There is, in the environs of the center part of the center-left, a certain wariness about Barack Obama that's been manifesting itself in the form of Beltway back-chatter and the occasional opinion piece.
"Is he naive? Does he not understand the political challenge he is inviting?" asks David Broder. In simpler terms, Broder is asking: can he really, almost unilaterally, challenge the status quo ante by mere assertion and motive force?
"I wonder if I simply cannot come to terms with the country's embrace of the Democratic platform," a top Democratic fundraiser told me. "Growing up during the 80s and 90s, when Democratic orthodoxy was a mess and not popular with the majority of the country, I wonder if I'm being way too hard on Obama, and that country is willing to embrace higher taxes on $200k + earners, massive increases in government spending, this health care "down payment."
There is absolutely a generational component to the anxiety. Three generations of Democratic activists view the possibility of Obama's election through different lenses; the first came of age in the 60s and 70s before the flowering of modern conservatism and the triumph of Nixonian resentment politics. The second rose to power with the election of Bill Clinton, and today, they approach politics with instincts as developed in the 1992 campaign and refined by Clintoncare, the government shutdown and the Monica Lewinsky affair -- careful, wily, programmatic, triangulatish, risk-averse, incremental. The third generation rejects all of that, believing that such caution kicked the legs out from under the Democratic Party. This generation rejects baby steps in favor of bold, often populist action; they reject the notion that the default liberal ideology cannot be majoritarian.
Who's right? Well, the Reagan revolution is no longer the dominant political environment. But did Americans really know what they were voting for in 2008? Didn't Democrats win the last two election's because the Republican party imploded, not because the political pendulum swung to the left.
I actually have a position on this one. I think the country is moving to the left. I think that demography and globalization are providing the momentum, and I think that, like the apparent retrogression of planets in orbit, there will be inevitably some backsliding as the
American people adjust to the new equilibrium.
The argument boils down to whether Americans knew that they were voting for the Obama Synthesis. It's hard to make the opposite case, unless they just completely ignored virtually everything Obama said in his speeches and every commercial run by the McCain campaign. Of course the Republican Party imploded. But the implosion wasn't inner directed, as if the party were some atom bomb waiting for a booster. No -- the party collapsed because it could not adapt to the intervention of major external events.
Back in the realm of the real. This morning's worse than expected GDP number throws cold water on Obama's revenue projections, and will also affect Treasury yields and interest rate costs. As the budget is debated, the worsening economy could make the deficit a lot greater and pose a headache for The White House and every Democrat up for re-election the next year. But taken against the backdrop of the change Americans voted for, the White House can spare some Tylenol.
« The Adequate's Not The Enemy Of The Middling | Main | Obama Announces Withdrawal, Says Iraq Is Not Yet Secure »
Feb 27 2009, 12:07 pm







Yes He Can!
Seriously, the public's reaction to all of this transformation has been: You lead President Obama and we'll follow!
Check out these numbers from the weekly Research 2000 poll:
http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends
It isn't just Obama's rising poll numbers - after his widely praised speech. It's the Congressional Democrats' numbers that have gone way up.
That's right. After Pelosi and Reid took all the GOP heat for "Porkulus," even the Democratic Congress's numbers went WAY up. In fact, Congressional Dems have a net positive now.
As for those bold Congressional Republicans who united to reject the stimulus and "stand up for the taxpayer" in the face of all this spending? Their numbers keeping tanking.
This recession is doing for Obama exactly what the Great Depression did for FDR. It pushes him to the left. Obama's impulse may be left-liberal, but he is actually getting substantial pressure from influential quarters to keep pushing to the left.
Deep recessions and depressions tend to discredit small government conservatism and laissez-faire free market capitalism.
I think the country has moved to the left, but I think it’s very tenuous and I don't think it’s a shift to the left on all positions. In only my personal experience (living in south Texas, in a more conservative area) people I talk to are definitely more liberal on some issues (gay marriage, free speech, gun rights, the environment, smaller military). But on two issues I get the sense that conservatives are still sticking to their core principles: taxes and health care. Even my moderate friends really do not want higher taxes and they fear that health care reform will only lead to worse care. The fight over how to reduce cost without sacrificing some level of care (an inevitable result in my opinion) will be the biggest fight of all I believe.
i actually voted for the highly pragmatic visionary technocrat. Not quite liberal gov't. More center-left. If i wanted full-throated liberalism, i'd have voted for john edwards. So long as he's mindful of the costs, the deficits and the debts, so long as it doesn't reach 60's level big gov't, i welcome it though.
.
The real problem is this merger by the dailykos dude, moulitskas and union bosses to shift elected officials to the left. That's like establishing our own rush limbaugh for the next 20 years, just as the right took control of radio, they want to rule the internet. I hope someone has the gall to challenge them in an anti-trust lawsuit, because this is gonna be stifling honest talks about the challenges we face. And i don't want a joke face like moulistkas to be the face of the democratic party. i could settle for krugman, but not this dude.
.
anyhow, enough with my rant. hopefully someone was listening.
