The New Republic

"The party’s goal for the next six years will be to wreck the public sector—fundamentally altering the social safety net, de-funding investments in our children and our economic future, and rendering the government’s regulatory apparatus deaf, dumb, and blind" Isn't that another way of saying sabotage and subversion aimed at weakening the nation at a time when our competitive position in the world is already looking a bit shaky?

- ironyroad

January 6, 2011 at 12:47am

Kilgore s analysis supports my consistent contention that Obama and 5-10 Senate DINOs need be challenged by progressives asap and replaced asap. BHO had the largest Dem majority since LBJ-- and blew it. He shows no sign of real change. The only hope for more progeessive policies in 2012-2016 is for a successful Progressive challenge to BHO. Kilgore neglects the obvious.. the upcoming 2012-2016 train wrect he so correctly sees will be blamed on the Prez-- NOT the Congress.. Keping BHO as their nominee in 2012 like the Repubs keeping H Hoover as their nominee in 1932.... and Hoover didn't have a foreign policy disaster (Google Afghanistan) equivalent to LBJ's Vietnam (or Carter's Iran, if you prefer). BHO as the Dems Hoover + Carter-- now that's a combination to discredit Progressive policies for a generation-- not 4 years. Kilgore analyzes the problem-- and then avoids the obviously painful conclusion. He suggests no solution to Progressives other than the equivalent of sit down, shut up, and in a slightly altered version of a once-well-known song: Follow the big fool deeper into the Big Muddy when he compromises with the Repubs and says "push on".

- drofnats1

January 6, 2011 at 5:59am

Drop the Hopey-Changey Thing. Redeem the Vision, Cultivate the Narrative http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/12/31/drop-the-hopey-changey-thing-redeem-the-vision-cultivate-the-narrative-31151/

- hkaye

January 6, 2011 at 7:25am

I generally agree with Kilgore's analysis, though he goes a bit overboard. Republicans will not "gut" Medicare or Social Security. They ran against Obama's Medicare cuts, remember? They will cut Medicaid, Food Stamps, and TANF (the welfare reform program that replaced AFDC). Very few people who receive benefits under those programs vote Republican and, of course, a lot of them don't vote at all. Any program that benefits immigrants will also be cut, for the same reason. Like so many TNR types, Kilgore leaves out foreign policy and civil liberties entirely. Boring stuff, I guess. But for those of us who do care that we are engaged in bloody and counterproductive wars abroad and repression at home, things don't look so good.

- AlanVann

January 6, 2011 at 7:35am

Obama, whatever his weaknesses as party leader, may be the perfect Democrat to resist Republican efforts to break all the china. After all, it's easy to make contrasts with, and to go to war against, someone who stakes out clearly defined opposing positions; not so with a conciliator. The lesson learned about Obama in 2010 is the lesson many (if not most) Democrats failed (some would say refused) to learn about him during the 2008 campaign: Obama is at best a marginal progressive, with instincts for avoiding confrontation and accepting compromise. As Kilgore implies, Obama's conciliatory nature contrasts favorably with the extremists in the Republican ranks, and according to conventional wisdom anyway, we are a nation of moderates, who won't appreciate the take no prisoners approach of the Republicans.

- rayward

January 6, 2011 at 7:35am

Good analysis. The big fly in the ointment is that Obama is still talking "compromise", even as the Republicans have redefined "compromise" to mean "do it our way or no deal". The lame-duck session was a special time of minimal cooperation, but that time is over. Still, if Obama recognizes what you've recognized, he CAN be a great president, presiding over a country healing from the greatest economic damage since the Great Depression. But ONLY if he holds the line on what he tried to do in his first two years. If he "compromises" with the Republicans, the damage you call out will indeed occur.

- AllanL5

January 6, 2011 at 7:55am

You can't cite the GOP's advantage in midterms (with older whiter voters) while ignoring the Democrats HUGE advantage in Presidential elections with Obama on the ticket. 2012 will be ripe with opportunities to win back House seats originally won in 2008.

