Ezra Klein hits on something that I’ve been thinking about.
The first year of the Obama presidency has been a long tutorial on the difference between liberal ends and liberal means. If I told you America has a president determined to pass large amounts of Keynesian stimulus spending (that’s particularly concentrated in impoverished areas), a near-universal health-care plan, and a bill addressing climate change, you’d say liberals had recaptured the White House. Ambitious liberals, even.
But though Obama’s program is quite liberal, he doesn’t seem to care much how it’s achieved. A public option would be nice, but if it’s not there, then that’s fine, too. Full auction of permits is a good idea, but if most get given away to corporations, then that’s how it goes. Infrastructure spending is good, but if tax cuts are the price of passage, then tax cuts there shall be. The best description of the administration’s ideology probably came from Rahm Emanuel when he said, “The only nonnegotiable principle here is success.”
You could imagine a lot of presidents more dogmatically liberal than Obama, but I wonder whether there are a lot of plausible hypotheticals in which they amass more liberal achievements than Obama. At the executive level, it might be the case that being too liberal is a liability to, well, liberalism.
I generally agree with all of this. But the last point is what I want to talk about. Where a president positions himself on the ideological scale actually matters quite a bit. If you alienate one part of the country (say, New England) then you’ll find that members of your party from that region are not too excited to work with you. By the time Bush left office, there were exactly zero Republican members of the House of Representatives from New England. In that case, at the executive level, it was the case that being too conservative was a liability to conservatism. Going from memory, I believe that there were five Democratic senators from the South who retired in 2002. The Democrats lost all five of those elections that November. Clearly the positions taken by the national Democratic Party had alienated the southern electorate in that time period.
The president must at least attempt to represent all the people. There will inevitably be some regional differences of opinion on policy, but a president stands to lose a lot if he becomes a divisive lightning-rod figure in large regions of the country. It makes sense to eschew liberal or conservative phrasing and appeal to common sense. I think the GOP’s strategy makes more sense if you think about it as an effort to prevent Obama from governing pragmatically and respectfully. They refuse to treat him as legitimate and reasonable in order to create a lightning-rod status for him in as much of the country as they can.
One lesson is that you gain nothing by trimming your progressive sails because the wingnuts will treat you like a Bolshevik regardless. But another lesson is that you lend credibility to those attacks if you don’t take pains to make them look ridiculous.
In any case, it’s not at all clear that a more overtly and aggressive progressive image in the Oval Office would result in more progressive outcomes over time. What matters most is what can pass through Congress. And a Democratic president that finds a way to pass things through Congress will be more progressive than one that cannot.
Going from memory, I believe that there were five Democratic senators from the South who retired in 2002. The Democrats lost all five of those elections that November. Clearly the positions taken by the national Democratic Party had alienated the southern electorate in that time period.
Come on, Boo!! Look at all the Blue Dogs. They act like Republicans and try and distance themselves from that meany-fascist Speaker .. and the real Republicans don’t buy that for a minute. What positions in 1992 alienated the electorate? Were they still pissed over the Civil Rights Act? And speaking of 2002, that was the year of Saxby Shameless and his swift-boating of Max Cleland. And do positions of the national party really matter? No! Just look at Jim Webb(as one example).
Do you mean 1994? Cuz Clinton got elected in 1992.
Sorry .. No … I meant 2002 .. I meant the election you were talking about
The electorate was scared and blood-thirsty in 2002 and in no mood for nuance. It wasn’t the Dems fault that the problem was most acute in the South, but they got their asses kicked and lost the Senate for four years because they were not in tune with the mood down there. That’s not a criticism of the Dems, but an observation about what happens when you alienate a big portion of the country. You lose.
What mood? Bloodthirsty for what? Because of 9/11? Other things?
you lived through it. Did you forget the Year of Fear and color-coded terror charts and warnings about dirty-bombs and anthrax from Saddam, and Lackawanna terror cells?
Yeah, I lived through it. And I remember the run up to the war. Not a lot, but some. Then again, I am not one of those people that cower at the first signs of trouble either. And have been skeptical for a long time about politicians and their liking to rush to war. Hell, wasn’t the D.C. sniper around that time as well?
