I’m not going to pretend to know what the outcome of the special election in Massachusetts last night “meant”, I’ve got too much on my plate trying to organize a rally to keep my own government accountable. But there were two thoughts that occurred to me last night as I finished up the night’s activities that involved me questioning assumptions and beliefs I had previously held.
The first thought arose from reading the following quote by Andrew Sprung, linked to by Andrew Sullivan, about Webb’s comments around health care reform following Scott Brown’s win,
We have one party that has not got the brains to govern. Will we now learn for certain that we have another party that hasn’t got the guts?
It doesn’t strike me as entirely fair to suggest that this failure to recapture Kennedy’s seat and the potential failure of health care reform is due to Democrats being “gutless”. Rather, I think what it points to is the fact that the Democratic Party is a deeply divided institution and those divisions lie along significant fault lines of principle about what it means to be a “liberal” today.
To some degree, it seems like the country was waiting for the great liberal wave to sweep over it, bringing with it reform and goodness and prosperity from the wretched ways of Bush and Cheney. And, in fact and contra to what I have argued in the past, I think that is what the country probably needed. People like Paul Krugman and the League’s own former Freddie deBoer were right in suggesting that the stimulus actually didn’t go far enough, Erik was right in suggesting that the tepid approach to the banks and financial institutions didn’t cut deep enough, and Mark was right that health care reform wasn’t spearheaded strongly enough.
But I find it hard to escape the fact that Democrats were never poised to offer that sweeping change. The Democratic Party of 2009 is simply not the same as FDR’s Democratic Party of 1933, no matter how many analogies to The Great Depression the political chattering class made. There is a not significant proportion of the Party that fundamentally disagrees with the idea of sweeping liberal reforms that might have shored up increased confidence and strength in the Party. Ben Nelson and Jay Rockefeller are very different liberals and to think that they would be able to come together to offer a strong and united front of reform for the country just doesn’t seem particularly realistic. In fact, realistically speaking, they belong in different parties, but that’s not the state of play on the ground.
It seems to me, as has been noted, that those systemic divisions, aggravated by the dust kicking, fist shaking, garment rending of Republicans and conservatives, that hampered the Democrats from truly reforming the country, not gutlessness.
My second thought wends its way back to Barack Obama. I know that Andrew himself doesn’t want to lay any blame on the President’s door step and believes that the hopes of country rest upon Obama’s shoulders,
I know now more than ever before why I could never be a Democrat and feel it vital to defeat the current Republican nihilism. Which leaves me with Obama. This is a critical moment. How he responds will be everything. I think there is a response and that, oddly enough, his chances of re-election in 2012 just rose. He must not return to Clintonism. He must reignite the center around him. More thoughts on how he can forthcoming.
I’m having a harder time with both those issues. Following from the thought above, it is precisely because Obama isn’t what Republicans and conservatives have endeavored to label him — an unabashed liberal — that he has, from the outset, not been the guy to lead the kind of sweeping reform that I am increasingly coming around to the idea that the country needed. Campaign slogans aside, Obama is and always has been a cautious pragmatist, sweeping and passionate reform isn’t his bailiwick, it doesn’t wear well on him.
My own abiding support for Obama was based in no small measure on precisely the kind of unifying, consensus building, beyond the politics of yore messaging that underwrites Andrew’s continued beliefs. I continue to deeply admire all of those traits in Obama, but I’m no longer sure they were the right traits for this time in American politics.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that that, given the substantial divisions in the Party and the seeming kamikaze trajectory of Republicans, that Democrats needed a very hard nosed President, someone who was ruthless, would take no guff, could rally the troops, and was prepared to come in and do some heavy lifting from day one. I think a quick gut check will tell you that Barack Obama is not that kind of President.
