Is Barack Obama's cool style of governing fundamentally incompatible with the furnace of modern politics? Bipartisan conclaves, bringing industry to the table(s), relative transparency, accommodation and consensus meetings are all ornaments of the Obama brand. But political parties, built around existing alignments of interests, tend to get excited about fighting. Base-tending is crucial to political husbandry. Obama has a gourmand's disdain for populism and picking fights.
This is, in some ways, a presidential sickness (or salutation,
depending on your point of view.) President Bush fashioned himself
above politics in early 2001. His tax cut aside, he spent much of his
time before September pushing his party to accept a massive new
education entitlement, No Child Left Behind. He was a uniter, not a ...
etc. The Bush political machine was focused on broadening the Bush
coalition from 2000, which consisted of, among other constituencies,
conservative Democrats, Hispanics and a healthy measure of true
independents. The tax cuts had not forestalled the onset of a
recession.
After 9/11, the brass knuckles
came out. Karl Rove's instincts were unleashed. The base furnace
kindled; the world become "us" versus "them," and the Democratic Party
was too loyal and not enough opposition. The Bush White House picked
fights, and razzed conservatives. Bush's political strategists
succeeded in pushing independents to make a choice between parties and
helped to reduce the partition of unaligned independents to about 8% of
the electorate by 2004.
Now -- the
Democratic Party's troubles on Tuesday didn't arise from the White
House's political operation not being nimble or effective enough. And
they were tough: Jon Corzine was encouraged to drop out of the New
Jersey gubernatorial race well before it seemed like he would lose. The
governor of New York has been encouraged to step aside. A combination
of David Axelrod's charm and Patrick Gaspard's grit helped to persuade
DeDe Scozzafava into endorsing the Democrat in New York's 23rd
Congressional district race, thereby saving the night for Democrats.
But
Democrats aren't scared of the Obama White House. Republicans, after
2002, were very scared of the Bush White House. The price of being
independent -- especially in these times -- is worth the disapproval of
the White House. That the DNC/Organizing for America organization didn't
score upset victories on Tuesday night will probably persuade other
Democrats that they don't need too much help.
In
2010, the White House is going to face a trade-off between consensus
governing and rousing the base, which will help them recruit good
candidates, raise money, and define the issues in marginal districts.
I think the White House believes that NY 23 reflects deep structural fissures in the GOP that will redound to the President's benefit in 2012, whereas the economic crisis is a temporal phenomenon than will get better over time
Finally, I think that Obama's personal alienation from the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party -- the guy was a state senator a few years ago and never really identified as a Democrat's Democrat -- contributes to his identity.
"Obama has a gourmand's disdain for populism and picking fights."
A "gourmand"? A glutton? A person prone to eating to excess?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
My impression is that Obama prefers to hold back and not take a firm stand on issues until a consensus has formed toward one option or another. He outlines broad political goals, but likes to keep above the fray while others fight it out on the actual meat of the issues.
As a result, many independents got the idea that although Obama had some ambitious goals, he would be implementing new, innovative, 21st Century ideas and not rely on traditional big government solutions to problems. Liberals got the idea that he would push their big government agenda because he seemed to share their goals.
I still don’t know who is right and where Obama really stands. I am an independent who was hoping Obama would be innovative. I am dismayed and disheartened that, at least when it comes to domestic policy, Obama appears to be a traditional big government liberal.
And, I’m about at the point of saying, “Okay, next!” “Obviously, Obama wasn’t my man after all.” I hope that he proves me wrong, but I’m afraid that the lure and the power of big government liberalism is too strong, despite the fact that it is outmoded - and morally wrong, in that it is bankrupting our country.
Why a government insurance plan when there are bills like the innovative Wyden/Bennett “Healthy Americans Act?” Why cap and trade when a straight carbon tax would be simpler for people to understand and 100 times less bureaucratic? Why not just have the federal government put people to work building trains and other mass transit like a modern-day WPA? Follow Warren Buffett’s lead. Cars are passé. Trains are where it’s at! Why not use the unemployed of Detroit and other severely depressed areas to do this? This would be a targeted rescue and recovery plan.
I hope that he proves me wrong, but I’m afraid that the lure and the power of big government liberalism is too strong, despite the fact that it is outmoded - and morally wrong, in that it is bankrupting our country.
Can you please explain this. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Why would he institute Republican policies? Does he want to be a one-termer? Didn't last Tuesday show you what happens when you fail to enthuse the base(meaning the Democrats)? Lastly, what is "big spending liberalism"? Try as you might. You can't wash away Bush's sins. And you can't lay those sins on "big spending liberalism".
Are you fairly young? Bush wasn't the only big spending administration in history. Lyndon Johnson's was the next biggest. And, the big government liberalism we had in the 70s brought in Reaganism. It will happen again if some savvy conservative emerges.
We're either having endless wars or endless social programs - or both! And, our economy and our competitiveness are suffering because of it.
Last Tuesday showed me that independents are leaving Obama and the Democrats because they were tired of the wars and thought the Dems might be more responsible with the budget, but they're not.
The government will always try to increase its power and reach. They want to have more control. That is its nature.
Speaking of Wyden-Bennett, it looks like the Republicans might steal the idea as their own. Mike Pence talked about it yesterday at the conservative rally!!
I can't believe how lame the Democrats are.