- Virginia Centrist

January 6, 2011 at 9:18am

The very sad situation is this: First, Obama is a poor leader, with no core message and no ability or willingness to sell to the public the merits of what he has accomplished (mainly health care reform). We all thought he was in the liberal, FDR, HST, LBJ (domestically) tradition and it turns out that he is not. Moreover, on the gut level he does not relate to the hard-working, patriotic middle class who did not go to Ivy League colleges and who do not vacation in upscale places. Leadership is about stirring feelings/emotions as much as about policies, and Obama has lost the knack if he truly ever had it. Second, Obama has cooperated with and even supported the excesses of the banking/big corporate class to the detriment of the country, and both left and right know that and deplore what he has done. That means that the right is bolder and more aggressive and much of the left is drifting away and will not support him as they did in 2008 and may not even vote. Yes, the Republicans also support the excesses of the bankers and CEO's but they sell it as support for small business and family farms, and they are very good at selling which the Democrats are not. Third, Obama doesn't seem to understand that it is possible to stand by your principles and compromise, letting it be known that the compromise was only out of necessity and that the principles stand. This may be his character -- compromise, splitting the difference seems to be in fact his basic principle. Fourth, despite the tax deal, unemployment will drop only a point or two over the next 20 months, which means that the perceptions of individual voters won't change much. Fifth, even though Obama is a poor and not very inspiring leader of the Democrats, there is no one to take his place. He will be re nominated. He probably will not be reelected, but even if he is he will fact a hostile House and Senate and be a sadly ineffective president. Sixth, part of his problem has been simply a lack of experience. He went too far much too fast. There is little sign that he is learning, and serious mistakes will continue to be made. The country, and particularly the most vulnerable among us, are in for a rough ride.

- PeteBeck

January 6, 2011 at 10:03am

After the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, I say the Democrats will be in for a triumphant arrival in 2012 and beyond. This is an aberration due to a well-executed and supremely crafted message that Obama is cutting Medicare across the board to help poor illiegal immigrants and black people. Older white voters reacted, but all the Birchers are Joe Millers and there will be a disgusted backlash in 2012 and beyond. Also, look for Republican moderates-whoever they are anyway-like Sens. Snowe and Collins, Sen. Murkowski (the pork-barrel queen of the pork-barrel state), Sen. Brown (can't buck his constituency), and Sen. Lugar to increasingly strive for moderation and compromise. I see a resurgence in policy thought at the same time that the great reforms of the 111th are enacted-especially with health care-and we will see a John Bircher collapse. This will be a lot of fun for Democrats, these next couple of years. I'm excited to take on the Bircher twerps!!

- RedState

January 6, 2011 at 10:46am

The aberration spoken to above is this past election cycle.

- RedState

January 6, 2011 at 10:47am

couple of criticisms of this piece, due to the Republican landslide in the House with much of it in the north, holding onto those seats will be impossible. In other words, Republicans will swap swap seats for northern ones. Take a look at Ohio, the Republicans gained 5 seats this last election and will lose 2 seats due to reapportionment. Democrats hold just four house seats in Ohio, most around Cleveland. Kuchinich 10, Fudge 11, Sutton 13, and Ryan 17. They simply can't gerrymander these seats away (can anyone imagine Ohio having but 2 Democratic Representatives?) so Republicans are going to have to sacrifice 2 Republicans and we likely sacrifice another to keep Boehner safe. And in places like Texas, their population gain has a lot to do with Latinos and other Democrats growing. Again, they have already gerrymandered the hell out of the state (Austin is part of 5 districts), Democrats can easily pick up 2 of the 4.

- blackton

January 6, 2011 at 1:55pm

blackton makes good points about redistricting. Some of the population gains in red states were due to constituencies that are not traditionally Republican, such as Latinos (and Republicans have not exactly made themselves more welcome in that community as of late). The demographics may limit what Republicans can protect through redistricting. I think AllanVann is also right about the limits on Republicans attempts to "gut" Social Security and Medicare. Just a few months ago, they were (misleadingly) pillorying Democrats on Medicare cuts, so I don't see them about-facing on this one so easily. And the recent attempt to privatize Social Security failed miserably. And I think PeteBeck is right that there's no one around to replace Obama (even if it were a good idea, which I think it isn't), but wrong in believing that he probably won't be reelected. The Republican bench doesn't look very strong to me; who is going to beat him, especially if the economy is trending upward? If someone gave me even odds on Obama's reelection, I'd take it. Nor do I think he went "too far too fast." Democrats got a lot done in the brief window they had. The economy doomed most House Democrats in districts that went for McCain. Now many new Republicans have seats in districts won by Obama. How many seats can be won back remains to be seen.

