Garry Wills’ article in this week’s New York Review of Books is stark and chilling. “A One Term President?” Wills is talking about Afghanistan and argues that Obama should pull U.S. troops out, even if it risks any chance of his being re-elected. ”I’d rather see him as a one-term president than have him pass on another unwinnable war to the person who will follow him in office.” Whether Hillary would have risked a one-term presidency to stop the wars is an open question as well, but I think Wills is shining his spotlight on the wrong question. The problem isn’t Obama, but the depth of the problems he faces and the efforts by Republicans to destroy his presidency.
When Obama and Hillary were battling for the Democratic nomination, many commentators spoke in glowing tones about Obama’s postpartisan character, and how he would transcend the political divisions that were paralyzing the country. Greg Craig, who had represented Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial (and recently resigned as Obama’s White House counsel) spoke for many when he said that the way to defeat Republican opposition was “not by further polarizing and further dividing” but instead by “building … consensus.” “You don’t win national health insurance by turning Republicans against you. You’ve got to get them to join you.”
Well, after almost a year of being reasonable, trying to build bipartisan consensus, and reaching out to Republicans, how is that going? Posters of Dachau victims at Republican-sponsored rallies, posters comparing an African-American man to Hitler, idiotic claims about “death panels” — so much for reasoning and building consensus.
Of course, that tough, more partisan, non-inspirational woman would also have faced the same problems as President — opponents who would rather sink the presidency than cooperate to solve the nation’s problems. And she would have inherited the same extraordinarily deep problems left over from George W. Bush, who battles Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding for the title of the worst President of the 20th century.
Would Hillary Clinton have been any more successful in fighting the worst depression since the Great Depression? Would she have crafted a more graceful withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan? Would she finally succeed in getting health care for all Americans? We don’t know. Of course, if she had been elected, we would now be suffering articles from authors like Wills pining for that inspriational nonpartisan, Barack Obama.
But the problem in policy is not the Democrats. It is the terrible legacy of eight years under Bush and Cheney, a Republican opposition that has abandoned any pretense of bipartisan cooperation in solving the nation’s problems, and that gets its marching orders from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin, whose new book cannot stand up to a simple fact check.
So Wills is dead wrong. If the current Republican party were to take national power, it would be a historic disaster. Obama may or may not do what Wills thinks he should in Afghanistan, but he better not bet his presidency on it. The country can’t take that risk.
19 Responses to Barack and Hillary
charliemarlow - November 17, 2009 at 10:32 am
I suppose one could fact check this blog entry as to how much there was a reach-out to Repubs and how much that party “gets its marching orders” from talk show hosts and how many Hitler posters there have been…at the least, we could say, “The facts are in duspute,” as the Palin fact checkers do.Meanwhile, with regard to your discussion of how this is related to higher education…
livefreeordie2 - November 17, 2009 at 2:53 pm
ROTFLMAO!!! What a hoot! After reading that “analysis” (not sure if that word is used lightly or laughingly), two words came immediately to mind – shrill and hysterical! Seriously, pardon the pun, I spent a good 4 or 5 minutes laughing until there were tears streaming down my face. So let me get this straight. Barry is the president. Nancy commands a huge Democrat majority in the House. Harry has a near filibuster proof Democrat majority in the Senate. But everything that has gone wrong since January can be blamed on 1. George W. Bush (of course) and 2. Republicans. You CAN’T be serious! Oh wait! I read your piece on health care. I really thought I would never again read anything so ridiculous. Boy was I wrong!First of all, you didn’t take my advice about not making things up just because the facts don’t comport with your opinion. You should have. . . Worst “Depression?” No, no. . .it’s the worst recession since the early 1980s – you know. . . the one that President Reagan inherited from the hands-down worst president this country has ever had, Jimmy Carter. Is the economy good now? No. But interest rates aren’t in the high teens either and the jobless rate isn’t as bad. I realize that Obama is doing his best to make it a depression, but sorry, it ain’t there yet.And hey! I thought Afghanistan was the “good war?” Isn’t that what all you libs were screaming all last year? Iraq = bad, Afghanistan = good. I thought we were going to have the troops home from Iraq or at least, give them a change of APO to Afghanistan. But the Republicans stopped that? Really? I must have dosed off during that segment of the news. Last I remember it was March and Barry was announcing “a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” So was it John Boehner that told him he couldn’t do it? Is it Glenn Beck that won’t allow him to actually make a decision on troop strength? Who knew?And the stimulus bill that