The fascinating thing about Obama is that he clearly understood the extent and effects of structural racism on US society (which is the closest thing we have to an actual definition of 'woke') BUT he also made the (in hindsight correct) political judgement to not advance explicit messaging and agenda on the subject.
I was disappointed/surprised by that decision at the time, but given the backlash to non-woke Obama at the time, and to wokeism a decade later (enough to reelect Trump), I have to admit he was right!
If you listen to some of the folks in rural Michigan, where I live part time, you would think that advancing a woke agenda and fomenting racial animus was Obama's full-time obsession.
I'm originally from Bay City which is rural-adjacent and this does not surprise me at all. I try not to throw around blanket accusations of racism, but there are vast swathes of rural MI which were/are never going to be happy about a Black president.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive: vast swathes of rural Michigan did indeed vote for Obama in 2008, but that doesn't mean that everyone in those rural districts liked Obama.
That's not what woke means lol. I'm just sharing what I observed as a native of the place who lived there for 18 years and still returns regularly to visit. How is that woke?
Yeah, I have heard people foam at the mouth of 'betrayal' when Obama made an anodyne comment that if he had a son he might look like Trayvon Martin.
My reluctant conclusion: A lot of people voted for Obama to close the door on racism in America. 'See, we voted for the Black guy, that means we aren't racist, so shut up, racism in America is OVER'
Also, things have changed a lot in rural Michigan since 2008. It's a much angrier place. There were four "F8ck Biden" signs within 2 miles of our place in Missaukee county - I don't recall that with a previous Democrat president.
Most of the industry left in the period 1970 through 2010, so that doesn't account for it, at least not all of it.
That said, I've noticed things lightening up recently.
Obama himself wasn't very woke, but that does not necessarily mean that his administration didn't introduce some woke policies. The classical example is the "Dear colleague" letter on Sexual Violence (2011), which introduced a rather low standard (preponderance of evidence) for punishment, plus mandated a de-facto dual system for a specific subset of crimes that are normally investigated by police and for whose investigation is the academic system fundamentally unsuitable and unprepared.
The practical implementation of this system was far from gender neutral, which was almost certainly the intent. It also resulted in several high-profile cases which played ther part in channeling young men towards the right and away from higher education, which started to be perceived as institutionally hostile against males. Nowadays, some universities are scrambling to get some young men back on board, as the gender imbalance has exceeded comfortable levels and young women suffer from a lack of dating opportunities on campus.
I doubt that dating opportunities for students is their direct concern, but it is in the interest of the university to be a place where students want to apply and attend. The social scene is definitely one of those factors, and a bad gender balance is a large negative there. Whether that would pass muster with the courts as a strong enough justification for gender discrimination is another matter, though the courts do apply a lower standard than for racial discrimination.
That's how the Democrats work. It's basically a bunch of lefty activists in a moderate suit. Far left on anything out of public view with moderate positions on anything that people pay a lot of attention to. When a moderate Democrat runs I can't tell if it's a legitimate moderate being dragged around by the party and bureaucracy or an actual lefty campaigning as a moderate because they know that's what they need to say to win. Doesn't matter either way, though, because the outcome is the same. There are exceptions like Manchin and Sinema, and a few governors that actually push back on the madness with actions and not just words. But outside of those few I wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if I agree with everything they campaign. Fool me once shame on you...can't get fooled again!
Because the GOP are all angelic choirboys who never lie? And you would never vote Blue because conservatives are pathological liars by comparison? Politicians by nature are liars. But Trump's pathological lying has infected his entire party, root to branch. RW media compounds the problem; either inventing brash falsehoods--"They're eating the dogs and the cats"--which GOP politicians like Trump repeat extensively. Or, by failing to call out their reps when they lie. Something Trump does whenever he opens his mouth.
Other than sealing the border, and working to decriminalize weed, our Republican choirboy rulers have failed this country quite spectacularly. Nearly $3 TRILLION in debt has been added in little more than a year. GOP policies have pushed up the cost of literally EVERYTHING; but especially electricity, heath insurance and gasoline. Within a few moths, watch the costs of food and energy skyrocket as the Hormuz stoppage ripples into the Ag sector. This is the party you proudly vote for?
I care a lot more about the Democrats lies about tax policy in an effort to confiscate more of my money than I do about some stupid lie about eating cats and dogs, though the latter is certainly more deranged by quite a margin.
I'm not sure where you get your deficit numbers from, but according to FRED it was $1.8T in 2024 and $1.7T in 2025, so not much of difference there. At least when the Republicans destroy the nation's finances I get a bit of the take from tax cuts vs the Democrats who throw it in the black hole of their hideous bureaucracy and patronage network.
The price of "everything" is up 3.3% over last year which is hardly disastrous. As for "electricity, heath insurance and gasoline" out of those the only thing Trump has had any effect on the price of is gas, which I actually think is a good thing long term as it incentivizes investment in electrification. This does not mean I approve of the idiotic choices Trump made to get us here.
And you didn't even mention the things that Trump has really screwed up. His economic and foreign policy has been an absolute disaster. But I ask myself how much bad foreign policy and how many points of GDP growth am I willing to trade away when the alternative is a party of envious millionaires who appeal to bitter losers and attack anything and anyone positive and successful in our society who also run a racial quota system against me. And the answer is a lot. They are cancer on society and if the cure is poison and radiation that is unfortunate, but I have no other choice.
