JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 21, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
First Read wades into the debate over liberal disappointment with the Obama presidency:
When the liberal blogosphere confab, Netroots Nation, kicks off tomorrow in Las Vegas, it will inevitably further the "Why are progressives disappointed in Obama?" storyline. In the past few months, liberal commentators have bemoaned that the public option wasn’t included in the health care law, that the financial reform legislation -- which President Obama will sign into law today -- isn’t strong enough, and that Gitmo still isn't closed. The Nation's Eric Alterman even penned a widely discussed essay explaining these disappointments on a system that's stacked against progressives. But here is something to consider: It's the country -- not the system -- that's stacked against liberals and progressives.
From 1989 (after Reagan's presidency) to now, the most stable data in the NBC/WSJ poll has been that roughly one-fifth of the country identifies as being liberal, while one-third identifies being conservative. Even in 2008, when Obama decisively won the presidency, the average in the poll was 25% liberal, 36% conservative. And in 1996, when Bill Clinton easily won re-election, it was 22% liberal, 34% conservative. For Democrats, this means that if they want to win national elections, they need to win about 60% of the self-described moderate vote -- which Obama did in '08 and congressional Dems did in '06, per the exit polls. By comparison, however, John Kerry got 54% of the moderate vote in 2004.
So the bigger question for Democrats and liberals shouldn't be: "Why isn't Obama's presidency more progressive?" Instead, it should be: "Why isn't the country more progressive?" During the '08 presidential campaign, Obama declared (controversially at the time): "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." He was correct. And progressives -- as well as historians -- might better judge Obama 10 to 15 years from now, whether his administration was able to bend the trajectory of American politics like Reagan did after '88.
They're onto something here, but the truth is a little more complicated than this. First, ideological self-identification is a very poor tool for describing voter beliefs. Elites understand the bucket of issue positions that fall into categories like "liberal" and "conservative," but research shows that most people don't. And the relative numbers of self-identified liberals and conservatives often bounces up and down in ways that don't seem to reflect actual changes in the public opinion landscape.
Second, liberals do have strong and deep advantages on many enduring public policies issues -- Social Security and Medicare, the minimum wage, regulation of business, progressive taxation, and others. (Conservatives tend to fare better on social issues and foreign policy.) So public opinion can't be the sole or even primary explanation for the lack of liberal success, especially on issues where liberals have a strong advantage.
But: conservatives do enjoy an advantage in abstract ideology. Americans may favor most of the things that government does, but they don't have a clear understanding of most of what government spends money on, and (as a result) they oppose government spending and regulation in the abstract. As they saw, Americans are ideological conservatives but operational conservatives. Conservatives naturally try to conduct debates over government in the most abstract terms, while Democrats try to refocus the debate on the specifics. But since most people pay only glancing attention at best to policy debates, the side that debates in the abstract has a natural advantage.
Most importantly, conservatives are able to express their ideology in sweeping abstract terms. Ronald Reagan can make a broad case against government. Barack Obama can't make a correspondingly sweeping case for government -- both because he isn't reflexively pro-government in the way conservatives are reflexively anti-government, and because making his case for government in abstract terms shifts the debate to the least friendly terrain. Obama won't win a debate about government. He can win a debate about whether derivatives should be regulated, whether people with preexisting conditions should be able to acquire health insurance, or whether taxes on people making more than a quarter million dollars are too low.
The flipside is that the Democrats' inability to debate in abstract philosophical terms freezes the status quo. You can win an appeal to the public on this program or that regulation, but the general view that government is bad remains in place.
16 comments
Surely you mean, "As they saw, Americans are ideological conservatives but operational liberals," yes?
- benjamin81
July 21, 2010 at 10:24am
Obama and Senate Democrats have not really made obvious and consistent efforts to change voter political philosophies. Obama in particular has not pushed hard for more Progressive legislation. He who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. — Abraham Lincoln — ..I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require…… — But in the event that the Congress shall fail to [act], and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe. — FDR Our times require presidential leadership that expands the range of what is possible and keeps the public engaged. Reformist presidents, at their best, capture the public sentiment and use it to push through measures opposed by entrenched interests. President Obama has taken on some very tough and complicated issues. But as a political leader, he has largely withdrawn from public engagement on those issues… In fact, he has often spoken to weaken bills dealing with those issues (stimulus package, health care, financial reform, oil spill, climate change, etc., etc.). He has also constantly deferred to conservative or corporate interests in designing bills and policies.
- drofnats1
July 21, 2010 at 11:23am
Wonderful post Mr. Chait! This is priceless: "The flipside is that the Democrats' inability to debate in abstract philosophical terms freezes the status quo. You can win an appeal to the public on this program or that regulation, but the general view that government is bad remains in place." This explains why so many seniors who get things like Social Security, Meidcare, Medicare Prescription B, etc. can say at the same time that they are "conservative." It is why so many in the GOP can't or don't want to answer specific questions on policy. It is much easier to say "Small Government." Just look at the Republican Congressmen on "Meet the Press" last week.
- MikeB.
July 21, 2010 at 11:25am
Since conservatives can't actually govern in the abstract, only in the concrete, this "advantage" tends to even out when they get into power and demonstrate their inability to follow through on their simple, abstract, anti-government philosophy.
