Praise and a passing thought

If memory serves, Barack Obama has said that FDR is one of his heroes. It does seem likely he was thinking about him in coming up with this:

President-elect Barack Obama promised Saturday to create the largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system a half century ago as he seeks to put together a plan to resuscitate the reeling economy. ...

Mr. Obama’s remarks showcased his ambition to expand the definition of traditional work programs for the middle class ... to include new-era jobs in technology and so-called green jobs that reduce energy use and global warming emissions. ...

Although Mr. Obama put no price tag on his plan, he said he would invest record amounts of money in the vast infrastructure program, which also includes work on schools, sewer systems, mass transit, electrical grids, dams and other public utilities. The green jobs would include various categories, including jobs dedicated to creating alternative fuels, windmills and solar panels; building energy efficient appliances, or installing fuel-efficient heating or cooling systems.

The intent, he said, is for a plan that will save or create 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. It might do better than that:

[W]hen he met with the nation’s governors last week, they said the states had $136 billion worth of road, bridge, water and other projects ready to go as soon as money became available. They estimated that each billion dollars spent would create up to 40,000 jobs.

Local and regional transit systems have $8 billion more in projects that could begin immediately, like buying hybrid buses and expanding light rail systems, creating thousands of jobs.

That's close to 5.5 million jobs right there.

Okay, so let me say it right out loud: Assuming he follows through on this, BARACK OBAMA IS DOING A GOOD THING. (There. See? I can say it when it's merited.) I won't swear that I won't object to some details or the exact form the program takes, but on the principle, the principle of a jobs program of investment in infrastructure and environmentally sound energy technologies, this is a good thing. In fact, I'd better say that since I started talking about doing something like that over 28 fucking years ago. As just one example, this is from a statement I made at a public hearing in December 1984, speaking in opposition to plans to expand a naval base:

Now, I know that support for this project has been expressed by workers eager for the jobs it will supposedly create. But to my friends in the labor movement I must say: I agree with you; we need jobs. We can see all around us the need for the work you can do: the health centers unbuilt, the homes and apartments unconstructed, the roads, railbeds, bridges, and tunnels unrepaired. But your anger is misplaced. ... There's too much at stake, too much you by your work can do to build a healthier society for us to fall for a divide-and-conquer strategy.

A program such as Obama is suggesting will be bitterly opposed by the wingnuts. It will be called "socialism." (It's not.) It will be called "an unparalleled intrusion into the free market." (It isn't.) There will be - there already are - lots of bogus claims that FDR's New Deal was a failure. (It wasn't.) The one thing to remember is that the more they gripe, the surer you can be that something about this is good for ordinary people rather than the elite. Put another way, the louder the pigs squeal, the better a grip you know you have.

No, this is not socialism, it is not "transformative," it affects no private businesses except as it puts money in people's pockets to spend there. So why will corporate interests and their media lackeys fight so hard against it? Because it's good for workers. They need no other reason. It not only provides economic support (i.e., jobs) for workers but by that very fact it gives them choices. And having choices threatens to make them less, what's the word these days, "flexible?" Maybe "cooperative?"

How about "submissive?" Yeah, that's a good word. It threatens as a side effect to make workers less submissive. And that is a prospect that terrifies the elite.

So even though this is not, again, socialism, even though, as a commenter noted a few posts back, "the problem is systemic," this proposal is still a good thing for women and men who work for a living. And that is reason enough to praise it.

And now the passing thought: There are those among us who have been critical of Obama's words and nominees so far. Our objections have been dismissed, sometimes rather snidely, with the refrain "Geeze! He's not even president yet and you're griping! Me, I'll wait until he actually does something." In one case, when I noted that offering up nominees is "doing something" by any reasonable measure, I got told:

And what, pray-tell, have those unconfirmed nominees DONE in the way of implementing what policy?

As Ring Lardner put it, "'Shut up,' he explained."

Okay, for all those "Hail Obama!" people dismissive of any questions: Are you now going to refrain from praising this proposal? Are you going to dismiss my (or anyone else's) support? If not, why is this different? How is it different? He's still not president. These still aren't implemented policies. He still doesn't have the power to act on any of this. Those were the reasons you gave for rejecting any criticism. So why don't those same reasons apply to praise? If presenting intended nominees, if putting together his various "teams," is not doing something, this isn't, either. So why in this case shouldn't we "wait until he actually does something?"

Or is this yet another example of "some questions need only be asked?"