POLITICS JANUARY 21, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
WASHINGTON--It turns out there were core contradictions in the promises Barack Obama made to the country in 2008. They caught up with his party on Tuesday in Massachusetts.
Things will not get easier. Republicans in Congress will be empowered to hold to their course of obstruction by Sen.-elect Scott Brown's victory. Washington will remain the object of scorn as a dysfunctional capital, and absent a new Obama approach, the GOP can act with the confidence that only Democrats will pay a price for the failure of comity.
This problem goes directly to the tensions in Obamaism. As a candidate, he pledged to change the tone in Washington and restore amicable relations between the parties. But he also promised to accomplish large things, including a substantial reform of the health care system, major action to ease global warming, and a reshaped and more responsible financial system.
At some point, Obama's ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both.
As a result, he found himself leaning entirely on support from within his own party, forcing a strategy of inside deal-making. This alienated Democrats from the many rank-and-file Americans who don't like the looks of such arrangements, however necessary they are.
A related contradiction was between Obama's commitment to sweeping change and his soothing pragmatism that disdains public fights. In the campaign, this allowed him to unite a left that believed in his promises of transformation and a center that appreciated his conciliatory style.
In practice, this meant trying to reform the financial industry while avoiding an open battle with the bankers. As a consequence, Obama is now viewed as coddling Wall Street by those inclined to populism, and as anti-business by the titans of finance. This also involved pursuing a health reform plan that his political base came to see as too soft on the insurance companies, even as many of the heath care interests tried to bring it down.
And by avoiding arguments over philosophy and ideology--by failing to offer a pointed and running explanation of why he was reversing the policies of the previous administration--Obama left independent voters confused about his goals. They saw expanding deficits and high unemployment. Absent a coherent Democratic narrative, they were open to a Republican story that linked the two and blamed the Democrats.
Brown's victory is also a rebuke to a United States Senate that acted as if it had unlimited time to pass health care legislation and ignored how foolish its listless ways appear to normal human beings. Like a bottle of milk kept out of the refrigerator too long, the health bill came to look curdled and sour to a public that felt it never heard an adequate explanation of what was in it.
In the short term, Democrats have to make a quick decision on health care. It would be the equivalent of a political crime to have invested so much in health reform only to let it die because of one election in one state. But on Wednesday, a cacophony of party voices was sending wildly mixed messages about how they should proceed.
The once obvious path would be for the House to pass the Senate bill while reaching agreement on changes to it that could clear the Senate without requiring 60 votes. But judging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments on Thursday, that path now seems blocked. Many progressive House members remain upset that the president took them for granted and assumed that the Senate, whose delays helped jeopardize health reform, would write something close to the final bill. Working through this thicket of dysfunction will be Obama's first post-Massachusetts test.
It's true that one special election in Massachusetts is not a world historical event. Brown's five-point victory was made possible by Democrat Martha Coakley's poorly run campaign and a colossal strategic failure to see early on the danger she was in.
Yet the flight or demobilization of so many of Obama's former supporters--Coakley received roughly 850,000 fewer votes on Tuesday than Obama did in 2008--cannot be blamed on her shortcomings alone. Obama needs to resolve the contradictions that are plaguing him, and to come out fighting. The president may not be entirely comfortable with this, but now he's fighting for his political life.
E.J. Dionne, Jr. is the author of the recently published Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right. He is a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at Georgetown University.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
21 comments
Absolutely. Obama's number one problem is his belief that he can conciliate anyone by extending his hand and taking their concerns seriously -- including Arab terrorists, Republicans, and other such rabid fanatics. Not. There is undoubtedly a use in American political theatre for the pretense of bipartisanship if skillfully played. But one should not forget that it is a delusion and, if played, is only play-acting. Obama thought that the Republicans could be something other than his dedicated enemies, committed to his destruction regardless of the price paid by the country. If he has now learned his lesson, good. If not, then he is setting himself and the Democratic party up for failure on an even bigger scale. Talk bipartisanship while smiling and sticking the knife in. If the Republicans come to fear him, they might even start to cooperate out of self-protection.
- roidubouloi
January 21, 2010 at 7:24am
It's time for Obama to remember a line from "The Untouchables": "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!" The GOP is fighting for keeps. It's time for the Democrats to do the same. The Senate majority needs to screw up its courage and use the nuclear option on filibusters. The Republicans would not hesitate doing this if the situation was reversed.
