(Small-bore) Credit where (small-bore) credit's due

It's smart for Pres. Obama to have bearded these lions in their den, in public. It doesn't fix the policy, but it does (slightly) help the politics. The consequences of weak leadership and bad policy decisions are still with us... but he is made to seem slightly less of a cypher.

It's the Leader (Stupid)

With regard to the decision voters have to make in November, the latest NY Times/CBS News poll says it all. Yes, the public is dismayed with both parties. Yes, the Great Recession makes everybody justifiably unhappy. Yes, Congress and government in general are seen as deeply broken.

But in a couple of months, people will make choices. One of those choices, for many, will be to stay away from the polls. But those who vote will choose between the two major parties (with a smattering of third-party outliers showing up in the winner's circle). And what this poll (and many others like it) reveals is that (a) people want what the old Democratic Party (not the pale imitation we now have) used to do and advocate, and (b) the biggest electoral problem the Dems face is having a weak leader at the top.

To wit (emphasis added):

"A case for Republicans: Voters are remarkably open to change, even if they are not sure where Republicans will lead them. Most Americans, including one-third of those who were part of the coalition that elected Mr. Obama, now say he does not have a clear plan to solve the nation’s problems or create jobs. Democrats remain highly vulnerable on the economy.

"A case for Democrats: The party is seen as having better ideas for solving the country’s problems. The public steadfastly supports the president’s proposal to let tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. And far more people still blame Wall Street and the Bush administration than blame Mr. Obama for the country’s economic problems.

"The public has a darker view of Congressional Republicans than of Democrats, with 58 percent disapproving of Democrats and 68 percent disapproving of Republicans. But with less than two months remaining until Election Day, there are few signs Democrats have made gains persuading Americans that they should keep control of Congress."

In other words, strictly in terms of political and electoral outcomes, Democratic chances are poor most importantly because of Obama. People wanted FDR, and they got Calvin Coolidge.

Yep

The only cavil I have with this is the claim that healthcare reform was the problem. A real FDR -- and surely Hillary -- would have seized the moment to get us both.

"A slow-motion social catastrophe"

That's the verdict in this devastating examination of the impending impact of joblessness in America in this March's issue of Atlantic, which I just read.

And our "leaders"? Too little, too lame. The judgment of history will not be kind -- on them, on the Democratic Party, and on the crocodile tears of the punditocracy.

Anthony Weiner for President - Updated

Emotionally intelligent, politically intelligent, policy intelligent. This is what leadership looks like.

Update: Clearly, this was a considered political decision - and a very smart one. This guy has an understanding of the moment and an understanding of what people feel to match his razor-sharp understanding of public policy.

The Conscientiousness of a Liberal - Updated

This blog seems to have wound down to sporadic comments about the Times op-ed page. So be it, I suppose -- for now, anyway. Like Pauline Kael when she retired from The New Yorker, saying that it was too enervating and depressing to keep reviewing bad movies every week, I've found that I don't have the discipline, energy or desire to keep flogging the same dead horses, absent something to root for.

But... one thing I do root for and deeply admire is Paul Krugman. He has laurels aplenty on which to rest -- not just the Nobel Prize (in his case, richly earned), but the fact of having put himself out there voluminously for years, with an astonishing batting average. In terms of economic and political analysis and judgment -- and in the Show, not the minors -- he has a batting average that dwarfs any superstar in any field you can think of. A-Rod? Gretzky? Michael Jordan? Lombardi? Fuggedaboutit. Shakespeare dropped the ball more often.

And yet, he never seems to rest. He never stops reading, looking, thinking. Those on the right who dismiss him as a shrill, one-note ranter miss entirely his seemingly bottomless curiosity -- his true reporter's instinct. There is no public intellectual one can name who is so entirely engaged. And those on the left who dismiss him for this or that point of doctrinal difference miss entirely how seriously he takes the idea of using his unique bully pulpit to make things right -- or at least better. He is staying in the game, because he's genuinely committed to having the game come out as well as possible.

Every day, on his blog -- take a look at any of the posts on today's, for example -- he engages in serious discourse on serious issues with serious intent. Yes, he's our 21st century Cassandra -- and its hope-filled Energizer Bunny. If he hadn't gotten the Nobel for Economics, he would deserve one for Sincere Conscientiousness.

Update: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Decorum

A mild dust-up at The Paper of Record this morning, underlining the difference between expertise and its absence. David Brooks breaks decorum by snidely trashing his fellow op-edifier Paul Krugman in today's column -- without naming him, but there's zero ambiguity as to his target. And our Nobel Prize-winning Cassandra decorously but decisively slaps him down.