Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Robert Kuttner: Liberal criticism of Obama is out of tough-love

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:03 PM
Original message
Robert Kuttner: Liberal criticism of Obama is out of tough-love

Liberal criticism of Obama is out of tough-love

By Robert Kuttner

Politics is the art of the possible, but also the art of leadership. President Roosevelt’s Democratic Party gained seats in Congress in 1934, the first mid-term election after Roosevelt took office, despite unemployment exceeding 15 percent. Ordinary Americans knew Roosevelt was on their side.

And rather than seeking illusory common ground with Republicans or with Wall Street, Roosevelt was eloquent in naming and shaming his opposition.

<...>

Why isn’t Obama behaving more like Harry Truman in 1948? Truman pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history, winning his own election and flipping 75 House seats from Republican to Democrat.

Even though Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1948, were certain to block his program, Truman sent Congress the legislation he wanted and dared Republicans to vote it down — rather than starting with half a loaf, ending with crumbs, and blurring differences.

more

When it comes to President Obama, people sure love to rewrite history.

Social Security was not the perfect bill, and it had the support of 16 Republicans.

The FDIC was established as a temporary agency with few powers.

  • Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
    Also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

  • Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
    Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.

  • Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-797, 64 STAT. 873).
    Revised and consolidated earlier FDIC legislation into one Act. Embodied the basic authority for the operation of the FDIC.

  • Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133).
    Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company. Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.
link


FDR evolved.

The U.S. Deposit Insurance System

The first national deposit insurance system in the world was the FDIC. It was created in 1933 during the Great Depression to restore public confidence in the U.S. financial system and to protect small depositors. At the time of its creation, the U.S. was in the midst of the largest financial crisis in its history. During the first few months of 1933, 4,000 U.S. banks suspended operations. Bank runs had become commonplace and President Roosevelt was forced to impose a national banking holiday. The issue of the moment was how to restore confidence in the banking system.

When the FDIC was created, there was no national system of deposit insurance in the world. President Roosevelt actually opposed its creation, even threatened to veto the legislation that was to create the FDIC. He was concerned about the moral hazard that can occur when protection extended to depositors makes them less diligent in the selection and monitoring of their banks, and makes banks less careful in their lending practices. Banking industry groups also opposed the FDIC's creation because they were concerned about the premiums their members might have to pay.

But the American public demanded a system of deposit insurance that would provide a safe place for people to put their money. The public had experienced widespread bank runs and did not want to have that experience again. Broad public support overcame the obstacles to the creation of the FDIC.

Without a doubt, the FDIC helped restore public confidence in the U.S. financial system. In 1934, the year after the FDIC was created, only nine banks failed compared to 4,000 bank closures during the nine months prior to its creation. Deposit insurance effectively ended bank runs in the U.S. The FDIC is widely viewed as one of the most successful legacies of that era, and remains highly relevant to the challenges facing the U.S. financial system today.

link


In 1948, Truman was up for re-election, it was not a mid-term.



link

Also, fighting losing battles only leads to bitter disappointments.

<...>

By mid-1951 the AMA was openly claiming victory, and President Truman acknowledged as much when he omitted the proposal from his 1952 state of the Union message. Instead, he announced the establishment of a Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation to study the problem. In the presidential election that year, the Democratic candidate, Adlai E. Stevenson (who replaced the retiring President as the party's standard bearer, skirted the issue of Government health insurance. On the other hand, the winner, Dwight D. Eisenhower, voiced strong opposition to the proposal, ensuring that the new administration would not soon revive it.

In sum, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill was the victim of a cautious Congress, massive resistance by a prestigious and vitally affected interest group, sympathy for the AMA's position from an imposing array of nonmedical groups, a lack of wholehearted support from some of the key proponents, considerable antipathy from the press, the rapid growth of private insurance, and, finally, of a hostile political climate. (12)

Years later, President Truman wrote: "I have had some bitter disappointments as President, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat the organized opposition to a National compulsory health insurance program. But this opposition has only delayed and cannot stop the adoption of an indispensable Federal health insurance plan."

link


President Obama will have no such regret on health care reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. No he won't
because the insurance bailout he calls "reform" is exactly what he wanted.

Truman had visions of a national plan that actually gave Americans access to care - not just mandated premiums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "because the insurance bailout he calls "reform" is exactly what he wanted."
I'm sure there were people who were mischaracterizing Truman's plan in his day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. I wish everybody would calm the hell down & admit that both sides can be both a
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 10:51 PM by Pirate Smile
little right & a little wrong and just move on from their little grudge matches concerned with being right.

Yes - alot of what Gibbs said was essentially true but saying it (& how he said it) to a Reporter is not necessarily the best move right now and it failed to acknowledge some of the valid disappointments & explain why the WH thought the compromises were necessary.

Yes - a lot of the criticism is perfectly justified & valid but there is also a lot that is overly nasty, always ascribes the worst motives to everything the White House does and seems mainly aimed at being counter-productive. A little perspective applied to the enormity of the challenges, successes won and the reality of the legislative process would be helpful.

PS This rant isn't aimed at you, it is just where I was when I decided to wrie it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The problem is that too many people gave up on the President
prematurely and have been trying to write the narrative to justify their gloomy predictions.

How the hell can someone write such a book, published in April, just a little over a year into the President's first term?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I agree with you. There is a group on the left who seem to be practically rooting
for failure & wallow in any setback. Certainly not most critics but a noisy and prolific bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. And facts don't matter anymore
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 11:36 PM by ProSense
CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented



Same with the Presidential rankings that recently came out. Where is the peril? President Obama doing as well as or better than many of his predecessors at this point despite having inherited one of the worst economic crises in six decades and two wars.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. No other comments? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
9. Whenever they include the word "love", they lose me. They don't love him and never did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. If anyone
gave up on the President last year, it's safe to say they're not going to be satisfied with anything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
11. Indeed he won't. He did the right thing, and will be on the right side of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC