Ted Van Dyke writes in the WSJ: Obama Needs to 'Reset' His Presidency. It resonated with me.
But at memeorandum, I see The Plank dug up Dyke's long history of being an "enraged Democrat". I'm not sure how this should make his op-ed less compelling. But I guess I place more value in the worth of an idea than who's saying it.
There are some things in the piece that that don't stand up to scrutiny, such as comparing Obama's margins of victory and congressional majorities to those of FDR and Johnson, from well before the advent of the recent micro-targeting, hyper-polarization, and precision gerrymandering. But from a centrish perspective, I sure think the overall points in the piece are sound:
- Cut back both your proposals and expectations.
- Talk less and pick your spots.
- Conform your 2009 politics to your 2008 statements.
1 hour ago
I'm not so sure I agree with this in general. It's a truism that "politicians should keep their promises" but those promises are given in a specific context that might well turn out to be different than the situation now. I once read that the best leaders tend to be ones that more or less ignore campaign promises once they become impractical. In any event, Obama won, and I hardly think he's gone too far afield--aside from on security issues, which has admittedly been annoying.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I do think it makes a difference that Van Dyke is misrepresenting himself. He may or may not be right, but he is using the perception that he is a loyal Democrat to criticize Obama from a progressive standpoint. This claim strengthens his argument, and his reactions seem less honest. Personally, I would be less inclined to take seriously someone who thought Bob Dole was the natural heir of FDR. If he's distorting right off the bat, what credibility dies he have?
Perhaps this is another way of complaining that Obama is too liberal or that his agenda is too ambitious. One can make these criticisms, but they are conservative criticisms. Which is fine (I disagree) but all I ask for is a good faith argument. Van Dyke is not quite doing that, IMO.