Sunday, February 2, 2014

Democratic Accomplishments ... Signed Into Law...


DCCC



Democratic Accomplishments

 


Signed Into Law...

  • Health Insurance Reform, to recognize health care as a right, not a privilege and put a stop to the worst abuses by insurance companies including discrimination against people with pre-existing medical conditions. [OPPOSED BY 100 % OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • The Economic Recovery Act, to save and create millions of jobs and cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans. [OPPOSED BY 100 % OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, to make the largest investment in college aid in American history. [OPPOSED BY 100 % OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • Wall Street Reform, to rein in reckless practices on Wall Street, end taxpayer-funded bail-outs and "too big to fail" institutions, and protect and empower consumers. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • Extension of Unemployment Benefits, to extend benefits to millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the Bush recession and to stimulate economic activity.
  • Cash for Clunkers, to jumpstart America's auto industry and spur the sale of 700,000 new vehicles. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights, to ban the worst practices by credit card companies and provide tough new consumer protections. [OPPOSED BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERS]
  • Hate Crimes Prevention, to extend federal protection to people who are victims of violent crime because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  • The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, to save or create the jobs of 161,000teachers, and thousands of police officers, and firefighters while closing tax loopholes that encourage big corporations to ship American jobs overseas.
  • The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to restore the rights of women and other workers to challenge unfair pay and help close the wage gap where women earn 78 cents for every $1 that a man earns in America. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • The HIRE Act, to provide tax incentives for businesses to hire more Americans (4.5 million Americans have already been hired) and unleashing billions of dollars to rebuild highways and other infrastructure, and to crack down on offshore tax havens for the wealthy.
  • The Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act, to boost the American economy and create jobs, expand the 1st time homebuyers' tax credit, and enhance tax relief for small businesses.
  • The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act, to help American manufacturers compete by temporarily suspending or reducing duties on materials and products which are not made domestically.
  • Children's Health Insurance legislation, to provide affordable health care coverage to 11 million children, who would otherwise go without coverage.
  • Tobacco Regulation, to have the FDA regulate the manufacture and marketing of tobacco, especially to children.
  • Budget Blueprint, to create jobs through investments in health care, clean energy, and education, reduce taxes for most Americans, and cut the Bush-deficit in half by the year 2013.
  • Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO), to bring back the Clinton-era rule that requires all new policies that reduce revenues or expand entitlement spending be offset over five and ten years and therefore not increase the deficit. This spending rule led to the record surpluses during the Clinton Administration.
  • Stem Cell Research, to end former President Bush's ban on federal funding for lifesaving embryonic stem cell research. [ENACTED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER]
  • Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services, to provide help for those who provide care to disabled, sick, or injured veterans and improve health care services to women veterans.

Passed by the House...

  • Repeal of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' to end this outdated policy, contingent on the certification that military review was completed and that repeal would not impact readiness.
  • The American Clean Energy and Security Act, to create millions of clean energy jobs, bring about historic reductions in pollution that causes climate change, and reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • The DISCLOSE Act, to respond to the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United that threatens corporate takeover of our elections. The measure requires CEOs to stand by the political advertising funded through their corporate treasuries, expands disclosure requirements, and prohibits foreign countries from exercising influence in the funding of U.S. elections.
  • The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, to close tax loopholes that reward corporations for shipping American jobs overseas. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • Jobs for Main Street Act, to create and save jobs through investments to hire more teachers, police officers, fire fighters, rebuild highways and mass transit systems, and boost small businesses. [OPPOSED BY 100 % OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, to establish a $30 billion lending fund to help community banks provide loans to small businesses. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • The America COMPETES Act, to reauthorize this legislation that aims to create millions of American jobs in science and innovation while reasserting America's economic and technological leadership throughout the world. [OPPOSED BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS]
  • Response to the BP Oil Spill, to eliminate the $75 million cap on oil company liability, restore the Gulf Coast, increase safety requirements and oversight on offshore drilling, and protect local residents.
  • Home Star Jobs legislation, to incentivize consumers to make their homes more energy efficient, create 168,000 jobs, reduce energy bills for 3 million families, and reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

Good Science Always Has Political Ramifications


 

 

Good Science Always Has Political Ramifications

Why? Because a scientifically testable claim can be shown to be either most probably true or false, whether the claim is made by a king or a president, a pope, a congressperson, or a common citizen [Book Excerpt] 
 
 



Rodale books
When speaking about science to scientists, there is one thing that can be said that will almost always raise their indignation, and that is that science is inherently political and that the practice of science is a political act. Science, they will respond, has nothing to do with politics. But is that true?

Let's consider the relationship between knowledge and power. "Knowledge and power go hand in hand," said Francis Bacon, "so that the way to increase in power is to increase in knowledge."

At its core, science is a reliable method for creating knowledge, and thus power. Because science pushes the boundaries of knowledge, it pushes us to constantly refine our ethics and morality, and that is always political. But beyond that, science constantly disrupts hierarchical power structures and vested interests in a long drive to give knowledge, and thus power, to the individual, and that process is also political.

The politics of science is nothing new. Galileo, for example, committed a political act in 1610 when he simply wrote about his observations through a telescope. Jupiter had moons and Venus had phases, he wrote, which proved that Copernicus had been right in 1543: Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around, as contemporary opinion—and the Roman Catholic Church—held. These were simple observations, there for anyone who wanted to look through Galileo's telescope to see.

But the simple statement of an observable fact is a political act that either supports or challenges the current power structure. Every time a scientist makes a factual assertion—Earth goes around the sun, there is such a thing as evolution, humans are causing climate change—it either supports or challenges somebody's vested interests.
. . .

Why did the church go to such absurd lengths to deal with Galileo? For the same reasons we fight political battles over issues like climate change today: Because facts and observations are inherently powerful, and that power means they are political.

Failing to acknowledge this leaves both science and America vulnerable to attack by antiscience thinking—thinking that has come to dominate American politics and much of its news media coverage and educational curricula in the early twenty-first century. Thinking that has steered American politics off course and away from the vision held by the country's founders.

Wishing to sidestep the painful moral and ethical parsing that their discoveries sometimes compel, many scientists today see their role to be the creation of knowledge and believe they should leave the moral, ethical, and political implications to others to sort out. But the practice of science itself cannot possibly be apolitical, because it takes nothing on faith. The very essence of the scientific process is to question long-held assumptions about the nature of the universe, to dream up experiments that test those questions, and, based on the observations, to incrementally build knowledge that is independent of our beliefs and assumptions. A scientifically testable claim is utterly transparent and can be shown to be either most probably true or false, whether the claim is made by a king or a president, a pope, a congressperson, or a common citizen. Because of this, science is inherently antiauthoritarian, and a great equalizer of political power.

AUTHORITARIAN POLITICS

Because this is the case, it's reasonable to ask how science fits into political thought. Science writer Timothy Ferris reminds us that in politics there are not just two forces, the progressive left (encouraging change) and the conservative right (seeking constancy). In fact, there are four. Imagined on a vertical axis, there are also the authoritarian (totalitarian, closed, and controlling, at the bottom of the axis) and the antiauthoritarian (liberal, open, and freedom loving, at the top), which one can argue have actually played much more fundamental roles in human history. Politics, then, can be more accurately thought of as a box with four quadrants rather than as a linear continuum from left to right.
. . .

The present-day Republican Party provides an example of how politics actually breaks down into these four quadrants, rather than in a simple left-right continuum. Its constituents range from antigovernment anarchists on the top to totalitarian fundamentalists on the bottom—but both groups are right wing. There is currently a power struggle going on between the antiauthoritarian Tea Party top wing and the authoritarian big-government "family values" bottom wing.

The George W. Bush administration did a masterful job of uniting these disparate ends of the vertical spectrum by first rebranding progressives as "liberals," thus silencing liberal conservatives, and then by using profreedom, antitotalitarian, small-government rhetoric on the one hand and antiscience, profundamentalist rhetoric on the other, directing half of the argument at each wing.
 . . .