Republican laissez-faire, trickle-down political economy has been empirically falsified by the current economic calamity. Why should we waste our breath debating it any longer? Whatever the answer to our present situation is, it is not more capital gains tax cuts and more financial deregulation. That doesn't mean that Obama's proposals for fiscal stimulus, public investment, and mild redistribution will solve the problem either, but since no one has yet offered a credible third choice it is understandable the public is going to give him a chance to find out.
In a sane world, restoring the tax rates in effect during one of the biggest economic booms in history, when all income groups - rich, middle and poor - saw income gains, would be described as moving to the center.
A lot of serious stuff happened over the last 8 years. Thousands of people were killed, we lost a major US city, we started two new wars, and our economy has essentially collapsed. If, after all that, we still haven't learned that we need a functional and competent federal government, serious investment in US infrastructure, and market oversight, there's no hope left for us.
We, with Obama's help, can and must do this. What other choices, realistically, do we have?
Who knows whether he can do it. He's been rather smart thus far in the way he's handled his agenda - he's not afraid to go directly and personally to the voters, he speaks in full sentences that people can understand, doesn't use baby words, gives it to 'em straight. They flock to the TV to watch him say it and the meters say they approve or at least appreciate. We've all seen the chart the other day - even Republicans on the street are following him at this point.
But the thing that's most heartening to me, a very progressive person of the '50s-Kennedy '60s - is that he's still saying the same things he said back in Iowa, now nearly a whole year ago. I'm sure we all recall back then he said "this is what I propose". Iowa said "yes" and kinda upset the apple cart. He kept on saying his same laundry list of generic proposals - nothing specific about how. The mobs got bigger, bigger, money flowed from the accounts of the poor (and yes, from those of the rich too), The crowds got bigger. Portland, St. Louis - places we did not expect, too. The "how" was personified by the money. If he could inspire that much money, organize that much money, maybe he knew "how". Would we take the risk to find out?
We did.
And now, he's still standing up there and saying the same things. Only now we're seeing how.
It's extremely interesting to watch.
This guy is very smart.
12 months ago the New Yorker did a little profile on how this guy plays poker. He does not play to lose.
'Economy tanking' is the real danger for Obama to pull off his Socialism. He and his Administration will have to be nimble in this regard. Treasury Secretary Geithner has not been very reassuring in this regard and looks like Obama is handicapped there. The other issue here seems to be that Obama Administration may be less open to public in listening to alternating Economic Ideas. It seems more of 'my way or highway' when it comes to Economic Policy. The way Obama is simply barreling his proposals, there is real danger that we miss genuinely smart solutions in the process and then he can not pull off his Socialism. Both Administration and FED Chief are assuming quite optimistic Economic outcome. Somebody needs to keep on 'hammering' Gibbs in daily press meetings about this disconnect - what Administration is assuming and what reality is when it comes to ‘revenue receipts of Fed’.
The other part is in today's weekly speech, Obama is indicating that he is ready for the fight. But the jury is out. Literally he and his Administration need to be obsessive and paranoid about this fight. The problem here is Obama does not have the luxury of 'smaller time window' to push his budget as like his stimulus package. Effectively there are 6 months before the budget is finalized and even if today the opposition forces are salient and dormant, they have plenty of time to gather, regroup and attack. In a war, it is always difficult to defeat an entrenched enemy on his home turf. So they say you need 1-to-4 advantage for the attacking forces to uproot the entrenched enemy on home turf. Here, we only see Obama. Where is his Cavalry?
This is quite a big fight in adverse and deteriorating economic environment. That is the reason why many had hoped that Obama would pick these battles down the line when he has established credibility by averting the immediate economic crisis (WaPo Editorial was right on that...). But Obama thinks this is the best time from his popularity point of view and it is for these policies he was elected. He is right and public agrees with that. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to result in much of advantage on the field while battling the opponents.
Now we're starting to understand what the strategy was:
1) Make a lot of centrist, or even conservative appointments.
2) Reach out to the Republicans and get very publicly rebuffed (but get your bill anyway)
3) Look, for all the world, like someone who intends to govern from the center, and walk the walk, and then
4) Bang. Unveil the most liberal budget to come out of Washington in fifty years.
Obama knows the budget is where the working parts are, that it's too complicated for the public to read through, and he can frame the debate the way he wants. In that framing, anyone who opposes the budget must be a special interest type - a big bank, a big pharmaceutical company, a big insurance company, or someone funded by them. Now anyone who opposes his budget will be seen as being in the pocket of said special interests, and in addition he's got the Republicans neatly tied up as the party of Rush Limbaugh, who will now be their voice. Big, stupid Rush, swinging away at a target who's no longer there, is about to complete the job of destroying the Republicans, the smart ones know it, and they must realize by now it's too late to stop it.
I don't think so. The GOP is taking aim to the newly picked democrat candidate for 20th congressional election Scott Murphy for refusing to accept his responsibility even documents proved that he has outstanding tax cases.
Stimulus Bill won't save the economy and so the people of America. Because, the overall impact is much of what we need. Out of $787B package, around $290B comes in the form of tax cuts, $100B business tax cuts and etch. All of which goes to the top 10% of the income distribution. It is really nothing in the package.
Billions foreclosures fillings and bankruptcy is what dragging down the net worth of the economy. I think Obama is going down very similar path to the Bush administration. I really disappointed with the 1st month of Obama administration.
Scott Murphy for Congress Tax Liens