Has Obama Failed?

The hue and cry of the Republicans -- and some Democrats -- has recently been to the effect that the Obama presidency has failed. Key evidence: the continuing high unemployment rate.
Is our economic situation as we want it to be? Admittedly no. Ten percent unemployment is clearly unacceptable. So does this mean that Obama has failed? I would suggest that the implied comparison (where we are vs. where we’d like to be) is erroneous.
The proper comparison has to be between where we are, under Obama, and where we would be if his administration had not done what it has, or -- to put it very bluntly and starkly -- where we would be if McCain had been elected.
Of course, we do not know for sure what McCain and Palin would have done, but we have a pretty good idea, both from those candidates’ statements during the 2008 campaign and from the statements and positions of Republican leaders since. I think it is clear that under McCain/Palin we would be feeling the effects of more tax-breaks for the wealthy, more cuts in government programs for the poor and middle classes,and less effort at economic stimulus.
And what would those effects be? The CBO -- Congressional Budget Office -- recently released some projections that without the Obama stimulus programs, unemployment now might be 13% or 14%. And we can figure that there would be more people losing their homes, more people exhausting their unemployment benefits -- in short, we would be in a major depression, not just a painful recession.
So has Obama failed? Hardly. He has achieved a lot, compared to where the country was when he started and where it might have gotten to with different policies and programs.

And we need to recognize too that what the Obama administration as accomplished has been tempered -- and severely limited and distorted -- by the obstinacy and determination of Republicans to do everything possible to cause Obama to fail, regardless of what might be best for the country.

Is Obama a Socialist?

Before we get mired down in arguments about what is or isn't "socialist," let's look at a basic difference in how people look at the relationship of individuals to society and vice-versa.
One basic principle, not a bad one in its intention, is that we should earn everything we get. If we find ourselves helpless, broke, sick, homeless, it's because we didn't plan well enough or work hard enough. The moral implication is that if society is properly structured, virtue -- hard work -- will be rewarded, and vice -- waste, laziness -- will be punished. Who can quarrel with that?
And in normal situations this is a good way to run things. If you work harder, you should earn more. And if you choose to be lazy or to squander your money on gambling or liquor or worse things, it's only fair that you should eventually be poor and miserable.
But what about disasters that we did not bring upon ourselves? What about droughts and famines and forest fires and floods? What about cancer and other devastating diseases not caused by our own stupidity? What about steady workers suddenly thrown out of work?
If you agree that such things happen, then you have to acknowledge that almost all of us could at some time find ourselves in a difficult situation which we did not cause and which we cannot fix by ourselves.
Here is where, for most of us, another principle applies: As a society, we all have a responsibility to care for others, and we all have a right to expect the help of others when disasters strike. Or, as the Bible says, "Do unto others," and "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me."
Unfortunately what I seem to be hearing from some politicians (and others) is a rejection of this second principle. "Cut welfare, cut Social Security, cut food stamps, eliminate Medicaid, reduce unemployment benefits," the litany goes on and on. The usual justification for this position is an unwillingness to support lazy bums who don't want to work.
But I think even most bleeding-heart liberals share that unwillingness. And we know that there are abuses of every system that doles out money -- there are always people (and not just poor people) who look for ways to con the system. So let's agree: Every money-spending system needs screening, controls, checks and balances, audits, investigations, and ultimately prosecutions of violators.
That being said, there are needy people, generally people who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives (or people with legitimate disabilities that have prevented them from doing so). And we as a society, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I," have a responsibility (which in the long run may turn out to be enlightened self-interest) to help those in need.
So is this "socialism"? Perhaps. But Obama did not invent it. He has simply seen -- and seeks to enlarge -- this principle of helping the needy as a guiding principle of our caring society, manifested over the past seventy years as Social Security and the more recent Medicare and Medicaid