was going to keep unemployment under 8%. Those darn Republicans really screwed that. . .er. . .what did they do again that stopped the Democrat Keynesian miracle? Oh, I get it! Poor little Dicky Kahn and John Maynard himself were really Republicans who just gave Barry bad advice.And let’s see. . . health care “for all Americans.” Just how exactly are the Republicans supposed to be stopping that? Seems to me that the bill that was passed by the House had a bunch of Dems voting against it. And, btw, it only got passed because the Holy Grail of liberal politics – abortion funding – was stripped from the bill completely. Oh my! Are you saying that you think that Bart Stupak is really a Republican? Please don’t as I couldn’t stand another laugh. And just for the record, the Republicans have been excluded from virtually all aspects of crafting the health care bills in both the House and the Senate. And let me clue you and your liberal buddies in on something. . .the reason that Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators are popular is not because they are telling people what to think. It’s because they reflect what we already think – what we already know – that most of the liberal crap that comes from many in government, media, and especially the academy, is just that. Crap. Face facts – I know that’s a tall order. The reason you sound shrill and hysterical is because you know darn good and well that the American people, having had a chance to see the liberal agenda exposed in all its “glory,” can’t wait to pull the lever for a Republican in the next election. The independents are jumping Barry’s ship like rats. Come 2010, the Republicans will be back in charge of the House and the Senate – you read it here first. And Barry? Well, just like Jimmy Carter, he’ll get one term regardless of what happens in Afghanistan. And he will assume the mantle of “Worst President Ever” from the Peanut Farmer.
goxewu - November 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I see that livefreeordie2 is, after a brief flirtation with civility and nuance over on another thread (a little tango with moi, in fact) is back to his cutesy (“Barry,” “Peanut Farmer,” etc.), crotchety, sports-blog-commenter-patois (“ROTFLMAO”), dittohead self. Is this guy anywhere near the academy (buildings & ground staff included), or just another disgruntled, professor-envious, pseudo-self-reliant Joe-the-Plumber has-been sitting in his rec room, waiting for the mac ‘n’ cheese to microwave, Glenn Beck on in the background, cranking out letters-to-the-editor and blog comments by the dozen? (You heard it asked here first.)
livefreeordie2 - November 17, 2009 at 4:40 pm
goxewu – two points. First, the analysis was not about me, so why would your response to about me rather than either 1. the original blog post, or 2. my reaction to it?Second. I tend to react to what I read. An intelligent analysis or a thoughtful opinion provokes intelligent discourse or a thoughtful response. Nonsense draws only ridicule. So. . .Perhaps you could put your somewhat morbid fascination with me aside long enough to opine on one of the more burning questions of our time, such as it is, posed by the author above, to wit: Can the valorous and virtuous Democrat victims vanquish the venal and virulent Republican vermin? Personally? I think not. . .
goxewu - November 17, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“Analysis” is too kind a word for comment #2. It’s boilerplate AM radio dittohead stuff that’s really not worth responding to. But if livefreeordie2 wants a “response,” he can just stand his cut ‘n’ paste comment on its head and type in a bunch of lefty names where the righty names are now, vice-versa, and change the negative verbs to positive, etc., etc.The only thing of possible interest about #2 is speculating about the author.My comment #3 merely abides by livefreeordie2′s own rule: “Nonsense draws only ridicule. So…”As for his last paragraph above, I don’t know whether the Democrats can “vanquish” or not, but I rather agree with livefreeordie2′s own description of the respective Parties. But I was right…oops! “correct”…wasn’t I, about livefreeordie2 and the academy. Not that he hasn’t a right to cruise the academic blogs and voice his opinions, it’s just that “Brainstorm” seems to attract a lot of retired insurance salesmen with delusions of autonomous self-reliance. I suspect, however, that any interest in livefreeordie2 probably does touch on morbidity, so I’ll drop it.
livefreeordie2 - November 17, 2009 at 5:23 pm
goxewu – so then you agree with the original blog item as written by Ms. Ghilarducci? Fascinating. Two more points. First, like you, I prefer to express my opinions anonymously. That said, I’m very much part of the academy. Other than that, I’ll choose to laugh off your attempts to attack the messenger rather than the message.Two. In the original blog it referred to:” idiotic claims about “death panels”. . .” Interesting given the latest recommendation of the United States Preventative Task Force regarding Mammograms, don’t you think? I mean, when Barrycare becomes law and the recommendations of this kind of task force determine at what age you can get a Mammogram from your government “health care for all Americans,” what do you think women who die of breast cancer in their 40s will call it? A life panel? I darn sure don’t want the government telling my wife, “Hey toots! Don’t you worry about it! We’re the government and we’ll tell you when you should get a check up! Forget about your doctor and the American Cancer Society.” Swell.