Oh yeah, the DC sniper was on the loose in the DC area in the run-up to the AUMF-Iraq vote.
And then there was Saxby Chambliss’s win over Max Cleland.
But another lesson is that you lend credibility to those attacks if you don’t take pains to make them look ridiculous.
And how often do Democrats just crawl up into the fetal position and hide in a corner? A lot!! Why do you think Grayson is such a breath of fresh air?
Am I alone in not really enjoying the antics of Alan Grayson?
Yes.
yes. everyone i know thinks he’s a breath of fresh air.
hey maybe nancy pelosi can force him to apologize for saying mean things like she did to pete stark.
I prefer my politicians to either be hardworking or hilarious. Grayson does not appear to be either of those two things.
I’ll take Barney Frank over him in a New York Minute.
i like barney frank too, sometimes. I like him when he’s making republicans look like fools, and i don’t like him when he votes for no-strings-attached bailouts and then cries foul when the banks use the money as they see fit.
Grayson’s hysterical: last night i heard him ask why the republcians were so mad about Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan, when bush held hands and kissed a saudi prince. money quote “maybe if bush let him get to second base, gas would be a dollar a gallon”.
Republicans are starting to view Grayson the way we view people like Steve King or Michelle Bachmann. I too like what Grayson has to say and the way he says it, but, I do realize that he’s adding to the polarization and will turn off people who are in the middle.
What middle? Does it exist anymore? Grayson is only pointing out the Republicans stupidity and hypocrisy. It’s about time someone did.
No. You’re not alone. A snarkier version of Dennis Kucinich has a certain entertainment value, but the act is a one-off, it’s not a template for a way to move forward.
I keep hearing about this “moving forward” from these “centrist” Democrats (read: Republicrats). How do you propose we all move forward? Turn the other cheek? That didn’t work in grammar school and it ain’t working today. Obama is practicing that craft right now with what result. He’s still hated by the Republicans (he REALLY wishes he could be accepted by them) and he is demoralizing the people who elected him for “Change.”
How do you propose we seriously “move forward”?
I agree with everything you say.
If McCain had won the election and allied his economic policies with the banksters as Obama has, and institutionalized much of the same executive “privileges” that Obama has (state secrets, a pass on war crimes, extra-judicial detention), pursued the same middle eastern policies as Obama has, the “left” would be howling.
I would suspect too, that McCain would have taken a stab at healthcare “reform”. And I doubt if the resulting bill would have been too awfully different from what we will be presented.
Well, you aren’t alone in not appreciating Grayson’s “antics.” But your calling them “antics” speaks volumes about what you wish to see in a representative: substance-free “civility.”
A generous interpretation of Grayson is definition one. I’ll give him some of that, but some of definition two as well.
Not a fan.
Obama’s studious ineffectiveness is what the doctor ordered!
Probably. I don’t know if I’m ready for him to Speaker just yet but I most certainly do enjoy his “antics” – then too, I enjoy a good fight.
Nearly. I mean, I don’t enjoy him for personal reason (I despite Stoller) but I can’t deny that I think his responses have been effective in terms of cutting through media idiocy and republican flak and pointing out the truth: the status quo makes death a reasonable option because it is so broken.
What matters most is what can pass through Congress.
Of course it does. And Ezra even gave the quote that best represents the problem. Basically what Rahmbo says is that it doesn’t matter what gets passed as long as we show like we are doing something. Basically, that they’d be happy with shit bills. Is that really what we want? Someone who is afraid of supposedly wasting his political capital? It reminds me of the “keep the powder dry” comments from Democrats during the Dubya years.
One look at the polls should tell you that Obama is expending political capital every single day on health care, and the longer it takes the more capital he leaves on the floor.
Is he really? And what’s he getting for it? And it’s just getting watered down every day. And does he really think it is a good idea to let Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and HoJo hold it hostage?
What is it you want him to do about these corrupt Dems? Put out a contract? Newsflash: turns out he’s not the Magic Negro.
