Before President Obama headed off to his rented 28-acre retreat in Martha’s Vineyard, he spent a few days campaigning around the Midwest in his new million-dollar, Canadian-made campaign bus, paid for at government expense. He even unveiled what many believe will be his new reelection theme: “Country first.”
According to his new stump speech, if you oppose his agenda, then you don’t care about America as much as he does.
Advertisement
“There is no shortage of ideas to put people to work right now. What is needed is action on the part of Congress, a willingness to put the partisan games aside and say we’re going to do what’s right for the country, not what we think is going to score some political points for the next election,” Obama explained in Cannon Falls, Minn., in an event that the White House insisted had nothing to do with campaigning.
“There is nothing that we’re facing that we can’t solve with some spirit of ‘America first,’” he added, inadvertently borrowing the slogan of 1930s isolationists and the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan.
In news that will no doubt rekindle the hopes of the unemployed, the White House says Obama has an idea for how to get even more Americans working. Of course, it will depend on that “America first” spirit, which will really separate the patriotic from the petty.
And what is his big new plan for putting country first? Well, you’ll just have to wait until September to find out. For now, his policy is Martha’s Vineyard first.
So while we have this brief lull, let’s take a moment to “compare and contrast,” as they say in tenth-grade English class.
Rick Perry, the very Texan and very new entrant into the presidential race, said the other day that Ben Bernanke wasn’t putting country first. “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion.” He noted that the Fed chairman would be treated “ugly” if he visited Texas.
It was a poor choice of words for a presidential contender still finding his sea legs. You might even call it stupid. Bernanke is no traitor. His quantitative-easing policy may have been wrong, but it’s ugly and foolish to suggest he pursued it for less than honorable motives.
Nonetheless, Perry’s comment has stirred up a whole kerfuffle, with editorials castigating his incivility and muckety-mucks hieing to their fainting couches. Widely quoted economist Nouriel Roubini called Perry “criminal” for his comments. “This may be the least responsible statement in the modern history of president politics,” exclaimed Larry Summers, Obama’s former economic adviser.
Obama, meanwhile, has taken the high road. “I think that everybody who runs for president, it probably takes them a little bit of time before they start realizing that this isn’t like running for governor or running for senator or running for Congress,” he said, “and you’ve got to be a little more careful about what you say.”
Fair enough.
So, I wonder, where is the criticism of Obama? His new “country first” campaign theme isn’t an off-the-cuff gaffe; it’s been vetted, tweaked, and (I suspect) focus-grouped by the White House and the Obama campaign. And he’s not simply running for president; Barack Obama is president. And he’s saying that people who disagree with him don’t care about the country. Indeed, he explains at great length that our political system is “broken” because he can’t have his way — which, don’t ya know, is the American way.
When George W. Bush was president, he once said “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This was an explicit statement about U.S. foreign policy toward states that turn a blind eye to terrorists bent on attacking America. But Bush’s opponents, including much of Hollywood and the “objective” press, took it differently. They claimed it was a sinister vision of domestic dissent (which back then was the “highest form of patriotism,” not ersatz racism). When Karl Rove made the 2002 and 2004 elections partial referendums on the War on Terror, the New York Times editorial pages collectively got their dresses over their heads in outrage.
Obama, former presidential nominee John Kerry, and every other prominent Democrat of the last decade charged that Bush and, in 2008, John McCain inappropriately used patriotism as a political weapon.
And now, Obama does openly what he charged his enemies of doing through code words. And everyone’s arguing about Rick Perry.
Obama is right that there is no shortage of ideas about how to solve our problems. His job is to evaluate those ideas and form coherent policies based on the most promising. So far he has failed miserably in doing so. He is attracted to big flaky ideas like high speed rail because they appeal to the creative thinkers crowd. He doesn't care whether they will work or whether they are in conflict with other projects. He just doesn't like to do his homework.
An admonition to put away partisan politics and think about the country first is a political weapon?
Aren't the people on this site thinking to themselves, "Yeah, that's exactly what the Democrats ought to be doing"? In which case, how is this a political weapon?
All politicians play to this at some point - but Obama's complaining about as it he does the exact thing would be my idea for why this has Jonah's goat.
The fact of the matter, perhaps Perry was impolitic, regardless of the actual meaning of ugly in west Texas. Was his reading of the role Bernake will try to play as a case of dirty politics, and the focus on the re-election of the sitting president above the financial concerns of the country, accurate? Yes it was. My guess is they protest so much because Perry was dead on correct. And that is ugly.
Because Obama depicts HIS way as the "country first" way, urging citizens to call their congressmen, etc., to pressure them to yield to the president's wishes. Those who oppose Obama's plan (Well, the plan that he assures us is coming) are, by implication, not putting country first. You know, when John Boehner refused to accede to Obama's last-minute demand for new taxes in the almost-debt ceiling agreement, apparently he wasn't putting country first. But then, you know all this already, MikeB.
Blandishments such as, "we can solve this if we all work together" is a FAR cry from calling someone's (likely) actions traitorous and hinting at violence as a solution to them.
Puhleeeeeze? It’s not the ‘we can solve this if we all work together’ part that nettles; it’s the consistent implication that it’s the ‘other guys’ who have had no plan(s) and have done nothing but undermine other peoples’ well-thought-out plans and ideas and are playing politics while the country goes under.
The President and his party have produced NO plans or coherent programs or ideas, have been unable to pass a budget of any sort in two years in spite of holding a solid majority in both houses, have turned up the government money spigot every year and it’s all the Republicans’ fault?
Blsdaniel,you miss the point. Jonah isn't disputing that Perry said something foolish,ill-timed or unfair to Bernanke. It's that ,as usual, the press gets their panties in a snit over what a Republican candidate-who hasn't even won his party's nomination yet-says on virtually his first day of campaigning, while ignoring the foolish, ill-timed, and unfair speeches of the current president. Perry has toned down his comments, so what else would you have him do? Drop out?
We are aware of the visage of ugly blind nationalism. Obama's "America First" is ugly in another way, having nothing to do with love of country, whether appropriate or inappropriate. The expression in his mouth is just code for things like "Rich people need to start being patriotic and pay more of their share" or "Businesses need to stop out sourcing manufacturing and have things be made in America", things which have nothing much to do with America and more to do masking a certain agenda from debate. Once seen through, it appears in it's ugliness though at first it has all the attractiveness of gifts the Greeks bear.
Ironically, Country First was McCain's 2008 slogan.
I'm sure it was seen as a dig that people who don't support him aren't patriotic. And since the president seems to be suggesting the same thing lately, maybe it fits.
Have you read the book? Jonah's argument is that American Progressivism shares many of the same intellectual roots as European fascism, and that leading Progressive intellectuals admired Mussolini and Hitler until it became unfashionable to do so once World War II began. These are factual claims that can be proven or disproven with evidence. Saying that your political opponents do not put country first because they disagree with your views is a rhetorical ploy and very different.
Gosh, who was it that said: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
A real man, like Harry Truman, would take responsibility for the effect his policies have had on the economy. The buck doesn't stop with Obama. It gets passed to the Tea Party.
I know two year old children with a greater sense of responsibility than Obama.
As for his economic plan, we all know what it is: raise taxes, print money and blame Republicans.
Follow