<They are cancer on society and if the cure is poison and radiation that is unfortunate, but I have no other choice.>
I think wokeness is stupid and counterproductive, but this right here is just insane. I have relatives in war-ridden Third World countries who whine less than you. This is the richest, most powerful country in the world, and apparently all it took for everything to go fascist was hurt feelings. Lol
Budget Deficits: 2025 was $1.8trn; projected 2026--with this new GOP war--is $2.1trn--or higher. Cutting corporate and personal income taxes, and defunding IRS in this budgetary climate is IRRESPONSIBLE and UNSUSTAINABLE. It's also shocking for a party that historically fought for balanced budgets. But you're willing to vote for $2trn/year deficits if you can pay a little less on taxes?
Electricity: major leadership is needed by Congress to fund expansion of the national grid. Blocking *any* new renewable generation projects is not only counter-Laissez-faire, but will only INCREASE retail electricity costs; especially in New England and Tri-State area.
Inflation: Mass deportation, tariffs, blocking new renewable power generation--are all absolutely inflationary. This newest GOP forever war has ALREADY significantly increased fuel, fertilizer prices. Have any of your business(es) or those of your family/friends been hurt by any of these GOP policies?
Taxes: If you're 0.1% or 0.01% hire yourself some top-notch help to mitigate your taxes. If you're only 1%, then hire mid-level help. And stop whining, because even before BBB, taxes were at historic lows. If you are a savvy business owner or investor, your skills will continue to grow your capital no matter what.
Fascism is Bad for Business: The GOP's good friends, the Orban regime in Hungary, have shown that permanent or semi-permanent one party rule (i.e., Project 2025) produces endemic corruption and is economically...retarded. Unless you're a Crony, or regime-connected, it simply murders entrepreneurialism. Conservatives want to Orbanize the US, but willfully disregard its' long- and short-term damage to Hungary's economy. You happily vote for the party that wants this?
Though generally a supporter, I thought this and the Education Departments activist overreach gaining support and getting green lights, was a mistake.
The Presidency is a big job where you can never devote enough personal attention and you're perspectives are going to get warped by influence, trust, and reliance on subordinates and supporters. If he'd risen to prominence more gradually, maybe he could have collected or shaped a collection of individuals more inclined towards his more cautious proclivities.
If this kind of stuff were crucial campaign issues, it might have gotten closer scrutiny.
It certainly deserved it.
Same with renovations of the Democratic Party.
I think Obama recognized the lethargic orthodoxy there and the risks from radical half baked activist energy, but despite some early efforts to build something new, he really never found a way to turn the Democratic Party ship towards something else or create another focus that wasn't just centered around himself.
Still judged beside contemporary Presidents and their assorted performance misses, and character flaws, well above average.
Well the comment section is going as expected lol.
I agree with you. Obama was a good president. He doesn’t have to be perfect to be a good president. I was very disappointed in his handling of Libya and Syria, but he got a decent deal with Iran, a grand achievement in its own right. (Anyone who thinks they could’ve done significantly better is in fantasy land.)
Obamacare had its faults, but in part because it was gutted by the Supreme Court. One could argue that the Administration should have expected this challenge, but people underestimate how hard it is to get Congress to vote on anything. Every president since Obama has paled in comparison.
Anyway, I’d happily take someone like Obama over Trump or Biden any day (or Bush jr for that matter).
no, no he didn't. And we wouldn't be in this mess now if he got a good deal that actually stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The deal he gave them was just a pause. And even if Trump hadn't withdrawn we would have been in the exact same spot now with key parts of the deal sunsetting.
I mean, obviously Obama was an excellent and moderate president. Weird to have to defend that claim, but I guess it is true. If one’s standard is: “a reasonable incrementalist who cares about justice and understands and respects expertise.” If your standard is “never made a policy blunder”, I think that standard is too high and too focused on results over process.
BUT, the thing I learned from his tenure and which is not his fault, is that structural reform should come before even incremental policy changes. The country needs an 1832 style reform.
Great article. It's important to say this - not least, because it's true.
It's also a corrective to the left's rampant factionalism. The most useful thing Reagan did for the right was to create a broad coalition of disparate groups with his 'No conservative should criticize another conservative' nostrum.
Getting the left to do that is like herding cats in thunder. The left is never going to be as blindly uncritical of leaders on their side of the political spectrum as the right is, and you wouldn't want them to be. But some on the left seem to reserve their most bitter criticism for people who are actually close to them in outlook.
As long as UK and US politics are penned into two-party systems, successful political groupings will have to be broad and accept that being in power involves compromises that might not live up to any single group's ideals.
What? Republicans do nothing but infight. They often lose senate seats that should be lay ups by nominating extreme candidates. I can't think of a time the Democrats have done this to nearly the same degree. They do a much better job of holding the coalition together.
That's because they've been able to push so far to the right that the cracks are beginning to show. The left has, if anything, moved inside the positions it took in the 70s and 80s, particularly on the economy. In frontline US politics, there are a handful of moderate 'socialists' and no communists. But there are any number of extreme right wingers and more than a few fascists - including one big one.