- JEFF FREY
July 21, 2010 at 11:47am
I agree that this is an excellent post. I would also add a psychological component to the "average American" and maybe "the usual human component" to ALWAYS fall back on "one"s default belief. What do I mean. I have often debated, argued with someone about his/her idea- of any kind- showing that person that what he/she believes is "wrong". Often the person agrees with me... with my logic... BUT... at some future point, I discover that all of my "hard work/arguments" have disapeared and the person is back to their "core" beliefs. Americans in large part, I believe, because of our short history, because of all that made us the land of opportunity, have not learned the hard lessons of history that - say- Europeans have. I have other ideas as to why most Americans suffer from cognative disconnect, but that is for another day.
- nr410820
July 21, 2010 at 11:55am
Terms such as Liberal or Conservative can now be described as cultural categories much more than political and more likely to explain consumer preferences than ideological. Well put, Chait. And good comments above
- NR027810
July 21, 2010 at 12:08pm
Excellent point, NR. One of the reasons why the logical information-based arguments don't seem to work is that political identity has become like musical taste: you can't prove by logic that someone's favorite band is "wrong."
- ironyroad
July 21, 2010 at 12:13pm
The disappointment with Obama is more political than philosophical. On HCR, he and the Administration let the focus be on insuring the irresponsible (in the public's mind) uninsured, at great cost to some taxpayers, rather reforming a system that denies coverage to those who, through no fault of their own, got sick. Sure, you cannot fix the latter without including the former, but that doesn't dictate the focus. On finreg, it was Obama himself who chose the label "Volcker Rule" as a short-hand for stopping the banks from operating like casinos; let's see, "Volcker Rule" vs. "casinos", which might have greater impact to the public? Gee, Volcker Rule sounds like a bad movie starring Tom Cruise, not legislation intended to save the financial system from another calamity. I will forgo my hobby horse about a large, temporary tax cut for low to middle income earners as a means of both boosting the economy and neutralizing the Republicans. Obama is Obama, and he isn't gonna change. But he can change his close advsiors. Starting with Emmanuel, well-suited for dealing with the Democrats in Congress, but inept at creating a narrative for the President. And what greater proof is needed than a possible landslide for Republicans in November, only two years after the Republicans lead the nation into the greatest economic debacle in 80 years and a disastrous war in the middle east. Who would have ever thought?
- rayward
July 21, 2010 at 12:14pm
The Republican Right often frames the debates in terms of patriotism and standing up for America. When Obama, at least on foreign policy, and his supporters in Congress say, "It's all our fault," they turn people off. An outlook of negativity and pessimism should be ruled out of bounds in any progressive exposition of their program.
- NR114746
July 21, 2010 at 12:52pm
Is any Democrat reflexively pro-government? That's news to me. It's just that Democrats like to speak in complete sentences [i.e., "We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need. ... Our government should rise to the level where it corrects the gaps that exist by chance or by wisdom we don't fully understand."] whereas Republicans like to speak in cave man terms. [i.e., Tax cuts: Good. Big government: bad.] Which gets to a much, much larger point. Since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have framed everything as a free lunch, and encouraged Americans to become selfish. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" "Government spending on social programs causes moral hazard." "It's your money!" It's always, "What have you done for me today?" rather than "Ask not what your country can do for you ...". The really disappointing story of this President is that for all his impressive accomplishments he has that close some of the gaps left by the cruelties of the free market (i.e., health care reform; Pell Grants, Title I, Head Start, and many of the other items in the stimulus and appropriations bills), he hasn't done as much to articulate the rhetorical case for these programs. It's amazing that someone as articulate as this President has been unwilling to make consistently the moral case for these progressive ideas. That said, deeds matter far more than words, and this President certainly has done the deeds.
- jimbomoron
July 21, 2010 at 12:56pm
Is any Democrat reflexively pro-government? You have got to be kidding. My very own representative, Jim McDermott, from the 7th District in Seattle and environs is just that. So is an Ohio rep called Dennis Kucinich.
- liberal reformer
July 21, 2010 at 1:04pm
The Greenwald Fallacy is spreading on the left.
- liberal reformer
July 21, 2010 at 1:13pm
Ray, I do think that Emanuel is going to retire himself after the Midterms.
- wildboy
July 21, 2010 at 1:41pm
liberal reformer, You have a point on Dennis Kucinich. Although Jim McDermott is very, very progressive, I've never thought of him as reflexively pro-government -- meaning only the government can do any good. Pete Stark might be another example of being reflexively pro-government. But I tend to believe most Democrats -- even most House Democrats -- aren't reflexively pro-government in the way Ronald Reagan is reflexively anti-government: these Democrats are more concerned with social outcomes than with ideological solutions.
- jimbomoron
July 21, 2010 at 1:50pm
Thanks Ray. Insightful as always.
- tnmats
July 21, 2010 at 3:33pm
People aren't that stupid, and it's not that hard or long to explain. If you wanted to make the effort as a president and his party, you could surely explain that so much of what government does is good and valuable and will be underprovided by the free market, or provided inefficiently due to economies of scale, transactions costs, inability to patent and disseminate freely, etc. Most people will listen to at least the first half hour of a presidential address, especially if it's written to grab you initially and keep you -- that's plenty of time to make these points strongly and clearly, and if the President and the party wanted to they could pound on this regularly for years, decades, highlighting the good and important and necessary things of government and reminding people that there's waste in any large organization like the Tyco CEOs spending $1 million of company money on a birthday party for his wife and $5,000 on a shower curtain for his apartment. The underlying narrative can be changed with effort and skill.
- RHSerlin
July 21, 2010 at 3:56pm