We should all hate hatred

March 3, 2016

One of the most notable aspects of the 2016 Presidential election cycle is that so many candidates are actively working to unleash hatred. “Wannabe” Brown Shirts are roughing up unwanted attendees at political rallies. Deranged supporters are starting fires, shooting to kill, and generally creating mayhem aimed at unwanted minorities or those with different political or social views.

Hell, yesterday someone at an intersection flipped me off because I didn’t let him make a left turn ahead of me (that’s illegal here in California), and a shopper in a supermarket railed against some unusually long checkout lines and later walked across the parking lot to his car screaming and cursing about anyone who hadn’t served him fast enough, particularly minorities.

Here in the U.S., there has always been more than enough hatred to go around. We’ve deeply hated those who got to this country after we did (as well as the indigenous nations who got here before we did), those whose sexual preferences differ from ours, those who’ve needed society’s help, those who’ve disagreed with us about large and small policy issues, those who’ve fought against us in wars, even those who’ve rooted for the rival sports team.

But until the past decade or so, much of that hate was squelched. It wasn’t polite to express your hatred openly. Nixon’s Southern Strategy was a clever way to capitalize on some voters’ hatred without requiring them to admit their true feelings. Complaints about “political correctness” were much less about particular issues and much more about regaining the right to hate others.

Now in this election cycle, we find that dozens of candidates have based their candidacies on the size, direction, and vehemence of their hatred for others. And a significant portion of their supporters have taken the cue and unleashed their pent up hatred against whatever pisses them off, scares them shitless, or just varies from their own comfortable way of life.

There are those who say the human nervous system is wired to distrust and even hate strangers from other tribes. It was supposedly a survival mechanism. As a result, it takes active training and practice to overcome our natural inclinations and to give other people a fair chance to live their own lives and hold their own opinions. In my view, we need more of this training, because it helps us advance as a society and allows us to realize more of our human potential, while hatred keeps us chained to our animal natures and effectively stuck in the past.

I’m sure it’s healthier to express one’s hatred rather than bottle it up. As one of Woody Allen’s film characters once expressed the problem of repressed feelings: “I don’t get angry. I grow a tumor instead.”

But a society cannot thrive when a significant portion of its members openly hate another significant portion of their fellows. As Lincoln famously proclaimed: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”


Don’t They Have Grandchildren?

May 13, 2015

Take a moment and consider who you are and how you conduct your life. Look around you at the all people you’ve met, or heard about.

I think you’ll agree with me that, normally, the vast majority of humans are concerned about themselves and their families. Maybe even their friends and supporters. Many of us are concerned about our own health, our family’s health, and the health of the planet. We don’t litter. We limit our waste and our carbon footprint. We give other people the right of way. We help where we can, and we rarely, if ever, harm the other people on the planet.

Even those of us are mean and selfish to strangers usually try to make life better for those they care about. They don’t burn down their own houses, strip their cupboards and pantries of edible food, or poison their own wells.

So how do we explain the consistent, long-term, destructive behavior and choices we see from some of the architects of our modern world. I’m talking about you, Darrell Issa, Rick Santelli, Roger Ailes, Charles and David Koch, Grover Norquist, Dick Cheney, Ken Ham, Ann Coulter, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John Poindexter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Andrew James Breitbart (deceased), Paul Wolfowitz, Pam Geller, and many others. The list should also include the names of corporate executives who remain largely behind the scenes but spend furiously to drive the interests of their more public political, media, and cultural minions.

The choices some of these leaders make, and have been making, have systematically despoiled our planet’s life-giving mechanisms and pushed us to the brink of disaster, threatening to make human civilization unsustainable, and literally killing and sickening millions of people with scourges like lung disease, cancer, needless wars, infections like MRSA, food and water shortages, and diseases that are resistant to modern medical treatment. In some cases, some of these evildoers have even worked against delivery of medical treatment that has been proven effective.

All of this leads many people – me included – to ask the simple question: How can we explain their penchant for choosing destructive options, pursuing long-term damage to society, the economy, and the environment, and generally screwing up so much of what matters to the rest of us?

Don’t they plan to live, breathe, eat, and drink for years to come. Don’t they have children and grandchildren who must do the same for the next 50 or 100 years?