That's all very good. I spent two years, 2007, 2008, fund-raising for Obama. We asked people who had never donated more than $200 ever to a political candidate for $2,500. I spent a lot of time on the phone waiting while the person on the other end recalculated their finances so they could say yes. That's how much they wanted "Change We Can Believe In." What we got was a fakakte the mistakes of which still echo. Right after inauguration, he did the dumbest fucking thing of the entire adminstration and put that motherfucking sonofabitch Rahm Emanuel in as CoS. I watched while that bastard fired Howard Dean - author of the 50-state Strategy that was responsible for the fact Obama had that 60-seat Senate that allowed him to accomplish anything the first two years - and then established that the DNC would support "winnable" races. The next thing he did was decomcission Obama For America, the most effective grassroots operation I had seen in 40 years of political work in the Democratic Party (including 10 years in the 70s "going pro"). The month after that happened, the GOP set up the Tea Party astroturf operation. And then in 2010 - a decennial year! - nobody in the administration including Obama did anything to get people excited about voting, there was no grassroots GOTV, at least not like 2008. The end result of Emanuel's"genius" was the Republicans won the majority of state legislatures and then won redistricting, and the result is 18 years later we are *still* digging out of that hole, while the fascist asswipes are well on the way to destroying this country before the mid terms and may just pull of the Big Steal in the mid terms.
I just today told the "Hey, vote for me, I'm YOUNGER than the incumbent so I'll be good" former Obama Admin staffer currently trying to win my congressional district that I wouldn't vote for him or any of his buddies because I don't see one of them who appears to have learned one damn thing from their many mistakes. But he says all the shit the "professional consultants" - all former Obamans looking for real jobs - tell him to say.
As far as that $850 million Chicago Taj Mahal (because it's a shrine) obscenity - paid for as thanks by all the billionaire scum he let off the hook in 2008 instead of calling them to account for their financial chicanery because "we must look forward" - is concerned, it may look classier than whatever piece of corrupt shit Dilbert will come up with, but it's still a monument to his service to the people who have stolen this country.
Being that I am not now some "wild-eyed lefty" by any of your definitions, I don't think one has to be a "wild-eyed lefty" to see that administration for what it was. More of the same Doim-o-crap Bullshit from Carter to Clinton to Obama (and I worked for all three). People like you, Noahpinion, ARE the problem.
I will never again vote for any inspirational "there aren't any red states, there aren't any blue states, there's the United States" inexperienced and naive nitwit who didn't "get it" till he found out too late the other side really did want to see him dead.
Well, I expect to see much more combative stances from Democratic candidates for all races in the future. This is because (reason #1) the Democrats, up to and including Obama and Biden, did not fully grasp the extent to which the Republicans had changed their game. This may be because behind the scenes, most of the GOP officeholders were signaling to their Dem counterparts that they are much more moderate than the rabid public stances which they must take to incite their GOP base voters. But now, we are finally beyond the point where anyone expects the Republican Party to become more normal in the future.
However, I am not convinced that current conditions would be much different, even if Obama had not taken the political actions you dislike. There are two more reasons:
(#2) The GOP had a 24-7-365 propaganda machine going in the form of Fox News (Murdoch 1996), which cooked-up the issues for any GOP candidate in the country to plug-in and play. The Democrats have had nothing similar, (which is perhaps a sad comment on the strategic ability of their big money donors). Fox's blanket brainwashing may have given the GOP an advantage in political momentum going well into the era of cell phone social media, which began during Obama's first administration. Few if any people at that time saw the total contours of what this would become. Of course by now the GOP advantage in social media punditry is likely to be dissipating, although I haven't seen any recent figures. But that still leaves us with the reality that the United States media scene is fractionated unlike anytime since the early 19th century (which was political mayhem)--while the Democrats, as always, don't have a coherent message until they nominate their main messenger.
(#3) The Democratic Party still swallows the free-market interpretation of mainstream economics, hook, line and sinker. They simply don't know any better. This ought to change that:
Well... as someone who lived through this period... my take is:
Symbolically: Great President...his election showed that the American System does allow for upward mobility. On Policy, Obamacare was (is) mis guided...basically supercharged healthcare costs, and he also supercharged DEI. On the rest, he was a competent manager...wouldn't say great leader. Ignoring the great symbolic victory (which really cannot be ignored), he was an ok middle-of-road President.
The healthcare reform got us out of penalties for pre-existing conditions. That alone was going to cause some cost increases, but probably was worth it. It's a problem throughout developed world with advanced medical systems. Given that things seemed stuck on an even more disastrous course, and it was opposition and resistance to every alternative...
Maybe there's some persuasion course that could have reshaped the environment to get something better through. But if that course was obvious and easy, that's probably the choice that would have been made, and the way things would have gone. Maybe it was a bunch of difficult choices, with the best hard to identify and navigate, so you end up taking one with lots of downsides and make some mistakes along the way.
Healthcare is a very difficult topic. The vast majority of costs are driven by end-of-life care (last six months) and chronic preventable diseases (diet, exercise, drugs, smoking). If you subsidize healthcare through public funds, you have to directly deal with these two issues. If I insist on bad habits as an individual, is the "system" required to pay for my "sins." This is not very sustainable. Alternatively, your point on pre-existing conditions is fair, but how far does it make sense?
Also, insurance is a transfer of risk from typically low-probability high impact events to a broader pool where the probability/risk can be absorbed. Healthcare insurance does not quite fit the model (aging society, demographic shifts, etc). It looks less like insurance and more like a subsidy.
In my view, Obama should not have focused on insurance, but more at the underlying drivers of cost. Shifting the demand/supply of medical services, some tort reform, incentives for maintaining good health, price transparency, etc. Obamacare added a bunch of money to a fairly broken system. well... at least he tried. My feedback is more on approach than intent.
