freeheelbillie 0 #1 February 13, 2009 Trying to get some intellectual conversation started here…so if you have something to add other than the typical; waaaahhhhhhh, boohoo, you’re a right flinger, voodoo economics comments by all means chime in. It seems like emotions run high in here and a bit of well directed adult conversation would be a nice change of pace. Just curious what your thoughts are regarding the article below; President Barack Obama's honeymoon period seems to have ended quickly. That's because Mr. Obama doesn't grasp the essentials of presidential leadership. Rather than making a compelling case for his economic policies, he has resorted to curt rebuffs, such as telling House Republican whip Eric Cantor, "I won." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the same thing the same day: "We won the election; we wrote the [stimulus] bill." This is the trope of a party that has lost its ability to make an argument. Mr. Obama and his team would be well advised to put aside the imperious FDR model and study Ronald Reagan's first 200 days in office. The contrast is instructive. Upon entering office in 1981, Reagan's team produced a 50-page, detailed blueprint for their first six months in office. The passage of their economic policy was the central objective. This report, called the Initial Actions Project (IAP), has received little attention from historians or journalists (with the notable exception of Lou Cannon). It would be highly useful for Mr. Obama to review it. One of the main themes that emerges from the IAP report is that Reagan and his team didn't assume that a landslide victory meant they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. To the contrary, the report's authors, Richard Wirthlin and David Gergen, wrote: "The election was not a bestowal of political power, but a stewardship opportunity for us to reconsider and restructure the political agenda for the next two decades. The public has sanctioned the search for a new public philosophy to govern America." Establishing a new governing philosophy, in other words, would require sustained public argument -- something for which Reagan had an abiding instinct. Even in private sessions with Democrats, Reagan relished vigorous arguments about the welfare state. This was much to the annoyance of then House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who just wanted to cut deals. Reagan never attempted to stifle debate by saying "I won." The IAP noted that President Jimmy Carter "failed to realize that leadership means more than 'laying it all out;' it also means keeping at it." Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama seems peeved that Washington won't roll over for him. The IAP report understood that the American people "are yet to be convinced that Mr. Reagan's policies will work." Relying on his skills as "the great communicator," the IAP recommended that the president focus on "the outlining of broad strategic policy outlines, and not on narrow programs" and that his explanations be "simple, straightforward and understandable." Translation for Mr. Obama: Don't go on TV to talk about the stimulative effects of "weatherization." Even Jon Stewart thought that was lame. Throughout the tax cut battle of 1981 -- which was no sure thing right through the final vote in July -- Reagan understood the need for constant argument about the substance of the matter to convince the American public and bring together enough Democrats to pass his agenda. To be sure, Reagan's team knew that the honeymoon period would provide maximum leverage, and that they had to move quickly before "organized interest groups regain their strength and aggressiveness." But by handing over the drafting of the stimulus package to Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama started out by empowering interest groups to unleash their pent-up aggression. This is a lesson in the character of the two parties. The Democratic Party has been, at least since the Nixon years, a predominantly congressional party, finely honing the means of running the iron triangle of interest groups, bureaucracy and spending. This is why Presidents Carter and Clinton came to grief with their own party in Congress, and why the more executive-minded Republican Party generally presents better examples of presidential leadership. The IAP also warned what would happen if the economy remained weak under Reagan: "Should the economy remain in its current disarray, the administration could quickly lose control of the current economic policy agenda. By summer, ignited by a weak economy, the Congress could press for a host of measures to stimulate the economy generally and to shore up particularly weak sectors such as autos, housing, thrift institutions, and small businesses. Under such circumstances, the administration could easily find itself on the defensive, constantly opposing ill-conceived though well meaning bail out schemes. We would essentially be reduced to reacting to events rather than shaping the economic agenda." With Congress already unleashed in exactly this fashion, the months ahead will be grim for Mr. Obama unless he steps up his game. Mr. Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution, 1980-1989," forthcoming from Crown Forum. Hayward, Steven F. (2009). Opinion Journal. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440526764875671.htmlGently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,534 #2 February 13, 2009 QuoteUpon entering office in 1981, Reagan's team produced a 50-page, detailed blueprint for their first six months in office. The passage of their economic policy was the central objective. This report, called the Initial Actions Project (IAP), has received little attention from historians or journalists (with the notable exception of Lou Cannon). It would be highly useful for Mr. Obama to review it.While we no longer have the faith in our leaders that we did then (and it's no less justified now than it was then -- it's just more publicized), I think that's a really good point. Knowing the reason for things helps a lot of people. Of course, again, in this toxic climate, it'll also give others what they see only as fodder for their cannons. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #3 February 13, 2009 Well put! Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #4 February 13, 2009 That would be difficult. You are aware Reagan is dead?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 February 13, 2009 NO WAY man... I do not want President Obama doing any of the channeling and astrology stuff in the white house like Nancy Reagan... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #6 February 13, 2009 QuoteThat would be difficult. You are aware Reagan is dead? funny...The legacy Reagan and others like him (JFK, MLK), leave behind lessons. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Its fair to say that Obama's short resume leaves something to be desired when it comes to his leadership. His oratory skills can’t make up for this. Did you read the article?Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #7 February 13, 2009 Quote NO WAY man... I do not want President Obama doing any of the channeling and astrology stuff in the white house like Nancy Reagan... well that didn't take long Amazon I wasn't aware that Nancy was ever president. I'd ask you to read the request for "Intellectual Conversation" at the top of the post... This ability seems to have escaped you once again. Sad reallyGently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 February 13, 2009 Quote Quote NO WAY man... I do not want President Obama doing any of the channeling and astrology stuff in the white house like Nancy Reagan... well that didn't take long Amazon I wasn't aware that Nancy was ever president. I'd ask you to read the request for "Intellectual Conversation" at the top of the post... This ability seems to have escaped you once again. Sad really WOW those panties sure do get in a bunch way too easily. Have you ever considered boxers instead???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #9 February 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote NO WAY man... I do not want President Obama doing any of the channeling and astrology stuff in the white house like Nancy Reagan... well that didn't take long Amazon I wasn't aware that Nancy was ever president. I'd ask you to read the request for "Intellectual Conversation" at the top of the post... This ability seems to have escaped you once again. Sad really WOW those panties sure do get in a bunch way too easily. Have you ever considered boxers instead???? I go commandoGently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #10 February 13, 2009 AH... its the chafing then.. thanks for the clarification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #11 February 13, 2009 Quote AH... its the chafing then.. thanks for the clarification. Anytime I can simplify things for you so it’s comprehensible, just let me know. Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #12 February 13, 2009 I would think you would want it that way anyway.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDqWTeCVPB4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 February 13, 2009 QuoteReagan never attempted to stifle debate by saying "I won." True. In some case, he didn't even ask Congress for permission, or if it wasn't there, he went ahead and acted on his own. Are you sure you want Obama to remember that lesson from Reagan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 February 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteReagan never attempted to stifle debate by saying "I won." True. In some case, he didn't even ask Congress for permission, or if it wasn't there, he went ahead and acted on his own. Are you sure you want Obama to remember that lesson from Reagan? Come on now.. they did develop the whole "plausible deniability"policy to previously unknown levels. The guys in the basement.. could do no wrong... well till they got caught.. Then again... I think after the assasination attempt... Ronnie was just not there a lot of the time, those senior moments becaue senior weeks at a time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #15 February 13, 2009 Even if Obama wanted to quadruple the national debt, as Reagan did, I don't think it would be possible. The American dollar and economy would collapse entirely before that happened.