Obama's Deal with the Devil

Watch What Obama Does, Not What He Says

May 7, 2010

Real Clear Politics - President Barack Obama has returned to a theme he used effectively during the 2008 campaign: Politics is too divisive; name-calling isn't helpful; labeling people doesn't solve problems.

In his address to University of Michigan graduates Saturday, Obama said:

"We've got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story - which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make the most outrageous comments."

All true. In our 2008 book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America," Democrat Bob Beckel and I say the same thing. The difference is we -- in appearances and in our USA Today column -- actually try to find solutions to problems.

Part of the reason for the intense dislike of this president by some on the right is their belief that he used a longing among the public for civil discourse to get elected, but then abandoned that laudable goal in pursuit of arguably the most radical left agenda in U.S. history.

The words of the late John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's disgraced attorney general, seem appropriate. In the midst of the Watergate scandal, Mitchell advised the press:

"Watch what we do, not what we say."

The same standard should be applied to the Obama team. The president talks a great game about civility, the corrosive language of politics, and the self-absorbed media that promotes conflict. But Obama's policies, behavior and the people in his administration suggest he isn't serious. Many in his administration are radical leftists.

Don't take my word. Perform a Google search by typing "Obama's radical czars." Read their backgrounds. Van Jones, Obama's former "green czar," was an admitted communist. Mark Lloyd, the president's "diversity czar" at the Federal Communications Commission, admires Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez.

One of the president's earliest political mentors was the late Frank Marshall Davis. Is it uncivil to point that out and to ask what influence Davis' activism has on the president's policies?

If this president were really committed to easing the tension and poisoned rhetoric in our politics, he could start by fulfilling a promise to reduce the number of abortions in America. He has said he wants to do so, but has done nothing yet to make it happen. To many conservatives -- especially social conservatives -- abortion remains the most important issue.

On this one issue, the president would have the full support of the pro-life community. He would do himself much good, while simultaneously diffusing one of the most contentious issues since the Vietnam War.

Doing so would mean he is serious in what he says. Perhaps it's better to listen less, and instead take John Mitchell's advice and watch what he does.

Obama Should Heed His Own Advice

May 4, 2010

Commentary Magazine - This weekend President Obama delivered the University of Michigan commencement address and returned to a favorite theme of his: the need for civility and respect in public discourse. In the president’s words:

The… way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate…. we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialist” and “Soviet-style takeover;” “fascist” and “right-wing nut” may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.

… The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning — since after all, why should we listen to a “fascist” or “socialist” or “right-wing nut?” It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

So what can we do about this?

As I’ve found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn’t easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect.

These are wise words that should be taken seriously. Especially by the president himself.

I say that because President Obama’s party and his chief defenders — including the DNC, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Reid — have routinely engaged in the kind of vilification the president condemns. Think of the assault on the Tea Party Movement and those who attended town-hall meetings last summer; they were accused of being racists and bigots, “an angry mob,” practitioners of “un-American tactics,” “astroturfers” and Nazi-like, and potential Timothy McVeighs. Harry Reid referred to people who showed up at town-hall meetings as “evil-mongers.” Representative Alay Grayson, in characterizing the GOP health-care plans, said that “the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick…. This is what the Republicans want you to do.”

On and on it goes, issue after issue, slander after slander. Yet President Obama has done nothing to call off the attack dogs in his own party, despite his enormous influence with them.

In fact, Obama himself has engaged in ad hominem attacks to a degree that is unusual for a president. He constantly impugns the motives of those who have policy disagreements with him. His critics are greedy, venal, irresponsible, demagogic, cynical, bought and paid for, spreaders of misinformation, distorters of truth.

“More than any President in memory,” the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized, “Mr. Obama has a tendency to vilify his opponents in personal terms and assail their arguments as dishonest, illegitimate or motivated by bad faith.”

So President Obama lacerates his critics for engaging in the very activity he denounces. And he does so in the haughtiest way imaginable, always attempting to portray himself as hovering above us mere mortals, exasperated at the childish and petty quality of the political debate, weary of the name-calling. How hard it must be to be the embodiment of Socratic discourse, Solomonic wisdom, and Niebuhrian nuance in this fallen and broken world.

Here is the rather unpleasant reality, though: our president fancies himself a public intellectual of the highest order — think Walter Lippmann as chief executive — even as he and his team are accomplished practitioners of the Chicago Way. They relish targeting those on their enemies list. The president himself pretends to engage his critics’ arguments even as his words are used like a flamethrower in a field of straw men. It’s hard to tell if we’re watching a man engaged in an elaborate political shell game or a victim of an extraordinary, and nearly clinical, case of self-delusion. Perhaps there is some of both at play. Regardless, President Obama’s act became tiresome long ago.