I read from the Kaiser Family Foundation that roughly 80% of Medicare spending on an individual happens in the last five years of their life.
As you said our system is very heavily geared towards the end of life. I lived with my grandma for a time and got to meet a lot of her friends. You can see in real time their healthcare usage just skyrocket. They start seeing a large number specialists, receiving home healthcare, medical equipment like walkers, and a person goes from taking 5 meds to like 50.
Noah, you say "Obamacare .... largely failed to restrain the upward trajectory of health care costs” . Dean Baker says that 2022 health care costs were $1.45 trillion LESS than projected in 2009, representing a savings of more than $11000 per household per annum by 2022:
And now he backs Antizionist Socialists like Mamdani who is both a hateful racist and unsuccessful, so his arc is truly complete.
Obama’s foreign policy is one of massive failures. He emboldened violent aggression by Russia and Iran, funded Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy army program with a $52 billion bribe that achieved nothing beyond a temporary freeze in Uranium enrichment. He failed to get NATO’s EU countries to contribute, they only shrunk their militaries further. He threw US allies under the bus hoping to make friends with Islamists. He was terrible on national security, because he chose progressive advisors who hate the US, hate US allies and tried to be unobtrusive to Russia and pivot toward Iran.
I voted for him. I wanted him to succeed. But, 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.' Sorry, the lies and pretzel twisting they did to get this abominations passed disqualifies him from successful. Look at how healthcare costs have gone and look at the reduction in choices. Let's see, what else- how he dealt with Iran, well, all of the M.E. actually. How about his use of espionage act to shut down journalists? Race relations? Right after Obama's 2008 election, 70% of Americans expected race relations to get better. By August 2016, 46% said they had gotten worse as a result of his presidency (vs. 29% better). Look, he wanted to be a rich celebrity. He succeeded. Good on him. But not good for us.
I fundamentally don't understand the upset with the "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" line. Is there something in Obamacare that precluded people from keeping their doctors? Or did things shift in some unexpected ways that resulted in some people's doctors no longer accepting their particular insurance?
Putting healthcare costs on Obama seems pretty tenuous to me. I would really love to see how Obamacare actually resulted in health care inflation.
Also, racism being renewed because people got upset at a black man for being President seems an odd thing to put on Obama. He expressed empathy for Travone Martin and a subset of people think that was the most objectionable thing they've ever heard.
A July 2010 internal memo (revealed by NBC News) estimated 40–67% of individual-market plans would not qualify under the new rules. They knew this.
Yet Obama continued the promise into 2013, even as regulations finalized the cancellations.
Jonathan Gruber, architect and advisor said this publicly about the other horrific aspect of the plan: "“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to avoid that. … So, the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. … Look, I wish Mark [Pauly] was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” They lied, lied and then lied some more.
On your other point: this country ENTHUSIASTICALLY( me included) elected a black man president but you claim renewed racism came from people upset that a black man was elected president. That is some tortured logic.
I think that you are conflating two things that I am holding separate; your insurance plan can go away and you can still see the same doctor. Knowing that someone's old insurance plan will not be available in the future is not the same as knowing that their doctor will not accept the insurance plan they move to.
I am not saying that you became racist once Obama was elected. I was saying that people who opposed what Obama did certainly mix racism into the equation.
What did Obama do, specifically, to make racial relations worse? What concrete actions did he take to do that?
If you looked in the dictionary under disingenuous, an example that would be used is you holding separate those two things. If these elements were not material, and did not have such a clear impact that keeps them tied together they would not have lied about it over and over. You are clearly just trolling at this point. Have a good rest of your day and a blessed weekend.
I think Obama's foreign policy is starting to look. Etter in hindsight just because he didnt have the major missteps of Trump, W and even Biden (with the Afghan pullout). It is true he didnt win the new Cold War before it started but honestly the only guys who've done something that successful this century are Reagan and FDR.
It isnt controversial to say Obama is the best president this century. I think he was dealt a tougher hand than Clinton and also accomplished more domestically. I think the Bush-Reagan 12 years had some amazing successes internationally, revived the economy, were clearly less progressive than Obama, but their biggest failure is completely ignoring AIDS - Obama has nothing to compare to winning the Cold War but also nothing to compare to AIDS. I think it is fair to say that Obama is pretty on par with Reagan and ahead of Clinton, altho that probably is a bit controversial.
Long comment but the short of it is - Obama was a VERY GOOD president, and anybody who runs on trying to recreate his presidency will probably win handily against whatever self destructive message the extreme right and left are trying to put out there
The fascinating thing about Obama is that he clearly understood the extent and effects of structural racism on US society (which is the closest thing we have to an actual definition of 'woke') BUT he also made the (in hindsight correct) political judgement to not advance explicit messaging and agenda on the subject.
I was disappointed/surprised by that decision at the time, but given the backlash to non-woke Obama at the time, and to wokeism a decade later (enough to reelect Trump), I have to admit he was right!
If you listen to some of the folks in rural Michigan, where I live part time, you would think that advancing a woke agenda and fomenting racial animus was Obama's full-time obsession.
I'm originally from Bay City which is rural-adjacent and this does not surprise me at all. I try not to throw around blanket accusations of racism, but there are vast swathes of rural MI which were/are never going to be happy about a Black president.
