Surely, this is too kind ...

The President Is Missing, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

...
... it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.

...
What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing. [emphasis added]

Well, maybe it's not so kind after all. Unless one sees Obama's actions as proof of deliberate deception during his campaign, which I guess I do suspect. Either he is deceitful and pathetic or weak and pathetic. Some choice.

So much for 'America' ...

And what about the economy’s future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. ...

Back to the feudal and serfdom ...

--------------
More:

What collapsing empire looks like by Glenn Greenwald

and

Gauging the Mood of the Country by Carolyn C, firedoglake.com

Carolyn C writes:

"Then Greenwald adds, "The real question is whether the American public is too apathetic and trained into submission for that to ever happen."

"Trained into submission" may be correct, but apathetic is a misconception.

Carolyn C documents cases of expressed anger and some of the, in my opinion mostly irrational, responses they have to such overwhelming anger and frustration.

Trained into submission does certainly appear to apply from Carolyn C's examples. Most of these people seem to be channeling their anger at their fellows, their relatives, and those in more precarious straights but not in any effective way against those who caused their situation.

Crazy, but true ...

I like the way Krugman summarizes Bush's 'presidential' accomplishments:

The symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome, in its fullest version, are that you believed

1. That the Bush tax cuts were sold on false pretenses, and were fiscally irresponsible

2. That the Iraq war was sold on false pretenses, and that invading Iraq was a mistake

3. That for all his posturing, Bush was actually doing a bad job of fighting Al Qaeda

4. That the use of torture was ineffective as well as immoral, and was hurting America

5. That the economic expansion of the middle Bush years, such as it was, was driven by an unsustainable housing bubble

6. That the Bush administration was distorting science to avoid taking action on climate change

Crazy stuff, with one common theme: it was all true.