- dsimon

January 6, 2011 at 2:47pm

Blackton. Repubs hold the house if they lose up to 30 seats. I dont see anything in your comment suggesting Dems gain 30+ seats. In the Senate, Dems have twice as many to defend as Repubs. You guys are counting on the BHO as the Dems Hoover (probably as the Dems Carter tossed in for good measure) beating a Palinista idiot. In that case, note that a Dem challenger who beat BHO would also probably beat that Palinista. Note also that the Repubs could nominate someone not currently on the political radar that is not obviously extreme. Not many on this site have been predicting that BHO's non-Progressive policies were going to be disasters on the stimulus, health care, BP response, financial regulation, Afghanistan (stick around for that one) -- and we may be wrong on the tax bill, but I'll bet otherwise. Insofar as the past ius the best predictor of the future, the Progressive skeptics (or whiners if your prefer) sure have a better track record to date than the BHO acolytes (or Polyannas, if you prefer). And almost all of us started out as acolytes-- and no one enen thought about voting for Nader. Ever.

- drofnats1

January 6, 2011 at 4:00pm

So I may have fallen asleep in civics class once or twice, but saying that the House of Representatives will "stonewall executive and judicial appointments" appears, well, wrong. Surely, the Democrat majority in the SENATE will not be able to prevent the GOP from "stonewalling executive and judicial appointments", but how does the House of Representatives fit in? See ("The Senate has the sole power to confirm those of the President's appointments that require consent, and to ratify treaties. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule: the House must also approve appointments to the Vice Presidency and any treaty that involves foreign trade. The Senate also tries impeachment cases for federal officials referred to it by the House") available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch Apologies, in advance, for the pendantry.

- Lf8955a

January 6, 2011 at 4:56pm

re Dem trifectas -- California would seem to be the big one, but the one lasting change Schwarzenegger wrought is the new NONPARTISAN redistricting commission. The Democrat governor, senate and assembly won't have any say in California's 53 House districts, which currently split 33 Democrat/20 Republican. Odds are less blatantly partisan districts would even out the party split. So don't be counting on California returning more than 30 representatives in perpetuity. I have the utmost faith that the Tea Party impact on the Republican primaries will produce a thoroughly unelectable candidate as long as s/he faces BHO. The only thing which could propel a Palin into the White House would be a loony lefty topping the Democrat slate. Then again, maybe what the left really deserves is a veto-proof Republican house and filibuster-proof Republican senate to go with an ardently progressive Democrat president - the recipe for a first term lame duck.

- hrlngrv

January 6, 2011 at 5:13pm

Kilgore is preparing Progressives for another 6 years of "lost in the forest" representation by weak-willed Democrats and Progressive members of Congress? Where was he in 2000-2008? I've pretty much spent the last 20 years since I came of age to vote lamenting & railing against the seemingly futile efforts for and voting exercises of progressive politics in this nation of dunces. It seems that for every piece of progressive legislation that is passed for the general welfare of the American citizenry, there are swaths of anti-progressive positions taken to undermine positive changes to maintain the negative aspects of the status quo. HCR anyone? To think that the aging population that has been witness to radical changes in America and the world abroad over the last 30 years would go gently into that good night is foolish thinking. That the current group of Randian economic hustlers called Tea Partiers and the shallow, narcissistic GOP would spend the next two election cycles trying to undo the biggest amount of progressive policies that have been enacted in 30 years & signed by Obama into law does not surprise me. Call me crazy for repeating the same voting pattern for 20 years and pulling a lever for progressive candidates but I consider these foolish moments as acts of defiance and acts of conviction against a myopically focused portion of our country that is hell bent on reaping great rewards on the backs of regular people and using fear and disinformation to convince a vast number of Americans to vote the way they do. I'm almost ready to throw my hands up (yet again) and wait for folks to realize that the modern GOP and the Tea Party have no desire or interest in acting for the benefit of America's long term future and only act for their own narrowly defined version of America that serves their selfishness. Then when people realize that far-right radicalism isn't so "center or common sense" after all and then vote in a new Democratic President, we can repeat this same process for the next 60 presidential election cycles.