- zardoz67
January 21, 2010 at 8:11am
I don't disagree with your general point, Roid. But what "Arab terrorist" has Obama extended his hand to?
- dhurtado
January 21, 2010 at 8:27am
I don't disagree with your general point, Roid. But what "Arab terrorist" has Obama extended his hand to?
- dhurtado
January 21, 2010 at 8:27am
None, dhurtado. My point there was rather about Republicans -- that conciliating or compromising with them is absolutely as impossible as it would be to conciliate terrorists. I don't actually see that much difference between Republicans (at the party level) and terrorists. Under slightly different circumstances, I think lots of the apocalyptic right would easily slip into violent terrorism. Think about them carrying their guns to presidential appearances. They have a terrorist fantasy life and that is but a short remove from the real thing. The difference may only by circumstance. It should not escape anyone's notice that, since the 70s, political violence in the United States is the exclusive preserve of the right -- and when the FBI called that to our attention, public conservatives took offense.
- roidubouloi
January 21, 2010 at 12:52pm
I think republicans biggest error is their continued toleration of liberal parasites. Consider the attributes of a liberal: 1. Least likely to pay taxes (as private sector worker or business owner) yet most vocal about increasing taxes 3. Most vocal about poverty yet least likely to contribute to charity 4. Most vocal about poverty yet liberal teacher unions continue to block education innovation that would help lift the poor 5. Most vocal about the evils of big business yet too stupid to understand that business/prviate sector pays for their lifestyle 6. Most likely to work in public sector yet least likely to be in those groups who truly serve the nation soldiers, policeman, etc.. I could go on and on. The three biggest constituents for Obama are trial lawywers, union members, and public sector parasites(nondefense) -- need I say more
- mr_rationale
January 21, 2010 at 1:00pm
Consider an interesting attribute of Mr Rationale: 1. Inability to count Tell us, Mr R, if people like you gave full reign to their intolerance, what would that look like? Would you send all us pinko-commie teat-sucking liberals to the gas chamber? Or would you just put us all to work for pennies an hour in maquiladora style sweatshops here in the US? Funny facts: New York City, bastion of commie-pinko liberalism, pays out more in federal taxes than it receives. Alaska, bastion of right wing conservatism, receives more federal subsidies per capita than any state in the nation. Also interesting: the most conservative person I know is a 50-something, live at home with rich-mommy layabout who hasn't held a job, or even looked for one, in 4 years. Of course, HE doesn't want the govornment to raise taxes, because if mommy's savings account dips much lower as a result, she just might cut off his dole and force him to go look for gainful employment in place of doing what he does now, which is spend most of his time surfing the web posting trolls on blogs and websites of liberal news magazines. Hey... wait a minute. Maybe you're him?
- zaiquiri
January 21, 2010 at 3:17pm
Show me a liberal and a conservative, and I'll show you two peas in the same pod. From a distance it's hard to tell them apart. They are both pointing fingers at each other--when they're not accusing their compadres of apostasy. They each have God on their side--even the atheist. While each is certain he or she has America's best interest at heart, he or she is certain the other is driving the country into the ground, is only in it for themselves, is a tool of special interests. All one has to do is read the comments here or on any number of conservative or liberal sites to understand why the idea of Obama uniting the country is a pipe dream.
- williamyard
January 21, 2010 at 10:27pm
Not only can Obama not unite the country, he shouldn't even try. "Unity" is for rhetoric only. If you take it seriously, as Obama has, all you get is screwed by the savages. Time for Barack to grow up.
- roidubouloi
January 21, 2010 at 10:40pm
Bipartisanship was the one campaign promise that Obama could not keep because it takes two to make a marriage and Republicans had zero stake in partnership of any kind. Still, many people like the appearance of comity and cooperation and those folks voted for Obama. I doubt that Obama can pull off an identity shift and start channeling Harry Truman as "Battlin' Barack" but he does have to help inject some iron into Democratic spines somehow while taking care not to look phony while doing it. I'll be interested to see what the White House comes up with.