As a “novelist in training,” I not only ask these kinds of questions, I try to observe and understand individuals and their motivations so as to come up with answers. What follows is simple speculation, organized from the most fantastic to the most mundane. I can’t guarantee that all of it is accurate, or even plausible. But at least some of it might be true:

They’re not human

You don’t have to spend much time on the Internet to come across “conspiracy theories” about reptile, alien shape-shifters who live among us and are doing their best to turn Planet Earth and it’s human inhabitants toward their own purposes and objectives.

Whether they intend to enslave us, use us for food, generate and harvest energy from our bodies (see “The Matrix” series of films), or just have fun by destroying us, they are systematically working against the best interests of the human race.

I’m not saying that Dick Cheney and some others calling the shots are among those who are reptile, alien, shape-shifters. I’m just saying that if they were, they’d be doing and saying almost precisely the same things he actually says and does.

They’re human but “on the Autism spectrum”

Psychologists have begun to identify and understand a segment of humanity that seems to have social and communication deficits. Whatever the cause, they are uncomfortable talking to others, rarely understand what the people around them may be feeling, and seem never to recognize that their words and actions might have negative consequences.

When people who fall somewhere on this autism spectrum also exhibit a thirst for power, they constitute a significant danger to those around them. The more power they amass, the larger the number of people at risk from their decisions and behaviors.

They’re under someone else’s power

Althought Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush held the office the U.S. President, many historians and students of government recognize that others actually held the reins of power. So it’s not entirely fair to blame these two men for their policies or actions while occupying the Oval Office. I’m not saying they are entirely innocent, but if you seek the reasons why Reagan attacked the air traffic controllers’ union or why GWB failed to hold a single meeting to discuss the terrorist threat against the U.S. mainland, you must look at others, as well.

They’re mentally ill

The human brain is a complex mechanism, and apparently gives rise to an even more complex phenomenon: the human mind. A great many things can go wrong in all this and send almost any person’s thought process skidding into a ditch.

It would be nice if everyone who is mentally ill maintained a crazy look in their eyes, or spoke gibberish. Then we could easily identify those who need help and guidance in understanding situations and making sound decisions. But they don’t. That’s why Charles Manson was able to sweet-talk his “family” into murdering Sharon Tate and others, and why Jim Jones was able to convince 909 members of his People’s Temple to drink poison.

They’re caught up in a cult

You don’t have to be crazy to join a cult. Modern cults have studied, developed, and polished their techniques to the point where almost anyone can be captivated by outward appearances, and slowly twisted by mind control techniques until they accept and act on ideas that non-cult members would consider delusional.

Among the problems with cults is that, once a person accepts a certain idea, it becomes easy for them to behave in a certain way. If the idea is wrong-headed, then the behavior it supports can do real harm, not just to those within the cult, but to outsiders, as well.

They’re addicted to money and power

Upton Sinclair once wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” This explains why many people, who have for any number of reasons found themselves earning money from certain unsavory sources or requiring certain negative actions, seem unable to grasp the full reality and harmful results of what they are doing.

This drive to survive often advances into a true addition that persists even when a person has accumulated more money than he or she can ever use. Because it is so commonplace, this is probably the easiest explanation to understand, and probably the one most widely accepted. After all, who among us would not like to possess a billion dollar fortune and, once having acquired it, who among us would not support some extreme measures in order to hang onto it?

Nearly all of us believe that money corrupts, and most of us know someone who became extremely successful and began to feel a little less concern for others who remained on lower economic and social rungs.

They’re totally selfish

Some people are naturally community oriented, while others are naturally selfish. If you take selfishness to an extreme, you might wind up with a person who will countenance harm to a great many others simply to further their own agenda or gain advantages for themselves.

In many cases, selfish people simply don’t notice that, by going for what they want, they are inconveniencing or interfering with others. But clearly there are people so selfish that they willingly step in front of others, grab what others already have, and leave large messes behind as they gather everything they want by whatever means necessary.

This selfishness could result from sublime mechanisms, such as having a less-developed soul, or from Earthly experiences that taught lessons of selfishness (as they did to Ayn Rand) rather than the joy of sharing and the practicality of community.

They’re totally short-sighted

Experimenters have studied young children’s intrinsic attitudes in many ways, but the one relevant here is as follows: They show a young child a treat – such as a cookie or a candy – and then tell the child something like: “You can eat this now, but if you wait five minutes, I’ll give you another one and you can eat them both.”

