In my opinion, the last real leader America had who came close to fitting the FDR mold was John Kennedy. He stepped out of the ranks of the privileged and did what he could for a nation in social and international distress. With stirring words, he strove to act on behalf of the sorely beset nation. His imperfect but heartfelt focus was on improving the lot of the average American and putting the nation back on the path to unity. He sought cooperation from all quarters, but didn't allow the lack of it to prevent him from acting as he saw fit. Some of his actions worked toward that goal, while others did not. In some initiatives he had the general support of the populace, and in others he generated powerful and dangerous opposition. But the final tally came out on the side of the average American despite the thirteen years of Vietnam and the worst racial travail to afflict us since the civil war.
Back in 2008, the nation again sought a leader, and thought it voted for one. Barack Obama stepped out of the ranks of academic privilege, and with stirring words told us that he would do what he could for a nation in economic, emotional, and international distress. He swore to act on behalf of the sorely beset nation. His imperfect but heartfelt focus was declared to be set on improving the lot of the average American and putting the nation back on the path to prosperity. Yet he only sought cooperation from a small portion of that sorely beset nation, and allowed the lack of cooperation to prevent him from acting. Through his inaction, he allowed that small portion to turn against the many other portions, and claimed that all was for the benefit of the economy. None of his actions worked toward that stated goal of improving the lot of the average American. His seriously shallow convictions were instead focused on improving the prospects of the American Economic Empire and putting that empire back on the path to prosperity, all at the expense of both its domestic citizens and Its international neighbors. In few initiatives had he the general support of the populace, and in most he generated powerful and dangerous opposition.
But the final tally has yet to emerge. The average American has now endured over thirteen months of the worst social, political, and fiscal travail to afflict us in decades, a condition which left untreated could yet lead to civil war. We sought a leader and were denied. I don't think it too strong a position to state that we were fooled again.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Alan Kurtz
I'm sorry to hear that you have medical problems, and don't mean to poke fun, but this article is so feverish that I advise you to get more bed rest. "The average American," you write, "has now endured over 13 months of the worst social, political, and fiscal travail to afflict us in decades, a condition which left untreated could yet lead to civil war." Likening this situation to 1933, you say it's "not likely that we will again benefit from a new FDR. We are much more likely to experience a Julius Caesar, a Robespierre, a Napoleon, a Lenin, a Mussolini, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot - or worse."
This is all hysterically over the top. How many nations where 99% of households possess at least one TV, and 66% own three or more TVs, have ever experienced civil war? And, please, what in God's name do you mean by "worse" than that lineup of murderous dictators you named? How could anyone short of the Antichrist be worse than those homicidal thugs?
2 - Baritone
I must agree with Alan. Real, this piece is overwrought to an extreme. I don't know how old you are, but as a practicing sextagenerian I have lived through at least 3 or 4 other serious economic downturns, most of which lasted far longer than your 13 months.
I certainly don't agree with your assessment of Obama. He has certainly made mistakes, but so too did your heros FDR and JFK. And as to the latter, I have always been an admirer of Kennedy, but his shortended presidency was not such that one could apply the kind of judgments you make in its regard.
It seems to me that you are in fact buying into the Glenn Beckian hysteria and the Rush Limbaugh bullshit. Things are bad; there's no questioning that. But to characterize Obama as you do is IMO unfair and just wrong. No president, no administration, no congress can by their efforts alone turn our economy around. It will turn around in its own time. All that can be accomplished by government is to tweak, and perhaps guide to a degree the direction the economy moves. Little more. The notion that Obama and the government are pawns being handled by big business is no more nor no less true than any previous administration, congress, etc. Your vergent hysteria and hand ringing only feed the fire which, could in fact lead to violence.
B
3 - Ruvy
The real tally on this administration (for you Americans) is still out. Wait a bit and see how much this Gulf disaster (and the corresponding attempts at a media blackout), the authority to shut down the internet (before it shuts down Obama), the weakening market, the dollar being propped up while the euro falls, and all the other lovely stuff happening in America plays out. By the time Obama's defenders are down to Michelle and his kids, the internet will have been shut down, and you Americans will have been told to sit down, shut up, and do what the guy with the taser and the black uniform tells you to.
Looks like fun. Happy 234th!
4 - Christopher Rose
I see you can't actually keep your promise/threat to stop commenting here Ruvy, just as you can't stop making hysterical over the top remarks that make no sense, regardless of what it is you are trying to talk about, secular or spiritual.
