Absentee Dad
Keuth Koffler is a White House correspondent who maintains a blog called White House Dossier. This generally even-temperered conservative nonetheless provides ample red meat for sedentary Che Guevara’s like myself, and I comment on his posts often. I thought his most recent editorial deserved some deconstruction.
Keith leads off by taking the temperature of the zeitgeist, and–no surprise–discovers that America is in an unprecedented spiral into the abyss:
“There is a sickness gripping America, an systemic illness that threatens President Obama more than any particular problem. Because the problems are but symptoms of the illness. Two of the symptoms appeared just in the last few hours: the downgrade of U.S. debt, and the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special forces. The downgrade is not just an economic blow; it’s a disgrace. (…) The illness, perceived by a country that overwhelmingly says things are on the wrong track, is such: This country is out of control, and the president is either incompetent or unwilling to lead it. Other symptoms abound: the abnegation of the U.S. leadership in the world, the rise of China to take our place, the failure to deal with a gnat like Qaddafi, the high price of gasoline, the millions of jobless American. The president has both created the illness and failed to cure it(…)”
Koffler’s sentiments could have been written by anyone at anytime during a period of economic malaise, and revisionist history (encapsulated in the last sentence quoted above) always trots at the heels of those who have just woken up to long-term trends. The skyrocketing price of gasoline , the ascension of China as a first-world economy and two fruitless wars are not new crises at all. They erupted into full bloom under George W. Bush. But dealing with these facts sanely would require that the Republican’s be willing to address publicly the emptiness of their own promises over the past decade. If this reconciliation to facts were paired with the anxiety of a largely deflated Democratic base, the resultant honesty could pave the way for a serious reconstitution of our leadership class.
Instead, the conservatives, their faces covered in crusted egg, have chosen the other route: The Tea Party, a rigid (and we see now see largely catastrophe-bent) resurgent right wing, which seeks to do in one congressional term what the Republicans have pledged and failed to do since Reagan: shrink government to the point of being able to “drown it in a bathtub”. But the Tea Party is both the product and victim of our times. Spurred by a rapid growth in spending. they have arrived too late for their dogma of a taxless Utopia to undo the damage that their own forebears have wrought.
Not that Obama has managed to distinguish himself as the man of the hour that the times cry out for, but considering the hog waller he inherited he could be doing worse. And yet the conservatives have employed pure schizophrenia against Obama from the moment that John Roberts fucked up his swearing-in. They demand leadership but put a shotgun to his balls from the moment he wakes up in the morning. How can a president lead a country where half the population questions his very citizenship? Meanwhile, seasoned Republicans cannot figure out whether to burn the president in effigy or seek asylum in Saudi Arabia. John Boehner has proven his impotence at wrangling the Uruk Hai of his upstart House, while even low simmer Republicans like Mitch McConnell are pleased to tell the nation that Congress’ agenda is not governance, but making Barack Obama a one-term president. Is anyone surprised, then, that the mood of the public is like one of children waiting for Mommy and Daddy to announce their divorce?
Koffler, again revealing his deliberate ignorance of recent history, continues to lay at Obama’s feet the sins for which Republicans past and present were  co-signers:
“(Obama) is a leader who has never led anything larger than a Senate office, and he is a liberal ideologue. The credit downgrade is the direct result of the president’s failure to get a handle on the cascading U.S. debt, a potentially existential threat to the nation. (…) His ideology trumped any sense of responsible management of the country. Similarly the war in Afghanistan. Presented by the military with the options of increasing troops by 80,000 to get the job done or 40,000 to maybe get the job done, he took 35,000. And just as even this limited number was starting to have some success, he began withdrawing them. If the job is not going to get done, it would have been better to take the option that had been offered by Vice President Biden – ignominious defeat, with the withdrawal of most troops while trying to keep the pressure on al Qaeda.”