In terms of the reform analysis above, the obvious candidate would have been John Edwards and while I don’t know how hard nosed and heavy lifting John Edwards is or would have been, I do know that he never stood a chance in the primaries. The candidate who did stand a chance, who is unfailingly hard nosed, can be utterly ruthless, does not take any guff, is capable of rallying the troops, and, I think, would have done some heavy lifting from day one was Hillary Clinton — who is, it is worth noting, doing an almost textbook perfect job in Secretary of State right now.
Am I throwing Obama under the bus by saying that? I don’t think so.
Barack Obama is an incredibly smart and talented politician, he has a nuance and analysis to him that is almost unmatched, he is, in many regards, the President of the future. But what I am saying is that I’m beginning to consider the idea that being the President of the future, doesn’t make you the President of the present. The current state of Democrats is causing me to consider how that is the case and how Hillary Clinton, someone I made a conscious and active (as active as a Canadian can get with US politics) decision not to support, might have resulted in a different and better outcome all around.
Part of the heavy lifting and hard nosed approach that I think this point in US politics requires is a clearing of debris, of hammering through issues, of making some gains in some key areas no matter the fervor so that someone like Barack Obama can emerge out of the rubble. But Obama can’t be the guy that both shakes things up and puts them back together. It isn’t practical strtegically speaking and he isn’t a shaker tempermentally speaking. And so the message that it wasn’t the right time for a Barack Obama presidency may well have been spot on, not in terms of whether Obama himself was ready — I believe he is and was — but in whether the country was ready, which it increasingly appears it wasn’t.
None of this is definitive and so should not be taken as such, it is as much me thinking out loud as anything. And it feels weird to say, but as a die-hard Obama supporter in the election to the Clinton supporters out there: you might have been right and we might have been wrong.
Burt Likko 
Will Truman 
Teacher 
Mary 
James K 
Jaybird 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 57 comments }
I think people are putting far too much emphasis on this loss.
See our full thoughts here:
http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/01/the-message-our-elected-officials-should-have-gotten/
I would note it isn’t only Democrats who are feeling “buyer’s remorse” right now- this piece by a libertarian expresses some of the same sentiment.
http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/01/scott-brown-the-wopr-and-why-i-just-might-be-retahdid/
“Obama is and always has been a cautious pragmatist”
This is an article faith amongst ye ordinary people. But, seriously, this is an assertion. By what confidence are you assured of its accuracy?
Matt, I’d invite you to roll out any examples of daring or audacious acts Obama has undertaken since stepping into the White House. The tire tracks on us poor homos are a testament to the milquetoast nature of his “fierce advocacy” on our behalf. Pretty much his every act has been very pragmatic and cautious. Look at his cabinet; his Sec of Defense pick, his Sec of Treasury pick, his Sec of State pick. Look at his legislative moves. Instrumentalist would be generous to be honest, he’s barely moved left at all. Do you have any data points that don’t jive with cautious and pragmatic?
replace instrumentalist with incrementalist. Stupid spell checker.
There are them what argue that Obama has had the most successful first year in history. Or, at least, them what were arguing that until recently.
Yeah, when the CR report came out about how President Obama was more likely to get what he wanted from Congress than his predecessors, for a second there I thought well I guess he’s pretty accomplished. Then, I remembered it’s because he gets the bills written then asks for what’s in them, rather than the other way around.
So when you retrospectively create a checklist for success you can, in fact be successful. Which I do when I make weekly to do lists halfway through the week and start by listing the things I have done.
Fair enuff Jay but you can be a cautious and pragmatic president and still be successful. Especially when coming up to bat after Bush Minor not only struck out but knocked the umpire out with the bat while he was at it.
Hey, *PLEASE* don’t think that I am defending Hurricane W Hitlerburton.
There are Obamesque cheerleaders out there who cheer him in the first sentence for the breadth of his vision and with the second with the amount of success he’s achieved. Mainstream (if you want to consider Sullivan mainstream, of course) cheerleaders.
Personally, I wonder how many of his opinions reflect any deal he may have made following his weed bust last summer… because he didn’t used to be quite this… what’s the term… dismissive of things that were happening.