How did LBJ twist arms? The only ones getting strong armed are Progressives. Why can’t the corrupt Dems get strong armed for once? Besides, they’re the ones in most electoral danger anyway
We haven’t lost a cloture vote on HCR yet, have we? Ithink the reason for that is strongarming. It sure ain’t about principles.
LBJ controlled the money (that era’s equivalent of the DSCC) when he was majority leader.
When he was president, he had 68 Democratic senators and a bunch of liberal Republicans to work with.
We went over this the other day. Are you telling me that Rahm no longer has any influence at the D-Trip C? Because I don’t believe that. And we know what Rahm’s opinion on legislation is. He doesn’t give a shit as long as something passes. That’s not a way to foster progressive governance.
Rahm doesn’t have much control over the DSCC. The DCCC? He probably does still have some clout there, but the House isn’t really the problem. Rahm can’t call Bob Menendez and tell him “not one dime for Blanche Lincoln’s reelection.’ LBJ made those decisions himself.
I don’t think Obama and the leadership expected this dynamic of the GOP caucus being so disciplined and his own party’s senators threating to procedurally block his agenda. But now that cat is out of the bag and the only relevant question is what comes next? I don’t really care how it gets done, but if I’m Obama, doesn’t he need to somehow restrict the ability of these 5 senators to threaten to procedurally block him again? Let them vote on the substance all they want.
If you’re Obama would you resign yourself to this dynamic or would you try to change it, either by supporting a rule change in the Senate or in an ad hoc way of cooercing these senators not to cross you again?
This is about power. With the exception of Lieberman, there’s a thousand big and small ways Obama and the leadership can make life difficult for the 5-10 conservative democrats if they obstruct legislation. I trust Obama and Rahm know which levers to push, what carrots and sticks to use better than we do here. but my concern, which i think is shared in the netroots, is that they don’t care to use these carrots and sticks to change the dynamic.
To borrow a rhetorical device from Obama, by not using the multiple tools they have at their disposal to threaten, cajole, and cooerce these senators into not threatening procedural obstruction, Obama and the Senate Leadership is endorsing their actions.
hammer meets nail:
“I don’t think Obama and the leadership expected this dynamic of the GOP caucus being so disciplined and his own party’s senators threating to procedurally block his agenda.”
You just nailed it. A person would have to be a less than a moron not to expect that dynamic. The GOP is, if nothing else, disciplined. They march in lockstep. they go over the cliff together or not at all. A moron could have predicted that; shit, many of my moron republican buddies said as much on election day.
And if that’s the excuse democrats are using (“who coulda predicted the GOP would try to obstruct the democrats agenda”), then they are morons. (i initially used the word “retarded”, but i have worked with the retarded and they are quite capable of learning and adapting to new situations).
that’s a little pat, brendan.
This Congress has set the record for denying unanimous consent. It’s not even close. There is no precedent for it. You could predict that they’d obstruct, but not necessarily that they’d take it to previously unseen levels.
Most of all, the surprise is the lack of moderates in the party. We beat them all over the last two election cycles.
no, you could predict it.
you could predict it by the middle of Bush’s first term, and certainly by his second, when people like Sensenbrenner was turning off Democrats’ mics (and in at least one case, turning off the lights).
you could see it in the hysteria at McCain rallies. and you could see it in the ongoign teabag rallies.
it’s not pat, it’s a fact. Only a moron could fail to predict that.
if the minority is denying unanimous consent in an unprecedented manner, than the majority should punish them for it. is that happening? and I mean, outside of going on tv and bitching?
booman- i’m really interested to hear whether you think the dems will adapt to this new dynamic going forward? Are we going to watch this same car crash in slow motion with all the other big fights such as climate, jobs and financial regulation or will Obama and the leadership be effective in stopping the 5-10 dissident caucus members from threatening obstruction?
I’m not sure. Climate is really tough. On as issue like that, you’ve got to accept that states like West Virginia, Louisiana, and Alaska just aren’t going to be with you regardless of who represents those states. I can’t see passing anything even at the 50 vote threshold.
On other issues, they may resort to more budget reconciliation rules in the future, knowing that otherwise the calendar will get chewed up on one bill, without success even being assured.