I don’t know which is more delusional: the notion that our recent credit downgrade is the result of anything less than the game of Russian Roulette that the Republicans just played with our credit score in order to preserve unsustainable tax rates or the idea that there is a magic troop level  for Afghanistan that will get anything “done” except prolong a war where we have nothing —nothing— at stake. Al-Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the American public simply doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Taliban. If this war could have been won– a term that even the army fighting it concedes has no meaning– it would have been won years ago. But conservatives, who think that there is still some prestige to be had by grinding down the poorest nation on the planet, just cannot let this one go.
Koffler’s rose-colored cynicism puts me in mind of a quote from George Orwell:
“Power worship blurs political judgement because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. (…) This habit of mind leads also to the belief that things will happen more quickly, completely, and catastrophically than they ever do in practice.”
But what “power” are conservatives idolizing? Surely not Obama, who they hate out of all proportion. Instead they bend the knee to today’s rough circumstances, because today is all they know. They cannot look backwards and see what has brought us here lest they see George W. Bush occluding Ronald Reagan. They cannot stare the facts of geo-capitalism in the eye to discover that free trade has given China the advantages that they are now exploiting with gusto. They hate the wars they loved only one election cycle earlier and do not know why we can’t just push a button and “get ‘er done”. Far from being exuberant patriots, today’s conservatives are extremely pessimistic, and it is their own rancor which feeds this outlook. This is masturbation at it’s most vicious.
The conservatives have chosen the path of bitterness, acrimony and power politics for their own sake. This is why they can’t see the prospect of China burning itself out as their economic growth wanes more rapidly then ours by dint of their enormous and now restive population.  They cannot anticipate the benefit to our economy  of calling it quits in the wars that America has, at heart, abandoned years ago. They see the end of our shuttle program, and don’t feel a swell of pride at all for a nation that just launched a probe to Jupiter, and will soon put another rover on Mars.
Ironically, what Koffler’s editorial reveals is the same fact disclosed by all that Reagan-humping the conservatives are fond of. They dislike Obama because he will not play the daddy. Conservatives are exactly the opposite of the macho, self-reliant John Galt’s they ooze over. They are traditionalists, and that means hearth and home and the strong embrace of a powerful father figure. That is what they want out of a president, not some mellow accommodator.
And Obama likes being a father! It is his strength. He even wrote a gushing children’s book dedicated to his daughters. But that (if I may wildly extend my analogy), is the problem. He is the father of daughters. The conservatives are little boys, and they have been breaking a lot of lamps lately.
It is time for Barack Huessein Obama to bring a little of that Hussein to the forefront. Give the conservatives the no-bullshit attitude they secretly crave. And that would begin by having them hike down their britches and brace for an ass-tanning. They just lost us our Triple-A credit score, and that is going to cost America plenty. If Obama is smart, he’ll let the Republican’s know that their father just came home, and he’s got booze on his breath.
While it is fault of both the Republicans and the Democrats that we just had our debt downgraded, it wasn’t because of the budget debacle. It was because of our spend spend spend mentality. We’ve been under threat of downgrade for a long time; even if this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, it was only a straw. The real problem is our insanely out of control spending that we cannot seem to stop, combined with our ridiculous interest rates that keep expanding our money supply without corresponding increases of production to increase the value of our industry.
It’s not Obama…it’s congress, and it’s not just this congress, but all of ’em since right about the time of Nixon (or maybe right before).
-Bartleby
I’m willing to supply the booze to put on daddy’s breath. Where do we send our bottles? 🙂
Captcha seems to think he has a stogie in his mouth, too: tobacco ctatichi
The foundation of lending, in boiled-down and basic economic terms, is saving. Without savings, all a lender has to offer is his weight in the community, often this is related to authority granted by the state.
In the case of the U.S., the Federal Reserve as “lender of last resort,” has lent money based almost exclusively on the might of the U.S. government and its military. It’s a reciprocal parasitism, because in order to increase its might, the U.S. government must borrow from the Fed to continue to increase the size and scope of its military and government.