This move was made possible by the reaction to 9/11, which drove the country toward fascism, a lower-right position. Bush was a very effective leader in that he moved a large portion of the public to follow his direction, but his presidency became the most illiberal and antidemocratic in American history, as well as, not surprisingly, the most antiscience. This was aided by two generations of scientists having gone silent in the national dialogue and the voices of authoritarians like conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his self-described "dittoheads" holding sway.
. . .
DEMOCRACY: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?

The challenge to authority that science presents is one of many reasons why it has flourished in free, democratic societies. It is not a coincidence that the ongoing scientific revolution has been led in significant part by the United States and other free, democratic societies. But it is also partly why, since the late twentieth century, the political climate has increasingly hampered US policy makers in dealing with so many critical science policy issues, and why the United States may soon cede both its leadership in scientific research and development and the economic and social benefits that leadership provides.
Thomas Jefferson's fundamental notion that, when well informed, people can be trusted with their own government lies at the center of democracy. Without a well-informed voter, the very exercise of democracy becomes removed from the problems it is charged with solving. The more complex the world becomes, the more challenging it is for democracy to function, because it places an increased burden of education and information upon the people—and in the twenty-first century, that includes science education and science reporting. Without the mooring provided by the well-informed opinion of the people, governments may become paralyzed or, worse, corrupted by powerful interests seeking to oppress and enslave.

For this reason and others, Jefferson was a staunch advocate of free public education and freedom of the press, the primary purposes of which were to ensure an educated and well-informed people. In 1787 he wrote to James Madison:
[quote] And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain, and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. [endquote]
But what do we do when the level of complexity actually does require a "very high degree of education"? Can democracy still function effectively?

Will American-style democracy, run by the people, be able to compete in the complex, science-driven global economy with nations like China, which is run by highly educated engineers and scientists who have moved into government leadership roles? It's a critically important question, both for America and for our ideas about liberty.
 

Excerpt reprinted from Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Lawrence Otto. Copyright (c) 2011 by Shawn Lawrence Otto. By permission of Rodale, Inc. Available wherever books are sold.

Hillary Clinton's 9 most memorable moments as secretary of state

 
 

As Clinton prepares to step down, a look back at her tenure as America's top diplomat 

 

 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a "Global Townterview" event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 29.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a "Global Townterview" event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 29. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
 
 
 

On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is expected to easily win confirmation as secretary of state, officially marking the end of Hillary Clinton's four-year tenure as the country's top diplomat. Clinton is in the midst of a kind of valedictory tour, appearing with President Obama in a rare joint interview on 60 Minutes in which he showered her with praise. On Tuesday, she participated in a global town hall in which she once again dismissed speculation that she would run for president in 2016. However, while Clinton is certainly a very popular secretary of state, both at home and abroad, her legacy continues to be debated. Here, a look back at the 9 most memorable moments from her eventful tenure:

1. The liberation of Libya

Clinton was among a group of administration officials urging Obama in 2011 to help Libyan rebels overthrow longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, over objections from Defense Secretary Roberts Gates and others. However, while Gadhafi was successfully ousted with zero American casualties, the rebels' victory has led to an uncertain future and widespread instability, the clearest example of which, for Americans, was the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. citizens. Below, Clinton and Obama greet the arrival of the slain Americans at Dover Air Force Base.


(Molly Riley-Pool/Getty Images)

2. The opening-up of Myanmar 

In 2012, Clinton became the first secretary of state in 50 years to make an official visit to Myanmar, part of the Obama administration's efforts to reward the ruling military junta for taking concrete steps toward a freer society. Clinton met with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi (pictured), a pro-democracy activist who had been recently released from house arrest. Clinton's visit to Myanmar also fell under the Obama administration's much-publicized pivot to Asia, following years of perceived neglect of the region under President Bush, whose foreign policy agenda was largely absorbed by terrorism and the Iraq War.


(AP Photo/Saul Loeb)


3. Playing peacemaker in the Middle East 

In late 2012, Clinton brought all her diplomatic resources to bear during a bloody outbreak of violence between Israel and Arab militants in the Gaza Strip, performing a whirlwind tour of the region that many credited with helping prevent an all-out war. Clinton reportedly spent hours negotiating with Egypt's newly elected Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi (pictured), to cement the deal, which had the added benefit of reaffirming Egypt's continued support for a peace treaty with Israel.



(AP Photo/Egyptian Presidency)

4. Freeing a Chinese dissident 

Clinton's May 2012 visit to China, ostensibly about mutual economic and security concerns, was ensnared in a full-blown diplomatic emergency, after human-rights dissident Chen Guangcheng escaped house arrest and took refuge at the U.S. Embassy. For the benefit of her media-sensitive hosts, Clinton continued to meet then-Chinese President Hu Jintao (pictured) and to perform other duties as if nothing were amiss, while she and her team negotiated Chen's release behind the scenes.

(AP Photo/Shannon Stapleton

5. Killing Osama bin Laden

Clinton was not intimately involved in the clandestine operation to kill Osama bin Laden in 2011, but she will be indelibly linked to the moment, thanks to a photograph showing her real-time response to the operation in the White House Situation Room.



(Pete Souza/The White House via Getty Images)  


6. Tightening sanctions on Iran 

Clinton, seen here in 2011 announcing new sanctions on Iran with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, played an important role in the U.S.'s efforts to win international support to isolate Iran economically. The sanctions have been the most severe Iran has ever dealt with, and have taken a heavy toll on the country's economy. But they have yet to curb its suspected progress in developing a nuclear weapon, which many analysts would count as a stain on Clinton's legacy.


(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

7. Isolating Syria's Assad 

Clinton, seen here in 2012 condemning atrocities committed by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has played a central role in the administration's efforts to corral international support against the regime. However, like Iran, Syria remains an unfinished story: Assad is in a bloody stalemate with the rebels, the United Nations has proved impotent in stopping the bloodshed, and atrocities continue apace.


(AP Photo)

8. Fighting for women's rights 

One of Clinton's main initiatives as secretary of state was to champion the cause of gender equality, one of the hallmarks of her political career that stretches back to her days as First Lady. Clinton, pictured here winning an award from the New York Women's Foundation in 2012, made women's rights a focal point in speeches, interviews, and town halls across the world, from China to Pakistan.

(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

9. Becoming a pop icon

Being the fodder for numerous internet memes may seem like the most ephemeral of achievements, but Clinton's ascendancy in the world of pop culture must be counted as a victory for a politician who was once widely viewed as calculating and heartless. Indeed, Clinton's new image as a tough, effective leader, as evidenced by the popular "Texts From Hillary" tumblr, may herald a positive development for women everywhere.

5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State Tenure


policymic



5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State Tenure

5, top, highlights, in, hillary, clinton’s, secretary, of, state, tenure, 5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State Tenure Image Credit: WashPo
 

Hillary Clinton is widely admired for her intelligence, drive, and success as secretary of state. Her four years in office have been marked by a series of noteworthy accomplishments and near lack of serious missteps. Replacing her is a daunting task even for someone with Senator Kerry’s impressive foreign policy credentials. Below are 5 highlights from Clinton’s tenure:

1. People-to-People Diplomacy

Clinton understands the importance of strengthening ties with friends and allies while simultaneously engaging adversaries. Through intensive personal interaction, she has deftly built new relationships and managed old ones in a way that advance U.S. interests. In her own words, she has endeavored to ensure that the U.S. has “…a seat at every table that has the potential for being a partnership to solve problems.” For example, she expertly led efforts to rescue Chen Guangcheng, the dissident who took refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in May 2012, without crippling U.S.-China relations. Clinton has been the most active secretary of state in history, as a result. She has traveled more frequently and visited more countries than any of her predecessors; to date, her travels have spanned nearly 1 million miles and 112 countries.

