Shedding Light on the Absurdity

Robert Kuttner's piece in the HuffPost expresses almost exactly where I'm coming from these days vis-a-vis the Obama administration. A few tidbits:

Progressives now find themselves in an awkward position of
simultaneously wishing Barack Obama well, but feeling dismayed by his policies
on some key issues, most notably the banking bailout. If this were a normal
economic situation, the posture of semi-opposition would not be that big a deal.
We would simply gratefully accept the decent policies and keep pressing for
bolder ones. But a failure to revive the banking system would be Obama's
Vietnam. It would wreck everything else.

It's a too-familiar position for progressives, one that winds back through all of the postwar Democratic administrations of my adulthood. We wanted Lyndon Johnson to push harder for civil rights and anti-poverty and not ruin it all in Vietnam. We were appalled at Jimmy Carter's attacks on government, his failure to use his large Democratic majority in Congress to press for progressive legislation, his refusal to lift a finger on behalf of labor law reform. The memories of Bill Clinton are sufficiently recent that we need little reminder of the needless tilt to the right on economic issues from NAFTA to welfare reform to financial deregulation.

What makes this situation different is, first, our gratitude on so many
fronts combined with the very high stakes of the financial rescue. Barack Obama
is an exemplary leader in so many ways, the leader we've been waiting for. His
commitment to restore constitutional government is no small achievement. Those
fighting for anti-poverty efforts and children's initiatives have never seen
increases in federal resources comparable to the present ones. His foreign
policy initiatives, from his reaching out to Iran to his efforts on behalf of
nuclear non-proliferation are a breath of fresh air. And speaking of which,
Obama seems serious about reducing the carbon footprint.

The administration's approach to the auto rescue suggests the more robust strategy
needed for the banks: take a hard look at the company's books; fire incumbent
management; make all stakeholders take some sacrifices; and involve government
directly in the design of a leaner and more efficient successor firm. But
nothing of the sort is being done with the banks.

About all that the loyal opposition can do is shed more light on the absurdity of the Summers/Geithner approach and help animate skepticism in the media, the public, and eventually the President.