After two years of frustrating gridlock, as the losing Republicans "just said no" about everything, it seems like maybe Congress is working again. I don't mean working, as in putting in the hours. I mean doing effective legislative work. Passing DADT repeal is an example.
As much as I am ecstatic about what this means for the gay community -- to say nothing of thousands of military gays and for the military itself -- I am almost as excited by the fact that the administration and congress did something together that worked.
Even on the tax/spending bill -- as much as we hate the tax cuts for the wealthy and the too-low estate tax -- look at it in a broader perspective. The more conservative groups hate it, the more progressive groups hate it, but those near the middle think it's great. So maybe that's where it needs to be in a congress that's almost equally divided. Both sides got some of what they wanted; both sides gave in and accepted some of what they hated.
It feels like maybe the system has been restored. There's now even talk of growing bipartisan support for changing the senate rules -- at least on the anonymous "holds" and perhaps some changes in the filibuster rule as well.
My message to the progressives whose disappointment turns them against Obama: elect him a congress that agrees with you. I'm all for that -- but until we have that, let's take the best deal we can get with what we've got.
And give him some credit for leadership too. Leadership is not just getting up on a soapbox and yelling, or twisting arms in back rooms like LBJ. Leadership also is carefully laying the groundwork, bringing people together, getting them talking, empowering others to do their jobs, giving them the opportunity, and then helping apply pressure to close the deal.
Mickey Nardo says Obama is essentially a congressman. His failing may be that he sometimes should be a president instead. But there are times -- like this -- when what the president needs to do is facilitate the restoration of a functioning congress. I think that is what is happening now. And that in itself is a remarkable achievement, given that his party just lost control of the House and now has only a marginal majority in the Senate.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's nothing wrong with being a good Congressman, or even with being a good Congressman as President. There's also nothing wrong with leaning a little too far, or turning the other cheek. What's wrong is thinking that those of us that were his loudest supporters would have gone along with allowing the current Republicans to get away with acting like the ku klux klan, or letting the Administration before him totally walk away from their crimes. Had he said he was going to do either of those things, I think we would've probably voted for Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, when she did exactly the same thing [which she would've], we'd be wishing we'd voted for someone with a spine, like Barack Obama. And Dennis Kucinich just isn't tall enough...
Ralph, I don't think it's accurate to equate Progressives and the whackjobs on the extreme right
ReplyDeleteThe more conservative groups hate it, the more progressive groups hate it
The obvious difference is those of us on the left are against policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor and working class. It's a communitarian position, one of honor and concern about fairness. Those on the far right are about self-interest and hatred of the 'other'. What we are fighting for are the very positions Obama told us he was going to be fighting for.
I understand the impulse towards being an accomodationist/comnpromiser. I am just not comfortable compromising my deeply held positions; I am not willing to embrace policies I find morally repugnant, in the name of 'getting things done'.
I don't think Progressives deserve to be criticized simply for being disappointed when Obama failed to fight for the exact policies he said, repeatedly, he was going to fight for. We are being treated as if we are the problem because he gave in to Boehner and McConnell. He gave in more than he had to, which I think is a pretty clearly established fact.
If he had put up a fight, and lost, and had to settle for his diluted healthcare bill, or this tax cut bill, I would have respected him for trying.
The problem for the left is that he didn't bother to fight before he compromised. And then his administration publicly criticized us for asking him why, suggesting he should.
When the census figures come out today, we're going to see a swing to a far more conservative country.
I am disappointed because Obama was our last great hope. And he failed to answer the bell. He threw in the towel. He didn't show the heart to fight.
richard
Your position is very clear, Richard, and it is an admirable one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you up to a certain point; and then I tend to be more of a pragmatist, willing to accept some of what I don't want in order to get some of what I do want.
Neither is right or wrong. Perhaps there are some studies somewhere that would show which approach results in more good for the greatest number, in the longer term. But I don't know what they do/would show.
In the meantime, we simply disagree about what we're willing to accept and what we are sure (or doubt) would have happened if Obama had fought harder for it. I think you don't consider the negative, collateral side effects, but only the issue at hand.
Again, I don't think one of us is right and the other wrong. You apparently do.
Richard, you need to read my posts more carefully. I did not "equate Progressives and the wacko jobs on the extreme right."
ReplyDeleteI said each gave up something that they wanted. That's not equating them in value. It's a practical matter: what will you give up in order to get what you want?
You may abhor compromising with someone you think is a "wacko job." That's your right. But it isn't going to get you to a solution at that point.
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if there are political studies that show which is the right approach, but Peter Senge's research on systems theory seems to clearly indicate the reasons systems fail to enact the types of change they claim to seek is because they are too quick to compromise. I read his stuff in relation to learning systems, when I was running a non-profit that served people in shelters, prisons,community centers, literacy classes, etc. We did far more work, much more effectively, than organizations 10 times our size. Because we didn't compromise to appease funders, but insisted on following what we believed in.
As I remember it, Senge claims it is imperative to hold onto one's values and not compromise, to force others to compromise upwards towards yours. He feels failure occurs when systems compromise too early, too easily, give away too much, under the guise of necessity. When that happens, they fail to deliver what they claim they believe in. This is why organizations so often fail to live out their mission statements.
The Obama Administration is a system. Within other systems, true, overlapping like a Venn diagram. But it is a system that has willingly compromised its core values and because of that will not be able to deliver on the Progressive promises he made while running for office.
So I have read a fair amount of research material which has made a compelling case for why the approach Obama is taking, while well-meaning, will have the opposite effect of what he intends. Will, in the long run, not achieve the goals he wishes to achieve. I'm not just spouting an opinion because I'm disillusioned.
I believe Obama is perhaps doing what he thinks is best, but he's not taking a path that will get us where he told us he was going.
I have no problem with you, or anyone, deciding to be pragmatic. That's your choice. My problem is with those who dump on Progressives for sticking to their values. I honestly don't believe compromise will get us where we need to go as a society. You honestly believe it will. You're a Southerner who grew up in a culture of accommodation. I'm a Yankee who grew up in a culture of confrontation.
richard
Yes, we seem always to circle back to our basic difference stemming from culture and personal characteristics shaping our beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure systems theory applies to our government, where motivations are more than just what do I believe in but what's going to get me re-elected. There you have people voting against their principles because they'll be out of a job if they don't.
Or maybe it does apply but is just that much more complex.
It does apply. Systems theory applies to every system. Individuals in every system have less influence than we wish to believe. There is some great material on systems theory as applied to abusive families, for example.
ReplyDeleterichard
"Individuals in every system have less influence that we wish to believe."
ReplyDeleteDoes that apply to Obama as president? If so, then you should rethink your blaming him for not fighting harder.
That's a bit of a facetious dig. But, seriously, it sounds like viewing all this as systemic issues would more favor my position. You have to consider not only what Obama does and does not do but also the makeup of the Congress we gave him to work with.