The Personal Level. By now, it’s pretty clear that Obama the President has fallen far short of expectations voters had for Obama the Candidate. Comparisons to a first term Deval Patrick, however, are less apt perhaps than a first term Mike Dukakis. Patrick’s first year or may have been marked by goofs and gaffes that any experienced politician with a brain would have avoided. But it was Dukakis, the bloodless reformer who lost his second election bid, who possessed the Mr. Spockian disdain for politics.
In the New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Drew seems to accurately sum up Obama’s character:
Barack Obama’s personality has been much mulled over in the past two years, but it seems inescapable that his high self-esteem often slides over the thin line to arrogance, which trickles down (with some exceptions) to much of his staff, some of whom are downright rude to all but a chosen few. Obama has seemed uninterested in anyone but his immediate group, and three of the four members of his immediate circle-Jarrett, Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod-had had no experience in governing. The fourth, Rahm Emanuel, expressed himself with such flippancy, arrogance, and overuse of the F-word that he offended not just members of Congress but also would-be allies of the President….Just as Obama is described as pleased with himself, he has been treated with hero worship by much of his staff…Why should he listen to those who had doubted him? A common complaint about the Obama White House in the first two years has been that there were no “grown-ups” around, people who knew more about governing and who would tell Obama that he was wrong. When people tried to suggest someone who should be brought in, that person was rejected as “not one of ours.”
Like Obama, Patrick erred by appointing Nancy Fernandez Mills and Joan Wallace-Benjamin to posts requiring political savvy and experience they unfortunately lacked. The Governor’s office, thankfully, is not as cut off as the White House, and the Governor, to his credit, understands people well enough to make the necessary adjustments. Those old enough to remember Dukakis’s first term will remember his politically fatal understanding of Beacon Hill politics that resulted in his lost re-election bid to political hack Ed King. President Obama is clearly not the man (for some, he was just short of the Messiah) Democrats thought they were supporting.
The Party Level.Nationally, the Democratic Party has been a group of cave men and women–people ready to cave in at any moment. It didn’t take a genius to figure out that the Iraq War was a bad idea. At the very least, the Dems (His Expediency John Kerry would have been President, if he had done so) owed the country principled opposition. At the very least, the country deserved to hear a debate. Instead, the Dems caved. That’s been our Party’s modus operandi for the last 30 years. The Democratic Congressional Congress’s opposition to Obama’s tax deal is the first time in memory where elected Democrats have stood up for something they believe in. The Senate may continue to be a collective bunch of d-bags, but Democrats finally stood up for something. That’s important.
The Ideological Level. Tax cuts can be useful as an economic stimulus; that was the excuse when President Reagan first argued for tax cuts. The argument–famously characterized as voodoo economics by GHWB–was that tax cuts would expand the economy and thus pay for themselves. This weak theoretical underpinning was provided by the aptly named Arthur Laffer. Since then, the GOP has abandoned the economic rationale. It’s now tax cuts for tax cuts’ sake. The Bush tax cuts provided little economic stimulus; along with our tandem wars, they ballooned the deficit and national debt. They succeeded in transferring more wealth in the the hands of the very few. The reasons against this tax cut are ideological. Not only are congressional Democrats standing up for something they believe, they are believing in something.
We the People.The Tea Party is a largely incoherent bunch of people who are sick and tired of things and aren’t going to take it anymore. Aside from their Taxed Enough Already theme, tea partiers are pissed that their elected representatives aren’t listening to them. Democrats know the feeling, and our congress men and women, those who are closest to the people, are starting to reflect the concerns of their supporters.
Are the actions of the Congressional Democratic Caucus a bellwether? I’m starting to think so. Some folks in Washington are starting to get it. It may have taken a disappointingly out-of-touch Democratic President to get us here, but I think we’re here.
The Democrats have given up all economic arguments by opposing the tax deal that would help the unemployed. Many of the activists want all the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, even while they pooh-poohed Obama’s pay freeze for federal employees. It’s a Government First movement.
To many of us government is how society organizes itself and cares for each other. Remember by definition in a system like ours, government is OF, BY, and FOR, the PEOPLE. WE are the government through those we delegate by election to act on our behalf. Specific policies are open for criticism and debate, but to distrust government as a concept is to distrust ourselves.
