FWIW, my title was about Ike. Michael Lind decided on his own title. On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Maxim Linchits <[email protected]> wrote: > The title is inaccurate of course. It should have read: "Why I want the GOP > to nominate Obama." > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:17 PM > To: Pen-l > Subject: [Pen-l] run, Ike, run! > > [the meaning of my title should be obvious from the article below.] > > from Salon > > Tuesday, Jun 21, 2011 07:01 ET > > Why the GOP should nominate Barack Obama in 2012 A modest proposal stemming > from the president's apparent rejection of his own party's liberal tradition > > By Michael Lind > > Why the GOP should nominate Barack Obama in 2012 > > With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republican presidential > field is weak on candidates who could appeal to centrist swing voters, > including moderate Republicans. But there is one 2012 prospect who has a > proven track record of pursuing policies that owe a great deal to the > moderate Republican tradition and who could potentially shake up the race > for the GOP presidential nomination: > President Barack Obama. > > If Obama chose to run for reelection not as a Democrat but as a moderate > Republican, he could bring about two healthy transformations in the American > political system. The moderate wing of the Republican Party could be > restored. And the Democratic presidential nomination might be opened up to > politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. > > In the last generation, the old-fashioned moderate Republicans from New > England and the Midwest symbolized by Nelson Rockefeller have been driven > out of the GOP by the conservative followers of Barry Goldwater and Ronald > Reagan. Streaming into the Democratic Party as voters, and buying it with > ample Wall Street cash as donors, this upscale elite has changed the party > from a populist liberal alliance of unionized workers and populists into a > socially liberal, economically conservative version of the old country-club > Republicanism of the pre-Reagan era. The transformation began under Jimmy > Carter, accelerated under Bill Clinton and has nearly been completed under > Barack Obama. This is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. It is your > grandfather’s Republican Party of 1955. > > In his book "The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House," Bob Woodward > described a Clinton administration meeting in 1993: "Where are all the > Democrats?" Clinton bellowed. "I hope you’re all aware we’re all Eisenhower > Republicans," he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. > "We’re all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan > Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. > Isn't that great?" > > The Obama administration is the third Clinton administration -- or perhaps > the fifth Eisenhower administration, following the four combined terms of > Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton (by comparison to both, Richard Nixon, as > president, was a New Deal liberal). Under the influence of Treasury > secretary and master fundraiser Robert Rubin, the Mark Hanna of the modern > Democratic Party, Clinton scrapped the "putting people first" agenda he had > run on in 1992 and focused on rapidly balancing the budget -- a longtime > obsession of fiscal conservatives in the Eisenhower-Rockefeller tradition, > rather than supply-siders in the Reagan-Kemp tradition. Similarly, Barack > Obama supported a stimulus that was only a quarter as big as necessary -- > half of the $2 trillion that his advisor Christina Romer estimated was > necessary, with about half of that wasted on ineffectual tax cuts. In spite > of the prospect of years of mass unemployment, Barack Obama, in the spirit > of the budget-balancing Rubinomics of the 1990s and Ike-onomics of the > 1950s, has called for freezing discretionary spending except for defense. He > has allowed the conversation to be shifted from recovery to long-term fiscal > consolidation, which conservatives will try to use as an excuse to partly > replace Social Security and Medicare with mandatory private accounts that > will generate lucrative fees for Wall Street and the insurance industry from > a huge captive population of American fee-payers. > > If he were to run for the Republican nomination, Obama could point out that > in the past few years he has already done far more to thwart American > liberalism than any of his rivals in the GOP primary have done in their > entire careers. He could boast that when liberal economists called for the > temporary nationalization of insolvent megabanks, forcing shareholders to > swallow their losses and firing their managers, he stood firm and protected > Wall Street. > > In the area of job creation, too, Obama can honestly tell Republican voters > that he never supported massive public works job creation programs, like > those of the New Deal. To the extent that the Obama administration has had > any job creation policies at all, other than an inadequate stimulus and > diversionary rhetoric about training today’s children for high-tech jobs in > the 2030s or 2040s, it has consisted of payroll tax cuts -- a supply-side > measure that practitioners of voodoo economics like Ronald Reagan and Jack > Kemp would have supported. > > Of course, there are limits to Obama’s moderate Republicanism. While his > economic policy is moderately conservative, Obama’s foreign policy is > expansive -- and expensive -- Neoconservatism Lite, not a rebirth of > Eisenhower’s cautious, budget-conscious "New Look" strategy of the 1950s. > > In spite of an economic boom, Eisenhower worried about the effects of > military spending on the civilian economy. In spite of a near-Depression, > Obama exempted defense spending from the government