2. The Importance of Economics

Clinton articulated a new vision of Economic Statecraft that made domestic economic growth – e.g. helping U.S. companies win business overseas – a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy. She made foreign policy relevant to the broader economic conversation, taking place in the U.S. in a show of political savvy few previous secretaries could match. And Clinton appointed the State Department’s first ever-chief economist to help implement Clinton’s vision. She also supported the more traditional economic aspects of foreign policy – such as sanctions – including those that crippled the Iranian government – and free trade – including Free Trade Agreements with allies Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

3. Restoring American Credibility

Building on people-to-people diplomacy, Clinton has promoted U.S. values in a firm but respectful way that restored international faith in the U.S. that eroded during the Bush administration. Her outreach to Burma balances unwavering support for human rights with the promise of support to a previously suspicious regime and has opened that country to the world for the first time in decades. Aung San Suu Kyi is now free and her party actively participating in the governance reform effort in Burma. Clinton also rejuvenated U.S. engagement in the Middle East by brokering a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel earlier this year. Her shuttle diplomacy and coordination with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi will likely give the U.S. greater leverage to pursue a robust peace process in 2013.

4. Diplomacy is National Security

The now iconic picture of senior officials gathered in the Situation Room during the Osama Bin Laden raid will forever memorialize one of the principal national security achievements of the first Obama administration. Clinton supported the raid and was a key player in adjusting U.S.-Pakistan relations afterwards. She was also a strong proponent of NATO airstrikes in Libya that eventually led to Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster. Her active diplomacy was critical to securing United Nations Security Council authorization of the Libya mission and maintaining strong European and regional support for it. Without such robust diplomatic effort, the use of military force – in Pakistan and Libya – would not have been nearly as effective. Clinton’s role in these two military campaigns highlights the central role foreign policy plays in U.S. national security in the 21st century.

5. Texts From Hillary

In 2012, Clinton became an internet sensation because of a series of memes depicting her having fictitious, comical text exchanges with other celebrities while wearing her trademark sunglasses. Texts from Hillary became so popular that Clinton herself submitted her own caption to the website and invited its creators to meet with her at the State Department. Her star power and ability to capture the imagination of individuals around the world is one noteworthy aspect of her success.

Senator Kerry will likely succeed Hillary Clinton in early 2013. Her tenure as secretary of state is filled with accomplishments that taken together demonstrate the resurgence of U.S. diplomacy and restoration of American credibility. Her specific successes – such as Burma’s opening to the world or crippling effect of Iran sanctions – are important, but so too are her focus on people-to-people diplomacy and economics. Senator Kerry would do well to build upon Clinton’s impressive record once he moves over to Foggy Bottom.

Was Hillary Clinton a Good Secretary of State?






Not so long ago, Hillary Clinton was being lauded as an exemplary secretary of state. After four years and nearly a million miles logged as America’s top diplomat, she stepped down to a torrent of praise. “The most consequential secretary of state since Dean Acheson,” enthused Google’s Eric Schmidt. “Stellar,” pronounced Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson. Even Republican Sen. John McCain, while criticizing her response to the killing of U.S. officials in Benghazi, went out of his way to compliment her “outstanding” State Department tenure.

That was then.

When the Atlantic published an admiring 10,000-word profile of Secretary of State John Kerry the other day, the surprise was not so much that the author, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Rohde, found himself impressed by the headlong diplomatic forays of the peripatetic Kerry, but the downbeat assessment of Kerry’s much more reserved predecessor. The headline? “How John Kerry Could End Up Outdoing Hillary Clinton.” A few days later, the New York Times chimed in with an article on the “tough comparisons with Kerry” Clinton is now facing, summing up the debate as one over whether she was anything more than a “pantsuit-wearing globe-trotter” in her years as secretary.

All of which yields the question: Was Hillary Clinton in fact a good secretary of state, and will her record as a diplomat matter if, as expected, she runs for president in 2016?

As Bill Clinton might have said, it depends on what the meaning of good is. Certainly, even many of her most ardent defenders recognize Hillary Clinton had no signal accomplishment at the State Department to her name, no indelible peace sealed with her handshake, no war averted, no nuclear crisis defused. There are few Eric Schmidts out there still willing to make the case for her as an enormously consequential figure in the history of Foggy Bottom.

Where the debate tends to rage is over why that is so, especially now that Kerry is taking on diplomatic challenges that Clinton either couldn’t or wouldn’t—from negotiating a potentially historic nuclear deal with Iran to seeking a revived Mideast peace process—and political rivals in both parties return to thinking of Clinton in the hypercharged American political context and not so much as the tireless, Blackberry-wielding face of global glad-handing.

I asked an array of smart foreign policy thinkers in both parties to weigh in, and they pretty much all agreed that Clinton was both more cautious and more constrained than Kerry. Their argument is over whether and to what extent that was a consequence of Clinton herself, the limits placed on her by a suspicious and eager-to-make-its-mark first-term White House, or simply it being a very different moment in world politics.

Here’s Aaron David Miller, who negotiated Middle East peace for five presidents and is now a scholar at the Wilson Center, making the case for cautious Clinton: “Hillary was risk-averse; Kerry isn’t. He’s risk-ready.” Of course, Miller argues, 2016 politics “explains partly why she didn’t own a single issue of consequence.” The other reason is President Obama himself, “the most controlling foreign policy president since Nixon.” Miller’s bottom line: “She was a fine secstate but not consequential.” As for 2016, “It won’t hurt her other than the Republican obsession with Benghazi, but it won’t help her that much either.”


What does that Republican take look like? For sure, there will be a focus on Benghazi, where the GOP has questioned whether Clinton and other administration officials were activist enough—and truthful enough—about responding to the attack in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, that led to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other American personnel; a case summed up by the American Enterprise’s Institute’s Danielle Pletka as “unwillingness to take risks, unwillingness to lead, willingness to stab a lot of people in the back. And dead people.” Pletka’s broader view of Clinton’s record is a harsher version of what I hear from many Democrats: “the Washington consensus,” Pletka says, “is that she was enormously ineffective … [though] no one was quite sure whether she was ineffective because she wanted to avoid controversy or because she wasn’t trusted by the president to do anything.”

Not quite so harsh is David Gordon, who ran the State Department’s storied policy-planning shop under George W. Bush. He calls Clinton “good not great” in the job, agrees that her “great weakness was avoiding serious diplomacy,” gives her plaudits for outlining the strategic “pivot” to Asia whose future is now uncertain, and attributes much to “her future political considerations”:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that for Clinton, the SecState role was substantially about positioning her to run for president, especially in terms of looking ‘tough’ on some of the big issues: Iran sanctions, reassuring Asian allies. … Not taking on the big diplomatic challenges made that toughness easier to maintain even as she devoted so much of her actual time in office to ‘soft’ issues like education, women’s empowerment, etc.

As for the Democrats, Clinton’s advocates tend to come in several camps, which can be broadly summed up as The Timing Just Wasn’t Right group; the Blame the White Housers; and the Asia Pivot Was a Really Big Deal crowd (“her major accomplishment,” the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon told me, and “too often underappreciated”).

Howard Berman, a strong Clinton backer who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee during her tenure, offered me a great example of the first line of reasoning: You don’t pick your moments, but deal with the world as you find it. “I don’t believe Secretary Clinton was constrained by future political considerations,” he wrote to me. “Let’s look at the issues Kerry is working on and it is clear that Clinton, for rather obvious reasons, couldn’t have replicated what he has done because those issues weren’t ripe then. … It’s about a different time.”

Blaming the White House, of course, is a common theme in any critique of a foreign policy record, and that’s especially so when it comes to the question of Clinton’s dealings with the White House of the president she ran against in 2008. Throughout her tenure as secretary of state, Washington wondered over the extent of Clinton’s actual influence in foreign policy decision-making (“she’s really the principal implementer,” Obama adviser Denis McDonough told me, when I asked about the division of labor between Obama’s White House and Clinton’s State Department for a Foreign Policy article last year). And it was by all accounts Obama himself who was reluctant to take on some of the challenges, like Middle East peace talks or a more activist stance toward the civil war unfolding in Syria, that Clinton is now dinged for avoiding.