To militarize the nation and not raise too many eyebrows, the U.S. has needed a bogeyman, whether Hitler and the Japanese, Stalin, “communism,” China, the “axis of evil,” or plain ol’ “turrur-ism” in order to keep the masses sufficiently afraid, asking for more “security.” The government uses a variety of methods, like hyper-inflating the threat, false flag operations, luring potential foes into “going for their guns first” the way a villain in a Leone western would, political opportunism, and even straight lying, and the objective is always the same, more money for more “defense” spending.
But most of the world isn’t nearly as afraid of the U.S. as it once was (by contrast, most people in the U.S. are _literally_ xenophobic), nor does it believe in the America’s justness. Internally, reckless lending practices hyper-inflated the housing market, the technology market, the automobile market, the stock market and countless others which have now almost all gone bust. So, there is no illusory domestic “wealth,” there is little global appreciation of U.S. hegemony. What remains is a military far too large, a bloated war budget, hundreds of unwelcome bases around the world and a vocal and violent group of individuals who have stated loudly and clearly, “Yankee, go home.”
The American response? Conservatives yell at liberals; liberals yell at conservatives. Fingers are pointed back and forth like a game of political rock-paper-scissors. Both want to increase the authority of the central state; both want to increase spending; both want to borrow not just against the next generation, but against that generation’s great grandchildren.
The answer, in my opinion: dissolve this unholy American union amicably. The “Civil War” of the 1860’s wasn’t noble on either side, it was the geopolitical version of Sid & Nancy. Had things split up, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the trouble we are today.
Barring that, perhaps expatriation might work. I hope I still have the chance in a few years.
If you believe that the downgrade in our credit score is the fault of conservatives (conservatives that are actually conservative that is-pretty much the antithesis of Bush), then there’s really no need to try to convince you otherwise. The mainstream media is such obvious propaganda, that if you can’t see through them, you’ll be really impressed with the Emperor’s new clothes. A lot of people turned to the Democrat party after the policies of Bush, and didn’t bother to notice that they turned from a Liberal Republican to an ultra liberal democrat. As for conservatives, we really don’t know how they’d run the government. The four or five of them in DC haven’t really been given a chance in the mainstream or alternative media. I guess it really boils down to an honest man is loathe to do what it takes to win in this country.
It sounds all well and good to say that Obama should get out there with a can of whoop-tushy – but alas, things are (for now) still run on people sitting down together and attempting to talk to each other without resorting to physical violence.
So what, exactly, do you expect him to do, Mr. JY?
Jorpho-
As I stated, I’d make the credit downgrade a top priority issue. Let the country know that this is what happens when you let the right wing steer the car. Of course, he has himself to blame for letting them out fox him, but it is never too late to change tactics.
Having listened to as much conversation on the economy as I have, the consensus among the pros is that this depression is going to be longer than anyone thought, and that means the government is going to have to do more stimulus. The problem is that this is exactly the opposite of what the Republicans want. Obama is going to have to make his case and go on the attack with it. Get nasty and win the public back. He cannot be a conciliator any longer, but he will also have to be fully honest about the long-term budget cutting that cannot be resisted any longer. Like it or not, that has to be dealt with as well. the conservatives are not ENTIRELY wrong, and that has to be the case he makes to win the public back to his side. “I am being honest with you about entitlement reform (jab jab) but from now on, the rich are going to take it on the chin too (UPPERCUT).”
The American people want tough honesty. They will accept cuts in entitlements IF the rich are forced to swallow there share, and reminding the lower 98% of the populace that they are not going to have their taxes raised is key. The message has to be “the rich have taken more welfare from the government than any of you, and now we are cutting their entitlements.”
I would like to thank Captcha for These Verves.
