Michael Lind's article is excellent — and surprising, given his apparent willingness to take Clinton head on for his greatest failing as a policymaker.

There are a few points where Lind is Lind, and takes breathtaking liberties in defense of his larger point. For instance, utilities have always been quasi-public entities in this country, today no less than a century ago and probably with more public accountability. Mass transit was much more privatized than it is today. And two of the greatest public works projects of our era — the worldwide internet and the global GPS system — were absolutely of the most old-school high liberal order.

But Lind's greater sin — though truly, still, a venal one — may be that he casts his net too narrowly.

Why, after all, are liberal politicians so tepid? Why is there no real left wing in American politics anymore? The answer is simply that for 30 years the people of this country have abandoned liberalism for tepid centrism, and their elected representatives simply, inevitably, tragically reflect that choice.

The unavoidable fact of the matter is that privatization and deregulation were popular. Granted, they may have only been so because so many liberals ceded the discursive ground to Reaganomic deceits, but in the end what is there to say about it except that it was always the people's choice as to what they would accept or reject?

When we got tired of it, finally, we all just upped and picked a new guy. That's all it took. We could have done it in 2004, we could have done it in 2000 or 1988 or 1980. At any time.

And as Lind very correctly points out, for all that we talk big, our revolution is still pretty modest. Obama has hardly proven a shaker-upper like Roosevelt.

The thing is, though, neither he nor anyone else will ever be unless we demand it. Conversely, then, if he's not ... well, you do the math.

Any more Grimm fairy tales? You schmucks will never learn, so take a hike and don't look back.

The responses to this article are quite depressing. Perhaps Lind should have started out by stating the obvious - that we should be grateful John Mcain is not now supervising the economy. But Lind's substantive point - that direct management / ownership by the government of certain sectors and industries may be more efficient than employing private sector middlemen and market mechanisms to try and achieve the same outcomes has been overlooked. Instead we get tedious rhetoric about Lind's points being 'old solutions' with not a hint of empirical or logical argument as to why these are 'old' solutions. It's almost Orwellian. The Chicago ideologues have clearly done their job well.

E.g: Lind makes / implies the point that were the government to invest directly in solar panel research and construction it might bring down the absolute cost of making solar panels, whereas trying to 'nudge' resources into solar via various tax incentives may be less effective at changing absolute costs than the direct method, due to tricky accounting by companies, duplication of efforts, etc. This is an empirical question not a sign of Lind's senility, so give his article a fair hearing!

The President just signed an Executive Order enabling Directive 10-289. Happy Now?

Let's not forget the miserable condition that 8+ years of corrupt, illegal Republican rule has left us.

Imagine driving a car with no oil changes or maintenance for 200,000 miles and expecting a mechanic to fix the engine with chewing gum and rubber bands.

In effect, that is what too many are expecting of Obama. They want change but they fear what is necessary to accomplish it.

You need to push him!

Although I am an Obama supporter and wish him well, I just don't get his desire to appease and even cater to the "free market" approach to everything. The free market only fosters greed and the bending of the law to subvert its intent. To hell with the dittoheads. We NEED government regulation and oversight built into anything that the government either pays for directly, or subsidizes indirectly. Otherwise the the Bushies will continue to loot the Treasury to line their own pockets

For proving me right.

I knew the Obamaniacs were going to run this play.

First, it was, he's only just won the nomination!

Then it was, he's only just got into office!

Now it is, he's only been in office six weeks!

Pretty soon it will be, "history is going to have to judge".

I'm not waiting for history. I learned everything I needed to know from a NY Times Editorial by David Brooks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06brooks.html

In response to Brooks' hand wringing about government spending:

Note how they categorically deny there will be "huge increases in the welfare state" (god forbid the government spent money to help poor people)

Observe how they proudly trumpet their commitment to CUTTING federal funding for education, welfare and other discretionary items to a level lower than that of any recent Republican administration.

Examine how committed they are to Conservative ideals on health care reform.

For a man who has a large majority in both houses of Congress, his timidity is at least repugnant and at most borderline criminal. We're in the middle of what may very well be the Second Great Depression and all he can do is appease those who would be happy to see people suffer.

...Oh and throw up half-assed bailout packages that reassure absolutely no one.

6 weeks are plenty of time to judge him guilty on the charge of fecklessness.

And it gives him plenty of time to redeem himself.

I for one will be holding my breath.

it's an old managerial trick; you get hold of the type of department, motor pool for example, where you can save a fortune by slashing maintenance to a bare minimum without immediate disaster; then after your bosses note what a great manager you are to have beefed up profits so much and promoted you, the next shmuck gets stuck with a load of decrepit junk needing a fortune in repairs and looks like a complete idiot compared to you.