That was the argument from Dennis Ross, and he is certainly well positioned to know: Ross worked as the top White House aide on Iran and the Middle East on Obama’s National Security Council before leaving last year. The new conventional wisdom on Politically Cautious Hillary is “misguided,” he says. “She was operating in a different world and with an administration at a different place.” And those White House realities very much shaped what she could and couldn’t do. To start, Ross notes, Clinton was “in a place where she felt the need to prove her loyalty to the president and demonstrate she was a member of the team,” and besides, Obama himself was very personally engaged in his various diplomatic initiatives. By later in Obama’s first term, deciding what to do about dumping America’s longtime ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt (she was wary) and whether to intervene more actively in Syria (she pushed to do so) became “issues where I think she was not in the same place as the president and was thus less able to shape what we did.”
Timing, fate and the White House may have all conspired in it, but the truth is that Hillary Clinton never did find a way to turn Foggy Bottom into her ticket to history.
Steve Sestanovich, a professor at Columbia University and veteran of Bill Clinton’s State Department, thinks the blame lies in part with another White House—George W. Bush’s. Hillary Clinton, Sestanovich concedes, “was reluctant to over-invest in high-visibility initiatives that didn’t have much chance of success.” But, he says, that’s because “the top priority of the president—and hers too—was to deal with inherited difficulties and wind them down,” whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or restoring luster to an American global reputation tarred by the aggressive decade-long prosecution of its “war on terror.” Sestanovich adds: “It’s true that her record as secretary included few accomplishments if you mean by that peace agreements solving some big problem. If you measure her tenure by success in rebuilding America’s power position, it looks a lot better. She wasn’t just foisting better cookstoves on African women.”


In some ways, though, that is exactly the argument I encountered from her most passionate defender among those I surveyed. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s first policy-planning chief at the State Department and now head of the New America Foundation, is still an unwavering believer in the cookstoves and all of Clinton’s other untraditional causes, many of which focused on global advocacy for women and girls. “I continue to think that people will look back and see that she was the first secretary of state really to grasp the ways global politics and hence foreign policy have changed in the 21st century,” Slaughter says.

Her case for Clinton, in fact, is explicitly about politics—and Clinton’s willingness to integrate them into the traditionally stodgy, big man-to-big man diplomacy long favored at the State Department (and arguably now being resurrected by Kerry). “Foreign policy has always been the furthest thing from retail politics; she brought them much closer together and institutionalized as much of her approach as possible in the very bones of the State Department. … Hillary took diplomacy directly to the people in ways that cannot produce a treaty or negotiated agreement, but that are essential to advancing America’s interests over the longer term,” Slaughter argues. “What she should be remembered for in a 2016 campaign is proving that she could represent the American people day in and day out in the long, hard slog of regular politics, in between the rare shining moments of success. She was and is beloved around the world, as an inspiration, as an example of an America in which a woman could run for president, nearly win her party’s primary, lose with grace and then prove that adversaries can work together for the sake of their country.”

***

Near the end of her tenure, I traveled with Clinton to China in the midst of what turned out to be a frenetic several days of negotiations over the fate of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who had taken refuge at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing at exactly the moment Clinton was arriving for a summit. In the end, Clinton walked away with a deal that allowed Chen to fly to the United States a few weeks later. It was, I wrote at the time, “the most intense high-stakes diplomacy of her tenure as secretary of state.”

“Can this really be true? Was the Chen negotiation as good as it will get for Clinton?” asked Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. “I fear the answer is yes.” At the time, he dinged Clinton for not finding “a way to get more done in her role as the president’s diplomatic emissary, broker, and fixer.” And never mind all the hundreds of thousands of miles logged, the endless “townterviews” and back-stage arm-twisting—it remains a pretty fair critique. Timing, fate and the White House may have all conspired in it, but the truth is that Hillary Clinton never did find a way to turn Foggy Bottom into her ticket to history.

And perhaps that’s exactly the reason why American politicians tend to become secretary of state after they’ve run for president and lost; it just might be a better consolation prize than it is steppingstone to higher office.


Susan B. Glasser is editor of Politico Magazine.

Hillary's Outstanding Accomplishments


Daily Kos




Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM PST

Hillary's Outstanding Accomplishments




       Will Hillary run or won’t she. Emotions run strong on both sides of this debate. Her supporters have set up Hillary superpacs that have already amassed small fortunes to be used to finance a possible campaign. Lots of people love Hillary because, even with their strong connections to Wall Street and their embrace of neoliberalism, she and Willy presided over a period of prosperity in the 1990s that, on the surface, appeared to benefit ALL Americans.

        The reactions of the Hillary lovers pale when compared to the visceral and vicious response from her opponents on the right. The Clinton Conspiracy wing of the conservative resurgence, that has been in overdrive since Willy was president, has succeeded in creating a cadre of reactionaries among their simple-minded followers that just won’t die out. Mention any Clinton and you will release an explosion of irrational and vituperative invective that is difficult for a sane human being to understand.

        On any forum visited that is connected in any meaningless way with any meaningless Clinton article, there are certain meaningless right-wing buzzwords that pop-up repeatedly. Besides the ubiquitous and desperation-laden chants of “beenghaaaaziiiibeenghaaaazhiiiibeenghaaaaziiii,” you can still find references to “Vince Foster,” “Watergate,” “the Hillary Clone,” and, of course, the ever present “Hillary’s Secret Baby With Hubble.”[1] There is a whole army of simple-minded parrots haunting online forums that have the distinction of having the ability to repeat the phrase “What difference does it make?” over and over and over again, ad nauseum. [Google Hillary for examples] The bullshit is fucking mind-numbing. Furthermore, ridicule is wasted on these idiots. They have been so thoroughly programmed by right wing propagandists that they have formed a Kevlar kernel of hate in their empty little minds that is impervious to logic, truth, or common sense.
      
         The stupidest question, however, that I run across over and over again is this: “Really, what has Hillary ever accomplished?” There is an old saying that attorneys always keep in mind when grilling witnesses on the stand; “Never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.”[2] The implication is that a surprise answer might make the interrogator look like a complete and utter fool. Hillary has devoted her life to public service. Although I don’t agree with her all the time, I think that she genuinely cares for the welfare of the people in our country. You can’t spend so much of your time working for the people without racking up some achievements. I did some research and compiled a small sample of Hillary’s outstanding achievements. This compilation is far from comprehensive; I’m just trying to illuminate for the unaware the exceptional qualities and morally outstanding character of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

         By all accounts, Hillary was an exceptional child with a keen intellect that made her a teacher’s favorite. She excelled in school and was known as a natural-born leader. Hillary was raised in a traditional conservative household in Illinois by Methodist parents. Naturally, the conservative influences of her parents influenced the embryonic stage of her political awareness. As she grew older, however, her growing involvement in political affairs produced a transformation. Her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement had a profound effect on her. In 1968, after being a nominal Republican for years, she repudiated the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party and switched to the Democratic Party. [3]

        Hillary went to the prestigious women’s institution of higher learning, Wellesley College. The beginning of her prodigious political growth can be traced to this period. Naturally, she excelled as a student. In 1969, she graduated with honors with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. She was so well respected by the administration of the school that she was invited to give the commencement address that year. As the first and ONLY student to EVER to deliver a commencement speech at Wellesley College, Hillary received a seven minute standing ovation after criticizing the previous speaker, Senator Edward Brook, a Republican from Massachusetts. [4]

       While at Wellesley, Hillary chose to write a senior thesis that criticized the tactics of community organizer, Saul Alinsky. [5] Her thesis is responsible for one of the more uncommon and oddly irrelevant anti-Hillary hate slogans. Every now and then, in response to some meaningless act by Hillary, some totally out-of-touch right-wing swizzle stick will refer to Hillary’s tenuous but conspiratorial connection to Saul Alinsky. For example, when commenting on Hillary’s evasive responses to questions regarding her presidential ambitions, some dingbat will vehemently declare, ”See?!?! Right out of the Alinsky Playbook!!! How can you trust somebody like that?!?!?” No, Really!!! I’ve seen it with my own eyes! In later years, in the embryonic stages of the Clinton Conspiracy wing of the conservative resurgence, this thesis would come to haunt the scandal mongers.