And then the “liberal” media will start up the Scary Black Man/”Thugocracy” narrative…
Howdy JY,
Been a while since you wrote something in your blog that I felt the need to comment on. I love that the old “blame it on Bush” stand by that the libs swear by is still the only real arguement that anyone of them can dream up. Yes lets blame t$14his downgrade on a president who was in power when we still had a AAA rating, gas was $1.70 a gal, and we were only $1 trillion in debt. Not the guy who has us at a AA+ rating, gas at $3.37 a gal, and $14 trillion in debt. Blaming Bush for our current economic crisis is like blaming a dog for you stepping in his shit.
Come for the clever and extremely entertaining comic. Stay for the well thought, provoking, commentary.
See? There are very good reasons I eagerly await updates at Deep Fried every week!
JY: Thanks Chuck!
I recall $1.70 gasoline prices. I also recall gas rising to about $4 a gallon near the end of the George W. Bush administration, just before the economy tanked.
Government, both GOP and Democrat, created the problem. It ain’t the solution.
Venom-
That you (allegedly) read my editorial and still boil it down to “blame Bush-ism” just discloses how unconscious people can be about the blinders they wear.
This cuts both ways, of course, but look at the lengths you will go to to paint a rosie picture of the last president and his work: “”Our rating was Triple-A! Gas was cheaper than water! Our debt was only $1 trillion!!
These are only random measures of economic health, and taken alone mean nothing. Also, two out of the three are totally false. The debt was roughly $6 trillion when Bush entered office and had grown to nearly $11 trillion when he left, and gas might have been cheap in Saudi Arabia, but the national average for gasoline was over two dollars per gallon for most of Bush’s tenure and was hovering near $4.00 when he departed.
The problem, as I pointed out, is an unwillingness to see the real failures of ideology. Bush’s economic strategy was pure trickle down, and it failed completely. This isn’t partisanship, it’s just fact. The conservative theory of growth is that you keep taxes low, deregulate the free market and watch prosperity blossom. It is one-size fits all. But the economy was in the shitter by the time Bush left, owing completely to deregulation and trusting Wall Street (Clinton is owed some blame for this, for repealing Glass-Steagll). Government revenues were down sharply due to the tax cuts, and unemployment was up sharply. Predatory credit card and mortgages had put a bullet in the gut of the Middle Class, and the real consequences of low wages continued to be masked by cheap goods made in China and sold through big box chains, creating an illusion of prosperity that was just waiting to burst.
If you don’t want me to blame Bush, who would you blame? I’m happy to spread the blame, but one thing is for certain: Bush sure as hell didn’t IMPROVE our nation.
As for you, Mister H., you are correct that our two parties aren’t “the answer”. But government IS the solution, when people are willing to stop treating government like some tyranny from outer space and remember that in a democracy, we are responsible for who serves us in Washington. Our leaders have served the interests we have told them to, so the answer is putting a fair share of the blame on us, on our own priorities, which our leaders have been obedient to.
In other words, are you really willing to take a good look at what you have expected out of your representatives and own up to how irresponsible YOU have been?
When we vote in 2012, we will need to educate ourselves as we never have before, listen to the arguments of our enemies, and make a really calculated decision about what the answers to our problems are. Let me give you a clue: the right choice will be the hard one.
Tackyoup Marsh for Congress!
@JY
I don’t vote, and have never voted, because I’m not going to give my consent to a system that’s been broken from the start. Therefore, I don’t share the blame for any of the problems because I am not part of the system of violence that government is and has always been.
From where does a government derive its authority, ultimately? The answer is that the state’s authority derives from its monopoly on the use of aggression.
Want to smoke pot? The government’s DEA can arrest you. Is your house where the state plans to build a highway? The government’s sheriff’s department evicts you from your home. Would you like to pay for sex in cash rather than the insistent nagging and giving up half your home of state-sponsored marriage? Government police will throw you in a government jail. In any of these situations, if you resist strongly enough, it will cost you your life. Governments are coercion; governments are violence; governments are force. Governments are no more voluntarily obeyed than the Mafia; you are either in or out, and if you are out, you will be dealt with through the use of force.
Further, and to be clear, governments ARE the problem; they are NEVER the solution. Name one case in history where governments have provided a solution where more problems did not result.