But a rules change seems unlikely.
The people of West Virginia, Louisiana and Alaska won’t be spared from climate-catastrophe when it at last becomes clear to the hopelessly ignorant that “Nature” has taken her “revenge” for the decades of environmental insults inflicted by modern “civilization”.
What then? What difference then shall the “saved employment” make?
There are a variety of sustainable technologies which are going to replace those destructive and unsustainable in use now. Why not adopt them sooner and do that in just such places as West Virginia, Louisiana and Alaska where current technologies are no longer tenable?
These changes are going to be imposed if they aren’t adopted willingly by human society—either that, or human society will destroy itself in the process of resisting.
Are people that foolish? Absolutely they are!
“Who could have predicted the levees would break in New Orleans?” The Army Corp of Engineers did many years before the hurricane but couldn’t get the funding.
“Who could have predicted that people would fly airplanes into those towers in NYC?” Bin Laden Determined to Stike in US
“Who could have predicted the Crash of 2008?” Dick Durbin in 1998 while Clinton was doing the Republicans’ work for them.
Whenever I hear: “Who could have predicted…?” I see the emperor has no clothes.
Exactly.
If “patriotism” is the last refuge of scoundrels, then “Who could have predicted…?!?” is the first refuge of the lame and incompetent.
God I am so sick to death of hearing that bullshit excuse offered!!!
The last time the Republicans held a working majority in the Congress (under G.W. Bush, the still-at-large war-criminal), the Republican leadership took to holding committee meetings in secret, not even notifying the Dems of the time and place of the meetings!!
Really, when your every word and deed screams “You can FUCK ME OVER again and again and I’ll not do a damn thing about it,” then, my friend, if you’re surprised that you’re repeatedly fucked over, you are, in addition to be a hopeless sap, a hopeless moron, too.
for them NOT to expect the GOP to be in lockstep, means that they are idiots. pure idiots. when have the GOP not been in lockstep.that they thought the GOP would be ‘ bi-partisan’ is so insulting, has to wonder. WHAT, in the GOP past, would indicate that they would be BI-PARTISAN?
well, when you lose members like Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, William Cohen, William Roth, Nancy Kassebaum, and they aren’t replaced, you get a new situation. It used to be that the Republicans had moderates in the Senate. Now they are down to one and a half. I give Susan Collins a half-a-moderate rating.
13 Reps in the Senate and 70 in the House voted for Medicare back in the day. So it hasn’t always been like this entirely. Still, it ain’t new news that the Republican Party is now the sanctuary of the insane, so a lopsided, but not necessarily lopsided vote was predictable.
Again, the failure by Dems was in not changing the procedural rules of the Senate when they had the chance. All this is just short-term strategy, though. The real long-term failure is on the part of the American “Left”, which basically doesn’t exist as a source of truly different ideas from which truly progressive legislation can be built.
what calvin said.
“What matters most is what can pass through Congress.”
right. it doesn’t matter if what passes is good or bad for people, all that matter is that it passes.
It doesn’t matter that the FISA amendments act is a gross violation of our fourth amendment rights, because it passed through congress!
It doesn’t matter if escalating Afghanistan by 30,000 troops is smart or not, as long as Congress says OK that’s what matters. And by that token, what’s the hullabaloo about the war in Iraq? That passed congress too!
the jokes, they write themselves.
Obama, either known or unknown to the blogosphere, was really a Republican posing as a liberal Democrat and the bloggers went ga ga over him and trashed Hillary.
Hillary was a far better choice.
Now that his true nature has emerged, he is hated by the right (cannot understand why) and the left (can understand why) and, IMO, will be a one term president.
But, but, but, you got Hilary in the “bargain”!!!
Don’t you get it?
It’s just that fact, (along with the rest):
that Hilary is the Secretary of State and, with her, a huge portion of former-President Bill Clinton’s top advisers, etc., are such a major part of this man’s “team” IS BOTH THE PROBLEM and the indication of how very conventionally “centrist” (i.e. right-of-the-already-right-aligned-“Center”)
You think Hilary would have been better than Obama? I very much expect that you’re going to be given a real-world lesson in just how wrong you are in that view. At this late date, you actually still need hard experience with HRC as president to teach you still more about how wrong-headed such thinking is?! We had to learn the hard way (which is exactly what is going on now, with the Obama presidency,) that simply electing a “Black man” means, proves, ensures, exactly nothing of a practical nature that is good and worthy in political affairs.