       In 1993, Hillary and Willy created a firestorm when they restricted access to her thesis. [6] Republican witch hunters and scandalmongers were beside themselves with resentment and curiosity and, in their simple worldview, this act was a deliberate attempt to cover up crimes that were on a par with Nixon’s incoherent and vindictive attacks on his perceived political enemies. As planned, by withholding the thesis, her political allure was exponentially compounded. To this day, Republican scandalmongers go into frenzied fits of Pavlovian paroxysms at the thought that they were denied access to her ultimately meaningless thesis.

       One of the defining elements of Hillary’s political career was her relationship with President Richard Nixon. This episode had to be a colossal lesson for Hillary on how not to be a leader. Nixon had to be the dumbest man to ever pollute the Oval Office with his presence. I’m not sure if Hillary ever met the man, but in 1974, she was invited to join the team designated to prepare impeachment articles against the dumbest president in American history. Her work forced Nixon to resign to avoid imprisonment for his assaults on democracy, which he had the courtesy to record as evidence. [7]

        Republicans are so obtuse that they fail to recognize one glaring example of their own obtuseness. The unfavorable term, “cover-up” will always be linked in people’s minds to Richard Nixon’s inept and clumsy attempts to cover-up his crimes. Thanks to Nixon, a political cover up is, by definition, a Republican tactic. What could possibly be more entertaining than witnessing the disintegration of Nixon’s gang of antisocial thugs and their eventual imprisonment? The image of Nixon and his inner circle of criminals feverishly erasing huge segments of the infamous tapes is infinitely amusing. One would think that the right-wing attack rats would come up with a different phrase that is not so overwhelmingly loaded with derogatory and detrimental Republican connotations.

       After forcing Nixon to resign in 1974, Hillary further enraged Republicans by becoming the first female faculty member at the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. [8] In 1974 Arkansas political circles, the idea that a woman had the audacity to assume a leadership position was a direct affront to conservative principles. The fact that she dared to eschew her primary social responsibility of producing a brood of children and to invade the hallowed masculine halls of academia caused an untold amount of anxiety and consternation among her Republican male colleagues.

        From the very beginning of her involvement in politics, Hillary has been a strong advocate of the rights of the poor and women and children. She has volunteered her legal services to help these groups on numerous occasions; she has helped to organize and promote entities that provide pro bono legal services for the underprivileged; she has authored or coauthored many studies that illuminate the social problems that permeate these groups. Currently, she continues to defend these vulnerable segments of society against Republican assaults and to promote their rights world-wide. In 1996, Hillary ignited a furious backlash from the Conservative wing of the Republican Party when she published her book, “It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” in which she had the temerity to ascribe intellectual capacity to children. [9]

        Perhaps Hillary’s greatest accomplishment occurred during the absurd attack by the Clinton Conspiracy wing of the conservative resurgence on Willy’s private parts. Hillary, in effect, made a mockery of the culture of Republican machismo in Washington when she refused to produce a soap opera-like reaction to revelations of Willy’s philandering. Hillary’s poised, mature, and heedless response to a meaningless act of sexual gratification on the part of her horndog husband indicated an inherent disdain for the preconceived notions of Republican male superciliousness that permeated and permeates the Republican culture in Washington. This simple refusal to respond as a stereotypical appendage to a male patriarch, more than anything else, cemented her reputation as an independent free-thinker and elevated the status of women in America to an irrefutable position of equality. Her reckless disregard for male superiority was unforgiveable and has been responsible for a huge amount of hate and vilification from Republicans.

        Hillary is a political realist. She is well aware that Republicans hate anybody that isn’t white, male, conservative and rich. Everybody else belongs in the same category of inferiority; Democrats, liberals, progressives, women, blacks, minorities, the poor, the working poor, what’s left of the middle class, labor leaders, gays, immigrants, et al. The hierarchy of useless inferiority that these groups occupy can only be known in the irrational and illogical minds of the people that hate them so much. Maybe she will enjoy an elevated stature in the minds of the Republicans by virtue of her non-blackness. Who knows? Their behavior is the ultimate arbiter of who is more socially acceptable to them.
       
This is only a small sample of Hillary’s achievements. All the events covered here occurred before she embarked on her own official political career when she won a senatorial campaign in 2000. If elected, maybe her elevated status of non-blackness will usher in a new era of political compromise and bipartisanship. Maybe another loss by the Republicans will set them on a path to realistically alter their self-destructive behavior. Maybe another loss will force them to face the fact that their behavior is harming our nation and that changes in their undemocratic tactics of nihilistic anarchism are needed.

        HAH!!! The power mad little boys will continue their self-destructive behavior from a their politically weak position of envy, hatred, and anger. I don’t think anybody will be able to alter their vindictive behavior.

More to come about this formidable political force.

[1] http://www.hillaryscandals.orx/...
[2] http://www.goodreads.com/...
[3] http://www.biography.com/...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/...
[5] http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/...
[6] http://www.nbcnews.com/...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/...
[8] http://www.firstladies.org/...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Tags

The Incomplete Greatness of Barack Obama




Washington Monthly

Features

March/ April 2012

 The Incomplete Greatness of Barack Obama

  

He’s gotten more done in three years than any president in decades. Too bad the American public still thinks he hasn’t accomplished anything.

 


By Paul Glastris








In mid-January, pollsters for the Washington Post and ABC News asked a representative sampling of Americans the following question: “Obama has been president for about three years. Would you say he has accomplished a great deal during that time, a good amount, not very much, or little or nothing?

When the poll’s results were released on January 18, even the most seasoned White House staffers, who know the president faces a tough battle for reelection, must have spit up their coffee: more than half the respondents—52 percent—said the president has accomplished “not very much” or “little or nothing.”

It is often said that there are no right or wrong answers in opinion polling, but in this case, there is an empirically right answer—one chosen by only 12 percent of the poll’s respondents. The answer is that Obama has accomplished “a great deal.”

Measured in sheer legislative tonnage, what Obama got done in his first two years is stunning. Health care reform. The takeover and turnaround of the auto industry. The biggest economic stimulus in history. Sweeping new regulations of Wall Street. A tough new set of consumer protections on the credit card industry. A vast expansion of national service. Net neutrality. The greatest increase in wilderness protection in fifteen years. A revolutionary reform to student aid. Signing the New START treaty with Russia. The ending of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Even over the past year, when he was bogged down in budget fights with the Tea Party-controlled GOP House, Obama still managed to squeeze out a few domestic policy victories, including a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal and the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws in more than seventy years. More impressively, on the foreign policy front he ended the war in Iraq, began the drawdown in Afghanistan, helped to oust Gaddafi in Libya and usher out Mubarak in Egypt, orchestrated new military and commercial alliances as a hedge against China, and tightened sanctions against Iran over its nukes.
Oh, and he shifted counterterrorism strategies to target Osama bin Laden and then ordered the risky raid that killed him.

That Obama has done all this while also steering the country out of what might have been a second Great Depression would seem to have made him already, just three years into his first term, a serious candidate for greatness. (See Obama’s Top 50 Accomplishments.)

And yet a solid majority of Americans nevertheless thinks the president has not accomplished much. Why? There are plenty of possible explanations. The most obvious is the economy. People are measuring Obama’s actions against the actual conditions of their lives and livelihoods, which, over the past three years, have not gotten materially better. He failed miserably at his grandiose promise to change the culture of Washington (see “Clinton’s Third Term”). His highest-profile legislative accomplishments were object lessons in the ugly side of compromise. In negotiations, he came off to Democrats as naïvely trusting, and to Republicans as obstinately partisan, leaving the impression that he could have achieved more if only he had been less conciliatory—or more so, depending on your point of view. And for such an obviously gifted orator, he has been surprisingly inept at explaining to average Americans what he’s fighting for or trumpeting what he’s achieved.