Some children can easily defer gratification and wait for the second treat. But others cannot.

It’s possible, then, that some of our leaders are simply incapable of holding back from choices that will produce immediate benefits in favor of other choices that will produce more benefits sometime down the road.

They never grew up

Elementary and high schools are well sprinkled with people who are relatively immature. They say and do things instinctively, without much thought for the consequences. They lack purpose and direction in their lives, and give little or no thought to their choices, behaviors, or opportunities.

That’s all pretty much acceptable in youngsters. But as we grow older, most of us recognize that we can be happier than we are when we play a trick on a friend, that we can get more satisfaction from life than we feel when we eat fast food or see the latest movie, that we can build more meaning into our lives than we do when we bully others or take a short cut to collect a trophy.

They Lack the Essential Connection to Spirit

According to Sioux Chief Arvol Looking Horse, the absence of spirit is causing suffering everywhere. “We are in a time of survival,” he has said. “But we don’t want to believe it because we have forgotten our spirits. We have forgotten that Grandmother Earth has a spirit.”

As a result, disconnected people are causing great harm to the Earth’s animals, plants, and natural resources without any awareness of what they are doing.

The Chief believes that people ought to respect each other. “The Great Spirit put us here all together,” he says. “If we’re going to survive, we need to have spirit and compassion.”


In the final analysis, however, the intellectual exercise of understanding why these people do what they do is far less important than the practical exercise of understanding how to stop them, and why so many of the rest of us offer them so little opposition.

After all, the sooner we put an end to their destructive ways and damaging choices, the sooner our grandchildren – and our grandchildren’s grandchildren – will enjoy secure and enduring access to a peaceful planet full of abundant resources for a sustainable, happy life.

Is it Smart or Stupid to Leave Your Comfort Zone?

January 10, 2015

Many people are out there flogging the “conventional wisdom” about the value of “getting out of your comfort zone.”

At first blush, this kind of advice almost seems smart.

But whether it is smart, or not, really depends on you, your work, and your position on the trajectory of your life and your work.

If you’re failing, or too afraid to accomplish your best work, then yes, it might be valuable to get out of your comfort zone.

But if you’re successful, working hard on projects that are important to you, and “in a groove” that provides solid expression for your innermost values, ideas, dreams, and hopes, then getting out of the “comfort zone” you’re in would probably result in a net loss for yourself, and for humanity.

Once you know what you’re doing, and doing it well, and it’s something good that needs doing, then there’s no reason to “get out of your comfort zone,” any more than there’s a reason to leave a relationship that’s working and a reason to retire when you’re still productive and happy.

Like all advice, “get out of your comfort zone” is a simple-minded trope that makes sense only in certain contexts, and makes no sense in other contexts.

Fortunately, most people who know what they are doing and are doing it well, and are doing something good, are tuned-in enough to recognize poor advice when they hear it, even if it’s dressed up in conventional values that almost seem smart to those not looking deep enough.

What I’d Like To Hear From A Congressional Candidate

March 30, 2014


I understand I would be a “rookie” in Congress. I understand I would be an idealist. I even understand that Congress operates in complex and arcane ways according to convoluted and often contradictory rules. If I were to go to Congress as a conventional “politician,” I’d obviously and almost necessarily be starting from a position of weakness and naivete.

But if you send me to Washington as your Representative, I won’t go as a conventional politican. I have never been a conventional person, and I won’t change my approach or my methods just because they’re not yet commonly accepted in Congress.

I have achieved whatever small success I can point to in this world on the basis of my personal strengths, which include intelligence, heartfelt understanding of the human condition, insight into other people’s drives and lives, clarity of purpose, and an ability to find ways to apply moral principles to achieve practical solutlions. I believe — and I urge you to believe with me — that Congress, and Congresspeople, are as susceptible to these tools and techniques as everyone else I’ve encountered in our great nation.

As your Congressional Representative, I will use my strengths to get to know the other Congressional Representatives, not just on the surface, but at their deepest levels of motivation, values, perceptions, and possibilities. They live and work in a corrupt system, to be sure, but most of them remain decent, honest, patriotic Americans who love our country and want to see it improve in years to come.

That’s where I will reach out to them.