But that’s probably another post entirely.
I don’t know about since the inauguration but when he was back in the Senate, he crossed the aisle and worked with Dick Lugar on nuclear arms control. Ooohh…feel the maverick-y, audacious bipartisanship. I still get goosebumps to this day.
Did you actually watch Hillary’s campaign? She’s smart and a hard worker, but she couldn’t manage her staff, and she wasn’t much of a judge of ability or character. And Clinton would probably have not had the same grace period that Obama did.
I don’t regret my vote at all. Obama has made some good decisions and some bad ones, but very few insane or ignorant ones. His PR strategy needs modulation, for sure. The major problem is that the Democratic Party is still, sadly, mostly a party of Clinton-era hacks. Pelosi and Obama are worthy leaders, that is all.
Pelosi is a bad joke.
So is Reid. But the country may actually be blessed with his absence after the Nov. elections. The same can almost certainly not be hoped in Pelosi’s case.
I was an Edwards supporter in the primaries, so I got my buyer’s remorse out of the way early.
I was also a not-McCain supporter, and I’m still feeling pretty good about that one.
Hillary has bigger nuts than Obama…I’ll buy that! I think you guys are in deep doo. You’ve awaken the center-right masses and they ain’t happy (Democrats losing in Taxechewsetts of all places!!!!!). The grassroots RIGHT is NOT going to have any trouble getting their people to the polls!
What is critical is the Big O’s reaction. What will the commie-dems do? Got any recommendations for the Enlightened One?
Well Thanks Scott me lad. I almost sprayed water all over my screen when you mentioned John Edwards but once you actually moved away from the party destroying thought your points on ol Hill-Dawg seemed fair to me.
I don’t think that Hillary would have let the Republicans lead her around the yard quite like Obama did. Considering his oratory I suppose it was inevitable he was going to be played for a chump by someone. It’s probably a good thing that it was merely his own opposition party rather than say a foreign actor who actually meant the country harm. Hillary also, it is safe to say, would not likely have left the authoring of the HCR bill entirely in the hands of Congressional and Senate leaders so it is possible that the resulting legislation would not have been quite so ugly and the process would have moved quicker. Now doubtlessly we’d have different complaints about her and my faith was a bit shaken by how poorly her staff were managed in her campaign but her stint as Sec. Of State has reassured me. But it would be fascinating to imagine where Hillary would be at now (especially if she had Obama as Veep).
I imagine that had HRC gotten the nomination, she would have had shorter (but certainly not non-existent) coattails than Obama.
This means that the Senate might have been, oh 44-56 rather than 40-60 (Coleman, specifically, Spectre, tentatively). Health Care Reform would have been handled much differently, I reckon. Vice-President Obama would have excelled in his role as “campaigner-in-chief”. It would have been his job to sell the American People on this, that, or the other. He also would have been the unofficial majority whip in the Senate.
Republicans would go apeshit, of course… but we knew that when “we” voted for her. We’d already played the Republicans vs. Clintons game before. The First Husband would do a great job of saying something juuust this side of having two meanings and the Republicans would jump on the second and make themselves look like fools all over again.
But the Mandate that Hillary had would be apparent to the Senate and Hillary, having learned the lessons of 1993-1994 would not repeat them… while the Republicans, having forgotten the lessons of 1994, would go along without understanding why the “Second Contract With America Seriously This Time” didn’t resonate.
I reckon.
Yeah Jay, I agree pretty much on all points. Even the Senate. She’d have won I’m certain but I don’t know who she’d have inspired so short coat tails makes perfect sense. To be frank I’m not sure how willing she’d have been to spend on the stimulus though, if she had healthcare in her sights she might have soft peddled it or blown it off entirely to keep her powder dry. That might mean the economy would have looked even worse now and of course we’d all be grumbling about the unitary executive she is.
But in any event that she didn’t get nominated is her fault as much as ours. Probably more. Oh and Penn, a thousand quatloos for the severed head of Mark Penn.
