David Michael Green: A Show About Nothing...
Tom Davos
A Show About Nothing: The Placeholder Presidency of Barack Obama
by David Michael Green | November 21, 2009
Hey, remember Seinfeld? Remember how it billed itself as a "show about
nothing", and how, in fact, that's what it was?
I think we're at the point now where it's become inescapable that the
Obama presidency is also a show about nothing.
It's the same as Seinfeld. Except for two things.
First, unlike Seinfeld, it bills itself as a show about something, if
not everything (remember Mr. Bigtime Change from just last year?).
And, second, the nothingness of the Obama administration is not very
goddam funny, thanks just the same.
Consider the following crop of headlines, all from the New York Times,
and all published in just the last week alone:
"49 Million Americans Report a Lack of Food"
"N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses"
"The Drug Industry Cashes In"
"3 Democrats Could Block Health Bill In Senate"
"Another Standoff May Be Looming On Abortion Issue"
"Obama Hobbled in Fight Against Climate Change"
"Leaders Will Delay Agreement On Climate"
"Obama Backers Fear Opportunities to Reshape Judiciary Are Slipping Away"
"Guantanamo Won't Close by January, Obama Says"
"China Holds Firm On Major Issues In Obama's Visit"
"As Weight of a Relationship Tilts East, Obama Opts for Nuance and Deference"
"Israel Moves Ahead on Plans to Expand Settlement in Disputed Part of Jerusalem"
"Kurdish Legislators Threaten Boycott of Iraq Election"
"High Costs Weigh On Troop Debate For Afghan War"
If you get a sense from this list that the man holding the most
powerful position on the planet is bound and determined to be an
object of action, rather than a proactive force on the historical
stage, there's a good reason for that feeling. That appears to be
precisely his intention.
At a time of significant peril to the country and the world, this
president will not act.
And he certainly will not act in any way that is remotely
controversial. In normal times, that list would cover just about
everything. In our era, however, where rabid regressives have entirely
lost even a remote satellite uplink to reality, and have devoted
themselves to destroying Obama's presidency at any cost, there is
nothing that a president who is worried about ruffling feathers could
actually do about anything. If he salutes the fallen returning to
Dover Air Force Base, they excoriate him. If he shows a scrap of
politeness bowing to the Japanese emperor, they eviscerate him. If he
claims he was born in America, they call him a liar for it.
That seems to be fine with Obama. He seems quite content to be a
placeholder president, just as Bill Clinton was before him. And, you
know what? Placeholder presidents can be just fine. If you're living
in the nineteenth century, that is. They've even been survivable
recently, though the scale of blown opportunity can be jaw-dropping.
Just the same, every time I find myself cringing at the thought of
Bill Clinton's eight year self-reverential celebration of all things
Bill Clinton, I can always rescue myself by remembering how much worse
things there are than indifference in the White House. At last, I have
finally discovered a reason, however slim, to be grateful to Mr. Bush
and Mr. Cheney. Thanks for the perspective, fellas.
This president, however, doesn't have the luxury he seems so intent on
taking. He came to office at a time of multiple crises. 2009 sure as
hell isn't 1997. It isn't even 1993. It's a lot worse, and on multiple
fronts.
In fairness to Obama (a sentiment which I'm finding increasingly
difficult to muster up as the first year of his presidency segues into
the second), many of the problems represented in the headlines
catalogued above are America's problems, not necessarily his, per se.
They would, that is, have greeted any new president inaugurated last
January, and lots of them are going to take years or decades to go
away under the best of circumstances, assuming they ever do. But
that's also the point - he is the president, and he is supposed to be
fighting to improve his country's situation. In case after case,
however, he appears instead to be sitting aloof on top of his
mountain, evidently admiring his admiration. The problems aren't
necessarily of his making, but the absence of credible solutions to
those problems very much is.
To be even more generous to this president, these aren't, generally,
just any random national problems that he inherited, either. They are
chiefly the product of America's insane and disastrous experiment with
regressivism these last three decades. They are, in short, Reagan's
and Bush's gift to Barack. But again, while he's not responsible for
his inheritance, he is responsible for what he does with it. And what
this fool has done with it is to turn it into a Seinfeld sitcom. That
is to say, nothing. He not only doesn't identify the paternity of this
bastard child for all to see, he won't even speak up as the very same
people who left him this plate of swill have the gall to blame him for
it and seek the destruction of his presidency at every turn.
There is, of course, a certain profound richness to the notion of
these regresso-bots critiquing Obama from the day he walked in the
door. "He's spending outrageous amounts of money!", they fervently
decry. What, you mean like the last guy did, the one who doubled the
national debt from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion? What, you mean
because spending huge sums is the only possible way to clean up the
economic meltdown and myriad other disasters bequeathed to him? What,
because it ain't cheap to pay for two sprawling unfinished wars,
banking system rescues, a car industry gone off the cliff,
unemployment insurance for millions and a drowned city?
But enough with the fairness doctrine already. These caveats don't
begin to mitigate the epic disaster of the Obama sclerosis. This guy
isn't just a deer caught in headlights, he's Bambi on the 50
yard-line, under the klieg lights of a national stadium. He's Mr.
Bill. No, strike that. He's Mr. Bill's nerdy little nephew, Kirby
Herbert Pollywog Bill. He's a beetle walking across a school yard,
where a hundred bored sixth-graders are standing and staring at their
feet during an outdoor assembly. He's a tenth inning hanging tired arm
curve ball with an angry Babe Ruth at the plate. He's Neville
Chamberlain and Spongebob SquarePants' love-child. Suffering from an
anemic blood disorder. Republicans just live for this sort of Democrat
- which is to say, nowadays, practically every Democrat. They eat them
for breakfast. And, as much as I loathe Republicans - rather like I
feel about, say, botulism - I mostly don't blame them.