- cforeman
January 21, 2010 at 11:45pm
Trying to bring the country together a big mistake? Hardly. Failing to bring the country together, sure. Even given the fact that his Republican opponents actually have some discipline and political competence, that's the test of leadership. Hopefully the lessons of this fiasco will be learned and eventually Obama, like Reagan and Clinton, will benefit from his instinctive sympathy for the common American values and sensibilities. A good lawyer should be able to make a credible case for both sides of an argument. A good politician should be able to see when the opposition has a good point, and coopt it. Confusing political opponents with The Enemy is a failure, and a handicap, for both parties. williamyard, as usual, cuts to the chase.
- Robert Powell
January 22, 2010 at 6:54am
The Republicans have no point. Death panels? Socialism? Lies, smears, slanders. That is not a point, it is just political terrorism. The very mistake the Democrats made was six months spent negotiating with Republican senators to find any point at all that could be accepted consistent with the project of making healthcare universally affordable (as it is in every other industrial democracy). At the end of the day, there was no point to concede, and when the nonsense that the Republicans claimed to want was conceded anyway, all the Dems got for it was the finger and more lies. The failure is in failing to recognize opponents for just who they are and what they are engaged in. No hard battle can be won without a realistic assessment of the enemy. Allowing the Republicans to conduct unrestrained warfare while maintaining restrained civility, giving them time, space and opportunity for their inevitable lie and smear campaign, is a fool's errand. It is a proven failure. RP's advice is the exact equivalent of abjuring the Israelis that they may not pursue rocket-firing terrorists where they are because civilian casualties will ensue. Of course, on those terms, the only possibility is to concede the terrorists the ability to conduct unrestrained warfare without effective response. That is the position the Democrats are in and the place in which all the purportedly well-meaning advice intends to keep them. The Republican party is the enemy of my country. It should be fought by every and any legal means available. Until it is fought at least to a standstill, there can be no progress and no effective governance. Trying to bring the country together is a mistake because the Republicans can no more be conciliated than can terrorists. As the task is impossible, it is a waste of time and valuable resources -- most particularly political capital. Like I said, a fool's errand.
- roidubouloi
January 22, 2010 at 8:10am
I'm with roid on this. There's a theory that would strongly support his recommendation that the Obama Administration stop being "nice" and start being "provocable". You can find it in Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". In it he concludes from a research experiment that the four attributes of winning strategies are that they are: 1) "nice" (i.e. they start out seeking to collaborate); 2) "provocable" (i.e. they get tough when their "nice" efforts receive a negative or competitive response); 3) "forgiving" (i.e. after a round of being "provocable", they return to offering to collaborate); and 4) "easily readable" (i.e. they announce in advance the fact that they are "nice", "provocable", and "forgiving"). With the Senate Republicans, it has long been obvious that "nice" isn't working. Roid's argument that it is past time to be " provocable" is painfully obvious and almost beyond discussion. Somebody should tip off the House Democrats.
- JackR
January 22, 2010 at 11:07am
williamyard - still planning a trip to your area in early March. Need a way to contact you. Our email is: jackandcorinne@comcast.net.
- JackR
January 22, 2010 at 11:10am
If the roughly half of the electorate that regularly votes Republican are enemies of our country, we are in a lot worse shape than I think we are. I can appreciate your frustration roi, and share it to some extent--there are some parts of the proposed reforms that I think would do a lot of good. But at the end of the day the real fool's errand is trying to convince the public that the local car dealer, banker, pharmacist, or family doctor, who are the Republicans they actually know, are Devil-spawn wreckers determined to ruin the USA. Some Repubs believe with equal conviction that Democrats are a fifth column plotting to turn our government over to Stalinist commisars. Frankly I think both parties are full of crap, just in different ways. The idea that the current Dems frittered away an opportunity here by trying to negotiate with Republicans is transparently false. The majority of the party leaders have been out of the picture practically since Day One. The fact is that the Congressional Dems are an amateurish gang of incompetents, and that's certainly not the fault of the Party of Lincoln.