Government is not administration and bureaucracy, but that is what at taxes-first philosophy engenders. At best, it creates a lack of priorities by encouraging the belief that there is a vast lake of money somewhere that waters the cash on the trees. At worst, it becomes a demanding vampire sucking th host dry.
<
p>Government is people reaching mutual priorities and decisions, and enacting them together. It’s town meeting, not state bureaucracy.
<
p>Society is organized to care for itself via family, churches, charitable & civic insitutions. Paid-For Government is only one component, and not necessarily a superior one.
Nice– you should belong to ONE Mass.
<
p>You
<
p>ONE Mass
<
p>
Cannot be a democratic organization. I have seen the democratic party pay lip service to everyone, and that is all they did. Once you got the votes, you cry “sucker” ignore everyone for another four years.
John Kerry was right: The voters are stupid!
to be sharing your wonderfully colorful dyspepsia with everyone. How cute you are!
<
p>Hugs and kisses,
KBush
Haven’t heard a democrat make this argument in nearly fifty years
Without raising the debt ceiling in this deal, why on Earth would you just not expect Republicans to take equally massive cuts to other, important social programs? They could literally de-fund government if they want — without raising the debt ceiling to this deal, we’re not solving any of our problems. We’re just masking them, and maybe even making them worse down the road.
<
p>—
<
p>We can pass the damn thing on its own if we actually challenge the Republicans on it — even in the next session. They don’t want to be seen as the party that made people homeless around the holidays. The last time they stood up against unemployment benefits, they were lambasted around the country and quickly gave in. It just takes a willingness to fight and appeal to the American people — and if we do, the Republicans will fold. If we allow ourselves to be held hostage over an extension — that we’d take on $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires for franks and beans — it’s like being held hostage with a plastic salad fork. No thanks.
Economist J. Bradford DeLong’s talk Battered but not and beaten feels relevant here on economic policy.
Great link…very interesting read.
they took a shellacking standing up for our Cave In and Chief and aren’t willing to take it again. They’re smart enough to know that they have to do what’s in their best interest, which is going to far more accurately reflect the people’s best interest than an aloof President who not only doesn’t respect other peoples’ opinions, but disdains them.
<
p>Thankfully, there’s very few Blue Dogs left in the caucus to muck things up anymore, so we’ll be able to have a competing narrative to the House GOP. Just as thankfully, what few Blue Dogs there are left aren’t willing to walk the President’s plank anymore, because the President did nothing to shield them the first time around… so they’re not just going to go along with the President on everything, particularly because they probably view the President as political poison. Given that the President is going to be doing the Republican’s bidding over the next 2 years, that’s probably not such a bad thing.
<
p>You recognize thats why we are not in the majority anymore right? I would rather a Democratic majority than a Republican one any day of the week, at least with a Democratic majority the conservatives are a minority, and are only conservative on fiscal issues. I think its preposterous for you to argue this was a good thing. It makes about as much sense as Stalin purging his generals, sure the army was now full of loyalists, but it was also smaller and less effective when war broke out. There are no progressive left of center Democrats that would take the place of blue dogs that lost, only significantly more conservative and right wing Republicans. The lefts two favoriate pariahs, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson were key in getting widespread bipartisan support to repeal DADT. Compromise and the art of the possible goes by another name: governing. Would you rather be inside at the table making deals or outside frozen out of the process entirely?
<
p>The greatest mistake Obama made was giving up on holding the majority around August and then backpedaling on that in October. Had he and his massive operation started working day one I am confident we would’ve defended key districts and the Senate seat in Il and across the country. He also should have led the Congress and the blue dogs instead of the other way around. But at this point, the choice was either get a tax deal that made progressive concessions while we were still in power, or let the next, right wing Congress, dictate the terms. And they would’ve gleefully killed COBRA, unemployment, 9/11 assistance, and any government help to those hurting. And the people hurting would’ve been led by Fox News and the right wing spin machine to blame the President. Instead he averted a true disaster for the country and for his own re-election prospects, while also forcing a situation where the rabid right wing base bithced at their leaders for a change instead of the other way around. This was the most productive lame duck Congress ever and we have accomplished more in two months than the Bush led Congress did in six years. Do I wish he started out saying “No Deal” and then forcing the Republicans to move to his middle instead of moving to the middle at the gate and then being forced to move all the way to the right on taxes, of course I do. But if you believe there would be a left of center government if only this President fought for it you are off your rocker.