This is just woke slop. Vast swathes of rural Michigan voted for Obama in 2008 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/president/map.html
The two statements are not mutually exclusive: vast swathes of rural Michigan did indeed vote for Obama in 2008, but that doesn't mean that everyone in those rural districts liked Obama.
The perils of anecdata!
That's not what woke means lol. I'm just sharing what I observed as a native of the place who lived there for 18 years and still returns regularly to visit. How is that woke?
See my comment right above.
Yeah, I have heard people foam at the mouth of 'betrayal' when Obama made an anodyne comment that if he had a son he might look like Trayvon Martin.
My reluctant conclusion: A lot of people voted for Obama to close the door on racism in America. 'See, we voted for the Black guy, that means we aren't racist, so shut up, racism in America is OVER'
Also, things have changed a lot in rural Michigan since 2008. It's a much angrier place. There were four "F8ck Biden" signs within 2 miles of our place in Missaukee county - I don't recall that with a previous Democrat president.
Most of the industry left in the period 1970 through 2010, so that doesn't account for it, at least not all of it.
That said, I've noticed things lightening up recently.
Obama himself wasn't very woke, but that does not necessarily mean that his administration didn't introduce some woke policies. The classical example is the "Dear colleague" letter on Sexual Violence (2011), which introduced a rather low standard (preponderance of evidence) for punishment, plus mandated a de-facto dual system for a specific subset of crimes that are normally investigated by police and for whose investigation is the academic system fundamentally unsuitable and unprepared.
The practical implementation of this system was far from gender neutral, which was almost certainly the intent. It also resulted in several high-profile cases which played ther part in channeling young men towards the right and away from higher education, which started to be perceived as institutionally hostile against males. Nowadays, some universities are scrambling to get some young men back on board, as the gender imbalance has exceeded comfortable levels and young women suffer from a lack of dating opportunities on campus.
Are universities concerned about dating opportunities for women? I don't think so.
There are many reasons universities should review their admissions policies, but I don't think that is one of them.
I doubt that dating opportunities for students is their direct concern, but it is in the interest of the university to be a place where students want to apply and attend. The social scene is definitely one of those factors, and a bad gender balance is a large negative there. Whether that would pass muster with the courts as a strong enough justification for gender discrimination is another matter, though the courts do apply a lower standard than for racial discrimination.
That's how the Democrats work. It's basically a bunch of lefty activists in a moderate suit. Far left on anything out of public view with moderate positions on anything that people pay a lot of attention to. When a moderate Democrat runs I can't tell if it's a legitimate moderate being dragged around by the party and bureaucracy or an actual lefty campaigning as a moderate because they know that's what they need to say to win. Doesn't matter either way, though, because the outcome is the same. There are exceptions like Manchin and Sinema, and a few governors that actually push back on the madness with actions and not just words. But outside of those few I wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if I agree with everything they campaign. Fool me once shame on you...can't get fooled again!
Because the GOP are all angelic choirboys who never lie? And you would never vote Blue because conservatives are pathological liars by comparison? Politicians by nature are liars. But Trump's pathological lying has infected his entire party, root to branch. RW media compounds the problem; either inventing brash falsehoods--"They're eating the dogs and the cats"--which GOP politicians like Trump repeat extensively. Or, by failing to call out their reps when they lie. Something Trump does whenever he opens his mouth.
Other than sealing the border, and working to decriminalize weed, our Republican choirboy rulers have failed this country quite spectacularly. Nearly $3 TRILLION in debt has been added in little more than a year. GOP policies have pushed up the cost of literally EVERYTHING; but especially electricity, heath insurance and gasoline. Within a few moths, watch the costs of food and energy skyrocket as the Hormuz stoppage ripples into the Ag sector. This is the party you proudly vote for?
I care a lot more about the Democrats lies about tax policy in an effort to confiscate more of my money than I do about some stupid lie about eating cats and dogs, though the latter is certainly more deranged by quite a margin.
I'm not sure where you get your deficit numbers from, but according to FRED it was $1.8T in 2024 and $1.7T in 2025, so not much of difference there. At least when the Republicans destroy the nation's finances I get a bit of the take from tax cuts vs the Democrats who throw it in the black hole of their hideous bureaucracy and patronage network.
The price of "everything" is up 3.3% over last year which is hardly disastrous. As for "electricity, heath insurance and gasoline" out of those the only thing Trump has had any effect on the price of is gas, which I actually think is a good thing long term as it incentivizes investment in electrification. This does not mean I approve of the idiotic choices Trump made to get us here.
And you didn't even mention the things that Trump has really screwed up. His economic and foreign policy has been an absolute disaster. But I ask myself how much bad foreign policy and how many points of GDP growth am I willing to trade away when the alternative is a party of envious millionaires who appeal to bitter losers and attack anything and anyone positive and successful in our society who also run a racial quota system against me. And the answer is a lot. They are cancer on society and if the cure is poison and radiation that is unfortunate, but I have no other choice.
<They are cancer on society and if the cure is poison and radiation that is unfortunate, but I have no other choice.>
I think wokeness is stupid and counterproductive, but this right here is just insane. I have relatives in war-ridden Third World countries who whine less than you. This is the richest, most powerful country in the world, and apparently all it took for everything to go fascist was hurt feelings. Lol
Me calling the left cancer - whining
You calling everyone who disagrees with fascists - not whining?
