Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred? . . .
Mr. Obama rode into office on a vast wave of progressive enthusiasm. This enthusiasm was bound to be followed by disappointment. . . . Given the facts of politics, and above all the difficulty of getting anything done in the face of lock step Republican opposition, he wasn’t going to be the transformational figure some envisioned.
And Mr. Obama has delivered in important ways. Above all, he managed (with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi) to enact a health reform that, imperfect as it is, will greatly improve Americans’ lives — unless a Republican Congress manages to sabotage its implementation.But progressive disillusionment isn’t just a matter of sky-high expectations meeting prosaic reality. Threatened filibusters didn’t force Mr. Obama to waffle on torture; to escalate in Afghanistan; to choose, with exquisitely bad timing, to loosen the rules on offshore drilling early this year. . . .
What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is? Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need such excuses. . . .
The point is that Mr. Obama’s attempts to avoid confrontation have been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats could spell catastrophe for the Obama agenda.
He then goes into the Elizabeth Warren appointment and why he seems to be waffling on the right person for the job.
The debate over financial reform, in which the G.O.P. has taken the side of the bad guys, should be a political winner for Democrats. . . . And choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing that protection . . . is the natural move, both substantively and politically. Meanwhile, the alternative — disappointing supporters yet again by choosing some little-known technocrat — seems like an obvious error.
So why is this issue still up in the air? Yes, Republicans might well try to filibuster a Warren appointment, but that’s a fight the administration should welcome.
O.K., I don’t really know what’s going on. But I worry that Mr. Obama is still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship, while his aides dislike the idea of having to deal with strong, independent voices. And the end result of this game-playing is an administration that seems determined to alienate its friends.
Just to be clear, progressives would be foolish to sit out this election: Mr. Obama may not be the politician of their dreams, but his enemies are definitely the stuff of their nightmares. But Mr. Obama has a responsibility, too. He can’t expect strong support from people his administration keeps ignoring and insulting.
This is what Richard has been saying. Except it's easier for me to accept the negative assessment when Krugman also acknowledges the positive accomplishments as well.
Ralph
And let's not forget that Krugman is a better writer and thinker than I am, too.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this a lot and although there are many camps, I think there are two warring factions in the Democrat Party, The Critics and the Enablers.
The Critics are like jilted lovers. They can't believe Obama has betrayed the faith they put in him, and so they jump all over everything they perceive as further evidence of his infidelity. It's like being married and finding out your spouse has cheated on you. It's hard to step back and look at the good things your spouse has done, continues to do, when you are still raw from the betrayal.
The Enablers are like the abused partner in an abusive relationship. They make excuses for the one treating them badly, assert blame elsewhere - he was left a mess, it's those intransigent Republicans,it's his 'friends' on the left attacking him - and they focus on the good things he continues to do, to make it up to them. They see the health care bill, limited though it is, as a bouquet of roses. The Critics see the limitations as more evidence of infidelity.
Both groups are moving. Some Critics are grudgingly admitting they have no choice but to vote for him again. Some Enablers are grudgingly admitting their perfect partner has some warts.
Although I recognize that, short-term, backing a different Democratic candidate does risk losing the Presidency in 2012, I also wonder if long-term that risk is worth taking.
To me, if we ignore Obama's shortcomings, and don't hold him accountable for turning against his base, but re-elect him anyways, what is the message? That's it's all right to break your promises to the left, they're going to vote for you anyways. How does that help us pass progressive legislation in the future?
If instead we're willing to back a different candidate and the Democrats lose, isn't the long-term message a better one? That you can't betray your base because there will be consequences. You need to follow through on what you promise.
richard
Richard -- I agree with the general thrust of your agrument, but I think you are missing an important point. It's true, that those of us who try to "put Obama's actions into perspective" -- I would prefer "perspectivsts" to "enablers," which implies being part of the problem -- may be trying to take some of the pressure off him that you and his "critics" are trying to keep on him, to make him do the right thing about this or that.