There exists not a single one.
Monsieur H-
When you drink the tap water from the public water utility, or call the local fire department when your carbon monoxide detector goes off, you are consenting to government. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is a wet dream. Yes, there is the possibility of a smaller state, but you will not achieve it by holding your breath until you turn blue.
If you would like to live in a country free from government and its intrusions, Somalia beckons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM&feature=share
Monsieur H-
There’s a place where you can go that is all the things you want. No government, no annoying law enforcement, just pure, unadulterated human freedom.
…it’s known as Somalia, and is one of the worst hellholes on the planet. Have fun!
Somalia is NOT lacking in government. It simply has lots of tyrannical local governments. Unadulterated freedom? Try using that argument when you offend the local warlord (it’ll fail, I promise).
I’m curious if your outrage on this subject extends to the Democrats in California who have blocked the budget there on MORE than one occasion and have done so for reasons ONLY of politics. They were actually caught saying so in a strategy meeting because someone left the PA microphone on so the ENTIRE capitol building got to hear them say, “Look, we can just block the budget…the Republicans will get blamed for it anyway. They do every time we block it, so it’s a freebie.” (paraphrased)
I personally don’t think we need more stimulus. With more than $100T in unfunded liabilities (not just debt, but liabilities), our economic model is completely unsustainable. When I’ve mentioned my broader concerns to one of my teachers (PhD in finance) and one of my friends (PhD in economics), the teacher agreed with the assessment that we should’ve let it crash and burn when the mortgage crisis hit and my friend said that he’s wishy-washy as to whether or not we should let the dollar crash and burn if the Euro fails (and it’s looking very much like it will).
The longer we wait, the worse it’ll get when it comes time to pay the piper.
You think we need more stimulus? How much is enough? We’re strangling on debt and your solution is to add to it? I say we take the opportunity of our already reduced economy to get over our over-reliance upon debt, and if the euro collapses, then we allow the dollar to tank with it. A possible solution is to go to a short period of significant over-inflation…some of our debt that we’ve sold to China is inflation indexed, but the VAST majority of it is not, so we’d get out from the majority of the mountain if we did so. Also, our export products would immediately become cheaper so it would help with our trade deficit.
There would be other problems – our jewelry industry would tank. So would precious stones. Gold would skyrocket. Our debt issuances would have HUGE interest rates and few would buy them unless they were inflation indexed, but overall, this is not a pit we can climb out of, and spending money to do it doesn’t help…it simply digs the pit deeper.
@JY
Okay I’ll admit Bush’s admin wasn’t the bed of roses I painted. I’ll admit to being wrong, but I will NEVER say that Obama is better because he isn’t. I’ll admit Bush didn’t have things in the best shape when he left office but he also didn’t subscribe to the “here we are in a hole. what do we do? Why we dig it deeper, of course!” theory. Bush, by far, not the smartest man in the room but Obama isn’t even the smartest man in the building. I actually can’t believe what I’m about to type, but Hillary would have been a better choice than this chucklehead (which by the way I mean no offense to Chuck. My comics love is separate from my politics.) Everything he has done has spent more money than it has generated. And FYI, I do read your articles. Do not assume that I do not just because I disagree with you, sir. I’ve met youy and you seem a good fellow.
Although I find the premise of an authority free paradise as desireable as the next guy, and feel strongly that a more anarchical (in the classic sense) way of life is attainable, there is simply no getting away from government of one type or another. It is simply in our nature to create societies with some form of hierarchy. That the hierarchy can be rotated in and out is the dream (largely realized) of democracy, but as long as you intend to live in a society with laws, you will need a structure to preserve it, and that is government.
As for California, Bartleby, I have no comment. I simply don’t know anything about it. What you described sounds like politics on any day of the week.