Budget Deficits: 2025 was $1.8trn; projected 2026--with this new GOP war--is $2.1trn--or higher. Cutting corporate and personal income taxes, and defunding IRS in this budgetary climate is IRRESPONSIBLE and UNSUSTAINABLE. It's also shocking for a party that historically fought for balanced budgets. But you're willing to vote for $2trn/year deficits if you can pay a little less on taxes?
Electricity: major leadership is needed by Congress to fund expansion of the national grid. Blocking *any* new renewable generation projects is not only counter-Laissez-faire, but will only INCREASE retail electricity costs; especially in New England and Tri-State area.
Inflation: Mass deportation, tariffs, blocking new renewable power generation--are all absolutely inflationary. This newest GOP forever war has ALREADY significantly increased fuel, fertilizer prices. Have any of your business(es) or those of your family/friends been hurt by any of these GOP policies?
Taxes: If you're 0.1% or 0.01% hire yourself some top-notch help to mitigate your taxes. If you're only 1%, then hire mid-level help. And stop whining, because even before BBB, taxes were at historic lows. If you are a savvy business owner or investor, your skills will continue to grow your capital no matter what.
Fascism is Bad for Business: The GOP's good friends, the Orban regime in Hungary, have shown that permanent or semi-permanent one party rule (i.e., Project 2025) produces endemic corruption and is economically...retarded. Unless you're a Crony, or regime-connected, it simply murders entrepreneurialism. Conservatives want to Orbanize the US, but willfully disregard its' long- and short-term damage to Hungary's economy. You happily vote for the party that wants this?
Though generally a supporter, I thought this and the Education Departments activist overreach gaining support and getting green lights, was a mistake.
The Presidency is a big job where you can never devote enough personal attention and you're perspectives are going to get warped by influence, trust, and reliance on subordinates and supporters. If he'd risen to prominence more gradually, maybe he could have collected or shaped a collection of individuals more inclined towards his more cautious proclivities.
If this kind of stuff were crucial campaign issues, it might have gotten closer scrutiny.
It certainly deserved it.
Same with renovations of the Democratic Party.
I think Obama recognized the lethargic orthodoxy there and the risks from radical half baked activist energy, but despite some early efforts to build something new, he really never found a way to turn the Democratic Party ship towards something else or create another focus that wasn't just centered around himself.
Still judged beside contemporary Presidents and their assorted performance misses, and character flaws, well above average.
Well the comment section is going as expected lol.
I agree with you. Obama was a good president. He doesn’t have to be perfect to be a good president. I was very disappointed in his handling of Libya and Syria, but he got a decent deal with Iran, a grand achievement in its own right. (Anyone who thinks they could’ve done significantly better is in fantasy land.)
Obamacare had its faults, but in part because it was gutted by the Supreme Court. One could argue that the Administration should have expected this challenge, but people underestimate how hard it is to get Congress to vote on anything. Every president since Obama has paled in comparison.
Anyway, I’d happily take someone like Obama over Trump or Biden any day (or Bush jr for that matter).
Some of the comments here are wild. Blaming Obama for every possible bad thing that has happened since 2008. Just coming in from every direction too.
I expected it, but am still somehow surprised.
"but he got a decent deal with Iran"
no, no he didn't. And we wouldn't be in this mess now if he got a good deal that actually stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The deal he gave them was just a pause. And even if Trump hadn't withdrawn we would have been in the exact same spot now with key parts of the deal sunsetting.
How’s fantasy world? Must be nice there.
I mean, obviously Obama was an excellent and moderate president. Weird to have to defend that claim, but I guess it is true. If one’s standard is: “a reasonable incrementalist who cares about justice and understands and respects expertise.” If your standard is “never made a policy blunder”, I think that standard is too high and too focused on results over process.
BUT, the thing I learned from his tenure and which is not his fault, is that structural reform should come before even incremental policy changes. The country needs an 1832 style reform.
Yes, best comment on this post.
Great article. It's important to say this - not least, because it's true.
It's also a corrective to the left's rampant factionalism. The most useful thing Reagan did for the right was to create a broad coalition of disparate groups with his 'No conservative should criticize another conservative' nostrum.
Getting the left to do that is like herding cats in thunder. The left is never going to be as blindly uncritical of leaders on their side of the political spectrum as the right is, and you wouldn't want them to be. But some on the left seem to reserve their most bitter criticism for people who are actually close to them in outlook.
As long as UK and US politics are penned into two-party systems, successful political groupings will have to be broad and accept that being in power involves compromises that might not live up to any single group's ideals.
What? Republicans do nothing but infight. They often lose senate seats that should be lay ups by nominating extreme candidates. I can't think of a time the Democrats have done this to nearly the same degree. They do a much better job of holding the coalition together.
That's because they've been able to push so far to the right that the cracks are beginning to show. The left has, if anything, moved inside the positions it took in the 70s and 80s, particularly on the economy. In frontline US politics, there are a handful of moderate 'socialists' and no communists. But there are any number of extreme right wingers and more than a few fascists - including one big one.
Here’s a delusional exchange I had on Substack yesterday, from an @David
“When Obama was elected, America’s racial strife was largely behind us. Obama then spent his entire eight years stirring the pot.
Some of us discerned that this might happen even before he was elected, since our eyes were not veiled by gauzy optimism.”
Whence do people get this idea? I am sincerely mystified.