That Obama had a Black father has not stopped his hand in any way from doing the any of the things he has done which prolong and augment the faults and errors (not to mention crimes) of the president Obama succeeded.
Madelaine Albright,
Condoleezza Rice,
Nancy Pelosi,
Hilary Clinton,
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Alberto Gonzales,
John Yoo,
Clarence Thomas,
Sandra Day O’Connor,
… (the list is far from exhaustive)
have given us what?
If they done anything useful, it should be that they’ve proven how absurd and pointless are the hopes and expectations that choosing, electing, appointing, a “person of color” or a woman proves, means, simply nothing of any practical use except to give satisfaction to the self-deluded and superficial for whom such “advances” represent, in and of themselves, “progress”.
“How long, Oh, Lord?! How long?!”
She joined “Defense” Secretary Gates in taking supporting sending the 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan. Indeed, look at any of Obama worst policy decisions and, please, show us where Hilary took an opposing position.
completing the phrase:
” that Hilary is the Secretary of State and, with her, a huge portion of former-President Bill Clinton’s top advisers, etc., are such a major part of this man’s “team” IS BOTH THE PROBLEM and the indication of how very conventionally “centrist” (i.e. right-of-the-already-right-aligned-“Center”) Obama is!”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Obama’s public statements strike me as far more liberal at their roots than anything we’ve heard from “mainstream” Dems in decades. His basic outlook vs his willingness to get as far as he can with specific policy goals is kind of a new niche in the ideological ecology that confuses a lot of people — including me much of the time.
I really don’t get how it is that Obama makes stunning executive decisions that are just glossed over while the left and right sides of the commenting classes obsess over parliamentary maneuvering. For example the EPA’s decision to consider greenhouse gasses as detrimental to human health and therefore under their regulatory jurisdiction seems to me incredibly bold and game-changing, yet hardly got a word on the TV or the blogs — all we keep hearing about is the politics of cap-and-trade and how Obama is not stomping on Congress enough for it, how he’s in the pockets of the coal companies, etc. What in hell am I missing here?
In the last eight years, America developed a taste for monarchy — and not just Republicans.
Half the people who pulled the lever — do people still pull levers — for Obama left the voting booth saying to themselves “Now we’ve got our son-of-a-bitch, and he’d better start breaking shit.”
Yeah, but it seems to me that, for example, the EPA decision and just getting HCR this far IS breaking shit. Maybe it just comes down to how patient we’re willing to be with which politician.
Hate to say it, Booman, but I kinda suspect the South is alienated from Obama already. The South isn’t going to turn around and like him any time soon – some people there who still don’t like Abraham Lincoln.
So in practice, Obama can’t afford to alienate a second region of the country.
Wow, Boo! Why don’t you just say sing “Amazing Grace” and get it over with?
“I once was lost but now am found
Was blind, but now I see.”
You were once probably very liberal (during Woodstock), but now you’ve seen the error of your blind ways and you see that Obama turning into Celine Dion before our very eyes is the best that we “Change” advocates should expect. He’s worse than Celine Dion! At least she stands up for her music. Obama hasn’t stood up for anything or anyone except his own preening vanity.
I am beginning to really hate that Shuff- er, Dithering Coward!
during Woodstock I was an eight-month old fetus.
Point remains the same. You’re a conservative.
I have to rise to Booman’s defense. He is not a conservative. He is a genuine progressive, even if I don’t agree with him about the President.
The first thought that ran through my mind was, “Whoa, am I his father?” No disrespect intended to your parents. It was just an initial reaction to “Woodstock” and “fetus”.