In short, when judging Obama’s record so far, conservatives measure him against their fears, liberals against their hopes, and the rest of us against our pocketbooks. But if you measure Obama against other presidents—arguably the more relevant yardstick—a couple of things come to light. Speaking again in terms of sheer tonnage, Obama has gotten more done than any president since LBJ. But the effects of some of those achievements have yet to be felt by most Americans, often by design. Here, too, Obama is in good historical company.
The greatest achievements of some of our most admired presidents were often unrecognized during their years in office, and in many cases could only be appreciated with the passing of time. When FDR created Social Security in 1935, the program offered meager benefits that were delayed for years, excluded domestic workers and other heavily black professions (a necessary compromise to win southern votes), and was widely panned by liberals as a watered-down sellout. Only in subsequent decades, as benefits were raised and expanded, did Social Security become the country’s most beloved government program. Roosevelt’s first proposal for a GI Bill for returning World War II veterans was also relatively stingy, and while its benefits grew as it moved through Congress, its aim remained focused on keeping returning veterans from flooding the labor market. Only later was it apparent that the program was fueling the growth of America’s first mass middle class. When Harry Truman took office at the dawn of the Cold War, he chose the policy of containment over a more aggressive “rollback” of communism, and then he built the institutions to carry it out. He left office with a 32 percent public approval rating. Only decades later would it become clear that he made the right choice.

Of course, much could happen that might tarnish Obama’s record in the eyes of history. The economy is still extremely weak, and could stay that way or relapse into recession; Afghanistan could go south in a big way; or Obama could simply fail to win reelection, and then watch as his legacy gets systematically dismantled at a time when most ordinary Americans still don’t know its worth. This would be the most crushing blow, because a number of Obama’s biggest accomplishments function, like FDR’s, with a built-in delay. Some are structured to have modest effects now but major ones later. Others emerged in a crimped and compromised form that, if history is a guide, may well be filled out and strengthened down the road. Still others are quite impressive now but create potential for even greater change in the future. At this point, it’s hard to get a sense of these possibilities without lifting the hood and looking deeply into the actual policies and programs. Hence, there’s no reason to think that today’s voters would be aware of them, but every reason to think historians will.

Let’s begin with the policies that have prompted the most disappointment from the left and anger from the right: Obama’s big moves on the economy. The most visible aspect of Obama’s agenda in this arena was the American Recovery Act, better known as the stimulus. Almost no one has a good word to say about it these days. Voters have soured on it. Obama made no mention of it in his State of the Union address. Liberals complain that it was too heavily weighted with not-very-stimulatory tax cuts meant to lure GOP votes (which it didn’t), that it should have been even bigger (true, though it was bigger than the one the Democratic-controlled House proposed), and that a significantly bigger one could have passed Congress (dubious). Conservatives claim it didn’t increase jobs or help the economy at all.

But most reputable economists say it did. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus added anywhere from 500,000 to 3.3 million jobs and boosted GDP by between 1 and 4.5 percent. Indeed, within weeks of the stimulus going into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of 3.7 million private-sector jobs. On the first key test—whether it helped the economy when the economy needed it most— the stimulus passed. And if the current recovery continues to pick up steam, then the stimulus will be remembered as having helped lead America out of the Great Recession.

But the potential significance of the stimulus may go even beyond that. First off, thanks to innovative management, the administration has been able to spend $787 billion with minimal fraud. (By comparison, FDR’s early New Deal spending was so fraught with waste and abuse that the term “boondoggle” arose to describe it.) Not only that, but the way the administration has chosen which projects to fund has itself been revolutionary. Instead of spending all the money in the usual manner—by formula, with each state and congressional district getting its “fair share”—the administration used a sizeable portion of the stimulus to create a dozen or more giant competitive grant programs. Potential recipients, be they state and local governments, nonprofits, or corporations, had to vie for the money by proposing their own entrepreneurial strategies for meeting federal goals, as well as procedures to measure the results of their efforts.

The best known of these is Race to the Top, the much praised $4.35 billion Education Department grant program. It is one of the few policies of this administration praised by left and right—and yet almost no one mentions that it was part of the stimulus bill. Just to be eligible to win the competition, cash-strapped states were suddenly willing to enact reforms they’d hitherto resisted. Dozens upgraded the quality of their student performance tests, tied teacher pay to those tests, adopted a common set of strong academic standards, and took caps off the number of charter schools allowed in their states. Whether these changes eventually improve student outcomes remains to be seen, but Race to the Top has arguably brought as much change to state and district laws and procedures as George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. And there are a dozen other similar competitive grant programs embedded in the stimulus, in areas ranging from digitizing medical records to expanding freight rail capacity to spurring the creation of an advanced battery-manufacturing sector.
How will history judge the stimulus? Not so well if the economy stays weak or sputters out; quite well if it continues to improve. But beyond that, if some of the bets Obama has placed on education reform or transportation or energy pan out, and if the competition-based model of federal spending becomes more common, the “temporary” stimulus will have left an enduring mark on government and the economy.

Another major (and much-reviled) aspect of Obama’s economic legacy is how his team handled the meltdown of the financial sector. This is another achievement he made no mention of in his State of the Union address—and no wonder, because it’s complex, still unfolding, and involves the rescue of bankers. But it’s worth slowing down here to remember the crisis as Obama inherited it. As you will recall, the actual bank “bailout” took place in the fall of 2008, when the Bush administration created the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. By injecting more than $300 billion into hundreds of banks, and especially the nation’s biggest, TARP bought the economy some breathing room and gave the incoming administration some resources— another $350 billion in unspent TARP funds—to work with. But with consumers increasingly unable to make their mortgage and credit card payments—the economy was shedding upward of 800,000 jobs the month Obama was inaugurated—losses at the big banks were mounting faster than Washington could force-feed dollars into them, and no one really knew what they were carrying on their balance sheets. Any number of institutions looked like they could collapse, and that extra $350 billion was not enough to stabilize the system and pay for other crucial emergency programs, like mitigating foreclosures.

The advice the administration was getting from economists like Joseph Stiglitz, who had seen the crisis coming years before, was to use the moment to completely reshape the financial sector: nationalize the biggest, most troubled banks; toss out their management; break them up into smaller banks; have the government strip out and sell off the “toxic” assets on their books; downsize executive salaries and bonuses; and, in general, shrink the size of Wall Street, the better to limit its baleful influence on the rest of the economy.

Obama’s top economic advisers thought such a dramatic overhaul was both unnecessary and reckless to consider in the midst of an economic crisis; firemen don’t rethink sprinkler regulations while an apartment building is ablaze, after all. Instead, Timothy Geithner’s Treasury Department crafted a much more targeted intervention, aimed at stabilizing the financial markets and getting the economy back on track at the lowest possible cost to government. Rather than have the taxpayers assume the risky and expensive burden of taking over the banks—an expense that Congress, having already approved TARP and the stimulus, was in no mood to authorize—Geithner’s plan was to convince investors to come in and recapitalize them. His plan had three main parts. First, the Treasury, working with the Fed and other agencies, ran “stress tests” of the banks to determine the fragility of their books and how much more capital they’d need to be able to survive and lend in an even more dire economic scenario than was expected at the time. Second, it gave banks six months to raise that amount of capital from private investors, and said that, if they failed, Treasury would use taxpayer dollars to buy ownership shares of the banks at a preset price, effectively establishing a floor for private investors. Third, it created a fund, with both public and private dollars, to buy the toxic assets on the banks’ books, thereby giving some assurance that there would be a market for those assets.

The politics of the plan were dreadful. It looked like more mollycoddling of Wall Street. But, as Joshua Green noted in the Atlantic, it had the desired effect. Private money, $140 billion of it, flooded into the nineteen biggest banks; the lending markets unfroze; and, with the help of low interest rates from the Fed, the banks paid back the TARP funds, with interest. In 2008, the International Monetary Fund studied past financial crises in forty-two countries and found that their governments spent, on average, 13.3 percent of GDP to resolve them. By that measure, it would have cost the U.S. government $1.9 trillion. The Obama plan got the banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government, and in historically near-record time. Let that sink in.