rbrunson56 - November 18, 2009 at 6:13 am
Ms. Theresa my dear,I’ve read your stuff before, and as in the past, I always enjoy a good chuckle. What I find interesting is that you have a couple of elected representatives in Washington carrying water for some of your ideas. Given that, its no wonder this country is in the absolute mess its in.Regardless of political party, anyone that can promote and support a communist state in America, as I believe you do, and do so with a straight face, must be totally removed from the heartbeat of the ideals and values that built America, and that has caused it to be seen for decades by those around the world as The Golden Land.Experience tells me that those who think as you do are employed primarily by academia and the government. If America doesn’t suit you, I would recommend that you move to a country more aligned with your beliefs. The ones that come to mind include Russia, most of Eastern Europe, Venezuela, and Cuba, to name a few.In any event, I admire your willingness to share your ideas publicly, and can assure you that there are no countries that share your politicial views that would allow you the freedom to express the kind of dissent you express, except that bastion of freedom, responsibility, and free enterprise, the good old US of A.God bless.
goxewu - November 18, 2009 at 7:32 am
I was wrong. About a commenter named Willynilly on another thread, that is. Cranks such as livefreeordie2 (the pseudonym should have told me something), with their “Barry” and “the Peanut Farmer,” etc., don’t deserve, much less comprehend, any argument that isn’t dittohead in reverse.Example: “So then you agree with the original blog item as written by Ms. Ghilarducci?” Nowhere did I say that, nor would I, especially if livefreeordie2 throws in the cornpone prosecutorial redundancy, “as written by Ms. Ghilarducci.” I merely dissed livefreeordie2′s response. There’s a difference.It’s very difficult to believe that livefreeordie2 is “very much a part of the academy,” unless anybody who sets foot on campus just to buy a T-shirt at the student store qualifies. Just a hunch.Re #7: I haven’t seen the “America, Love It or Leave It” mentality stick its pseudopatriotic head out into the light of day for quite a while now. Most of the political troglodytes who suffered from it back in the Vietnam War era have either left this mortal coil, or the fact that much of what’s great about America came from critical citizens who stuck around finally got through to them.And what’s with this, “Ms. Theresa my dear”? Are we dealing with righties having problems with women, too?
suomynona - November 18, 2009 at 8:59 am
livefree in #2: this business about RR delivering us from a greater recession is fabrication, and I know it to be fabrication straight from the mouth of the queen of fabrication, whose new book reads like a meth addiction confessional. #7: Explain, please, and expicitly, how Teresa Ghilarducci advocates communism in this blog post.
livefreeordie2 - November 18, 2009 at 9:23 am
suomynona – Okay. You know it’s a fabrication because you read about it somewhere? Well, I lived through it. The principle measure for recession/depression is a decline in GDP over a set period of time, but the one that liberals always worry about the most is the Unemployment Rate. In October 1982, it hit 10.4 percent. It reached a high of 10.8 percent and didn’t get back down below 10.2 (the current rate) until May of 1983. That’s 7 months with a higher rate of unemployment than we have now. Please understand, however, that I have no doubt that the policies propagated by Obama and the Democrat Congress will undoubtedly turn this into a much worse recession that it otherwise would have been.
v8573254 - November 18, 2009 at 9:35 am
Boys, I’m going to suspend all of you.
ophe07 - November 18, 2009 at 10:47 am
10 – (livefreeordie2) I remind you it was the crazy rightwing economic policies of the Bush administration that caused the recession.You are a silly silly person. Please stop it has become embarrassing.
livefreeordie2 - November 18, 2009 at 11:30 am
opheo7 – Would you mind elaborating on specifically what “crazy rightwing economic policies” you are speaking about? Deferring to the Democrats and failing to get Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under control? Creating a huge amount of debt with Medicare Part D? Mark to market accounting rules? (Which, btw, was huge in bringing on and exacerbating the recession.) All of these policies, btw, have been continued by the Obama administration. BTW, it would be both silly and embarrassing if you can’t respond with some sort of intelligent response.
madamesmartypants - November 18, 2009 at 11:40 am
I think what Teresa Ghilarducci is really trying to get at is whether Hillary would have been a better president than Barack. Given that the whole conciliation policy that BO was elected on doesn’t appear to be working, would it have been better to have picked HRC? Personally, I think that there was more at stake than just partisanship vs. non-partisanship, and it underscores the problems inherent in our election process–namely, that less exciting people with good experience, well-thought-out policies, a good grasp of complicated political problems, etc, don’t stand a chance next to charismatic, inspirational figures. That’s a big problem–I mean, why do we keep electing actors to political positions? Of course, HRC might not have stood a chance anyway; she is, after all, a woman, and though Nancy Pelosi has a nice position, there are still far, far too few women in our government. On the other hand, look at Palin. An absolutely worthless person if ever there was one, and corrupt (or perhaps just deeply self-delusional) to boot. Yet, she gets a shot at running for VP, and a lucrative career afterwards? What an embarrassment. It seems like we just can’t get beyond the superficial.