- singlspeed

January 6, 2011 at 5:27pm

Ray -think we've already seen this. Obama's tax deal with repubs broke the dam of United oppositio with their ranks. This cleared th wAy for DADT, STARt, and9/11 bill. This is a time to choose battles carefuly.

- CAMtwo

January 6, 2011 at 5:30pm

Pete Beck, my good man, respectfully, I couldn't disagree with you more. The facts are these: Health care reform. That's a big fucking fact right there. Not in the FDR mold? Social Security was chicken feed when it passed. Obama has finished what FDR started. It's the Biggest Big Fucking Deal, the biggest-titted progressive accomplishment anyone with a liberal conscience has had the pleasure to behold since Medicare. Obama led the liberal agenda out of the wilderness and scored, right there, a major victory that nobody could before, even the most "experienced" savvy operator, and he stuck to it when everyone was saying no, give up, you can't do it, Fox and Beck and Tea fuckers have you in a corner, fight another day, etc. I say, thank you very much Mr. President; God bless you; so should you. Regarding your second point, Wall Street, blah, blah, bullshit. He passed financial reform. Not perfect, but what he could get. Are you exercised about bailouts? They worked! Are you exercised about saving the domestic fucking auto industry from the wrecking ball? That worked too! I might buy a fucking Chevy! He's busy saving the country's ass, and you're pissed that Wall Street isn't facing Nuremberg trials. Asinine. "Third," you say, "Obama doesn't seem to understand that it is possible to stand by your principles and compromise, letting it be known that the compromise was only out of necessity and that the principles stand. This may be his character -- compromise, splitting the difference seems to be in fact his basic principle." This is the part that really inspired the free use of profanity. That's *exactly what he did* on the tax cut deal -- let it be known that the compromise was only out of necessity and that the principles stand. He's always doing that. Trick is, you have to listen, instead of wallowing in liberal self-pity. He said the Republicans were "hostage takers" for chrissake. I don't think he could have been more clear. Meanwhile, pulling a fucking rabbit out of a hat, he bought millions more jobs, not to mention 13 months of unemployment and cash in the pockets of the "most vulnerable among us" in the form of refundable credits in a second stimulus that was so crafty that Krauthammer & Co. didn't even realize until, like, *days* afterward that, double-u, tee, eff, question mark, the president just rode the Tea Party revolt to another trillion dollar stimulus, which, by the way, ushered in the Greatest Lame Duck Show on Earth, including repealing DADT -- guess liberals won't have that supposed "broken promise" to kick around anymore -- and getting Start 2 passed, linchpin of his understandably precarious foreign policy (i.e., nicey to Russia = mean to Iran), mired as it is, in eight years of neocon wreckage. Unemployment will start to turn around, thanks to his dastardly compromises -- "a point or two" is a big news -- and he'll look sun-drenched. It's all perception, the trends will look golden, and the chatter will be music to the WH's ears. Not even Bill was as popular as Obama is now at this time. Time will tell, a lot can happen, but things are hardly in the shitter, and I would say that this "inexperienced" dude has outfoxed a lot of foxes, even Fox, notwithstanding the fact that he has stubbornly declined to feed liberals' insatiable appetite for goose bumps with sufficient regularity. Wasn't it Mario Cuomo who said you don't govern with goose bumps? He also said, you have to kiss business ass, which really could open the floodgates, as business is being rather anal retentive at the moment, with all its job-creating billions stuck up its collective asshole. (Hence the devil Bill JPM SBC OMG Daley.) The "sad" fact is that liberals think that if only people understood their undeniable righteousness, their pristine rationality, if only it were *explained* to them by a liberal messiah, then the Kingdom of Heaven would be upon us, and the Left Behind types would be left behind. The problem is that people are stupid, by which I mean the precious flowers, bless them, naturally don't have the *time* to fully grasp the rudimentary particulars of any argument on any side of any issue of monumental public importance. Meanwhile, the other side, for its part, has some damn fool things to yell of its own, i.e. "You Lie!," and the media is scrupulously studied in the practice of presenting both sides of the question of whether the earth is flat. He's doing fine. Get with the program.