I will use my strengths to make contact with each Congress person’s inner values, inner principles, and inner agenda. I will use my intelligence and experience in accomplishing difficult real-world tasks to help them find practical applications of these values and principles that can successfully address what has gone wrong with our American political, economic, and social systems. I will use my powers of perrsuasion to help them see that there are ways to make our country better, and to help ordinary people lead happier, more fulfilling, more successful lives.

I understand that politics is about compromise, and about achieving what is possible in a complex and difficult, rapidly changing world. And that’s exactly where and how my strengths and abilities will allow me to help other Congress people find common cause with each other, to build on what is great about America, and to open the door to new possibilities.

It is because I understand people so thoroughly, and recognize what drives them to behave as they do, that I can direct my talents toward generating new and greater support among “conventional” politicians for the changes we need to begin repairing what is broken and to set our great country on a better, truer course toward the exciting and positive destiny we were founded to fulfill.

Ongoing Opposition and Alternative Voices

May 6, 2013

Announcing the Green Shadow Cabinet … intended to provide an ongoing opposition and alternative voice to the dysfunctional government in Washington D.C. It includes nearly 100 prominent scientists, community and labor leaders, physicians, cultural workers, veterans, and others. As with shadow cabinets in other countries, the Green Shadow Cabinet of the United States plans to respond to statements and actions of the existing U.S. government, and hopes to demonstrate that another government of these United States is possible, practical, and beneficial. The Cabinet is currently led by the 2012 Green Party presidential nominees: Dr. Jill Stein, and Ms. Cheri Honkala. It is explicitly not a project of any political party, however, and invites participation by all who support sensible government politics and policies.

This may not be the first instance of such an idea, but it’s the first one I’ve ever heard of, and it’s a great one.

Now there stands a real possibility that some or all of the bought-and-paid for, short-sighted, small-minded, self-serving, and wrong-headed statements and decisions by the “official” U.S. government can be seen in the light of smarter, better ideas and policies put forth by experts and specialists who have a larger view and a predilection for helping the vast majority of Americans rather than the wealthy and privileged few.

Here’s a link to a list of current Shadow Cabinet members:

Here’s a link to some early statements by Shadow Cabinet members:

Here’s a link to where you can sign up for the Shadow Cabinet’s electronic newsletter:

Here’s a link to where you can donate to support the Shadow Cabinet:

Fortunately, contributions are not tax-deductible. If they were, and if the Shadow Cabinet were to obey the tax laws, it would be barred from trying to influence government policies or elections. Plenty of right wing organizations and religious organizations claim their tax deductibility, but go right ahead and lobby, advertise, and otherwise try to peddle their influence. At least the Green Shadow Government is starting from a position of honesty.

With thanks to Winston Churchill: This Shadow Cabinet may not be the be-all and end-all of efforts to reform and revitalize our broken U.S. government. It may not even be the beginning of finding the be-all and end-all of such an effort. But it may be the end of the beginning!


You Won This Time But You Can’t Keep It Up Forever

November 17, 2012

You don’t get it, do you?

Yes, David beat Goliath.

Yes, Peter Pan beat Captain Hook.

Yes, Lawrence of Arabia beat the Ottoman Empire.

Yes, Fordham beat UMass (1971).

Yes, Stanford beat USC (2007).

Yes, the Tigers beat the Yankees.

Yes, New York City survived Superstorm Sandy.

Yes, Obama and the Democrats beat Romney and the Republicans and their billionaires’ money.

But don’t be so sure you can do it again.

This is a country that runs on information, and most of that information is transmitted via television, plus some radio. Sure, there’s the internet, but that’s really small potatoes compared with the broadcast media. To understand why, think about the numbers. Most websites, tweets, blogs, and forums on the internet get a few thouand visitors. Maybe a few hundred thousand. A really giant one will get a million visitors a month. A monster “viral” success will get two or three million visitors over its lifetime.

On television, a show that gets two million viewers is quickly canceled. At one point Rush Limbaugh had five million people listening to him every day. Every day! Sixty million people watched each of the pre-election Presidential debates. Sixty million!

TV and radio is where most voters get their information, along with word of mouth from friends, who also get their information from radio and television. If you’re’ not on TV, you’re not a viable candidate for national or even state office. And if your message, or point of view, or facts are not on TV, they literally do not find their way into the minds, hearts, and memory banks of America’s voters.