That's all very good. I spent two years, 2007, 2008, fund-raising for Obama. We asked people who had never donated more than $200 ever to a political candidate for $2,500. I spent a lot of time on the phone waiting while the person on the other end recalculated their finances so they could say yes. That's how much they wanted "Change We Can Believe In." What we got was a fakakte the mistakes of which still echo. Right after inauguration, he did the dumbest fucking thing of the entire adminstration and put that motherfucking sonofabitch Rahm Emanuel in as CoS. I watched while that bastard fired Howard Dean - author of the 50-state Strategy that was responsible for the fact Obama had that 60-seat Senate that allowed him to accomplish anything the first two years - and then established that the DNC would support "winnable" races. The next thing he did was decomcission Obama For America, the most effective grassroots operation I had seen in 40 years of political work in the Democratic Party (including 10 years in the 70s "going pro"). The month after that happened, the GOP set up the Tea Party astroturf operation. And then in 2010 - a decennial year! - nobody in the administration including Obama did anything to get people excited about voting, there was no grassroots GOTV, at least not like 2008. The end result of Emanuel's"genius" was the Republicans won the majority of state legislatures and then won redistricting, and the result is 18 years later we are *still* digging out of that hole, while the fascist asswipes are well on the way to destroying this country before the mid terms and may just pull of the Big Steal in the mid terms.
I just today told the "Hey, vote for me, I'm YOUNGER than the incumbent so I'll be good" former Obama Admin staffer currently trying to win my congressional district that I wouldn't vote for him or any of his buddies because I don't see one of them who appears to have learned one damn thing from their many mistakes. But he says all the shit the "professional consultants" - all former Obamans looking for real jobs - tell him to say.
As far as that $850 million Chicago Taj Mahal (because it's a shrine) obscenity - paid for as thanks by all the billionaire scum he let off the hook in 2008 instead of calling them to account for their financial chicanery because "we must look forward" - is concerned, it may look classier than whatever piece of corrupt shit Dilbert will come up with, but it's still a monument to his service to the people who have stolen this country.
Being that I am not now some "wild-eyed lefty" by any of your definitions, I don't think one has to be a "wild-eyed lefty" to see that administration for what it was. More of the same Doim-o-crap Bullshit from Carter to Clinton to Obama (and I worked for all three). People like you, Noahpinion, ARE the problem.
I will never again vote for any inspirational "there aren't any red states, there aren't any blue states, there's the United States" inexperienced and naive nitwit who didn't "get it" till he found out too late the other side really did want to see him dead.
Well, I expect to see much more combative stances from Democratic candidates for all races in the future. This is because (reason #1) the Democrats, up to and including Obama and Biden, did not fully grasp the extent to which the Republicans had changed their game. This may be because behind the scenes, most of the GOP officeholders were signaling to their Dem counterparts that they are much more moderate than the rabid public stances which they must take to incite their GOP base voters. But now, we are finally beyond the point where anyone expects the Republican Party to become more normal in the future.
However, I am not convinced that current conditions would be much different, even if Obama had not taken the political actions you dislike. There are two more reasons:
(#2) The GOP had a 24-7-365 propaganda machine going in the form of Fox News (Murdoch 1996), which cooked-up the issues for any GOP candidate in the country to plug-in and play. The Democrats have had nothing similar, (which is perhaps a sad comment on the strategic ability of their big money donors). Fox's blanket brainwashing may have given the GOP an advantage in political momentum going well into the era of cell phone social media, which began during Obama's first administration. Few if any people at that time saw the total contours of what this would become. Of course by now the GOP advantage in social media punditry is likely to be dissipating, although I haven't seen any recent figures. But that still leaves us with the reality that the United States media scene is fractionated unlike anytime since the early 19th century (which was political mayhem)--while the Democrats, as always, don't have a coherent message until they nominate their main messenger.
(#3) The Democratic Party still swallows the free-market interpretation of mainstream economics, hook, line and sinker. They simply don't know any better. This ought to change that:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT-vY3f9uw3Dkgnj72Ydks7ExEiUrPcMD
In my opinion, Obama's foreign policy failures were so severe that they overshadow whatever success he found in the domestic sphere.
Very good analysis, and a timely reminder, Noah.
Well... as someone who lived through this period... my take is:
Symbolically: Great President...his election showed that the American System does allow for upward mobility. On Policy, Obamacare was (is) mis guided...basically supercharged healthcare costs, and he also supercharged DEI. On the rest, he was a competent manager...wouldn't say great leader. Ignoring the great symbolic victory (which really cannot be ignored), he was an ok middle-of-road President.
The healthcare reform got us out of penalties for pre-existing conditions. That alone was going to cause some cost increases, but probably was worth it. It's a problem throughout developed world with advanced medical systems. Given that things seemed stuck on an even more disastrous course, and it was opposition and resistance to every alternative...
Maybe there's some persuasion course that could have reshaped the environment to get something better through. But if that course was obvious and easy, that's probably the choice that would have been made, and the way things would have gone. Maybe it was a bunch of difficult choices, with the best hard to identify and navigate, so you end up taking one with lots of downsides and make some mistakes along the way.
Healthcare is a very difficult topic. The vast majority of costs are driven by end-of-life care (last six months) and chronic preventable diseases (diet, exercise, drugs, smoking). If you subsidize healthcare through public funds, you have to directly deal with these two issues. If I insist on bad habits as an individual, is the "system" required to pay for my "sins." This is not very sustainable. Alternatively, your point on pre-existing conditions is fair, but how far does it make sense?
Also, insurance is a transfer of risk from typically low-probability high impact events to a broader pool where the probability/risk can be absorbed. Healthcare insurance does not quite fit the model (aging society, demographic shifts, etc). It looks less like insurance and more like a subsidy.