Except when a bunch of the Democrats are conservatives, and do stuff like block health-care reform because of their imaginary abortion issue, or desire for pork, or whatever.
<
p>Also, I do not see Ryan arguing that losing the Dem majority “was a good thing.” He’s saying that it does clarify the relative positions of the two parties, and that there are opportunities in that.
<
p>I don’t care if the Democrats have a majority if they don’t use it to make life better for the citizens of this country. If they wind up rewarding the already fortunate, and do little or nothing for the average person, they don’t deserve to be in power. If their ‘compromises’ are surrenders, what’s the point of their being in office?
Blue dogs are fiscally conservative, socially moderate Dems. Some, like Jim Cooper of Tenn, and Spratt are serious budget hawks and had legitimate concerns about the price tag, some like Lincoln voted against it to save their necks. And there is a difference there. But many of them were principled and many others came from areas where it was very unpopular. And I am saying we cannot have a majority that gets legislation passed if we say nobody but the most pure liberal can join the tent. Then its a pretty small tent. Again what better progressive would be elected in their place? A blue dog beats a Republican any day of the week, and in most cases, they are the best Dem you are going to get.
Nobody is saying that. Stop with the straw men.
Use this link to tell why you think it was a bad idea for Sen. Brown to insist on the extension of the tax cuts for the highest bracket.
What seems particularly odd about the behavior of the national Democrats is that the electorate gives them little credit for compromising. For example, if that really were a successful strategy, Ms. Lincoln would have won re-election.
<
p>Republican campaigns are happy to paint Democrats as doctrinaire liberals.
First point is I think any Democrat running for office anywhere in the country should get used to the fact that the right wing will call them liberals, terrorists, and Obama’s best buddy no matter how you vote (and if you a triple amputee war veteran Osama’s buddy as well). And it is the responsibility of that Democrat to fight back and fight hard on areas where they agree with the President instead of running away from him.
<
p>That said, my second point is that it is also foolish for the left to expect ideological purity out of every Democrat in office, particularly those from conservative districts and areas. The key is to get the best Democrat you can possibly get. Stephanie Herseth was such a Democrat on a host of social issues, even if she was a fiscal conservative who voted against health care reform. Her replacement will be conservative on every issue and her voice will be missed. Guys like Steve Lynch or Dan Lipinski though, should be primaried and voted out, but they have been consistently every two years and their districts still return them overwhelmingly so maybe that too, is a waste of time.
<
p>And my final point is that Obama and the left need to recognize the point of compromise. It really should be a weapon of last resort when you can’t accomplish anything any other way. The tax cut deal, imo, was such a compromise. Health care reform and financial reform didn’t need to be. Those were bills that were watered down way too much to get some token Republican support so they could be ‘bipartisan’, which ended up being politically useless. Compromising when you have no other alternative is the hallmark of good governance and many Presidents understood this and did this quite brilliantly. But no President, if they had the votes to get what they wanted done, would do anything else. Except this President who believes in a fantasy that bipartisanship is somehow a goal that gets you political dividends. It doesn’t if all it does is water down what you could’ve got done and make you look indecisive. And in the case of the tax deal, it makes necessary compromises look unnecessary since the base and your opponents will assume you’re a push over. To get out of this mess the President should stand strongly and firmly on areas where there can be no compromise, like he did recently with DADT and START.
I’m reminded of how Kerry always seemed to be adjusting where he stood on the left-right scale. As if there were a sweet point, maybe 47% liberal, that would guarantee electoral success.
<
p>Trouble is, it doesn’t work. It’s too complicated.
<
p>Likewise, one has difficulty imagining that Senator Lincoln’s numerous pro-corporate stands would have deep resonance in Arkansas and somehow could save her from being perceived as liberal.
<
p>I don’t want to see purity from Democrats. I want to see clarity. Please, Senators, take principled stands that can be backed with convincing narratives.
And again I think we both want more populist candidates, and she probably could’ve kept her positions on social issues while running to the left on economics and won. I think the party has been too afraid to run on the left on economics, but I think the country is turning in that direction with trust for corporate America at an all time low. Might as well give em hell.