It's so fashionable among self-identified progressives to be anti-Obama that I assume that position to be wrong. Just kidding about the latter part. I'm as disappointed as the next person, although I don't know who the next person is. I have been "in dialogue" with friends who are highly miffed at the President. I now blog in defense of him chiefly to play devil's advocate--with myself!
But first, we should probably review the particulars, and I'll phrase them from the p.o.v. of his detractors (on the Left)--no particular order:
1. He "caved" on single-payer healthcare.
2. He not only hasn't withdrawn from Afghanistan, but he has also sent more troops.
3. His attorney general has not investigated potential war crimes and crimes of torture.
4. He gave too much money to Wall Street and not enough to jobs-stimulus.
5. He hasn't ended "Don't Ask/Don't Tell."
6. His stance on gay marriage is at least unhelpful.
7. He "caved" on the new Israeli settlements.
8. He "caved" on the tax-cuts for the rich.
9. He's done nothing to revive manufacturing.
10. He's corporatist.
I missed plenty, but these are some highlights.
My devil's-advocate is two-fold (and remember, I agree with most and close to all of the above):
1. Obama is the same Obama we saw in the campaign; he is the Obama who likes to win--strategically, not tactically.
2. Progressives often forget that to do anything in mainstream politics, you have to win. Okay, maybe they don't forget, but they're often quick to trade winning for anger-expressed or dissent.
One of my favorite radio hosts, Norman Goldman, pleasantly attacks the President and the Democrats for squandering a majority in both Houses. Let's grant that the Dems probably could have had more victories. However:
1. Truth to tell, they didn't have a majority in both Houses because of conservative democrats. Kent Conrad: "There never were enough votes for single-payer healthcare." Conrad would know. He's essentially a Republican. Obama had no leverage with which to force the conservadems to change. He didn't have LBJ's long list of IOU's, etc. Could he have used the bully pulpit more? Yes. Would it have worked? I doubt it: because the constituents in the conservadems districts/states opposed single-payer. So Obama made a deal. It wasn't a total victory, but it got a big foot in the door of "universal" healthcare, and it essentially kept the game alive (read "Finite and Infinite Games") for another day, WHILE getting millions more insured eventually. Millions.
2. Could he have pressed Harry Reid to get rid of filibusters, etc.? Sure. But what about when the GOPers take over the Senate? Don't you want the Dems to have the filibuster option? I do. If you want to say Obama "caved" on healthcare, that's fine, but a truth is that the Senate Democrats controlled the game from the beginning--not the president.
3. Afghanistan. I think we should get out now, too. There are the obvious political points to make about Obama looking weak on "national defense" (whatever) in 2012, but I still think we should get out. Is this enough for me not to vote for him in 2012? No. I prefer any Democrat over any Republican. Why? Two words: "Supreme Court." If you want to back Kucinich in 2012, fine. The most that will do is express anger and dissent, split the Dems, and possibly elect a Republican. Kucinich is less electable than Palin. Do you prefer Palin to Obama? I don't. (Remember, I'm mostly asking myself these questions.) I think Obama has bought the argument about fighting Al Queda "over there," and I think he's afraid to look weak in 2012. That is, he wants to win.
4. He gave too much money to Wall Street and not enough to job stimulus. The Krugman thesis. Okay, agreed. But for the most part, he played the recession and Bush's catastrophe right down the middle of the fairway. He did "cash for clunkers" to flush the massive inventory of unsold cars; consequently, GM and Ford are doing well. He propped up GM: good move. Good jobs. Lots of them. He propped up banks. He had to. No choice. Basically, he had to walk into a barn full of horse-shit and shovel it out. Not glamorous and easy to criticize, but it's what Bush left him. A typical Bush II move: mess up any undertaking and let someone else clean it up.
5. I agree with Obama that Congress should end Don't Ask/Don't Tell, but if they don't by December 1, then he should end it as Commander in Chief. The parallel is to Roosevelt, who in fact chose NOT to desegregate the armed forces.
