A Line in the Sand:
Frank Rich wants President Obama to draw a line in the sand. He's irate that Goldman Sachs is making billions hand over fist (reported third quarter earnings of $3.19 billion/anticipated bonuses paid to themselves this year: $23 billion) after having played a significant part in bringing the country to the edge of bankruptcy while benefiting hugely from a taxpayer bailout and simultaneously doing nothing, zip, zilch, nada to create any jobs.
Who can blame Frank? But the problem with lines in sand is that they are so easily obliterated.
Rich has to reach all the way back in history to Teddy Roosevelt to find an example of a president who stood up to the Robber Barons. Teddy was aided and abetted by the huge stick of the electorate who were willing to keep him in office. (NOTE: When Teddy wanted to run for a third term, his second actually, since he came to office the first time after a death in the White House, he had to form a third party, and he lost the election.)
Teddy's cousin, Franklin D., did draw some lines, but he too had a huge electoral mandate, and he ran in to political problems that caused the lines to be blurred.
No president since has successfully drawn a line in the sand for domestic issues. Eisenhower did send in troops to Arkansas, it's true, but there was little money interest in prolonging segregation. Most of the moneyed interest at the time saw this as a move to improve the educational and training background of a significant portion of the work force.
JFK's lines were all drawn against communist countries. Johnson refreshed Eisenhower's line domestically, and paid for it by having to forsake the opportunity to run for reelection. Nixon's lines led to impeachment proceedings and his resignation. Ford, as we know, was nothing more than a place holder, while Jimmy Carter's presidency had no known domestic agenda beyond proving that a supremely nice guy could be elected. Once.
And then there were the Reagan/Bush administrations whose lines were all drawn against labor. And we've seen the results of that. Stagnant wages for thirty years while the top earners reap massive profits by gambling away the GNP.
Clinton did draw a line in the sand. It was that health care thing—and the pen—and then nothing, as the winds of change blew the line in the sand into oblivion.
Frank Rich wants President Obama to draw a line in the sand. He's irate that Goldman Sachs is making billions hand over fist (reported third quarter earnings of $3.19 billion/anticipated bonuses paid to themselves this year: $23 billion) after having played a significant part in bringing the country to the edge of bankruptcy while benefiting hugely from a taxpayer bailout and simultaneously doing nothing, zip, zilch, nada to create any jobs.
Who can blame Frank? But the problem with lines in sand is that they are so easily obliterated.
Rich has to reach all the way back in history to Teddy Roosevelt to find an example of a president who stood up to the Robber Barons. Teddy was aided and abetted by the huge stick of the electorate who were willing to keep him in office. (NOTE: When Teddy wanted to run for a third term, his second actually, since he came to office the first time after a death in the White House, he had to form a third party, and he lost the election.)
Teddy's cousin, Franklin D., did draw some lines, but he too had a huge electoral mandate, and he ran in to political problems that caused the lines to be blurred.
No president since has successfully drawn a line in the sand for domestic issues. Eisenhower did send in troops to Arkansas, it's true, but there was little money interest in prolonging segregation. Most of the moneyed interest at the time saw this as a move to improve the educational and training background of a significant portion of the work force.
JFK's lines were all drawn against communist countries. Johnson refreshed Eisenhower's line domestically, and paid for it by having to forsake the opportunity to run for reelection. Nixon's lines led to impeachment proceedings and his resignation. Ford, as we know, was nothing more than a place holder, while Jimmy Carter's presidency had no known domestic agenda beyond proving that a supremely nice guy could be elected. Once.
And then there were the Reagan/Bush administrations whose lines were all drawn against labor. And we've seen the results of that. Stagnant wages for thirty years while the top earners reap massive profits by gambling away the GNP.
Clinton did draw a line in the sand. It was that health care thing—and the pen—and then nothing, as the winds of change blew the line in the sand into oblivion.
Labels: Politics, The Economy
posted by Jim | 10:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home