Where Fun Comes to Die

I almost thought President Obama’s op ed piece in the Washington Post was an internet hoax, it seemed so ill-advised for reasons explained here:

President Obama signed an op-ed this morning in the Washington Post, and it’s a quick hit that would have been better left unwritten. In it, he overpromises results from a bill that hasn’t been finalized and is still having amendments added in the Senate as I write this. But he says the stimulus bill will be “swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.” How does he know that? Maybe it will, but none of us really knows yet what is going to happen.

The president promises more than a fix for housing, jobs and banks-he guarantees massive government involvement in many sectors of our economy-from energy to healthcare to schools to access to the internet. He goes on to promise “unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.” That’s a big deal if he can deliver it. We’ve been waiting for that for years.

The president would have been wise to invite the loyal opposition to join him in supporting the bill, or at least to acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree on the road to compromise. But instead, he rejects criticism of the stimulus plan and reminds readers that his side won. He seems to blame Republicans for everything causing our country to fall apart. . . .

Anyone opposing the current stimulus package is engaging in “old ideological battles,” “narrow partisanship,” “bad habits,” and “the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action,” he writes. I guess that includes not only the House Republicans, but economic experts Martin Feldstein and Alice Rivlin, the other 250 economists who have publicly stated their reservations.

Most of Washington is engaged in a battle of ideas, for the first time in a long time, about the meaning of capitalism and free markets and government intervention. The future of our economy is at stake, and the president would have been better off not engaging in overblown rhetoric and name-calling on the op-ed page. He came across as partisan and strident about the future, instead of inclusive and thoughtful. Someone else should have signed that op-ed.

I’m particularly disturbed by the president’s alarmist tone, appeal to crowd hysteria, and the pervasive feeling of extortion in the piece, but then i am always wary when a charismatic leader is able to whip up the masses to blindly follow using the carrot of prosperity and the stick of castrophe.   See, e.g., fascist leaders of the 20th century and most recently the current Iraq war which, like G.W. Bush, was extremely popular at the time.   But now I’m just fighting fear mongering with fear mongering.