Have you seen the TV show called Grumpy Old Men? You ought to contact them and see if they'll have you on!
5 - Mark
...some kind of a leader will eventually emerge
We don't need no stinkin' Leader. Individual social responsibility -- there's the ticket.
Death to guru worship!
6 - Mark
BTW, No president, no administration, no congress can by their efforts alone turn our economy around. It will turn around in its own time. All that can be accomplished by government is to tweak, and perhaps guide to a degree the direction the economy moves. Little more.
Dunno, Baritone. The story is that without TARP we would've crashed and burned. And without the stimulus unemployment would have run significantly higher...hardly 'tweaks'.
And now the government is shifting pain onto the unemployed -- class war at its finest and a 'big fucking deal'.
7 - Baritone
Mark,
You are correct about the above. However, over the long haul, any major economy will go its own way - as it appears to be doing now despite efforts to stem the tide of unemployment and generally poor performance in most of the economy. TARP and the stimulus package were extraordinary moves which had a dramatic effect in the short run, but have thus far failed to provide enough umph to get us over the top (or bottom) of the current downturn. Regardless of Rep/conservative complaints to the contrary, I believe they were necessary moves. Their implementation - especially regarding TARP left a lot to be desired, but they did serve to prop up the economy adequately to avoid its going completely off the rails.
It's easy for congress to dis the unemployed as they have no real voice and certainly have nothing to add to political coffers. The denial of further unemployment benefits by congress among other things defended by notions of fiscal responsibility concerns is certainly disingenuous given all the hundreds of billions handed out to Wall Street, the banks, etc.
B
8 - Mark
Makes one wonder how long folks'll put up with a political system that supports a boom and bust economy.
9 - Doug Hunter
#8
We could live under the permanent bust / everyone born as a slave to the government. With a 13 trillion $ debt we're pretty much already there. IMO that has been the plan all along, to make us all debt slaves (at least with a private business I get a chance to review the contract before they screw me).
10 - Ruvy
Rest assured, Christopher, of one thing. British Petroleum's abiotic oil (along with the benzene, hydrogen sulfide and other goodies) will reach Britain - carried to you for free by the Gulf Stream!
I'll be publishing an article here in the not too distant future, and as little as I like dealing with you as a comments editor, I'll have to comment. Afterwards, I can go back to my silence and to ignoring the mostly irrelevant articles that inhabit this site.
11 - Christopher Rose
Maybe it will, Ruvy, but we'll cope if it does.
Nothing to say to defend your utterly wackadoodle prophecies about the USA? Thought not; we both know it is just more embittered, pessimistic twaddle.
Tell you what, why don't you consider ignoring the site completely? I doubt anybody will much notice or care.
12 - Dan Miller
Here is my well thought out solution to the problem.
Dan(Miller)
13 - John Wilson
How 'bout if we start by getting rid of the Senate, which has consistently been a stumbling block to progress.
14 - Alan Kurtz
Christopher Rose (#11), I agree that Ruvy's contributions to Blogcritics are "embittered, pessimistic twaddle" and that his prophecies about the USA are "utterly wackadoodle." But it troubles me that a Blogcritics editor would suggest: "Why don't you consider ignoring the site completely? I doubt anybody will much notice or care."
Is this an official request by you on behalf of Blogcritics? If so, I think it ought to be communicated privately by email, not in a post for everyone to see. Moreover, if Ruvy's ouster must be done publicly, it should come as an announcement cum explanation by publisher Eric Olsen or executive editor Lisa McKay.
Personally, I'd be sorry to see that happen because I prefer to think of Blogcritics as a place where even wackadoodle twaddle, however unpopular it may be, can be published as long as it's competently written. Much as I detest Ruvy's sentiments, I urge him to resist your pressure to get rid of him, and I hope Mr. Olsen does not follow your dismissive example.
15 - STM
Just want to offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences to all Americans on this July 4, celebrating the sorry anniversary of your great mistake in splitting from the British Empire.
This is obviously the cause of all your leadership problems.
The solution: Simply call Liz at Buck House and ask if you can come to the table, and ask if you can run the whole thing. I don't think they'd be in a position to say no.
Under the parliamentary democracy system, you can then get rid of an unpopular and badly performing leader any time you like, provided you can convince the party apparatchiks and pollsters of the value of it!
There is also scope for elections to be held BEFORE the full term is up.
Why wait four years. The time is always now!
Apart from that, I hope everyone had a great Independence Day, and didn't a) eat too many hotdogs and b) drink too much beer.