I am reminded of the line from Emerson:

“The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

Obama Attacks Mining and Other Industries

April 16, 2010

The Hill - President Barack Obama on Thursday launched a new populist battle against mining companies, echoing his attacks on major Wall Street banks and other corporate interests he accuses of putting profits ahead of the public interest.

Obama, responding to the West Virginia coal mining accident last week that killed 29 workers, accused the industry of shirking safety rules and using legal loopholes that keep regulators at bay.

“It is clear that while there are many responsible companies, far too many mines are not doing enough to protect their workers’ safety,” Obama said.

He promised a wide-ranging investigation of the accident, and more broadly said the administration would work with Congress to boost enforcement of laws and reform them. Obama also said the Labor Department would streamline rules that allow regulators to take action against mines with patterns of safety problems.

Obama’s offensive against the mining industry follows other populist attacks in the debates over healthcare and financial legislation.

On those two issues, Obama and Democrats have cast Republicans as siding with the powerful interests and against ordinary citizens.

Obama on Wednesday did not link the GOP with the mining industry, but the hint to Republicans was clear.

“The implication is that Republicans are on the side of corporations,” said Ross Baker, an expert on the presidency and a political science professor at Rutgers University.

He said the president’s move toward populism and his outrage over the mining tragedy “fit together nicely.”

“Obviously, they don’t want to appear to be capitalizing on a tragedy, but at the same time it does give them an opportunity to underscore their alliance with everyday Americans against big corporations,” Baker said.

This is a situation that “kind of falls into your lap,” that allows for the White House to side with the American people without taking any direct swipes at the GOP opposition, he said.

Democrats believe that by casting health insurance companies as the villains in the final weeks of the healthcare debate, they boosted support for their bill.

In the fight over Wall Street reform, the White House on Wednesday suggested opponents were siding with lobbyists for the powerful financial industry, and that it would not agree to loopholes and special-interest carve-outs in a final bill. Obama and Democrats have made it clear they feel public will is behind them on that issue as well.

Populist rhetoric has also been a part of Obama’s attacks on the Supreme Court’s decision in the controversial Citizens United case that knocked down restrictions on corporate and union political spending. Democrats are set to introduce legislation in the House and Senate seeking to amend campaign finance rules in light of the decision, and they believe the issue will help them in the fall campaign.

Obama referenced his criticism of the decision last week when he said he would seek a successor to retiring Justice John Paul Stevens who would support the common man against the powerful interest.

“It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” Obama said.

Stevens was among the dissenters in the court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case.

Obama on Thursday directed his toughest comments toward Massey Energy Co., which owns the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia where the 29 workers died in an explosion April 5 — the worst mining disaster in decades. But he also called the problems more widespread in arguing that mine-safety legislation passed in 2006 does not go far enough.

“Safety violators like Massey have still been able to find ways to put their bottom line before the safety of their workers, filing endless appeals instead of paying fines and fixing safety problems,” he said in comments from the White House Rose Garden aired live on cable television.

Obama said Massey must be “held accountable for decisions they made and preventative measures they failed to take.”

Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said the group is in sync with the White House on the need for worker protection.

“We share the president’s view that it is the responsibility of every mine operator to provide for mine safety, and for MSHA [the Mine Safety and Health Administration] to protect the safety of workers,” she said.

But she also defended the industry, stating that 85 percent of U.S. mines lost no worker time to injuries last year.

“The huge percentage of American mines operate safely and they operate safely every day. We continue to stress that as our No. 1 objective,” she said.

“Something clearly went wrong at this mine, with terrible results. We anxiously await the outcome of the investigation,” she added.

The president also called government to task, calling for a review of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

But even when focusing on the federal bureaucracy, he noted, “For a long time, the mine-safety agency was stacked with former mine executives and industry players.”

Now, he added, it is run by former miners and safety experts, citing top MSHA officials Joe Main, who was a longtime health and safety official with the United Mine Workers of America, and Kevin Stricklin. Both Stricklin and Main were present when Obama made his comments on Thursday.

Obama said there would be an immediate new review of mines with “troubling” safety records and that inspectors would be dispatched to those mines right away.

He said the administration would “work with Congress to strengthen enforcement of existing laws and close loopholes that permit companies to shirk their responsibilities.”

Blast hits largest coal mine in Russia, killing 8 workers