I can’t agree that a “crash and burn” policy would have done anyone any good, although your friends’ opinions echo those of my cousin, who works at the Fed, and who reports that there was a morbid curiosity amongst younger Fed employees to leave the debt ceiling where it was and see what fell out. This seems to argue for the idea that, having exhausted science, economists are now willing to resort to voodoo to turn the economy around.
Finally, we’re not actually “strangling” on debt. There is a tendency to conflate the overall issue of the post-meltdown economy and joblessness as being directly tied to the debt/deficit issue. There is some crossover, but the debt is not what is hurting the economy right now. Remember: the purpose of stimulus is to let the government do the spending that the public isn’t, thereby increasing production of goods for things like infrastructure projects, and get the economic cycle turning again. Most people now think that the stimulus was A) too small to begin with, given the scope of the problem, and B) was not spent the way it was supposed to have been by the states, who did not create significant new infrastructure with it.
This does not suggest that Obama was snookered, but it does mean that Republican short-sightedness and Obama’s poor implementation of the stimulus may have worked together to screw us all. Whether more stimulus, using lessons learned, is the answer I cannot say.
To be fair though: MR H does have a point. Not in that governments are all bad. But in his definition of a government as a monopolyholder of violence. It’s sort of a might makes right situation. And conversely JY, you’re also right in the need for heirarchy.
The scenario Bartleby’s describing seems pretty accurate for most career politicians. To which I say: why can’t they just overlook their political disagreements and do what’s best for the people?
Why can’t we all just get along?
When I say we’re strangling on debt, I’m actually referring to our total of unfunded liabilities. Right now, our unfunded liabilities exceed our GDP more than seven times over. The GDP of the USA is around $14,800,000,000,000.00 per year. Our unfunded liabilities are over $115,133,000,000,000.00. Those numbers are in _trillions_ folks. Assuming that our liabilities require only a payment of 5% of the total per year, we’re still looking at annual payments of $5,756,650,000,000 or ~39% of our GDP. That’s not 39% of our tax base, but 39% of our GDP just to *service* the liabilities.
Yeah, no way this is sustainable.
Everyone who suggests the downgrade of US securities was because “we don’t have control of our debt” and that is the fault of Democrats, please read what Standard & Poor actually said about their decision: that it was predicated on the clear unwillingness to consider RAISING REVENUE in order to pay the debts so long as the current crop of Tea Party maniacs has any kind of leverage. We could cut everything but if we don’t increase revenue to pay our debts, what good will our securities be?
Even so, we need to ask who S&P really are to be downgrading our debt. After all, they handed out AAA ratings to junk mortgage securities like candy until the bubble popped and we dumped some unknown amount–between $1 trillion and $15 trillion–into “too big to fail” banks under Bush. They deregulated derivatives and neutered regulatory agencies that remained, and then seem shocked that banks would take winnings and leave the taxpayers to bail them out? Right. The Republican model is to run things into the ground and hide the true scale of what’s wrong, and then tar the Democrat with it as soon as they realize there’s an actual problem. If we cut loose the elderly, the poor, and the sick in our society, we will lose what stability we have as those people bankrupt their families and shift unpaid debt to those who aren’t yet bankrupt. All the while, the rich get richer. We’re becoming Argentina or Ghana, slowly but surely.
Bartleby: It’s only unsustainable if we don’t address the rising costs of those liabilities–the biggest being the broken system of medical cost-shifting and profit-taking. If we reduce the liabilities’ extents, we end up with the most vulnerable in our society thrown out on to the streets in the wealthiest country on Earth. The problem isn’t what we’ve offered to our citizens, it’s our inability to cut out the graft and profiteering that inflates the numbers. Austerity just shrinks the economy further; look at Germany, which raised taxes and cut nothing, and now their economy is the only thing holding the Eurozone together at this point.
Just addressing our social security liability and assuming ZERO dollars in medicare liabilities, we’re well over 100% of our current GDP in unfunded liabilities. If one cuts our medical liabilities in half, we’re still going to be paying over 20% of our GDP just servicing the debt. It’s STILL unsustainable.