6. Gay marriage is a states' issue--it just is. That's who gives out the licenses to marry. But I think Obama should drop the claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman, he should endorse gay marriage, and then he should say, "It's up to the states: get it done." But he can't do it alone and never could.
7. He caved on tax-cuts to the rich. Believe it or not, I believe his explanation, and I almost never believe ANY politician's explanation. He traded tax cuts for the rich for extended unemployment. But as Norman Goldman points out, these u. benefits still don't cover everybody. But at least he bought a year for millions of unemployed. The alternative, at leas as I see it (and I probably see it badly) was a stalemate. I think he wanted to win something, so he won what he could.
8. His attorney general should investigate potential war crimes and torture crimes. Agreed. Still, I have to break out in a chorus of "Will a Republican president investigate same?"
9. He's a corporatist. Absolutely. So was Lincoln. So was Roosevelt.
10. He caved on Israeli settlements. Well, he gave up, and I don't blame him. Unless the U.S. wants seriously to withdraw funds from Israel, there's no leverage. Zip. And if any president suggests withdrawing funds, he or she commits political suicide. Progressives themselves are horribly divided on the issue, and everybody knows that. Me, I find it refreshing that he essentially admitted the U.S. (not him, but he U.S.) has no leverage. He's not a magician. He can't invent leverage. Concerning Palestine/Israel, what president has? And this is even assuming you're a progressive who opposes the settlements. The chances are excellent that you support them. So Obama's supposed to heal the progressive rift? Please.
So in this argument with myself, I say, "Self, would you rather have Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House?" On some days, I'd prefer Hillary. But guess what? She couldn't even win a campaign. Her staff was horrific. Obama beat her in a fair match.
Self, would you rather have Obama in a second term or a Republican in a first term in 2012 (2013)? Obama. Two words: "Supreme Court." There are other reasons, but these two words are enough.
What's a progressive to do, then, bucko? First, do no harm. Don't work for Kucinich or anyone else in the primaries. I've seen enough of the McCarthy/Humphrey, Kennedy/Carter replays of progressive self-defeat, thanks very much. I did not, in fact, prefer Nixon to Humphrey or Reagan to Carter.
Second, DON'T WORK AGAINST OBAMA; WORK ON HIM. Pressure, pressure, pressure from below (as it were) and from within. Giant labor meetings. Well attended but smart anti-war rallies--not chaotic messes that the GOPers can use in the political spectacle (see Murray Edelman on the political spectacle, please). African Americans, poverty-advocates, homeless advocates, etc. should meet with him and his cabinet. Progressive money-bags should horse-trade with him (mixed metaphors): I'll give your campaign this much cash if you do X for cause Y. Above all, workers and professionals need to organize. Some workers need to stop taking the Republican bait(s) regarding race, taxes, "big government," and so on. What have Republicans ever done for working people? Seriously.
Take a page out of the "Tea Party's" plan. Look how they pushed their (Republican) Party. They thwarted McConnell in his own state and thwarted Rove in the Carolinas. But they did not say "off with McConnell's head" or "I'm working for Larry Craig!" To the extent they were a legitimate grassroots group (they've been taken over), they worked from below and within.
Have I convinced myself? Well, almost.