Of course, it’s easy to get on TV and radio … if you have tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on promotional efforts, message development, and … the bottom line … purchase of advertising time.

If you don’t have the big bucks, you’re not going to get on TV or radio very much. In that case, your ideas and your messages and your facts will wither on the vine. They’ll be highly appreciated by your immediate family, but not by very many more.

So this election cycle, for a variety of reasons, Obama and the Democrats beat Romney and the Republicans and their billionaires’ money. But next election cycle, some of those reasons may not be quite so vibrant and strong as they were this time. And the cycle after that, there may not be a Superstorm to focus voters’ attention of the favorable work that government can sometimes do. And the cycle after that, there may not be screaming yahoos on the Republican side mouthing nonsense and acting like clowns. And the cycle after that, Republican strategists may have learned to spend all that money sweetly wooing voters instead of insensitively pissing them off.

And when that happens the Party of the One Percenters, suitably disguised in working class clothes and skillfully uttering populist slogans and slathering those sophisticated messages all over the TV screens and radio dials of America, may sneak into a big time electoral victory.

After all, most of the time, the odds greatly favor Goliath over David, Captain Hook over Peter Pan, the Ottoman Empire over Lawrence of Arabia, UMass with Julius Erving over Fordham without him, a strong USC team over a weak Stanford team, the Yankees over the Tigers, a monster storm like Sandy over a New York City not designed for two-story high storm surges, and the Republicans’ billionaires’ money over a relatively underfunded Democratic party.

One solution would be to raise as much money as the Republicans. But that normally requires the cooperation of billionaires, and then Democrats would have to offer those billionaires basically the same paybacks as the Republicans do.

A better solution would be to finish the effort to get money out of politics, now, before money entrenches itself into politics so deeply it becomes inseparable, so we can all settle down to watching a fair fight between equally matched, equally clever politicians. And may the better party win!

Whichever party that turns out to be, the nation will be the better for it.

Toward A Free and Accurate Media

December 4, 2011

One of the problems with Freedom of the Press in the U.S. is that, famously, it belongs only to those who own a press. Even in the age of the Internet, Youtube, twitter, and blogging, it’s far easier to put up a chatty site full of opinion, innuendo, ideology, and psuedo-facts than it is to send investigative reporters to find out what newsmakers don’t want you to know, to verify facts, and to write clear and cogent explanations of important situations that work to keep readers informed.

This is the nature of news reporting in a capitalist culture where every organization has to earn its own living, or weaken and ultimately die.

For this reason and others, many have suggested that newspapers and other news gathering organizations should not be part of the capitalist structure at all. Instead, they should be supported by endowments that allow them to spend money without regard to whether or not they generate enough income to pay all their expenses.

But this change alone, while it might free newsgathering organizations from the need to attract mass audiences in order to pay their bills, would not ensure that they focus their energies on reporting what’s really important, or that they report on major stories in a factual, sober, and sensible manner.

What’s also needed, aside from some kind of endowment or stipend system that provides a steady stream of money to meet the admittedly heavy expenses of in-depth reporting, is a system that incentivizes and rewards newsgathering organizations for reporting on the stories that are important for citizens of a democracy to understand and follow.

That function could possibly be performed by a separate Board of Reporting Quality. The BRQ would meet at regular intervals, perhaps monthly or quarterly, and evaluate a newsgathering organization’s work. Is it focusing on the important stories? Is it unearthing the bedrock truth and detailed machinations contained in each of those stories? Is it reporting those stories clearly, concisely, accurately, and understandably? Is it following and reporting on each story not only through its most titillating moments but from its earliest beginnings to its final conclusions and implications?

The BRQ could then use these evaluations to recommend funding levels to the separate Board that controls the newsgathering organization’s funding. The better job it does of reporting, the more money it gets to spend. When the quality of reporting goes down, so does the extra money that pays for perks, extras, frills, and bonuses.

Under a system like this, properly run, salaries for investigative reporting could float to their fair-market level, high enough to attract more of the best and brightest, including some who are presently enticed to enter other professions because the money there is so much better.

The net result, in an ideal world, would be that newsgathering organizations would be funded well enough to cover the really important stories of the day and bring them to the attention of interested citizens. The pressure news publishers now feel to tease, titillate, and go tawdry would be eliminated, or at least offset by incentives aimed more responsibly.