And, as much as it pains me ever to find myself agreeing with a
regressoid, Edward Whelan, president of the right-wing Ethics and
Public Policy Center, was right when, expressing his surprise that the
Obama administration has made so few nominations to fill open
positions in the federal judiciary, he noted: "On judges as on so much
else, this administration seems to be much less competent than both
its supporters and critics expected". Hear, hear.
Count me in on that one. I didn't know what kind of politics these
guys would have, but I felt real confident that they'd be damn good at
those politics, whatever they were. And not without good reason did I
come to that conclusion. Obama is obviously smart, and he ran a
near-perfect campaign, just as he had to, in order to win the
presidency against long odds.
And, you know, it may even be the case that these guys would be good
at their politics. But, apparently, we're never going to find out,
since they don't seem capable of trying. When they're not busy, as
they are so much of the time, aping the regressive policies of Bush
and Cheney, they're working hard at hardly working. Folding cards,
blowing opportunities, missing deadlines, breaking promises. It's hard
work putting on a show about nothing, lemme tell ya! Think of all the
liberal judges they failed to appoint just today alone! Think of all
the prisoners they haven't transferred from Guantanamo! Think of all
the egg they have to wipe off their faces as they get spanked by
Israeli prime ministers, Big Pharma CEOs and punky members of their
own party alike! Think of all the women whose reproductive rights they
have to sell out in order to get their Aid To Corporations With
Dependent Billions legislation through Congress! Imagine the number of
American children and grandchildren who must be saddled with a load of
debt and a climate like Venus, just so Obama can receive his Daily
Minimum Allowance of ass-whuppin' every day!
Nah, man. It can't be easy takin' it easy. I thought George W. Bush's
act would be a hard one to follow. That little puke took 1020 days of
vacation during his eight years serving as Cheney's marionette. That
was more than one-third of his presidency, and it far exceeded the
time taken by any other president. Who could top that?!
Obama's smarter than Bush, though (and how tough is that?). He's
figured out how to take vacation while on the job. And so he has. All
around him serious crises for the country and the world rage across
the landscape, demanding attention. But Barack remains in comfortable
contemplation, never breaking a sweat. On a good day he might share
with us some of his famously stirring oratory, filled with broad
platitudes about niceness and bipartisanship. On a really good day
we'll get half-measures, poorly communicated, to deal with full
problems. But on most days, alas, we just get an undiluted shot of
Goldman Sachs, Big Pharma and every other corporate plutocrat working
directly out of the Oval Office.
Why is Obama such a do-nothing dud? Does he feel for financially
strapped Americans to the point of doing his own permanent staycation
in the White House, the better to model his empathy for them? Does his
personality simply prevent him from doing anything that some person or
another might object to? Is he yet another tool of Wall Street, whose
only difference from George Bush is stylistic? Did some guy in a black
suit and sunglasses pull him aside after the election, and say, "Okay,
so you're the president now. You'll be following our instructions from
here on out, in exchange for which we're gonna let you live."?
I don't know what his deal is. But I do know that this presidency is
catastrophic for progressive ideas, and likely as well for the
remaining shards of American democracy itself.
As to the former, our values and solutions are being ridiculously
associated with this fundamentally conservative administration, and
ironically repudiated right along with its mounting failures. This is
yet another marketing masterstroke by the regressive right, a group of
folks whose politics are so obscene that they've been forced to become
geniuses at slinging bullshit. They remind me of nothing so much as
the poor fat kid in junior high who had to learn to use humor to keep
from getting pummeled every day after school, and grew up to become a
famous comedian as an adult. But, whatever. The upshot is that Obama
is going down in flames (or would be, except that his muted implosion
is careful even to lack that much cinematic drama), and progressivism
will be tarred for years and decades because of that. Our politics
will be blamed for committing a crime, when they were actually in
another country (literally) at the time.
As for American democracy, I think it likely that the elections of
2010 and 2012 will mark continuations and indeed extensions of the
pattern from 2006 and 2008. The condition of the country sucks. People
want change. But, unless something dramatic happens, they continue to
only have two choices - the party in power, or the other party. In
2010 and 2012 the incumbents will be the pathetic Democrats, and the
only real alternative will be the just recently comatose Republicans,
newly revived courtesy of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Since we can expect the GOP monsters to win those elections handily
under such conditions, the question becomes, what will that party
stand for, and who will represent it? Here, the signs are especially
bad. From New York to Florida to Alaska to all across the radio dial,
the GOP is doing the impossible these days. It is actually becoming
more regressive, more repressive, more narrow, more stupid, more
greedy and more vicious. It's hard to imagine they could surpass their
current personal bests in the pathology decathlon, but indeed they
are.
Meanwhile, my guess is that the winner of the GOP nomination in 2012
will be the winner of the presidency that fall, just as the real
contest in 2008 was to win the Democratic nomination.
My guess is that that person is now running around the country
plugging her book.
And my guess is that the next go-round of Reaganism/Bushism will make
the last one look like a friendly game of gin rummy by comparison.
They will almost certainly have to pull the plug on any remaining
vestige of democracy at that point, since their policies will be
utterly useless in addressing people's mounting concerns and their
growing impatience.
Get your passport renewed.
Mexico might be a good alternative. The weather is nice and warm.
And, evidently, the money is good. At least compared to what the very
sick Uncle Sam's got going on his hospital ward.
Here's one more indicative (and quite real) headline to add to the
list above. No offense to my amigos south of the border, but you can
file this puppy under "Y", for "You Know The Show Is Over When..."
"Money Starts to Trickle North as Mexicans Help Out Relatives"
_______
About author
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra
University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions
to his articles (d...@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time
constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can
be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.