7 comments:
Though there is usually a straw -- for me, it was Shirley Sherrod -- in truth it’s never one thing. So, your (neat, if out-of-order) list of 10 could easily be 15, 20, 100. For me, it’s not Afghanistan or health care, it’s what they have in common -- too cute by half. Obama, I’m sorry to say, is weak. He was weak against the Clintons (until pressed, repeatedly, when he counter-punched and, in my view, more survived serious challenges to his early lead and better organization than defeated her. He’s preternaturally calm -- precisely what you’d want in a leader c. September 2008 -- but he lacks, so far, any evident will to rise to the occasion when his office demands it (I’m thinking of Lincoln in the summer of 1862 or FDR in 1935). He’s playing for time in Afghanistan (and, as Woodward showed, he was played by the generals in that effort), and I have little doubt he’s doing the same re: Iran. His goal in both is to “win,” in accepting realties without confronting them. On healthcare, he needed Pelosi to buck him up after the Democratic debacle in Mass. (well-deserved) -- like Papa Bush needed Maggie Thatcher in ’91 -- and, in any case, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the national population was for the “public option” and refusing to confront the fact that the Congress had been bought, gave us a plan that is extremely unpopular, and probably unconstitutional. Why? In order to “win,” clearly and openly, by the end, to win anything. And, so today, with this “ultimate” cave-in over taxes -- in order to “win,” he’s sold out not just the gal who brung him to the dance but the American people generally. Make any list you want, and in virtually every case Obama has taken actions that are either easy (or avoided those that are hard), in all cases as an effort in the “art of compromise.” Maybe he’s just a compromising guy. Maybe he’s a natural moderate/conservative. Maybe he’s just a nice guy and fears offending anyone. Maybe he so believes his own rhetoric, and is so enanored with his intelligent and charm, and the knows he’s doing what’s right, even though the rest of us are too stupid to understand why. Or maybe he just doesn’t give a shit, and knows his own rhetoric is just that (the option I prefer).
There’s no question that any Democrat is preferable to any Republican, and that’s been true for sixty years. If that were the only issue, then no debate -- indeed, no list -- is necessary. Of course, if you know that, and I know that, then surely Obama knows that, in which case what reason in the world does he (or any Democrat) have to do anything other than what he’s been doing? You say pressure Obama. Politicians know one kind of pressure: the kind that will deprive them of office. So, I say, for the first time ever, Kucinich for President!
Though there is usually a straw -- for me, it was Shirley Sherrod -- in truth it’s never one thing. So, your (neat, if out-of-order) list of 10 could easily be 15, 20, 100. For me, it’s not Afghanistan or health care, it’s what they have in common -- too cute by half. Obama, I’m sorry to say, is weak. He was weak against the Clintons (until pressed, repeatedly, when he counter-punched and, in my view, more survived serious challenges to his early lead and better organization than defeated her. He’s preternaturally calm -- precisely what you’d want in a leader c. September 2008 -- but he lacks, so far, any evident will to rise to the occasion when his office demands it (I’m thinking of Lincoln in the summer of 1862 or FDR in 1935). He’s playing for time in Afghanistan (and, as Woodward showed, he was played by the generals in that effort), and I have little doubt he’s doing the same re: Iran. His goal in both is to “win,” in accepting realties without confronting them. On healthcare, he needed Pelosi to buck him up after the Democratic debacle in Mass. (well-deserved) -- like Papa Bush needed Maggie Thatcher in ’91 -- and, in any case, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the national population was for the “public option” and refusing to confront the fact that the Congress had been bought, gave us a plan that is extremely unpopular, and probably unconstitutional. Why? In order to “win,” clearly and openly, by the end, to win anything. And, so today, with this “ultimate” cave-in over taxes -- in order to “win,” he’s sold out not just the gal who brung him to the dance but the American people generally. Make any list you want, and in virtually every case Obama has taken actions that are either easy (or avoided those that are hard), in all cases as an effort in the “art of compromise.” Maybe he’s just a compromising guy. Maybe he’s a natural moderate/conservative. Maybe he’s just a nice guy and fears offending anyone. Maybe he so believes his own rhetoric, and is so enanored with his intelligent and charm, and the knows he’s doing what’s right, even though the rest of us are too stupid to understand why. Or maybe he just doesn’t give a shit, and knows his own rhetoric is just that (the option I prefer).
There’s no question that any Democrat is preferable to any Republican, and that’s been true for sixty years. If that were the only issue, then no debate -- indeed, no list -- is necessary. Of course, if you know that, and I know that, then surely Obama knows that, in which case what reason in the world does he (or any Democrat) have to do anything other than what he’s been doing? You say pressure Obama. Politicians know one kind of pressure: the kind that will deprive them of office. So, I say, for the first time ever, Kucinich for President!
