This debate ran through the entire primary season, and for some of us, was an important issue to consider about Obama since we first became aware of his extreme political talent. As I have noted many times, my first post at TalkLeft discussed what I perceive to be Obama's misguided political style. My argument was not that it was misguided for Obama's personal political fortunes, but rather it was misguided for enacting progressive policies and ideas.
Because of the economic meltdown last year, I believed that the issue of Obama's political style had become moot for the moment, as the crisis was so severe that Obama had garnered a mandate for progressive policies despite his lackluster push for such policies.
That observation only holds so long as President Obama actually wants to enact progressive policies. When it came to torture, civil liberties and Gitmo, President Obama demonstrated a firm commitment to progressive ideals (ideals held by a majority of the nation btw.) His performance in that area was stellar and the strength of his mandate was such that even those who had argued for a continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies declared Obama's actions a victory.
On other issues, like lobbyists and trade policy, I never expected that Obama's actions would match his rhetoric and I was content, even pleased, about it.
However, regarding the economic stimulus plan, President Obama has been quite timid, from his opening proposal to his post partisan unity schtick with Republicans the past few days. It is my view that the Obama plan, even when he adopted some Democratic ideas to bolster his plan, is simply inadequate for the crisis at hand. A major question is this - does Obama think his plan is adequate? If he thinks it is adequate, then the question is, to use the words of d-day, is this true:
Obama has maintained this sugar plum fairy vision of bipartisanship, yet his bill manifestly does NOT value "what works" over ideology. Quite the opposite. It makes room for ideology, conservative ideology, and pre-empts provisions that would work much better in bringing back the economy.
(Emphasis supplied.) d-day presupposes that Obama does not believe that the changes he is making will make his economic stimulus plan better. Is that true? I agree with d-day's assessment of these changes, but does Obama? I think that is an open question.
Let's assume for a moment that Obama is sacrificing efficacy for "bipartisanship," is this a defensible view looking strictly from the political perspective? To wit, will Obama improve his own electoral chances in 2012 by making these sacrifices to policy efficacy? I think not. President Obama will own the economic performance, no matter who does or does not vote for his plan. No one will remember in 2012 that he took a meeting with the House leadership in January 2009. What people will remember is whether the economy is better.
But what about potential GOP cooperation with President Obama on later issues? Does the post partisan unity schtick help Obama in that respect? To me the answer to that question is irrelevant politically. Barack Obama's presidency will rise or fall politically on the performance of the economy.
But what about enacting other important policies like health care, EFCA and the like? Won't this help Obama? In my view no. Republicans will never support progressive policies in those areas.
Perhaps some might argue, the Republicans are prepared to work with an "independent" President while continuing to demonize Congressional Dems, willing to hold their fire against Obama while mounting frontal political assaults against Congressional Dems? There is evidence to support this view. The question is will this be effective politically for Obama. It very well might be. But I doubt it. Consider the case of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, who moved away from Congressional Dems, from necessity of course, after the disastrous 1994 congressional elections. Clinton was able to reverse his political fortunes and win reelection handily in 1996.
But remember how and why Clinton won reelection in 1996 - the economic performance of the nation was strong by 1996 - due in no small measure to Clinton's 1993 economic plan - which passed on strict party lines. To wit, Clinton, when his political capital was highest, went for the best plan he could get through Congress. Obama seems to have summarily rejected that approach (assuming he does not think that the GOP objections he meets will strengthen and improve his economic plan.)
There is another factor to consider - once Obama opens up his proposals to negotiation and demonstrates a penchant for ceding to opposing views, it will not be just Republicans who make demands. RonK pointed out this story from the Hill:
House Democrats won a key procedural vote Tuesday on the stimulus after a last-minute promise from the Obama administration to return to “pay-as-you-go” budget rules after the stimulus is approved. In a 224-199 vote, the House approved a resolution allowing the stimulus bill to come to the floor for debate. Twenty-seven Democrats – 24 of them members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition – bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.
But according to Democratic leadership sources, the number was almost much higher – and could have been high enough to hand the Republicans a monumental victory – had it not been for a letter from President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag. The letter addressed to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David promised to return to “pay-as-you-go budgeting,” and stressed that the stimulus was an “extraordinary response to an extraordinary process” and thus subject to different rules. It should not be seen as an opportunity to abandon the fiscal discipline that we owe each and every taxpayer in spending their money – and that is critical to keeping the United States strong in a global, interdependent economy,” the letter stated.
If "pay as you go" becomes a rule for Obama in the out years, as the Blue Dogs demand, Obama will repeat the mistakes of FDR in 1937 (ending fiscal stimulus before the economy is truly recovered) and his economic recovery plan will be flattened by a premature restriction on fiscal stimulus. But once Obama shows weakness in budget negotiations, it won't just be Republicans making demands.
President Obama is at the height of his political power. He will never have more political capital than he has now. Yet, he has shown disturbing signs of being afraid to use that power. Perhaps it is just kabuki theatre. and I have no doubt the Media is prepared to throw plaudits Obama's way, no matter what the Republicans do, for the post partisan unity schtick.
The question is will Obama confine this schitck to political theatre, or will he really make significant concessions to the Republicans. It is the acid test for those of us who have been discussing Obama's "theory of change" for the past 4 years. We will know by President's Day.
Speaking for me only