If you did, though, that sounds pretty good to me, especially if you get a sleep in.
Cheers Yanks!
16 - Dr Dreadful
Well, we had homemade pizza, only drank three beers and stayed in to watch a James Bond movie. Didn't even bother driving over to the local high school to watch their display this year.
Sorry, Seppos, but Firework Night without a warm coat, a raging bonfire and going indoors for mulled wine and mince pies afterwards just isn't the same.
17 - Baritone
I don't think there was anything "official" about Christopher's suggestion. I think it was just personal opinion. As an editor, it may be incumbant upon him to measure his comments a bit more than others. His suggestion to Ruvy above may have edged a bit closer to the "line," but I don't think he quite crossed over it.
B
18 - STM
Doc, I prefer the Queen's Birthday long weekend, which is traditionally our old fireworks' night but given the different state legislation now regarding the letting off of "personal" fireworks, now it's just a beer and barbecue long weekend.
What I particularly like about it is that it's not even the Queen's birthday!
Only in Australia could you have a long weekend celebrating something that's not even on that day :)
British Fireworks' Night is the celebration of Guy Fawkes and his Catholic mates getting busted before they blew up the houses of parliament and the King and his family along with it, right??
In which case, that must date back four centuries to the period when Spain, France, Rome, Catholics and the Jesuit order conspired to remove the denmocractic traditions of England and replace it with absolute monarchy guided by the black hand of Rome??
Love it.
You should take a leaf out of the Seppos' handbook and get the hotdogs on, though, with lots of red, white and blue. They do now how to hold a party over that side of the very big pond.
19 - Jordan Richardson
Methinks Alan's obsession with the comments process here is a little overbaked.
20 - STM
Alan's a relative newbie, right??
He doesn't understand that Chris and Ruvy what could best be described as an understanding ... to slag each other off at every opportunity.
Where's the harm in all this? Nowhere.
This is, in fact, free speech at its best and carried to the Nth degree.
21 - STM
Agree with him on this passage, though: "not likely that we will again benefit from a new FDR. We are much more likely to experience a Julius Caesar, a Robespierre, a Napoleon, a Lenin, a Mussolini, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot - or worse".
What too many Americans given to spouting this kind of rubbish conveniently forget is that their system of government is underpinned by rule of law.
He's possibly right on the Julius Caesar/Napoleon bit, though ... American presidents have too much power and unfortunately have often carried on like the celebrated but doomed emporers of Rome and France.
Removing more power power from the president and his unelected cabinet and giving it to the elected representatives of the people in Congress would be one way out of the morass.
The US presidential system is that different from electing an all-powerful monarch every three years.
Time to make the president's job more of a figurehead role, do away with unelected cabinet members and have a Prime Minister's role or equivalent, with a controlling party in Congress, who is both head of government and wholly answerable to the people, along with an elected cabinet.
This is the great flaw in American democracy (and I mean democracy in the modern sense, not the ancient Greek).
In America, sadly it's not that democratic. Too many influential lobbyists and corporate heads whispering in important ears in the corridors of power in Washington.
The only people who count in this equation are the people.
The people ARE the government in a free, democratic society. Time to get a real handle on that concept in the US.
22 - Ruvy
I've decided to leave off commenting here for one basic reason, Stan. I'll not have a comments editor erasing my hard work in comments here, no matter how civilly I present them.. Your opinions, Chris' opinions or anyone else's opinions here are just that, opinions, and like me, everyone is entitled to have them.
But I'll not work hard on a comment and waste my time at this site, only to see my comments erased.
I'm done here until my next article.
23 - Arch Conservative
I know Ruvy. I've recently had some pretty mundane comments erased twice.
Apparently the editor's of this website ave recently subscribed to the "Barack Obama" school of free speech.
As for looking for worthwhile leadership in this nation. Washington DC is the last place one should be looking
24 - Mark
The censors have given both of you lots of leeway in the 'personal attack' department over the years. I guess they just got sick of your shit.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Chris is perfectly entitled to enter the comments fray as freely as any other commenter, as long as Commenter Chris does not interfere with the responsibilities of Editor Chris.
As comments editors, Chris and I are well aware of the potential conflict of interest which comes with also being participants in the site. We have an arrangement that if, with our commenter's hat on, either of us becomes embroiled in a heated discussion in which poo is thrown, we will leave it to the other to do any necessary wielding of the scissors.
It is interesting to note that Chris and I have, on occasion, become involved in a heated discussion with each other, although not as yet of a nature which would need editing!