Dreading hearing about the election results?

Have a look at Rachel Maddow’s interesting analysis.   Among other things is a bracing take on the near universal  media criticism that Obama did not govern in a way that would help his party win elections.  Just think:  Maybe governing is not first and foremost about winning midterm elections.  Gosh!

10 thoughts on “Dreading hearing about the election results?

  1. awesome– thanks for that. only had time for the first few minutes, but they were minutes well spent.

  2. You are very welcome, Jender. It gets a lot better, but the idea she employs is, shall we say, challenging. Was it wise for the Dems to in effect say winng inthe election in 2010 is not SO important But then, surely governing shouldn’t be about elections. Hmmmm.

  3. Of course one could instead criticize him for not governing in a way which would prevent future bubbles/bailouts, reduce inequality, put a dent in carbon emissions, inconvenience health insurers or drug-makers, ameliorate the exploitation of illegal immigrants and the roadblocks to legal immigration, attenuate the gutting of k-12 and university education, help out in Darfur, or prevent war in Southern Sudan.

    Maddow may list Obama’s achievements, but comparing it to what’s been abandoned gives some perspective. Also, I don’t think anyone could look at the process leading to these major bills being passed and claim it was about policy rather than politics, except in as much as the politicians actually think the policies their local interests (corporate or individual) favor are good (in which case they’re as dumb as these interests).

  4. Yeah, I noticed that later on. And drug policy and the cuban embargo, for both of which it’s beyond any doubt whether the motivation concerns good policy or politics.

    Sure, republicans would do a lot worse, but that’s hardly in question here.

  5. I don’t think Maddow is addressing the general quality issue. Her point is narrowly about what is being said now.

  6. It’s still false, though. She starts off by listing their accomplishments (which is fashionable now to motivate voters). She then says forget about all the politicking in how these were passed (understandably). Then she says that democrats had a choice between trying to get reelected and passing good policy and they chose the latter. If that were the case, their accomplishments would have been very different.

    She says about those complaints “If that were true, that would be depressing.”
    Well, if what she says were true, it would be inspiring.

  7. Anon, It is true (1) that they did some things; it is true (2) that they did not pursue getting re-elected wisely. I’d have to look again to see how much she stressed that (2) was intentionally decided on in order to do (1).

    It might be that they tried to both work the agenda and get re-elected, which doesn’t seem too bad to me.

  8. It seemed to me that the main emphasis about getting things done even though it would cost the election was related to healthcare. And I think that seems right- that it is both important and unpopular.

Comments are closed.