dank48 - November 18, 2009 at 12:51 pm
George W. Bush is not eligible as a candidate for worst president of the twentieth century. He was a terrible president, but he was not a president during the twentieth century.
hafajc - November 18, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The ‘author’ of this piece did not include a picture, but I think she must have on a cheerleader outfit with the big “O” on it, replete with pompoms and megaphone. It would be interesting to see if her school colors are red, white, and blue. She speaks with the knowledge that “our president” (you know, “our” as in “we”–the worthy, the learned, the ones who truly know what is right and just)– is being attacked just because what has DONE has not worked out. We should not, of course judge him for the outcome of his actions or policies. No, we should judge him based upon the knowledge that he has “good intentions.” Any attacks on him are obviously unjust. You never saw the left making any attacks on Bush–there was never any name-calling, or comparisons to former Nazi-leaders from that quarter….An old joke:The outgoing President hands the new President three envelopes. “Use these,” the old Prez says, “the dates to use them are on them.”Envelope #1 is dated Febrary 15th. The President opens it on February 15th, and the contents read: “Blame it on the previous President.”Envelope #2 is dated July 4th. The President opens it on July 4th, and the contents read: “Blame it on the previous President.”Envelope # 3 Just says “Open on Thanksgiving.” The President opens it on Thanksgiving. The contents read: “Prepare three envelopes…”Your President owns the problem. Unfortunately, he is my President, as well. A sad historical fact, due the thirst of the American populace for “the un-Bush.”
charliemarlow - November 18, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The matter of whether or not a poster is “a part of the academy” is irrelevant when the blog entry has no direct connection to the academy. This is, to me, one of the problems with having political screeds as part of the Chronicle (which is already political enough in its coverage of higher education issues).
goxewu - November 18, 2009 at 2:46 pm
There’s no problem in the OP allegedly not having any direct connection to the academy. The purpose of “Brainstorm” is not only to allow swifter, and more informal discussion of academic topics, but also to allow the roster of academic bloggers to opine on non-academic matters so as to give “Brainstorm’s” readers–probably mostly academics–an idea of what a variety of academics (a conservative English professor, an AAUP activist, a feminist who dabbles in popular culture, an art professor, the director of an institute at an Ivy, an African-American anthropologist, a professor of educational policy, a former Bush appointee at the Dept. of Education, and an education consultant) think about them.Morever, it’s not the case that political issues have no direct connection to the academy. Let’s see, there are state legislatures voting on funding public colleges, constant accusations of and proposed remedies for liberal political bias in higher ed classrooms, invitations to speakers profeered, protested and withdrawn, student rallies, dueling theories about who and what caused the current recession and what can bring us out of it, employee marriage-like benefits for gay partners…and one could go on and on. Finally, Teresa Ghilarducci’s post was hardly a “screed.”
suomynona - November 18, 2009 at 7:08 pm
#16:I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest that when Prof. Ghilarducci writes ‘our president,’ she means the president of the United States, ‘our’ being the possessive of the collective of US citizens. I think she’s right. As US citizens, the president of the US is indeed our president. To read into this some kind of academic exclusivity is absurd, and only shows your own misguided feelings about what you’re reading and who wrote it. Clearly, right and wrong aside, policy aside, ‘our president’ is being attacked because the opposition party will do anything to become the party in power.Also, when a president hands off in a time of prosperity, it’s pretty damn hard to blame him for that (it would be better to take credit for it). When a president hands off a catastrophic ecoonomy and an absurd national debt (after assuming the presidency with a surplus from a Democrat) and a number of expensive and unsuccessful wars and virtually the entire global community pitted against that president and the country he represents, it’s a lot easier and more sensible to suggest that our current president needs a bit of time to sort things out. I will say that the Dems have proven pretty lousy leaders, primarily because, as this article suggests, they waste time pandering to an opposition that would surely reject the realization of its own prevailing ideology if that happened to come from Barack Obama. This is obvious from Republican stances on medicare (abolish medicare; no, wait…SAVE MEDICARE FROM OBAMA!) to stimulus money (the stimulus is ineffective; no wait…I’ll take this money!).