Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
There were two opposing viewpoints in NY Times recently about what to expect -- or hope -- from President Obama over the next four years.
Paul Krugman argued forcefully for tacking hard left -- universal health care, massive economic stimulus, working towards a state of permanent dominance for the Democratic party and its agenda.
David Brooks argued eloquently for a genuinely bipartisan administration -- prominent Republicans in important positions, an energy-independence (aka green energy) investment program, bottom-up reform, that sort of thing.
Interestingly, both of these people agreed about the big picture. Massive fiscal stimulus is needed. The Federal government will be running a deficit of $1T (Krugman) to $1.5T (Brooks) before you're out of the hole.
Personally, I found Brooks's vision more appealing. One structural problem with the American polity is polarization. Permanent majorities don't exist, and an extremely polarized polity just leads to wild lurches from one side to the other with no long-term continuity. To address that, the center must assert itself, across party lines.
Here's how I would grade President Obama in 2012, based on what we know now -- which, of course, will almost certainly not include the really important stuff that will go down by then. My benchmarks are primarily economic, simply because those are reasonably unambiguous, easily measurable criteria. Failing to meet the zero-point benchmark gives the Prez -1 point.
0 points is the minimal passing grade -- it may not be easy, but it's absolutely necessary.
1 point is the equivalent of B- performance -- a good, solid result.
2 points is the equivalent of A+ performance -- a historic success, almost but not quite unimaginable.
If Obama manages a positive score overall, IMO he deserves re-election. A negative score means he should probably be thrown out, and zero means that he should lose if the Republicans manage to field someone with more than two functioning brain cells (Bobby Jindal?)
(1) The economy:
0 points: Unemployment trending down, growth at 3.5% or more for starting in Q3/2011.
1 point: As above, starting from Q1/2011. Federal budget deficit trending down in the 2012 budget.
2 points: As above, but starting in Q1/2010 or before.
(2) Iraq and the Middle East:
0 points: Cost of the Iraq war in the Federal budget for 2011 $40B or less. Political/military status quo in the region more or less what it's now.
1 point: As above, with Iraq reasonably stable (by Middle Eastern standards) and non-hostile, an Israeli-Syrian peace accord in place, and Israelis and Palestinians doing more talking than shooting.
2 points: A comprehensive Middle Eastern peace accord: Israel and Palestine separate countries with diplomatic relations, Israel and Syria at peace, Syria and Lebanon with normal relations, Hezbollah's armed wing subsumed into the Lebanese military, Iraq stable and with good relations with its neighbors, Iran abandoned its ambitions for nuclear weapons and with normalized relations with Europe and the US.
(3) Afghanistan and Pakistan:
0 points: Cost of the Afghanistan war in the Federal budget for 2011 $40B or less. Pakistan not controlled by the Taliban.
1 point: As above, but Afghanistan not either in a state of anarchy or controlled by the Taliban.
2 points: There is no realistic 2-point scenario here that I can think of. Afghanistan isn't called the Graveyard of Empires for nothing.
There are a lot of other areas we could look at, but IMO they're subsidiary -- if President Obama and his merry men are able to tackle these, it means they're probably doing most things right in most other areas as well.
Paul Krugman argued forcefully for tacking hard left -- universal health care, massive economic stimulus, working towards a state of permanent dominance for the Democratic party and its agenda.
David Brooks argued eloquently for a genuinely bipartisan administration -- prominent Republicans in important positions, an energy-independence (aka green energy) investment program, bottom-up reform, that sort of thing.
Interestingly, both of these people agreed about the big picture. Massive fiscal stimulus is needed. The Federal government will be running a deficit of $1T (Krugman) to $1.5T (Brooks) before you're out of the hole.
Personally, I found Brooks's vision more appealing. One structural problem with the American polity is polarization. Permanent majorities don't exist, and an extremely polarized polity just leads to wild lurches from one side to the other with no long-term continuity. To address that, the center must assert itself, across party lines.
Here's how I would grade President Obama in 2012, based on what we know now -- which, of course, will almost certainly not include the really important stuff that will go down by then. My benchmarks are primarily economic, simply because those are reasonably unambiguous, easily measurable criteria. Failing to meet the zero-point benchmark gives the Prez -1 point.
0 points is the minimal passing grade -- it may not be easy, but it's absolutely necessary.
1 point is the equivalent of B- performance -- a good, solid result.
2 points is the equivalent of A+ performance -- a historic success, almost but not quite unimaginable.
If Obama manages a positive score overall, IMO he deserves re-election. A negative score means he should probably be thrown out, and zero means that he should lose if the Republicans manage to field someone with more than two functioning brain cells (Bobby Jindal?)
(1) The economy:
0 points: Unemployment trending down, growth at 3.5% or more for starting in Q3/2011.
1 point: As above, starting from Q1/2011. Federal budget deficit trending down in the 2012 budget.
2 points: As above, but starting in Q1/2010 or before.
(2) Iraq and the Middle East:
0 points: Cost of the Iraq war in the Federal budget for 2011 $40B or less. Political/military status quo in the region more or less what it's now.
1 point: As above, with Iraq reasonably stable (by Middle Eastern standards) and non-hostile, an Israeli-Syrian peace accord in place, and Israelis and Palestinians doing more talking than shooting.
2 points: A comprehensive Middle Eastern peace accord: Israel and Palestine separate countries with diplomatic relations, Israel and Syria at peace, Syria and Lebanon with normal relations, Hezbollah's armed wing subsumed into the Lebanese military, Iraq stable and with good relations with its neighbors, Iran abandoned its ambitions for nuclear weapons and with normalized relations with Europe and the US.
(3) Afghanistan and Pakistan:
0 points: Cost of the Afghanistan war in the Federal budget for 2011 $40B or less. Pakistan not controlled by the Taliban.
1 point: As above, but Afghanistan not either in a state of anarchy or controlled by the Taliban.
2 points: There is no realistic 2-point scenario here that I can think of. Afghanistan isn't called the Graveyard of Empires for nothing.
There are a lot of other areas we could look at, but IMO they're subsidiary -- if President Obama and his merry men are able to tackle these, it means they're probably doing most things right in most other areas as well.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540