- JakeH

January 6, 2011 at 11:13pm

I'm just hoping Captain Blubberpants leads them down the wrong path out of Washington.

- Nusholtz

January 6, 2011 at 11:21pm

Sorry, JakeH, you are off the mark across the board: Obama's accomplishments, which I do acknowledge, were at a time of almost unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House (under the leadership of ultra liberal Pelosi) and Senate (under the leadership of Reid, with a 95% ADA rating). Those majorities were by and large because of the voters rejection of the policies of George Bush and friends. His failure is primarily a failure of leadership, a failure to bring any coherent and persuasive message to the public about what he has been doing and what he intends to do, with the result that the public in the 2010 elections overwhelmingly rejected him and his party. Perhaps you are unaware of what has been happening during his watch at a time when his party controlled the House and the Senate: The concentration of wealth in the top two or three percent of the population continues. Unemployment has become much worse than it was when he took office. We are engaged in an endless war in Afghanistan which we can't win and even Obama is unable to defend. Our trade deficit continues, the educational accomplishments of our students are far behind those of our economic competitors, the war on drugs is a costly failure in both human and monetary terms, millions have lost their homes to foreclosure, middle class incomes for those who are working are stagnant, and the federal budget deficit is skyrocketing at a time when taxes for the highest income earners are at record lows. And, yes, the bankers who got us into the financial mess have received huge bonuses and incomes underwritten by federal bailout money. China, our major creditor, continues to eat our economic lunch and we send billions and billions to Middle Eastern monarchies who return the favor by supporting terrorism abroad and repression at home. Iran and North Korea continue to develop nuclear weapons. And our military is stretched across the globe, spending as much each year as the rest of the world combined. I challenge you to go into any lower income neighborhood of the country and return with stories of what Obama has accomplished -- simply because there is nothing to report. I challenge you to ask a diverse group of voters what Obama stands for and I know you will hear not a report, pro or con, of the message spoken by him but rather stories created by others (from Fox News to the NYTimes, etc.) to fill the gap because -- and yes I repeat myself -- he has no coherent message of his own. The voters sense that something is wrong and voted against the party in power. Their reactions may pain you but the basis of their reaction should be something to concern you. In a nutshell, Obama is a poor leader at a time when we need a great leader. Essentially a failure as president. Sorry, but that's how I see it, and I have never been a knee jerk lefty or "progressive" (whatever that word means) but rather a rank and file moderate Democrat in word and action.

- PeteBeck

January 7, 2011 at 2:54am

So what does Kilgore want/expect progressives actually TO DO? Close our eyes and think of mother England? Fuck that. I don't see anything wrong about his analysis of the likely electoral outcomes but what ticks me off is the implication that we on the left should just suck it up, take a Xanax and forgive Obama for being lame. NO! The whole reason progressive politics is in such a slough is because of twenty years of triangulation, of progressive politicians pretending they aren't and Democratic Party organizations nominating candidates who aren't progressive at all, candidates who in another era would have been mainstream Republicans. I'm with drofnats; from a progressive standpoint there would be little to be lost and something to be gained if Obama lost his reelection bid--a result that I recognize is fairly unlikely. If Kilgore is right that nothing positive will happen for the next six years, then wouldn't it be better if a Republican president could cop the blame?

- AaronW

January 7, 2011 at 4:52am

There is another scenario -- that the American people will finally figure out that Republicans are idiots. They're off to a good start.

- actorney

January 7, 2011 at 12:19pm

Pete Beck, well we're on different planets. I'm on Earth. Have a nice day.

- JakeH

January 7, 2011 at 2:15pm

Jake, you may be on Earth -- as I am, you will be astounded to learn -- but you have little idea about what is going on here or how to exchange ideas about the little you may know, other than to toss out what in a more innocent time we used to call the "f word" and similar words and toss insults rather than meet points. You earlier told me to get with the program -- but you have no idea what the program is. Mindless followers like you are why the good guys frequently lose. Your comments about the public's low intelligence are what the shrinks call projection, and you are a waste of time. Have any kind of day you choose.