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #16 February 13, 2009 Quote Quote Reagan never attempted to stifle debate by saying "I won." True. In some case, he didn't even ask Congress for permission, or if it wasn't there, he went ahead and acted on his own. Are you sure you want Obama to remember that lesson from Reagan? In 2009, who gets to be “Iran” and who are the “Contras”? It’s 2009 - ‘Teflon’ is no longer cutting edge. How about meta-materials? /Marg … ‘pithy’ for [rehmwa] ; ‘nano’ for someone else ; & Cal for [kelpdiver] [insert bear icon here] Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 February 13, 2009 A modern version might be his taking away the Exec salaries and private jets, meanwhile funnelling bonus and F18 rides to them quietly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #18 February 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Reagan never attempted to stifle debate by saying "I won." True. In some case, he didn't even ask Congress for permission, or if it wasn't there, he went ahead and acted on his own. Are you sure you want Obama to remember that lesson from Reagan? In 2009, who gets to be “Iran” and who are the “Contras”? It’s 2009 - ‘Teflon’ is no longer cutting edge. How about meta-materials? /Marg … ‘pithy’ for [rehmwa] ; ‘nano’ for someone else ; & Cal for [kelpdiver] [insert bear icon here] Invisibility isn't cutting edge either. Hades gave Perseus a helmet that made him invisible, and that was millennia ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #19 February 14, 2009 Just a few comments to add briefly. First of all, not really trying to shoot the messenger but the American Enterprise Institute is a PNAC retirement community, but I read the article anyway. Quote One of the main themes that emerges from the IAP report is that Reagan and his team didn't assume that a landslide victory meant they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. To the contrary, the report's authors, Richard Wirthlin and David Gergen, wrote: "The election was not a bestowal of political power, but a stewardship opportunity for us to reconsider and restructure the political agenda for the next two decades. The public has sanctioned the search for a new public philosophy to govern America." Now, think about the leadership that the the Democrats and Obama just replaced. It was an Imperial, hardline, 51% "mandate" that was thrust down the country's throat. That extra 1% seemed to give them the right to completely ignore the other 49%, and they did, and quite arrogantly and abusively I might add. That is one of the reasons that they lost in 2006 and 2008. The call for "stewardship" fair play and balance is a bit hard to swallow when, after the last 8 years of hardline "with us or against us" hardball, what the Republican's deserve is Hillary as President with complete supreme and opaque executive powers. Thankfully, that's not what we're getting, but the Republicans peed in that bed, made it, and they deserve at least one night in it. Quote Reagan never attempted to stifle debate by saying "I won." The IAP noted that President Jimmy Carter "failed to realize that leadership means more than 'laying it all out;' it also means keeping at it." Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama seems peeved that Washington won't roll over for him. I see it as quite the opposite. Obama has gone to great lengths to include the Republican party, in his cabinet and in the negotiations to date. He's offered the Republicans olive branches in the form of additional tax cuts as well as striking things from the stimulus bill that raised a big stink, like the sodding of the Mall. Something which actually would stimulate the local economy and provide us with something tangible for our dollars. He's made compromises yet all but three of the Republicans seem to think that HE needs to roll over. They're still in "with us or against us" mode. His "I won" comment was a reminder that America made the decision to get off the obviously errant path of the last administration. Quote Translation for Mr. Obama: Don't go on TV to talk about the stimulative effects of "weatherization." Even Jon Stewart thought that was lame. The weatherization thing makes sense, but Stewart slammed it as being boring. It's hard to get used to a leader who makes logical but uninflamatory statements, especially when you haven't needed writers for a comedy news show in nearly a decade. You only had to repeat the news to get a laugh. Quote Throughout the tax cut battle of 1981 -- which was no sure thing right through the final vote in July -- A final vote in July on a stimulus package is not a good idea when your economy sucks...... a year ago. Quote This is a lesson in the character of the two parties. The Democratic Party has been, at least since the Nixon years, a predominantly congressional party, finely honing the means of running the iron triangle of interest groups, bureaucracy and spending. He's trying to pin this attitude solely on the Democrats? After the last 8 years that's so disingenuous that it's not even funny. Alright, I've got to get the kids to bed. I wasn't meaning to be as negative as I have been but I'll just finish with this. The Republicans should be damn happy that they aren't dealing with a photo negative version of who they were over the last decade and a half. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #20 February 14, 2009 Quote The Republicans peed in that bed, made it, and they deserve at least one night in it. Great metaphor, but I think they deserve several months in it.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
