Unlike many of my colleagues in the mass media, I am suffering from outrage-deficit disorder. It's not that I'm not angry. I am, in fact, frustrated that we've civilized ourselves out of really satisfying scapegoat rituals: The ancients would have staged a mass immolation of the AIG casino pigs in their private jets or crucified Bernie Madoff on the 18th hole at the Palm Beach Country Club, preceded by a public show trial with Jon Stewart as chief magistrate. You probably need an over-the-top catharsis or two like that to get the popular rage under control. As it is, guilt and anger are being splashed about chaotically and inefficiently--and people like Barack Obama, who had nothing at all to do with the creation of this mess, are being blamed. That is very dangerous at a moment when there is a desperate need for patience and rationality.
Over the course of too many years in this business, I have discovered that my two worst sins are anger and impatience. Anger is a double-edged sword--sometimes it is entirely justified (as when directed against the shameless torture-enabler Dick Cheney, who persists in fouling our public airwaves). Impatience, though, is a subtler problem, and it is chronic in the mass media. Indeed, it comes with the territory. There are columns to fill, commentaries to spew even when a new Administration has just begun its work and it is way too early to make definitive judgments about its policies. The worst judgments I've made as a journalist were the result of impatience. In early 1993--a moment not unlike this one--I joined the mob jumping all over the unseemly sausage-making that attended Bill Clinton's economic plan. Firmly fixated on twigs and branches--not even trees!--I missed the forest: Clinton's budget discipline led to the economic boom of the 1990s.
And so, older and marginally wiser, I'm taking the path of least crankiness in the early days of this new Administration. Sure, I'm worried that Obama isn't dealing decisively enough with the banking crisis--but, on the other hand, this is uncharted territory and maybe a cautious, case-by-case strategy will prove to be the right one. And yes, I'm worried that Obama is deferring a bit too much to the snails and toads (of both parties) in the Congress--but, on the other hand, savvy aides like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and congressional liaison Phil Schiliro will focus and massage the legislative packages that will be forthcoming. It is entirely possible, as this magazine surmised last week, that Obama has taken on too much, too soon. Or maybe not. The public hasn't even seen the benefits of the tax cuts that were embedded in the stimulus bill yet. The shovels are barely ready for the new infrastructure spending.
Patience requires a bit of distance, so let's stand back for a moment. Barack Obama was elected President because the governing philosophy of the last 30 years, arrant Reaganism, had proved itself bankrupt. Reaganism was distinguished by four characteristics--at least, according to its own mythology: the belief that government was "the problem" and so less of it was better, tax-cutting (for the wealthy), deregulation and an insistence on military strength as the primary projection of American authority overseas. These were, in some cases, fantasy attributes: After lowering taxes in 1981, Reagan raised them in 1982 and 1983. In many cases, especially deregulation--I'm talking about you, Lawrence Summers--Democrats were complicit in the excesses. In almost every case, a mild form of Reaganism was a plausible corrective for the Democratic excesses that had gone before. In a few cases, like Reagan's toughness toward the Soviet Union and in some forms of deregulation, it actually worked.
What Barack Obama pledged to do during the campaign--what he is trying to do now--is to change course on every one of these Reaganite assumptions. He believes that government must be part of the solution in areas like health insurance, education and energy policy. He will, eventually, restore Clinton-era levels of taxation on the wealthy. He will re-regulate the financial markets. Overseas, he has restored the primacy of diplomacy over the use or threat of military force.
Actually, Obama's foreign policy is illustrative of his overall philosophy. It is comprehensive and complicated. In the case of Pakistan, for example, it involves diplomatic suasion, economic aid, military aid and the discreet use of military force. It will not yield results overnight. It isn't as dramatic or easily judged as an invasion. It may not, in the end, prove the right course. But, as with Obama's economic policies, it will take time to assess fairly. And so, patience, please! We can feed Obama to the Limbaugh lions if he fails ... Or maybe not, should he succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment