In Obama’s squandered hope Frank Thomas criticizes President Obama for being too conciliatory — for imagining that the main problem facing the nation was an excess of partisanship and that by reaching out to Republicans he (Obama) could transcend the divisions of the Bush years and, together with Republicans, solve the problems facing the nation.
Could Obama have been that naive? Did Obama really have delusions of grandeur concerning his ability to transcend partisanship? Did he imagine that he could convince the Repugs to cooperate with him? Or is he just pretending to care about bipartisanship so that he can plausibly blame Republicans for the outcome?
Sad to say, but a more plausible explanation is the one Glen Ford proffered in Psycho-Babbling Obama: “Rather than face the fact that Obama is not a friend of the people, leftish commentators insist on conducting a psychological analysis of the president.”
People say Obama believes in reaching out across the aisle. Since Obama can’t be that stupid, I sadly have to agree with Ford: he’s not a friend of the People.
At the end of his Harper’s article “Compromising Positions,” Frank Thomas admits as much: “Maybe a second New Deal is precisely what Obama was here to prevent. Maybe that was the hope all along.” In that article, Thomas summarizes all the ways in which Obama compromised repeatedly and got nothing in return except accusations that he is a Socialist. Despite the most egregious give-aways, Republican House members still repeatedly voted unanimously against his bills. Just as Karl Rove attacked Kerry’s strong point — his military record — with Swift Boat lies, the current crop of Republicons are accusing Obama of being an extremist Socialist, even when most of his policies are straight from the Heritage Foundation. Thomas says, “What Barack Obama has saved is a bankrupt elite that by all rights should have met its end back in 2009.”
Yes, Romney and Ryan are way worse. But the truth needs to be faced: Obama has been a disaster.
The situation is grim indeed.