Inocencia interrumpida

The Economist publica, a mi entender, una de las primeras críticas fuertes a Mr. Obama. Lo acusa de haber vuelto a la vieja política -distinta de la que prometía en campaña-, de haber dejado en manos del Congreso (y por lo tanto de los intereses estatales) la definición del plan de rescate, de haber incluido en él gastos innecesarios, y además, sentencia algo tan concluyente como: "Not a single legislator who voted on the mammoth bill can have read it all".

Es cierto, también advierte a los republicanos sobre su estrategia, la que identifica como peligrosa para el país y para el propio partido (por ejemplo, dice, los podría llegar a dejar fuera de los lineamientos de la reforma del programa de salud y de energía). Sin embargo, las críticas son para O. Citas claves:

"The Republicans have spent the past week arguing that Mr Obama’s bill has destroyed any claims that he might have had to be a reformer, partly because the $787 billion bill is stuffed full of boondoggles, but also because of the way that it was sledge-hammered through the legislature. (...) his bill represented the triumph of business as usual, passed with just three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House, and concocted in secret by the Democratic leadership, a trio of north-eastern Republican senators and a handful of White House aides."

"Mr Obama bears a disproportionate share of the blame for the resurrection of the old politics. True, the politicians on Capitol Hill are guilty of producing the bill’s worst excesses. The Democrats treated it as an excuse for partisan advantage, while the Republicans refused to concede that the economy needed a stimulus at all, making give-and-take impossible. But it was Mr Obama who made the fatal error of contracting the writing of the bill to Congress."