I don’t know that the economy has anything to do with “the stimulus”, at least, anything good… which, to my mind, means that I suspect that the economy would not be as bad.
But that’s probably me being crazy all over again.
Well in that case you’d probably consider that another plus then. I suspect (though don’t know) that she wouldn’t have said word one about Global Warming or Cap&Trade either. When she’s did her stint in the Senate she was notoriously mum on what she planned to do after whatever was on her plate at any given moment. I imagine it would have been shoved into a closet until her second term.
*sigh * speaking of closets I imagine she’d have done something about DADT too. She had a lot of support from the community when she ran in the primary. I’m making myself nostalgic. I was so sure up until that liscence for illegal immigrants fiasco that she was a shoe in. Hypothetical-God damn Mark Penn to hypothetical-hell.
North (& Jay), Your comments in this thread get big thumbs up from me. Esp, vis-a-vis Republicans, HRC was a known quantity and a strategic legislator. The President was/is an unknown quantity and a strategic campaigner. One of these wins elections, the other gets shit done.
Thanks Kyle. It’s good to know that unlovable ol HRC has a fan or two around these parts other than me.
Humm on further thought I just hit on one item that I believe Hillary and Obama may have parted company on very widely.
I suspect that a President Hillary would probably have flung the doors on the torture issue wide open. Unless she herself was involved in the affair (which I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest) I suspect that she would have relished the death match circus that would have ensued.
No, the more I think about it the more it sounds plausible. Appoint a bunch of special prosecutor to publicize all of the intelligence/torture stuff? Viscous and also ironic considering her own experience in the 90’s, oh yes I’m pretty sure she’d have declassified the lot of it.
The catch on this of course is that she may never have been able to look at HCR at all because she’d have been too busy launching investigations, indicting former officials and possibly arresting people and sending her AG howling like a banshee into court after them. Actually I’m not sure if I could overstate the political conflagration that we’d be talking about. HCR might have ended up pushed back a couple years, maybe even into a second term.
My mouth waters.
Well some would consider the whole unleashing political Armageddon to the exclusion of anything else a bad thing. Especially if it meant not getting any legislation done. Though now that I think about it you probably wouldn’t be one of them.
2001-2008 made me fairly nostalgic for having a Clinton in the White House, truth be told.
I hate to lose street cred but I have to say that I would have seriously thought about not voting for a third party if I could have voted for Hillary.
Oh, please…
If HRC had been the Democratic nominee, the best that would have come of it would have been McCain no longer feeling it was useful to nominate Palin as his VP. She would have stayed out on the frontier where she belongs and we’d have been spared that national distraction.
If Clinton had been elected President (and that’s not a given considering how her primary campaign was run), the last year would have been stories on Whitewater revisited and the Clenis 24/7 and nothing much else. Do you think she could have gone back at health care reform with better results than Obama? With her history?
Her 1992-1994 history? No. Her 2001-2009 history? I think so. A lot of people forget just how respected she was – especially by former political enemies when she was the junior Senator from New York.
Precisely Kyle, right on the nose. It’s easy to forget how those Republican Senators ground their teeth as they admitted she had been doing a good job. Remember how she pretty much vanished for like a year after she was elected essentially accepting the role of unimportant junior senator? The woman doesn’t stir hearts and she’s no great campaigner but she ain’t bad in the office.
I don’t question that she was respected from her time as a Senator, even begrudgingly by Republicans. I’m saying that I don’t think the Senate has as much to say about what gets done as the press does when it starts to push a narrative. Do you not remember what happened to Mr. Clinton’s second term? All attention went to the Lewinsky scandal and very little oxygen went to anything else.
I actually think the Mrs. Clinton is one of the great successes of the 2008 campaign, because she ended up exactly where she will have the greatest impact on the country. The relationships with international leaders she touted during the campaign as her experience in foreign policy have already proven valuable to her as Sec of State. Her strengths (drive, determination, steeliness, even empathy) serve her best as chief diplomat, while her weaknesses would have undermined her as an inspirational leader.
