Legal Commentary

Better Than Reagan

By Big Tent Democrat

In reading tristero's post about his complex feelings about the Obama Presidency, I tried to think of a way to capture the inability of some to rationally consider Obama. Tristero writes:

My friends think Obama is doing a good to excellent job. Sure they don't like this decision, or that cave-in, but on the whole, they think highly of him. [. . . T]he conversation takes its usual course, with my friends excusing Obama and leaping to his defense, and me piling up the things he has done inexcusably wrong [. . .] Which made it all the more startling to me when I found myself on the opposite side the other day. A smart, highly knowledgeable, highly accomplished friend lit into Obama and pulled no punches. [. . .] I couldn't help but disagree but I don't understand exactly why. [. . .] I felt that the very real, very obvious distinctions between Obama and Bush were being minimized.

(Emphasis supplied.) In light of the "better than Bush" argument tristero highlights, I want to try it this way. Consider Bill Clinton. To a progressive, Bill Clinton should not have been a satisfying President. And yet, he was much better than Reagan. But I would not spend a minute defending Clinton by arguing that he was much better than Reagan. More . .

What's the point of wasting any time "understanding the difficulties" of either Presidents Clinton or Obama? Say what you think about the policies they enacted.

You hated NAFTA, then say so. You hated welfare reform, then say so. You dislike offshore drilling, then say so. You dislike Obama's stances on the state secrets privilege, FISA, Afghanistan, then say so. I too am guilty of finding "context," for good or ill. Too much talk of "triangulation," not enough about the policy. I think we all need to concentrate on the issues. And forget the punditry for a while.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 02, 2010 (boomark / email).