Obama's greatest legacy (TBA)

Bloomberg's Ticker nicely summarizes where we might be, given where we are:

From the Hagel nomination and debt-ceiling fight, we'll know whether that era [of Obamian retreat] has ended. The question is no longer whether Obama can defeat the Republicans; the election proved he could. The question is whether the tables have turned and Obama will use the power of his office to intensify polarization--with the goal of breaking an increasingly brittle opposition party.

Indeed, the umbrella issue of Obama's use of retaliatory presidential power overshadows even looming catastrophes such as a ceiling collapse. Last night I finished a brilliant, scholarly history of ancient Carthage's long-suffering contest with Rome (Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed), whose striking relevance needs no interpretation: "Hannibal's poor understanding of the Romans' obdurate mentality" led him to "let the wounded Roman beast escape."

OK, one interpretation: Oops.

I have argued--and argued, and argued--that Obama should have come out of the post-election gate swinging. He should, to be blunt, have attempted to finish the wounded Republican beast. He did not. He instead instantly offered to compromise on tax rates and associated items, which, in my opinion, was a self-wounding and superfluous display of Obamian "reasonableness." It's all right. It's done. And besides, one could intelligently counterargue, as many have, that Obama always had the debt ceiling at which he could draw his intransigent line. If a noteworthy tactical difference there was, it lay only in timing (which I nonetheless thought strategically crucial, others less so).

So, in effect, we're where we started. Now, as then, how Obama proceeds will determine whether the badly wounded beast can recover and itself proceed to wreak all manner of feral, endless destruction on Carthage America--or the creature is put out of our misery. Obama possesses only a couple of years to accomplish the latter; and in the long run, it would be his greatest legacy.

Comments

[Bulworth]

"The question is whether the tables have turned and Obama will use the power of his office to intensify polarization--with the goal of breaking an increasingly brittle opposition party."

Of course, it can't be that "he'll use the power of his office to put into effect the changes he campaigned on or desires" but that he'll use his presidential power to stick it to the other party. Our librul media at work.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Obama seems as intent on making budget balancing the primary focus of his second aministration as he was on healthcare insurance reform during his first.

I suspect all other policy will be filtered through this lens.

The military/foreign relations/OHS will be retooled to accommodate smaller budgets.

Medicare/Medicaid/employee healthcare costs will be cut following arguments about benefits versus costs.

Expenditures for everything else will be examined through this lens.

All this will be balanced with a parallel argument over tax revenue increases and tax fairness.

In other words, it will be a herculean task.

If form follows function, then government follows budgeting.

Obama will be more than just relevant in DC long after the first year of his second election.

[Peter G]

Let us be done with particular controversy. The only way to settle it will be to read a competent historical perspective written in about ten to twenty years.

[JTL]

I'll also be somewhat interested to read BHO's memoirs, whenever he writes them. I will try to remember all of these discussions about what he should be doing and what he could be thinking, and then try to compare them to how he explains his actions. I realize that his account will likely be at least a bit self-serving, but it should be fascinating nonetheless.