You need a battle that will expose their populism and their protest for the pretenses they are. Your target is obvious: the financial industry, from Wall Street to the credit card companies. Yes, taking them on will cost you campaign contributions for 2012, but take Wall Street down a few pegs and Americans might start to remember what it was their grandparents loved about Democrats all those years ago.

Write to thomas@wsj.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]