With such institutions in place, interested citizens could feel more assured that we’re being told about issues, problems, and opportunities that are really important to our daily lives and to our future.

Politicians and Dogs

November 7, 2011

Years ago, when I owned some Golden Retrievers (great dogs, by the way), I read a wonderful and simple book about training dogs. I can’t remember the name, now, but I’d recommend it highly if I could.

Basically, the book said that dogs are merely collections of habits that their owners will tolerate. At bottom, dogs are social animals, and they desperately want to learn the rules, fit in, find their place, and be accepted. They just need to be told the limits of acceptable behavior.

An easy way to set those limits, wrote the author, is to use your keys. Keys are great because you (me, at least, and I dare say most men) always carry them in a handy pocket. What’s more, they have a good weight, and they readily make a loud, jangly noise.

The trick, according to this author, is to throw your keys at the dog.

Don’t worry: It’s not harmful. You don’t even have to hit the dog with the keys.

Just the noise of the keys hitting the wall or floor nearby is enough to startle and alarm your faithful companion. When you couple that key toss, and the resulting jangly noise, with a shouted “No!,” your dog gets a very clear message.

And because you can shout “No!” and throw your keys at the very instant your dog is doing something you don’t want him or her to do, that message is very unambiguously tied to the doggie action you’re trying to prevent.

From the dog’s point of view, you have suddenly gained the power to strike instantly from across the room. That’s far more effective that going to find a newspaper, rolling it up, chasing down your dog, and whacking it on the hindquarters. By the time you get all that done, the poor puppy has no idea of the reason for the punishment.

But throwing your keys and shouting “No!” makes you a pretty powerful pack leader. And because the nearby jangly noise and your shouted “No!” come at the same instant, not only are you telling the dog what it is that you don’t want him or her to do, you’re also strongly associating your shouted “No!” with that jangly noise.

Under the laws of behavioral modification, pretty soon you don’t have to throw those keys any more. Your voice alone is enough to convey your displeasure.

And within a very short time of you starting to throw your keys, your dog memorizes a list of things it shouldn’t do, and stops doing them. Now you rarely have to throw your keys or shout. The dog is well behaved, and everyone — including the dog — is very happy.

That’s all well and good, as far as it goes with dogs. But where these principles will really come in handy is in training our politicians.

Like dogs, most politicians are merely a collection habits that voters will tolerate. Like dogs, most politicians desperately want to learn the rules, fit in, find their place, and be accepted — that is, re-elected. They just need to be told the limits of acceptable behavior.

A lax electorate, like a lax master, makes nobody happy.

To reassert our control over our government, we simply have to get in the habit of making a loud noise and shouting “No!” the instant a politician does something unacceptable. All the remains is for us voters to find the political equivalent of throwing our keys.

I just wish that all politicians were as beautiful and well-bred as Golden Retrievers.

How The Rich Are Winning The Class War

August 1, 2011

The rich won the class war by depriving the middle and lower classes of education: history, civics, political education, and training in how to think critically. As a result, their mouthpieces can spout nonsense and the relatively uneducated voters now swallow it clean.

The antidote, until we get a real education system back again, is for those of use whose eyes are open to educate those around us who cannot see what is going on.

We need to develop simple, factually accurate materials we can hand out to people (or point them to on the web); simple, factually accurate arguments that show the folly of voting tax breaks for the rich etc etc rather than services and benefits for the average family; and so forth.

All that’s required for the rich to win the class war is for the middle and lower classes to do nothing.

Obama has the economy he deserves

December 1, 2010

Pundits are everywhere making the point that Obama is being criticized for poor communications, for not accomplishing all that much, and for relatively low popularity mostly because the economy is making voters unhappy. If the economy were in better shape, goes the argument, Obama would be much more popular and would be receiving praise for doing such a good job as President.

True. But the economy would be in better shape today if Obama had taken a “kick ass” attitude toward running things and, for example, pushed through a larger stimulus and insisted on longer and larger unemployment benefits instead of capping them at 99 weeks or less.

In short, Obama’s presidency is unappreciated because the economy is in bad shape, but the economy is in bad shape at least partly because Obama didn’t exercise his powers and his Bully Pulpit in support of programs that would have helped the economy grow stronger.

Obama has the economy he deserves.