back
12 comments
So much here in this conversation.

First, this reminds me of Obama's hourlong conversation with the podcaster Marc Maron (this past June 22) in which he visited Marc's garage in a very ordinary neighborhood in LA for the podcast. During the podcast, which is 100% worth listening to if you are interested in the president, he touched on the theme of reaching around the media, which apply a filter that really forces much political dialogue into a rut. This is also how he opens this conversation.

Another theme that interests me is Obama's growing confidence, born out of wiping the competition out in two consecutive elections, and weathering a lot of political storms with, really, very little in the way of huge mistakes. I know it's possible to critique his presidency, but, using the last few presidents as a yardstick -- fewer self-inflicted wounds.

Finally, Obama's return to the theme of "homespun values." I find it quite charming, while also being, honestly, somewhat puzzled. This is a quite sophisticated intellect (e.g., editor of Harvard Law Review, etc., etc.) to be appealing to some sort of "well-understood" system of values.

outside of Syria, you could only argue that the aggression of Russia has been his glaring foreign policy flaw.
Oh? What about Libya?
Yeah, what was the plan in Libya? And why did we dump Hozni Mubarak in Egypt almost handing a friendly country over to the Muslim brotherhood. And obama did not support rebellion in iran during the Arab spring. And openly snubbing Israel all the time, confirming they have nukes out of spite... Total confusion over what to do with Syria. Ditching the Iraqis. Russia running circles around us in Ukraine and Syria.

Obama's foreign policy and leadership at state has been a complete mess, stirring up hornets nests all over the world.

I honestly can't figure out what the guy is thinking. He seems to feel the US has been a negative influence, in general, so it's time to pull back. Which is fine... except that wouldn't explain military adventures in Libya and Syria.

He doesn't want to meddle, but at the same time he wants things to turn out a certain way. So he's willing to bomb people we don't like and train their enemies, but he doesn't want to actually be committed to anything that might reflect badly on him if it went pear-shaped. You can't make alliances when your potential allies are (justifiably) worried you'll bug out at the first sign of adversity.

In my opinion, the neocons love balance of power and stability. Iran was to be contained, so we take over Iraq on one side and take over Afghanistan on the other. Slap crippling sanctions on them so they can't muster more than IED and guerilla attacks and otherwise let them rot. Buy off those that can be bought (Egyptian military), threaten those that can be threatened into submission (Libya and Pakistan), etc. Things stay generally stable but under pressure in a lot of spots.

Obama seems to come from a totally different place. I think there has been a lot of bumbling and trying to lead by tracking polls. Egypt was a perfect example of this, Hozni Mubarak and the Egyptian military got mixed signals and then got thrown under the bus because of public polls, as far as I'm concerned. Expedient to make him look populist, but also reckless.

Beyond the bumbling, I think the Obama is all about upsetting the existing order. He's into fundamental transformation, it's his thing. Wars and allowing hegemony to form that is natural for a region, like Iran in the middle East, is ultimately what he wants to see.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln..."
And the thing I’ve been struggling with throughout my political career is how do you close the gap. There’s all this goodness and decency and common sense on the ground, and somehow it gets translated into rigid, dogmatic, often mean-spirited politics.

Well, one way that happens is when political leaders don't try to engage their opponents' best arguments, but instead set up straw men that are wonderfully fun to watch burn:

Whenever I hear people saying that our problems would be solved without government, I always want to tell them you need to go to some other countries where there really is no government, where the roads are never repaired, where nobody has facilitated electricity going everywhere even where it’s not economical, where... the postal system doesn’t work, or kids don’t have access to basic primary education. That’s the logical conclusion if, in fact, you think that government is the enemy.

The GOP (thankfully) isn't composed of a bunch of anarchists, and framing your opposition as only made up of the idiots who run around saying "Keep government out of my Medicare" is not really a great way to persuade folks that, say, a $4.1T government is worth $300B more taxes and debt than a $3.8T government. Either could keep the roads paved and the mail delivered.

You mean hundreds of GOP representatives did not sign a pledge written by a philosphical leader who wants to "drown the government in a bathtub" Are these the same Republicans who when asked in debates what they'll do as president talk mostly about bulking up the military and buying more jets and ships? Or who want to spend more getting involved in wars or building walls?

If you look at Paul Ryan's budget it's pretty easy to conclude the opposition is run by idiots.

And if you want to straw man you opponents, how about calling them Marxists, doubt they're even American, claim they don't love America, that they're tearing up the constitution, that stuff they've done that every other gop president has done is "unprecedented" The GOP has been hyperbolically twisting Obama policies since day 1 stoking up fear. "death panels"? Coming to grab you guns?

I see a lot of poo being flung towards politicians but I have to wonder why they behave the way they do. The economics of human behavior are they we all, generally, gravitate towards doing things that reward us.
That's the way he's always been. Remember the "bitter clingers" remarks?