ReplyDeleteBut you are missing part of the puzzle. You seem to assume that someone else, who would be more aggressive in pushing his programs and policies, who do a better job overall. What you miss, is that that person would not have all of Obama's other skills. You might gain some advantage and lose others -- I'm not going to try pick certain talents he has, because it will just give you an excuse to pick apart whatever I choose.
The general point is that, even with his faults -- which include specific weaknesses that you can identify -- I think he is a better president than Hillary would have been, or anyone else I can think of.
You want to keep all of Obama's many talents, and add on the things we agree he is weak on -- and come up with the perfect president. It doesn't work that way.
And maybe Obama never was a "Progressive" in the first place. He doesn't ever say, "we Progressives," he says "the Progressives." Maybe he's just a plain old sort of Democrat who sees community organization as our central need right now. Could be that he's doing what he's doing not because he's weak, but because he thinks that if he keeps doing it maybe he'll get somewhere. He might be wrong about that, but it still might be what he thinks.
ReplyDeleteIn part of Krugman's article that I did not quote, he says that Obama was never as liberal as we imagined him to be; he's always been more of a centrist.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree -- it seems to me there was a good bit of space between him what once was called, I think, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). But whatever the fine lines, Krugman has a good point.
The ADA always ranked him as one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. Up there with Boxer and Kerry. Interestingly, in Chicago he was accused of talking 'moderate' but voting 'liberal'. Which seems the opposite of what's being said by some now.
ReplyDeleteI never wanted Obama to be perfect. I simply wanted him to stand by the positions he ran on.
richard
And it is my contention that Obama would gladly stand by the positions he ran on, if he thought he could get them passed.
ReplyDeleteWhen he ran on those positions, the economy was just going into its steep dive, the deficit had not yet skyrocketed as it has since (because of the necessary stimulus, jobs bills, and bailouts) and the Republicans hadn't yet solidified into the stone wall of "hell, no" that they have become.
Obama is practical enough to know that he does not have a magic wand to wave to make everything he wants become law. Or if he could do it on one thing, something else might not get done. Choices have to be made.
There is a gray area between waving a magic wand to make everything you want happen and being too passive to fight for anything. It's in that gray area that we disagree whether he could/should fight more.
We're back to the same argument again, Richard, where I say: it's not the issue, it's us and who we are that makes us disagree on where the line is in that gray area. A week ago, we got to this place, once again, and you said "You're right. But I still like the debate." And I ask Why? Why do you like it if you agree that it's not really about the details we argue about?
I, for one enjoy it when you and Richard argue. The same argument goes on inside my head, so I enjoy having it articulated on the outside [If it gets monotonous, you might try changing sides once a week for variety]. I'd bet that the Ralph/Richard argument runs in Obama's mind too, and behind the closed doors of the Oval Office.
ReplyDeleteYou hone your position by arguing with people who intelligently challenge it. When your beliefs are questioned you have to be able to explain them better. It's in the give-and-take that you clarify what you believe and why. We're not on the same level, but Lincoln Douglas used to debate for what, 7 hours?
ReplyDeleteRalph, I accept there are gray areas, and there are things he can't do because of Republicans and, frankly, because Obama is no LBJ, and can't seem to get his own party behind him as strongly as we had anticipated he'd be able to. And I'm not asking for a magic wand.
I do believe he should be held accountable for policies of choice. No one forced him to expand the use of torture overseas. No one forced him to abandon a Public Option. It was doable. He could have gotten it through by reconciliation. Like Bush put through 3 tax cuts. Those are the types of choices Obama should be called out on. That's all I'm saying. No one forced him to move Fox News to the front row in press conferences, and bump NPR back to the 2nd row. You know what I mean?
Anyways, if Mickey's having fun listening to us jibber jabber, how can we stop? You can't alienate your audience.
richard
Agree -- since our audience is not that large to start with.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're both right. I do hone my positions when I respond to your challenges. I think the main reason I sometimes get prickly about it is that it stirs up my own ambivalence that I keep trying to settle, so I don't have to feel so, well, unsettled. And your arguments won't let that fragile balance rest easy.