In my view, Obama should not have focused on insurance, but more at the underlying drivers of cost. Shifting the demand/supply of medical services, some tort reform, incentives for maintaining good health, price transparency, etc. Obamacare added a bunch of money to a fairly broken system. well... at least he tried. My feedback is more on approach than intent.
I read from the Kaiser Family Foundation that roughly 80% of Medicare spending on an individual happens in the last five years of their life.
As you said our system is very heavily geared towards the end of life. I lived with my grandma for a time and got to meet a lot of her friends. You can see in real time their healthcare usage just skyrocket. They start seeing a large number specialists, receiving home healthcare, medical equipment like walkers, and a person goes from taking 5 meds to like 50.
Noah, you say "Obamacare .... largely failed to restrain the upward trajectory of health care costs” . Dean Baker says that 2022 health care costs were $1.45 trillion LESS than projected in 2009, representing a savings of more than $11000 per household per annum by 2022:
https://cepr.net/publications/the-crushing-health-care-cost-burden-that-never-came-corrected/
And now he backs Antizionist Socialists like Mamdani who is both a hateful racist and unsuccessful, so his arc is truly complete.
Obama’s foreign policy is one of massive failures. He emboldened violent aggression by Russia and Iran, funded Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy army program with a $52 billion bribe that achieved nothing beyond a temporary freeze in Uranium enrichment. He failed to get NATO’s EU countries to contribute, they only shrunk their militaries further. He threw US allies under the bus hoping to make friends with Islamists. He was terrible on national security, because he chose progressive advisors who hate the US, hate US allies and tried to be unobtrusive to Russia and pivot toward Iran.
I voted for him. I wanted him to succeed. But, 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.' Sorry, the lies and pretzel twisting they did to get this abominations passed disqualifies him from successful. Look at how healthcare costs have gone and look at the reduction in choices. Let's see, what else- how he dealt with Iran, well, all of the M.E. actually. How about his use of espionage act to shut down journalists? Race relations? Right after Obama's 2008 election, 70% of Americans expected race relations to get better. By August 2016, 46% said they had gotten worse as a result of his presidency (vs. 29% better). Look, he wanted to be a rich celebrity. He succeeded. Good on him. But not good for us.
I fundamentally don't understand the upset with the "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" line. Is there something in Obamacare that precluded people from keeping their doctors? Or did things shift in some unexpected ways that resulted in some people's doctors no longer accepting their particular insurance?
Putting healthcare costs on Obama seems pretty tenuous to me. I would really love to see how Obamacare actually resulted in health care inflation.
Also, racism being renewed because people got upset at a black man for being President seems an odd thing to put on Obama. He expressed empathy for Travone Martin and a subset of people think that was the most objectionable thing they've ever heard.
A July 2010 internal memo (revealed by NBC News) estimated 40–67% of individual-market plans would not qualify under the new rules. They knew this.
Yet Obama continued the promise into 2013, even as regulations finalized the cancellations.
Jonathan Gruber, architect and advisor said this publicly about the other horrific aspect of the plan: "“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to avoid that. … So, the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. … Look, I wish Mark [Pauly] was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” They lied, lied and then lied some more.
On your other point: this country ENTHUSIASTICALLY( me included) elected a black man president but you claim renewed racism came from people upset that a black man was elected president. That is some tortured logic.
I think that you are conflating two things that I am holding separate; your insurance plan can go away and you can still see the same doctor. Knowing that someone's old insurance plan will not be available in the future is not the same as knowing that their doctor will not accept the insurance plan they move to.
I am not saying that you became racist once Obama was elected. I was saying that people who opposed what Obama did certainly mix racism into the equation.
What did Obama do, specifically, to make racial relations worse? What concrete actions did he take to do that?
If you looked in the dictionary under disingenuous, an example that would be used is you holding separate those two things. If these elements were not material, and did not have such a clear impact that keeps them tied together they would not have lied about it over and over. You are clearly just trolling at this point. Have a good rest of your day and a blessed weekend.
Not trolling, think you are genuinely, substantively wrong on the merits.
Yup, that’s why he’s spending Thanksgiving with the Geitners in Martha Vineyard.
In his defense, we’re all running the rat race, alas
Obama ran on a super simplistic slogan, “Hope and change. " He fed us pipe dreams, but it's our fault that we believed him.
Incidentally, the gentleman owes you a very nice dinner.
I think Obama's foreign policy is starting to look. Etter in hindsight just because he didnt have the major missteps of Trump, W and even Biden (with the Afghan pullout). It is true he didnt win the new Cold War before it started but honestly the only guys who've done something that successful this century are Reagan and FDR.
It isnt controversial to say Obama is the best president this century. I think he was dealt a tougher hand than Clinton and also accomplished more domestically. I think the Bush-Reagan 12 years had some amazing successes internationally, revived the economy, were clearly less progressive than Obama, but their biggest failure is completely ignoring AIDS - Obama has nothing to compare to winning the Cold War but also nothing to compare to AIDS. I think it is fair to say that Obama is pretty on par with Reagan and ahead of Clinton, altho that probably is a bit controversial.
Long comment but the short of it is - Obama was a VERY GOOD president, and anybody who runs on trying to recreate his presidency will probably win handily against whatever self destructive message the extreme right and left are trying to put out there
Well done Noah!!!!!