Obama needs a lesson in Foghorn-style Ass Whuppin'

As a fan of economist, Paul Krugman, I get his blog posts on my Kindle, and lately he’s been referring back to some posts earlier this year (which I read), wherein he suggested more aggressive economic policies to remedy the financial crisis we’d found ourselves in. He wasn’t alone in this.

On a different tack, I’ve heard the same thing about healthcare reform. Please, Mr. President … bipartisanship is a hopeless dream. Be aggressive and shoot for the moon. But, this is ‘No drama, Obama’ we’re talking about, and it could foretell the trap he may find himself in after it’s too late to get out.

It’s the soft, soft, softly incremental approach that the more progressive Dems have been bitching about. They seemed to complain unfairly about the slowness of Obama’s approach, but I think what they were really touching on was this apparent timidity.

As the economic picture has been unfolding, with unemployment reaching 10 percent, we’re seeing what Krugman and Reich have both been talking about. We have a Congress, media sound machine … and electorate stroking their chins, all trying to look wise while murmuring that perhaps Obama’s policies aren’t working. Their answer: we need to hunker down and do even less.

I don’t remember when hunkering down to do less ever worked.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I think Obama’s Afghanistan policy displays the same symptoms but on the flip side: More not necessarily producing better results.

Gen. McChrystal and the Joint Chiefs of Staff - true to military thinking - want more, more, more. Certainly, with more they could win. I think more is what the Soviets tried, and I remember where that didn’t get them.

Here again, Obama approaches this with a soft step and tenuous touch, letting us believe it’s all in the cause of being ‘thoughtful’.

Where a soft touch didn’t work with the economy, and won’t ultimately work with health insurance reform (allowing Blue Dogs and ‘conservatives’ chip, chip, chip away with this amendment and that exclusion), it also won’t work with foreign adventures.

Less is certainly more in Afghanistan and a force of about 30,000 - heavy on drones and Special Ops to surgically take out the nasties - and quit the corrupt (ala South Vietnam) nation building, is the only workable strategy now. Even the British are beginning to question any future … but then you’d hope so, since they were one of the Empires that failed in Afghanistan. How many times do you need to repeat the same mistake?

It’s time to tell the conservative naysayers to blow it out their backsides about “oh, the terror of deficit spending!” when it comes to getting the economy back on track, health insurance reform up and running, and a sensible approach to foreign entanglements.

Where were they on budgetary restraint when Iraq came up?

Here’s another less is more trap of Obama’s: not heaving a big bucket of regulation onto the financial services industry. What is he waiting for?

Like Krugman, I have a sick feeling about all of this, since Obama doesn’t seem to have the gumption to make the case for more. More. MORE.

Or at least bold action that may run against the popular tide of opinion.

Faint heart never won the fair maiden, or got a seriously broken economy or country back on track.

WTF does he have to lose now?

maven