In addition to resolving the immediate crisis, the administration tried to insure against a repeat of it by issuing a plan to expand federal regulation of the financial markets, a plan that ultimately became the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank. The new law, which passed with almost no GOP votes, has been scathingly criticized since it first appeared in the House— by conservatives for being a big-government power grab and by liberals and various academic experts for being too weak.
But as Michael Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute explains, the new law parallels and expands upon the great achievements of New Deal financial regulation. Much as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 mandated transparency in the securities markets and created the SEC to punish fraud, Dodd-Frank creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to do the same for everything from mortgages to credit cards. The Securities Exchange Act forced stock trading onto exchanges and mandated that traders have sufficient collateral. Similarly, Dodd-Frank pushes financial derivatives into clearinghouses and exchanges. The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act forced the separation of commercial banks from the more speculative activities of investment banks. The new so-called Volcker Rule in Dodd-Frank limits the ability of banks to trade securities for the firm’s own profit. Glass-Steagall also created the FDIC to monitor commercial banks and take them over if they get into financial trouble. Dodd-Frank gives the FDIC “resolution authority” over the “too big to fail” financial behemoths so that they too can be monitored and taken over if necessary.

At each stage as Dodd-Frank has moved through the legislative process, from House to Senate and now to the agency level for implementation, liberals have sounded the alarm that the insufficiently stringent law was liable to get progressively weaker as industry lobbyists jam it full of caveats and exemptions. Yet while the law does now include its fair share of loopholes (especially in the Volcker Rule), what’s surprising is that the measure has in general gotten tougher, not weaker, over time—often at the behest of lawmakers who wanted stronger measures than did Geithner. The Senate adopted the Collins amendment—a set of rules drafted by Sheila Bair’s FDIC that imposes tough capital requirements on banks, bank holding companies, and systemically risky nonbank financial institutions like hedge funds, limiting their ability to make the kind of highly leveraged and risky trades between each other that contributed mightily to the financial crisis. Thanks in part to the prodding of Gary Gensler, the Obama-appointed chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the language on regulating derivatives got much stronger in the Senate version of the bill, and since then the CFTC has written a reasonably strong and comprehensive set of rules and regulations to implement the law.

Washington narratives tend to get set early and resist new anomalous facts. So it is with the financial crisis. The initial take was that Dodd-Frank is weak tea and Obama caved to Wall Street. This view has persisted despite accumulating evidence to the contrary. Confidence Men”, Ron Suskind’s scathing critique of the administration’s handling of the financial crisis, opens with Obama in a Rose Garden address making clear that he would not be nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB. The anecdote is meant to encapsulate the administration’s general political spinelessness. Today, the CFPB is headed by the widely admired Richard Cordray, placed there in a nervy recess appointment by Obama, and Elizabeth Warren is leading the polls in her race to win back Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat from the Republicans—hardly a bad outcome for the cause of financial justice.

True, the largest banks are now bigger than they were before the crises thanks to emergency mergers engineered by the Bush administration. But as Obama’s former economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told journalist Michael Hirsh, “The most dangerous failures—Bear Stearns, Lehman—were not even close to the biggest. You could have broken the largest financial institutions into, literally, five pieces and each of them would still have been bigger than Bear Stearns. The main danger to the economy was interconnection, not raw size.” With the capital requirements of the Collins amendment, the Volcker Rule, and the forcing of derivatives into clearinghouses, Dodd-Frank goes a long way toward dealing with the “interconnection” problem. The law’s “resolution authority” also gives regulators the ability to spot overly risky behavior by big banks early and to shut them down if they get into trouble. And the behemoths now have higher capital requirements than do smaller banks, another hedge against risk and an incentive for business to move from the former to the latter.

True, the bank executives on whose watch the crisis happened got lavish bonuses on their way out the door, and the bonuses continued to flow even as the sector was getting bailed out by Uncle Sam—a dispiriting and infuriating phenomenon to many Americans, liberal and conservative. Yet it’s also true that bank shareholders were forced to take a “haircut,” since the new private investment that flowed into banks thanks to Geithner’s recapitalization plan greatly diluted the value of their stock. That has provided at least some market discipline to counteract the “moral hazard” dilemma of government bailouts sending the signal that there is no penalty for recklessness. More importantly, by reducing banks’ ability to leverage capital and make risky trades with other people’s money, Dodd-Frank threatens the honeypot of the huge profits that have been the source of all that outsized compensation. And as a fallback, the law gives government the power to rewrite bank executive compensation packages if those packages are seen as incentivizing overly risky behavior—a power regulators have already begun to exercise. Finally, after years of pussyfooting around, the administration, prodded by aggressive state attorneys general, has finally launched a major push to investigate and prosecute possible criminal misconduct in the financial collapse.

How, then, will historians judge Obama’s handling of the financial crisis? That’s hard to say definitively because so much depends on follow through—specifically, on whether Obama has a chance to follow through by winning a second term. (If he isn’t reelected, the Republicans have vowed to gut Dodd-Frank.) Will the rules that regulators are now writing to implement Dodd-Frank be tough and smart enough? Will they be enforced? Will federal prosecutors bring some bankers to justice? Can the toxic assets still on banks’ books be disposed of without causing another banking collapse?

We can’t yet know the answers to these questions, but there are strong signs that Wall Street knows the jig is up. In anticipation of Dodd-Frank’s provisions going into effect, many of the biggest banks have already shut down their proprietary trading operations. Banks’ profits, which soared during the initial stages of the bailout, have plummeted in recent months even as other corporate sectors have been doing quite well. Compensation packages are down, too. If, five, ten, or twenty years from now, risky behavior by financial institutions once again leads to a crisis, Obama will be judged harshly for having failed to push for stiffer reforms at the moment when Wall Street’s political power was weakest. But if we get through the next decade or two without another financial meltdown, and Wall Street’s unhealthy influence over the economy abates, then Obama will be credited with not only having gotten us out of the financial crisis in the short run but also having crafted an effective new set of rules to reduce the chances of it happening again.

A similar “we shall see” factor looms over what is arguably Obama’s crowning achievement: the Affordable Care Act. In passing a bill that provides near-universal health care to the American people, Obama succeeded where five previous presidents over the course of a century had failed. He did so against the advice of some of his closest aides and the fervent, united opposition of Republicans. The law manages not only to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans but also to cut the deficit and put in place dozens of new policies and programs aimed at reducing health care costs, the single greatest driver of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

Yet the measure’s major effects are yet to be felt, and its ultimate fate is highly uncertain. Most of the law’s benefits, including subsidies for the uninsured, do not kick in until 2014. Little wonder, then, that voters have a hard time getting excited about the ACA. And the bill’s various experimental policy measures to control health care costs are just that— experiments that might or might not work. Moreover, the law might not survive a legal challenge that the Supreme Court is currently considering, and will almost certainly be killed or gutted if the Republicans are victorious in November.

You can understand, then, why Obama was afraid to make more than a glancing mention of the ACA in the State of the Union. But the lukewarm-to-hostile attitudes people have about the law now are likely to fade if he manages to get reelected. With four more years to oversee the implementation of the law and protect it against whatever the courts and congressional Republicans hurl at it, Obama can ensure that it will be politically and programmatically secure. The benefits will have started flowing, and businesses and the medical industry will have begun to adapt to it. Over time it will likely become as much a permanent fixture of American life as Social Security.

Even those achievements that Obama is willing to brag about—ones that have created benefits that are already apparent—may ultimately be seen as grander in scope than we now appreciate, depending on how the future plays out. Take, for instance, his policies toward the auto industry. When he came into office, Detroit was in free fall. Without additional government help (the Bush administration had provided $13.4 billion in bridge loans), Chrysler and possibly GM could have been liquidated, putting at risk the entire network of domestic auto suppliers on which Ford and other carmakers depend. The Obama administration injected an additional $62 billion into GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring— eliminating brands, closing dealerships, renegotiating pay and benefit agreements, and, in Chrysler’s case, facilitating a merger with Fiat.