spending freeze. > > Eisenhower wound down the Korean War that he inherited from Harry Truman. > Obama expanded the Afghan War that he inherited from George W. > Bush. In Afghanistan Obama pursued the "surge," a strategy backed by > neoconservatives that will have led to the unnecessary death and crippling > of even more Americans before the inevitable U.S. > withdrawal. > > Eisenhower refused to take part in the British, French and Israeli attack on > Egypt, during the Suez crisis in 1956. Obama, in contrast, agreed that the > U.S. would provide most of the muscle in the Franco-British-American attack > on Gadhafi’s regime in Libya. > > In committing the U.S. to a third ongoing war in a Muslim country, President > Obama lied to the public and trashed the Constitution. The administration > lied when it said that the purpose of the Libyan war was only to protect > civilians in a few areas of Libya from being massacred by Gadhafi’s forces. > Pilots from the U.S. and other NATO countries soon began trying to > assassinate the Libyan dictator from the air. > > Obama had already torn up the Constitution, when his administration > announced, in effect, that the part about Congress declaring war was a dead > letter, as long as an American war was approved by the United Nations and > European countries that belong to NATO. The president then set fire to the > torn-up shreds of the Constitution, when his administration informed > Congress that the War to Assassinate Gadhafi did not trigger the 1973 War > Powers Act, with the Orwellian argument that the attempts at murder by > American forces of the ruler of Libya while bombing all of the nation’s > territory did not rise to the level of "hostilities." > > All of this might help Obama win the Republican nomination. His appeal to > some neocons as well as to socially moderate fiscal conservatives would make > Barack Obama an attractive Republican presidential candidate in 2012. After > all, the chief problem facing the GOP is its over-reliance on high turnout > among white working-class populist conservatives. The Goldwater-Reagan > conservatives succeeded too well in pushing out Rockefeller Republican RINOs > (Republicans in Name Only), many of whom voted for Obama in 2008. If he > received the Republican nomination, Obama might bring many of the moderate > Republicans back home. His fiscal conservatism would appeal to Republicans > worried about deficits and put off by supply-side economics, while his > foreign policy of three simultaneous wars, one of them his own, would > reassure neoconservative Republicans worried about the kind of right-wing > isolationism symbolized by Ron Paul. > > Best of all, Obama could run on healthcare. "ObamaCare" after all was > modeled on "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts and resembled the healthcare plan > set forth in the 1990s by the conservative Heritage Foundation. > Another model for the newly enacted healthcare system, based on individual > mandates and subsidies to for-profit private insurance, was the plan that > Lincoln Chafee, an old-fashioned Northeastern liberal Republican, put forth > during the Clinton era healthcare debate. The pedigree of Obama’s healthcare > program stretches all the way back to his true role model, Dwight > Eisenhower, whose vice president, Richard Nixon, backed the Eisenhower’s > administration plan to expand healthcare access by subsidizing private > insurance rather than through universal social insurance like Medicare. > > Obama’s speech to the Republican convention practically writes itself: > > "I have fought against the failed tradition of New Deal liberalism from > the strongest possible position -- the presidency. When the liberals wanted > to nationalize the banks, I bailed them out and let their executives reap > huge bonuses, thanks to the taxpayers. When the liberals wanted an expansion > of Lyndon Johnson’s big government Medicare, I said no and pushed for a > version of the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare coverage plan and what Mitt > Romney did in Massachusetts. When the liberals wanted a bigger stimulus, I > drew the line in the sand. When the liberals criticized the Bowles-Simpson > plan to gut Social Security and Medicare, I praised it. When the liberals > demanded tougher action against Chinese mercantilist policies that hurt our > manufacturing industries, I said no and sided with the U.S. > multinationals that want to appease the Chinese government. When the > liberals wanted America to withdraw from Afghanistan, I sided with the > neoconservatives and ordered the surge. When the voices of the old, failed > liberalism said that Congress has a part to play in authorizing foreign > wars, I ignored that radical liberal assault on unchecked, arbitrary > presidential power and ordered the U.S. to war in Libya on my own > authority." > > You can already hear the thunder of the standing ovation in the Republican > convention hall, when Barack Obama declares: "America needs a president who > can stand up to the kind of Wall Street-bashing, big-government, Franklin > Roosevelt liberalism that thinks that three wars at one time are too many -- > and my record in the White House proves that I am that president." > > --------- > > Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the > New America Foundation and is the author of "The Next American > Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution." > > War Room is our political news and commentary blog, with coverage and > commentary throughout the day from Alex Pareene and original reporting and > analysis from Justin Elliott, Steve Kornacki and the rest of Salon's news > team. > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way > and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
-- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