You’re right that she would have taken a tougher line with the Congress. But I’m of the opinion that one of the things that Obama is doing right (and not getting any credit for) is returning more of the responsibility for legislation to the legislators. It’s undoubtably messier and Congress hasn’t handled the extra responsibility particularly well, but I’d have thought most folks around here would appreciate a draw down of the power assumed by the Executive branch in recent history.
All things being equal, I would celebrate executive deference to the legislature even if it were more messy than efficient. Except, that’s only partially true. On national security, President Obama hasn’t exactly devolved powers assumed under President Bush and I think those matter more than who sets legislative agendas.
With respect to the legislature I think the problem is that the WH’s approach has been to set movable goal posts (particularly “bipartisanship”) and then left the details to the committees and leadership.
It’s like he took a group of children to the supermarket and said, “we’re leaving here with $100 worth of groceries and at least one vegetable. I’ll meet you at the checkout.”
Unsurprisingly, the American people are not thrilled about the prospect of Fruit Roll Ups for dinner. Or given the cultural stereotypes in this case, vegan, probiotic, organic, tofu shakes or something.
On the national security front, you’re right, though I think he will devolve more power over time. Even though he hasn’t relinquished any powers grabbed by Bush, he’s still being called a surrender monkey by a former Vice President, so there are perceptions that have to be managed. This is a belief based more on hope than anything, so I could be wrong. I just don’t think it can be rushed.
As for the WH approach to the Legislative branch, I’d have to disagree that the goalposts have been movable. If you go back and look at the legislative goals he’s set, rather than the goals others have said he set or goals people believe he would have set if he said what he “really meant”, the goals have stayed fundamentally consistent. Granted, the goals he’s put forth have been very broad and on this point your analogy is apt. I’d only argue that how else are the kids to learn you can’t survive on Cocoa Puffs and Yoo-Hoo, if they don’t struggle somewhat trying to? The traditional role of the Congress has atrophied and only Congress can do the work to get back to being a co-equal branch of the government.
yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
Having been an HRC fan for the 2008 election for the reason you stated, I hate to feel vindicated because that’s bad for the country but I do think it there’s a point here.
I felt that the post-Bush president needed to be a work horse, someone who could produce transformative accomplishments to demonstrate the competency of federal government and that America still had “it.” HRC wasn’t flashy, or terribly inspirational but she was a damn impressive Senator and while I don’t think she would’ve made a terribly uniting head of state, I do think she would’ve been an effective head of government.
If I were to disagree it’s with the idea that was ready to be President of the United States. His government is competent. That’s great. I really think that structurally, his lack of accomplishments make him more dependent on the strength and appeal of his personality and temperament. So while he may have substance, the power of his presidency resides more on his style, because his substance is such an unknown.
Mrs. Clinton had no administrative experience whatsoever, and, unlike Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was not known as a sophisticated student of social relations. What we have needed this last year is someone who had run something and someone with a head for business; which is to say someone who would recognize when he is being played by PIMCO or Goldman Sachs through their conduit, Timothy Geithner. Mrs. Clinton would not have been that person.
Someone with administrative experience…and a head for business, maybe someone with an MBA. Brilliant. Oh wait. We JUST had one of those.
If anything the last year has shown that what managing the federal government requires is not administrative expertise (that’s what secretaries in the Cabinet do) but the ability to get legislation passed through Congress, and in that regard Madam Secretary is more than sufficiently accomplished.
That the President runs things is a misconception right up there with mystical powers of economic control.
That one’s background is an asset does not guarantee that one will not make serious misjudgments. Any candidate is a pig in a poke. You do not improve your chances by disregarding salient criteria. And no, I cannot think of any legislative accomplishments I care about I would hang on Mrs. Clinton. Bill Bradley she is not. As an attorney, I do not think she would have much critical engagement with what was said to her by her subordinates on matters of finance, except that she does know something of banking law. I think Joseph Stiglitz once said that many of the polarities in intramural policy disputes are economists v. lawyers. I suspect the former are usually in the right.
