I wrote recently of my admiration for President Obama's speech on December 3. In the last few days many better-known others have weighed in, also in admiration. Having read their views and gained a richer sense of Obama's words, I am prompted to revisit the occasion and offer readers some of their clarifying and well-informed intelligence. Here, for example, is Robert Reich:
“It’s the first time [Obama] or any other president has clearly stated the long-term structural problem that’s been widening the gap between the very top and everyone else for thirty years....Here, finally, is the Barack Obama many of us thought we had elected in 2008. Hopefully Obama will carry this message through 2012 — and in his second term will take on the growing inequities and game-rigging practices that have been undermining the American economy and American democracy for years."
The context for Obama's speech is manifold — his own personal and political history, the 2008 campaign in which his intelligence and talent for eloquence became evident to so many, especially to so many among the young, the history of progressivism in American politics preceding our own Gilded Age, especially that of Theodore Roosevelt and then more potently his admiring cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt. A close friend and fine historian and philosopher wrote me today,
"Isn't it ironic that the Civil War, having required Northern industry (especially railroads and the clothing industry) to go into high gear, should then have been the prologue to our Gilded Age, i.e. capitalism at full speed, the triumph of the haves. The Progressives briefly planted Slow Down and Stop signs, but not till FDR was an effective new way of thinking brought into play."
I think we shall realize in time that Barack Obama stands firmly in that progressive tradition. Whether he shall come to remind future generations of Canute or of Moses remains to be seen. Our immediate task is to see that he is decisively re-elected in 2012, preferably with Democratic majorities in both House and Senate.
That's a very tall order and a daunting challenge. The American electorate has never been subject to greater manipulation by the dogs of Wall Street and their media minions. Tom Engelhardt recently wrote a chilling piece about the continuing compound growth of money shaping elections, largely through the mainstream media and their owners, especially TV. "It’s clear enough -- or should be by now -- that the electoral process has been occupied by the 1%; which means that what you hear in this 'campaign' is largely refracted versions of their praise, their condemnation, their slurs, their views, their needs, their fears, and their wishes. They are making money off, and electing a president via, you. Which means that you -- that all of us -- are occupied, too. So stop calling this an 'election.' Whatever it is, we need a new name for it."
The most thoughtful response to Obama's speech I've read is that of John Cassidy, brilliant New Yorker staff writer, contributor to The New York Review of Books and purveyor of lively thinking on his New Yorker blog, "Rational Irrationality."
INVOKING TEDDY ROOSEVELT, OBAMA FINDS HIS VOICE
First an admission: just before President Obama followed in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt and went to Osawatomie, Kansas, to deliver a populist speech about inequality and the middle class, I had prepared a post criticizing the White House for having the temerity to compare him, at least implicitly, to one of America’s truly great Presidents.
Here is part of what I had written:
From a tactical perspective, summoning the ghost of Roosevelt is a clever move. It reinforces the White House line that the Republican Party has strayed from its center-right roots and morphed into an extremist organization populated by firebrands like Ron “abolish the Fed” Paul, Michele “send illegal immigrants home” Bachmann, and Newt “put poor kids to work” Gingrich. On a broader level, though, I am not sure that invoking Teddy Roosevelt is such a wise idea for the White House. When it comes to actual achievements, as opposed to rhetoric, Obama’s record cannot seriously be compared with Roosevelt’s.
During his seven years in office (1901-1908), Roosevelt pushed through a series of reforms that largely define what historians now call “the Progressive Era.”
As a matter of history, I stand by that. But once I read Obama’s speech, I realized I had missed the point, and the news. This isn’t the President saying he deserves to be on Mount Rushmore. This is Obama seeking to define the themes he intends to run on next year, to energize his disillusioned base, and to capitalize on a big change in the political climate. Teddy Roosevelt, whose famous “New Nationalism” speech in 1910 called upon the three branches of the federal government to put the public welfare before the interests of money and property, merely provided a convenient framing device.
Whatever one thinks of Occupy Wall Street—I’m broadly supportive—it has focussed public anger and changed the terms of the political debate, elevating issues such as bankers’ pay, tax evasion by rich people, and corporate lobbying. That’s all to the good. But from the White House’s perspective, it has also had the unfortunate effect of sidelining a President vulnerable to the charge of cozying up to Wall Street and wary of giving the Republicans another cudgel to beat him with. (Think 1968, hippies/anti-war protestors, and Hubert Humphrey.)
Today, Obama gave his first considered response to O.W.S., and it was surprisingly positive. He even adopted some of the protestors’ language, saying:
“I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.”
Of course, Obama has talked before about rising inequality and falling tax burdens on the rich. (In the summer of 2010, he made a futile effort to rally support in Congress for ending the Bush tax cuts.) But what was new about today’s speech was the acuteness and depth of Obama’s analysis, and the way he turned it on the Republicans. Rising inequality isn’t only morally repugnant, he said, it is economically inefficient and damaging to the country.
In what was a long speech, here are what I consider to be the six nut grafs:
“Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top one percent has gone up by more than 250%, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of one percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent.
“This kind of inequality—a level we haven’t seen since the Great Depression—hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, it drags down the entire economy, from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity—that’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars they made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
“Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them—that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.
“More fundamentally, this kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise at the very heart of America: that this is the place where you can make it if you try. We tell people that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, hard work can get you into the middle class; and that your children will have the chance to do even better than you. That’s why immigrants from around the world flocked to our shores.
“And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. A few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance fell to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a 1 in 3 chance of making it to the middle class.
“It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It’s wrong. It flies in the face of everything we stand for.”
Maybe I’m wrong. But to me that seems like strong and cogent stuff. Doubtless, the Republicans will dismiss it as “class warfare.” That is largely because they don’t have anything more convincing to say. And anyway, Obama has already anticipated their response:
“It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 million. It is wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. And he agrees with me….
“This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get to the middle class, and the economy as a whole.”
Like many people who voted for Obama in 2008, I have been critical of some of his actions and inactions. What has bothered me most has not been any one thing in particular, but his overall failure to articulate and defend the vision of an activist government tackling market failures and protecting the public interest, which Teddy Roosevelt helped to create. Yes, the President has done some positive things and made some good speeches, and, yes too, he has faced enormous difficulties, but all too often his heart hasn’t seemed to be in the fight.
Today, at last, he found his voice, or Teddy Roosevelt’s voice—or, as some are suggesting, Elizabeth Warren’s voice. Anyway, it was a big improvement.