Great comment! Thanks. Well, I did say it was a selected list and in no particular order. ;-) Hmmm. Out-foxed by generals. Sounds like Lincoln and McClellan. The nomination was essentially over in Iowa. Hillary attempted a knock-out punch in NH, but Obama easily withstood with preparation in the caucus states. He rose to the challenge. As to Pelosi bucking him up: who knows? We may be accustomed to more drama with presidents rising to the occasion. He seems opposed to gratuitous drama. With the "mission accomplished" codpiece episode, I'm inclined to want less drama. Of course Congress--chiefly the Senate--was bought, but that happened before Obama set foot in the White House. And even if public opinion was for a public option, the rotten Senate wouldn't budge, and Obama had no leverage. He could be a horse-trader, like Lincoln; he could be moderate/conservative; he could be a lot of things: I frankly don't know. But a vote and money for Kucinich are wasted. Save them for 2016, after the Republicans win because the Left has caved--again. I think you/we/they pressure Obama with the implicit threat that if he doesn't budge on issues, THEN he becomes LBJ or Carter--so we agree on that--I just think trying a two-step process is better, partly because there's not much to lose. If progs try to pressure him and it fails, then we can all write ourselves in and get more votes than Kucinich. ;-) Not that it matters, but Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama played McConnell for a sucker. I didn't expect that. Even if Obama is weak, he's far less weak than Bush II, who resigned his presidency early on and put Cheney in charge. But I'm totally open-minded (and much disappointed, too): I'd like an historian and/or a political scientist to explain how Obama could have leveraged the Senate on healthcare, and this is not a rhetorical request. But as you say, it was more than healthcare. This is my field goal vs. the Patriots' 45.
We can always (and endlessly) imagine what might have been. As a historian, I really can only deal in facts about the past (no counter-factuals for me, thank you). This week, we have a new set of facts, with Obama giving away even more of the store -- even in the face of testimony for the other side that they'd have to vote for tax cuts for the lower 98% if that's all they had to vote for. So, not just an extension ("temporary" -- ha!) of the income tax giveaway to the rich, but just to rub it in the obscene gesture of the lowering of the inheritance tax (even as Obama's friends in the Republican party complain about [some] money going to [some of] the unemployed). Then, when there is grumbling, the condescension ("you just don't understand"), and then of course the inevitable threats (the world will come to an end! -- and it will be your fault). And so the question arises: how much evidence do we need about who and what this guy is?
Which is a separate question from what to do about him, I agree. Wait until 2016? No thank you. In the long run, blah, blah, blah. As Keynes famously said, in the long run, we're all dead. Anyway, it doesn't have to be Kucinich. I believe Lillian Bigman is available (tanned, rested, ready).
I agree: it's hard to know who/what he is except coldly cautious and patient (or dithering, if you prefer). I think his handlers believe they can always get "the base" back, but I suspect they're wrong. My friend the political scientist thinks that Obama will be re-elected, as Reagan was, simply because the economy will turn--again, like Reagan, not because of anything Obama has done. It's good (for me) to remember I have no effect on the outcome, either through money or my one vote. But if he's the nominee, I'll probably give him the one vote simply because of the Supreme Court, which now features at least two insane people and multiple radically right-wing Catholics who scare even Catholics. A political problem I see is that the challenge (if it comes) to Obama will be from the Left and therefore doomed. In a furious backlash to what seems like everything, the GOP seized power in '68 and haven't let go. Revenge against the Civil Rights Act, feminism, and so much more. I hear the Doors playing.....
Well, let's say Humphrey had been elected in 1968.... Sorry, I can't go there.
I agree with your political scientist friend, by the way, because incumbents almost always live and die by the unemployment rate.
Re: your comment about Andrew Sullivan's take on all this, see this for the reason:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish
/2010/12/yes.html
I have enjoyed this exchange.
My contribution: We never know what is actual and what is apparent.
Is Charles Krauthammer feigning his outrage that Obama swindled McConnell and Boehner?
Are various Democrats preening and posing for the cameras because they need not supply the votes to pass the compromise?
Does Obama believe his own blather?
Is capitulation the major ingredient of "post-partisanship?"
Post a Comment