You are advocating total defeat. Your position seems to be that the Obama should pass only what he thinks he can get through the very conservative Dems and GOP. If Obama is not willing to either:
a) Start the negotiations from the far left
b) Pressure conservatives in the same way he pressured liberals over the war funding bill in the House
c) Advocate very loudly for rule changes and progressive positions in very progressive terms in order to change the terms of debate
then how the heck is he going to do anything other than what Bush would have wanted? Because that is who you are saying has all of the power and you are saying that Obama either cannot or should not do anything about that.
His calm and cool demeanor has gotten progressive policies precisely jack. Putting aside Afghanistan – -because Obama was always a centrist Hawk on foreign policy — Obama has delivered almost nothing for progressives. his bailout was positioned as much too weak and ended up not helping enough to matter enough to most people (remember, a year ago 10% unemployment was seen as a disaster. Today it is the new norm) DADT has not been touched. The climate bill started from a compromised position and appears to be heading either nowhere or to nothng but a giant handout to businesses with weak, if any, impact on climate change. The health bill appears poised to lose both the PO and the Medicare buy-in, meaning that all we get is inadequate subsidies, horribly high caps on out of pocket expenses, and a captive audience to a private industry that will still bankrupt them and kill them through increased premiums, the afor mentioned inadequate caps, and denials of claims.
Obama’s current track has earned nothing from either the conservative Dems or the GOP. If you are going to argue that Obama’s decision to play the calm, cool, considerate man is somehow the right way to get progressive legislation passed, then shouldn’t you be able to point to a single instance of that actually, you know, working?
The President’s skin color means that he will always be a lightning rod in the South, even if he governed to the Right of Cheney. Catering to the GOP against the interests of the regions that backed him will not profit him.
Spot on, Voice. But it’s complicated, because in those parts, to at least some degree, Obama has to cater to the interests of Democrats who are operating in a GOP-heavy environment and are concerned about retaining their seats.
Maybe Bush was more influential then people realized because both the press and the people keep expecting and then are disappointed with Obama not doing a democratic version of ;either you’re with us or against us’ ‘wanted dead or alive’ blah blah.
The press and progressives complain because Obama is too intellectual. Too brainy. Not an action figure with plithy soundbites.
He doesn’t swagger.
They complain that approaches the legislative battles in two ways:
like poker.
or wanting the congress emtionally invested and so he backs off to let them fight, argue and be involved.
I think that people want a one size fits all personality and are not sure what to think or how to act with someone who is doing things very differently and playing things close to the vest.
That’s probably the thing I like the most about Obama. I think you’re right, but the public will eventually get used to it. And that will be all to the good.
I just heard Obama’s Nobel speech on the radio. Yes, I agree, there is genuine “evil” in the world. So, tell me again why we’re bombing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq when most of the evil sits in executive board rooms getting grotesque cash handouts?
Oh, and the American “Climate” bill is worse than a joke. It’s obscene, and pretty much condemns over half of the world’s population to some form of slow death by the end of this century.
But hey, we sorta got something like health care, or at least something that big pharma and the insurance companies can continue to rort.
The end of the age of oil, toxic drinking water in the US for christ’s sake, the destabilization of Pakistan, the immanent collapse of the US dollar, etc., I think I’d be ramming a lot more through than these minor tweeks – which are mostly distractions that we can’t afford to waste our precious time on. Rome. Fiddle. Burn.
I revived a long-dormant account here just to say how relieved I am to find another sane voice on the liberal blogosphere. The numbers are dwindling rapidly. Thanks…
is not synonymous with “liberals gained power.”
When are Americans [apart from some notable exceptions in this thread (see the comments I’ve rated “excellent”)] going to grasp this simple truth?
There are some good and rather obvious (to me) reasons why you seem to have a blind-spot light-years wide on aspects of these issues, but, I can’t point those out to you because you’ve made it very clear that to do that is dangerously taboo in this site.
for anyone in the WH to think that the SOUTH is friendly, or could be friendly, is CRAZY. absolutely crazy. Playing to those folks is insane in any way. Virgina, maybe North Carolina and Florida, but the rest of that part of the country – forget about it. I believe you can put pressure on those Dems from the South, because they more than likely, have a substantial Black population in their districts. I know that crook Cooper, 25% of his district is Black, and I believe he isn’t remotely serving his constituents.