I think Gerald Ford is the only President we have had in the last 70-odd years who did more good than harm but had to learn the art of public administration in the Oval Office itself. Such figures are out there, but I do not think they are particularly common.
You say here’s why she wouldn’t have been good, I say here’s why she might’ve been good. I’m making a case that things she’s done well in the past are things that America needed in a President. You say she might’ve been terrible. I’m underwhelmed but is there anything in here that doesn’t chalk up to more than our agreeing to disagree?
“I think Gerald Ford is the only President we have had in the last 70-odd years who did more good than harm but had to learn the art of public administration in the Oval Office itself.”
All is forgiven.
I still want to debate gay marriage with you, though.
I think the reports of Obama’s death are greatly exaggerated. He’s been in office a year as of today and he gets at least three more no matter what the pundits on Fox say.
That said, I think it’s a pretty sad commentary that any time is not the time for a smart, nuanced, analytical President, especially one who has worked well with the opposition in the past (Lugar, for example, or Coburn). It’s why we continue to have only empty vessels and egomaniacs apply. Seriously, why would any reasonable, considerate person want this job, when regardless of their approach or the agenda they pursue, they’re going to be called a commie or clown or coward by every armchair quarterback in the country?
No one is saying that Obama is done or toast. The point is that maybe ~maybe~ Obama could have benefited from Hillary going first and igniting some serious political warfare with the Republicans. Then Obama would come after and soothe the hurt feelings with his bipartisan balance and above it all niceness.
Hillary landed in the right place to Obama’s great credit. See above.
Oh, I remembered this article from back in 2004. Fred was my Bob Cheeks back before I found the league. He really is hysterical with Hillary. I strongly suggest reading it. It’s short.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
http://www.fredoneverything.net/WriteInHillary.shtml
Thanks Jay… the internets hate me. ;.;
I’m a fan of his too. “Oh, Grampa! The things you say!”
Exactly! He’s my liberal-ish Bob Cheeks.
Give Fred a shot of the Water of Life and they’d be twins.
You know NOrth old palsy, I had some funny stuff up above and got totally ignored…whas up wid dat?
I get it, pain!
Sorry dudes, hang in there…hey, it’s only politics…win some, lose some????
My guess, not that anyone’s asked, is that the door’s been opened a crack and now the dems aren’t going to drink the kool-aid…some will falter and when that happens the Big O’s alone in the White House…kinda like tricky dicky!
“liberal” Bob Cheeks, ….really!
Maybe it was so eloquent that we could think of nothing to add?
Oh!
Well, now you’ve made my day!
SOLD.
That was an enjoyable read, North/Jaybird.
I find fringy folks more and more interesting, anymore.
When it comes to moderates and fashionable progressives, I could probably write their essays for them and hit all of the notes that they’d likely hit.
The fringy folks? Mmmm. You never know *WHAT* they’re going to say next. (Well, unless you’ve read their last 20 essays. Then you probably could guess. They do tend to repeat themselves.)
Doesn’t everyone repeat themselves? Well, everyone who has some kind of bedrock belief system? How could such a one not repeat him or herself?
Yeah, I’ve heard that argument too. “Imagine if the guy who said ‘know thyself’ only said it once! People with stuff to say repeat themselves! How vapid must the person be who never repeats himself!”
Maybe it’s just me but I always feel sheepish when I start repeating myself and recognize it.
That was great!
While we’re on the subject of counterfactuals, I was for Fred Thompson for a period during primary season, and with the benefit of hindsight I think he would have beaten Barack Obama in a general election.
Seriously? Fred Thompson would beat Barack Obama? Are you kidding? He ran the second-worst campaign in the Republican primary race, behind only 9/11 Rudy 9/11 Giuliani 9/11.
Comments on this entry are closed.