- Robert Powell
January 22, 2010 at 11:55am
Bob, I agree that the Congressional Dems are an amateurish gang of incompetents, but the Republican party of today ain't the one of George H.W. Bush. The party has at its core the remnants of the segregationist past on one end, and utterly delusional Galtians like Mr. Troll above. I am pretty conservative for these parts, I think the Dept. of Education should be disbanded, am pro-life, supported the Iraq war, I even supported, in theory, Bush's Social Security reforms, but between the Bush the Father (who I voted for in 88) and Bush the son the apple got pretty damn rotten. It was Bush the father's tax increases that made possible Clinton's first budget (otherwise the gap would have been too large to overcome) and he was prepared to pay the price. Bush the son believed deficits simply don't matter. Remember Jim DeMint said before negotiations began that health care would be Obama's Waterloo, and for that he was acclaimed a hero among Republicans. He is at the top of the douche oops teabaggers hit parade. I simply can't imagine voting at the national level for any Republican anymore (Governor, sure because they can't bs in the Northeast, they have to produce)
- blackton
January 22, 2010 at 6:24pm
RP says: "The idea that the current Dems frittered away an opportunity here by trying to negotiate with Republicans is transparently false." I find it blindingly obvious. The incompetence is believing that the Republicans have any goal other than denying the Democrats and success -- even when the Republicans openly declare that to be the case. It seems just too hard for the Dems to believe that Republican politicians are as nasty an brutish as they seem to be. But they are. And when the Dems start acting with that in mind, the will be able to move forward. The first step would be to pass the senate bill because the Republicans will never permit anything else to get through the senate and the senate bill is a far cry better than nothing. Knowledge that Republicans are the implacable enemy does not, as a matter of tactics, call for take-no-prisoners warfare every minute of every day, just for taking full account of their implacability. Where co-optation works, by all means. But never stop taking the case to the public and always move quickly. Cover whatever you are doing with whatever public rhetoric is necessary because the truth is irrelevant, as the Republicans demonstrate day after day for all who care to observe.
- roidubouloi
January 23, 2010 at 7:05pm
The truth is not irrelevant. It is true that tactically Republicans can benefit from simply doing everything they can to make Obama a failure. But in strategic terms, which unlike many Democrats at least some Republicans seem to have a capacity to think in terms of, it is also true that a failed president is a national tragedy without regard to party. There is a perfectly good healthcare reform bill, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act, which addresses most of the outstanding problems and has TEN REPUBLICAN CO-SPONSORS in the Senate. On the right, we have idiots who only want to beat Democrats. On the left, we have idiots who only want to beat Republicans. By turning this reform effort over to the current Congressional leadership, Obama verged on political malpractice. Dump the Pelosi/Reid monstrosity (and Pelosi/Reid along with it), pass Wyden-Bennett, and move on to the next problem. Which will probably be the collapse of Iraq due to inattention and a hopeless Ambassador.
- Robert Powell
January 24, 2010 at 2:43pm
Obama turned the effort over to Congressional Democrats because the Clinton experience in '94 was that an internal, almost covert, White House drafting process would be killed when got to the Hill as the Dems would perceive they had little to do with its gestation and potentially no advantage from passing it. This is one they developed on their freaking own! You can't blame him for trying to avoid that original pitfall, but you can blame Dem Senators for putting pissy little issues and special kickbacks before the greater national interest. If the Democratic Party would ever decide on some damn thing it wants to do it could -- possibly -- present itself as other than a bunch of frightened schoolkids exactly when Obama needs a robust base for governing. And if it would stop being scared -- it's like the only votes that count are the Brown votes in Massachusetts! Don't our votes last November and in 2006 count for something too?
- ironyroad
January 24, 2010 at 8:05pm
I think you are deluded, RP, if you imagine that the Wyden-Bennett bill, regardless of its nominal sponsorship, would today find any Republican supporters. Whether or not it is good for the country, the Republican strategy IS to cause the failure of the current adminstration. They proclaim it openly -- that they will exploit this or that issue to destroy Obama. One wonders how this manages to escape notice.
- roidubouloi
January 24, 2010 at 8:10pm
Democrats in the White House have been systematically screwed by Democrat-controlled Congresses every time they've held power for since LBJ. On the other hand, Presidents of both parties have been able to accomplish meaningful reforms when Congress was in the hands of the opposing party (most significant in my view the Reagan/Tip O'Neil tax and SSI reforms; and the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform). I'd be happy to see Wyden moved out of committee by the current self-aggrandizing leadership, or even better by new leadership, so we could have a test of roi's theory. I haven't seen many cases of Senators voting against bills they co-sponsored...
- Robert Powell
January 25, 2010 at 1:50am