The federal takeover was deeply unpopular with the public and condemned by conservatives as socialism. But it is hard to argue with the results. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added upward of 100,000 jobs. The Big Three are all profitable again, and last year they each gained market share, the first time that’s happened in two decades. Most of the $80 billion in bailout funds have been paid back; Washington is likely to lose only about $16 billion, less if the price of its GM stock rises. Even on its face, the policy has been one of the most successful short-term government economic interventions in decades.
But Obama’s restructuring of Detroit goes even deeper. A big part of the reason U.S. automakers were in such bad shape on the eve of the recession was a spike in gas prices that had left them with lots full of SUVs and light trucks they couldn’t sell. Unlike their foreign-owned competitors, who could shift from, say, Tundras to Corollas and weather the storm, Detroit simply didn’t know how to make money producing small cars, though they were belatedly trying to learn. So, as a condition of the bailout, Obama’s White House secured commitments from GM and Chrysler to put even more emphasis on building more fuel-efficient cars in the United States. Meanwhile, with money from the stimulus, the administration invested in companies that manufacture advanced batteries of the kind needed to make electric cars. And, while the automakers were feeling beholden, the administration convinced them to agree to a doubling of auto fuel efficiency requirements over the next thirteen years.

The overall strategy (which the administration doesn’t like to talk about because it sounds too much like industrial policy) is to create the conditions whereby American car manufacturers can profitably build and sell small, fuel-efficient cars in the United States. The hope is that this will obviate the need for additional bailouts if and when gas prices rise again, and position Detroit to export the kinds of cars most of the world wants. Will the strategy work? We shall see.

Or consider higher education. Obama has pushed through two major reforms in this area. First, working with Democrats in Congress, he ended the wasteful, decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting in the summer of 2010, all students began getting their loans directly from the federal government. The move saves the Treasury $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants, the most significant form of aid to lower- and lower-middle-income students. Second, the administration has issued so-called “gainful employment” rules for career-focused colleges, especially for-profits. Those schools whose students don’t earn enough to pay off their loans—because they never graduate, or don’t learn marketable skills—will be cut off from the federal student loan program, effectively putting them out of business.

While these are big moves, they might also turn out to be first steps. As the think tank Education Sector has written, by kicking the banks out of the student loan program, Obama has effectively eliminated the biggest lobbying force standing in the way of an über-reform of student aid: turning the confusing plethora of loan programs into one simple federal loan payable as a percentage of a person’s income over a working lifetime. Such a single “income-contingent” loan would make it possible for virtually every American to afford a post-secondary education without risk of going bankrupt. And with the gainful employment rules, the federal government will have the ability to track what kind of income students from different colleges earn after they graduate. If such data were made available for every college, parents and students would have vital information they don’t have now on the comparative value of their education choices, which in turn might provide market pressure on schools to keep tuition down and quality up. Obama has signaled that he’d very much like the authority to provide such information. Whether he can get it is an open question.
If it’s too early to know what history will think of Barack Obama, it is possible to ask today’s historians what they think. Two polls have been conducted since Obama took office that ask experts to rate America’s presidents based on measures of character, leadership, and accomplishments. A 2010 Siena Research Institute survey of 238 presidential scholars ranked Obama the fifteenth-best president overall. Last year, the United States Presidency Centre at the University of London surveyed forty-seven UK specialists on American history and politics. That survey placed Obama at number eight, just below Harry Truman.

I had conversations recently with six presidential scholars. Three of them—Robert Dallek, Matthew Dallek, and Alan Lichtman—said that, based on what Obama has gotten done in his first term, he has a good shot at ranking in or just below the top ten presidents of history, but with the proviso that he almost certainly needs to get reelected to secure that position. The other three—Alan Brinkley, David Greenberg, and Allen Guelzo—took a more jaundiced view. While conceding that Obama has put a lot of points on the board in terms of legislation, they felt that the highly compromised nature of that legislation, among other things, reflects qualities of leadership—a lack of experience, acumen, and forcefulness—that will keep him from ranking with the great presidents, and will more likely place him somewhere in the middle of the pack, presuming he even gets reelected.

These last three scholars’ views mesh with the broader feeling among Obama’s critics, especially on the liberal side, that Obama is fatally overcautious. What’s notable about such critiques is that they essentially rest on arguments that are counterfactual—that a savvier, more experienced, more energetic president could have gotten more done. Certainly that’s plausible, if unprovable. But it is equally plausible, as Ezra Klein has argued, that what has constrained Obama is not a lack of boldness but a lack of political space. With Republicans unified in opposition and willing to abuse the filibuster such that to pass any legislation has required sixty Senate votes that Obama has seldom had, it is unrealistic to think he or anyone could have done a whole lot better.

Even if his caution has led to achievements that are less sweeping than they might have been, that same character trait might also explain why none of Obama’s decisions has, so far, led to a calamitous outcome. This is no small feat, especially in a time of multiple world-historical emergencies. Indeed, some of our greatest presidents did not manage to avoid such self-inflicted disasters. The sainted George Washington, in an effort to retire Revolutionary War debt, chose to tax whiskey, and sparked a bloody insurgency, the Whiskey Rebellion. Thomas Jefferson, hoping to punish European powers for harassing American merchant vessels, put a stop to all marine trade in and out of American ports, and succeeded only in causing a national recession. FDR, too, precipitated a recession when he slashed budgets in 1936; he also interned the Japanese and tried to pack the courts. Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages. Obama may well make similar kinds of grave mistakes in the future, but so far, as best we can tell, he has not made any.

The view that Barack Obama is overly cautious must also take into account the many times in his presidency when he took extraordinary risks. He did so when he turned down Detroit’s first bailout request, demanding more concessions, including government ownership and the resignation of GM’s CEO, before saying yes. He did so when, after passing the stimulus, he made health care reform his number one legislative priority, against the advice of some of his top political advisers; and when, after Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, he chose to jam the health care bill through reconciliation despite cries of outrage from the GOP. And he did so, most famously, when he chose to send special forces into Pakistan to go after Osama bin Laden, without certainty that the terrorist leader was even there, with his senior national security advisers waffling, and with the clear understanding that if the mission went wrong, as a similar one did under Jimmy Carter, it could ruin his presidency.

It should be clear by now that I don’t believe that Obama’s record has been crippled by an excess of caution. Indeed, his last-minute decision to order extra helicopters into the bin Laden raid illustrates that daring and caution are compatible virtues, and he has a winning mix of both. It should also be clear that, on the strength of his record so far, I think he’s likely to be considered a great or near- great president.

That’s not to say that his instincts and decisions have always been right. I cannot, for instance, find a good reason why he should not have at least threatened to use Fourteenth Amendment powers to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling to break the hostage standoff with the GOP last year. Time and again, he has allowed himself to be played too long by Republicans pretending to be interested in bipartisanship. He could have used more experience going into the job, and his temperament does not make him a perfect fit for it. His disdain for the “political games of Washington” is understandable, sane, and appealing to voters, and part of why he is good at keeping his focus on the long term. But unless you can change the rules—which Obama has not been able to do— the game must be played. And games tend to be mastered by those who love them; think LBJ and Clinton.

One of the most important tasks a president must master—and Obama hasn’t—is speaking up for his own record. This has been especially challenging for him because of the still-widespread economic suffering across the country and the too-soon-to-tell quality of his biggest accomplishments. And again, his even temperament hasn’t helped. He has seemed to want his achievements to speak for themselves. Who wouldn’t? But the presidency doesn’t work that way. A president has to remind the public every day of what he’s already done, why he’s done it, and how those achievements fit into a broader plan that will help them in the future.

With his State of the Union and some subsequent speeches, he has only begun this task. And while it’s very late in the day, the election is still eight months away. The irony is that, while Barack Obama has achieved a tremendous amount in his first term, the only way to secure that record of achievement in the eyes of history is to win a second. And to do that, he first has to convince the American voters that he in fact has a record of achievement.

Paul Glastris is editor in chief of the Washington Monthly.