- PeteBeck

January 7, 2011 at 2:45pm

Oh Pete, take it easy. One is permitted to get worked up on occasion. I've commented here for a million years. I'm not a "mindless follower." I offered many arguments before. Chief among them is my mystification that liberals -- or whatever you are -- don't give Obama credit for the biggest liberal accomplishment since Medicare. To me, it's cause for extended celebration and some benefit of the doubt -- hardly verdicts of "failure" and urgent cries for a primary challenger. Sure, you grudgingly "acknowledge" that accomplishment, though you credit Democratic majorities and George Bush. And yet, many of those Democrats are conservative or come from conservative districts or states. You can't get big Democratic majorities -- or big Republican majorities -- without ideological diversity within the party. All that happened in '08 is that the Democratic Party became, for a time, an even bigger tent, because it was a time of D box-checking. Besides, the margin in Our Stupid Senate, which requires 60 votes to do anything, was razor-thin. Obama had a choice on health care reform. When the going got tough, as it was sure to get, he could have given up as many advised, but he didn't. The reform is not perfect, but it is very, very, very good. I maintain that the bailouts worked, albeit without enough pain among rich bastards. Yes, if I had my druthers, we would fix everything -- and we could fix everything -- by focusing like a laser on rich bastards. And yet that's simply not politically possible. That's what I mean when I say that I'm on Earth. The major, most urgent problem domestically is jobs, I think we can agree. In that light, the hated tax cut deal was a good deal. Once again, there's a lot of concern that the fiscal stimulus we've done was not big enough or efficient enough and contained too many give-aways to rich bastards. And yet that was the price, and I think Obama is to be praised for, as I said, pulling a rabbit out of a hat during the lame duck. The lame duck was not only the most productive lame duck in memory, but the entire Congress was the most productive Congress in memory, and a lot of good things got done. Many of these good things got done with the effective help and focus of the White House. I'm not sure there's much more to be done fiscal-stimulus-wise. It would be nice if he could pull another rabbit out of a hat in a budget deal, but that just may not be possible, and he might have to focus on corporate tax rates, which, I'm not convinced, is a horrible thing to look at. My hope, which is a reasonable one, is that the jobs picture will decisively show hopeful trends come 2012. Your main thesis seems to be that if Obama had showed better "leadership" -- which you conflate with having a "message" -- then everything would be fine and easy. I'm more skeptical of that than you are. I think there's a tendency to overestimate the bang for the buck one gets with rhetoric and to underestimate structural factors which just about dictated heavy losses in the midterms -- maybe not as big as they would have been with better jabber from the WH, but very big nonetheless. I think that if you ask struggling people what Obama has done for them, you're right that they might not know. That's partly his fault, and it's partly theirs, and it's partly the other sides'. The fact is, of course, he's done a lot -- namely health care reform and the tax cut and tax credit and benefits deals in both stimulus packages that basically just put money in their pockets. Hard to come up with more direct help than that. It's sadly true that most people don't know most things. Sorry if that fact offends your sensibilities. In our media landscape, it's difficult to get the plain truth out there, and people, sadly, tend to respond to bullshit more than facts and rational argument and tend to be very stubborn, emotional, and rigid in their thinking. Yes, the wealth and income distribution in this country is obscene, but Obama can't undo that. That would require radical changes. He can't even use the word "distribution," lest he be seen as a socialist. I don't have a strong opinion about Afghanistan, because I think we're screwed every which way. He promised in the campaign to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, which is exactly what he's doing, but it may be that getting out of Afghanistan too is the right move. I'm just not as sure of that as some of my friends. I don't like the Taliban or terrorists either. So, in short, I think Obama deserves more credit than he gets for what he's done, which includes, as I said, finally fulfilling the last promise of the New Deal. Predictions of his political demise seem very shortsighted given his continuing popularity in tough economic times and after the bruising midterms. He may owe some of that continued popularity to his style, so loathed among fed-up liberals, which is non-confrontational.

- JakeH

January 8, 2011 at 11:46am