Think of this as Volume 12, Number 31 of A-Clue.com, the online newsletter I've written since 1997. Enjoy.
Back when we were playing The 1967 Game I said Democrats had a choice among Franklin Roosevelt (Edwards), Richard Nixon (Clinton) and Ronald Reagan (Obama).
The Obama mandate which resulted is similar, in size and scope, to that which Reagan won in 1980. In some ways it's bigger, because Reagan faced a Democratic House.
Yet, so far, Obama is governing like Nixon did, not Reagan. He let the old ghost out of the crypt and he walks among us in Washington. It's beyond stupid.
On issue-after-issue, the President has caved in to existing interests. The anti-war President pushed through $100 billion to fund two of them. The populist President is still letting Goldman Sachs run the global economy, at whatever price they want. The anti-secrecy President has maintained the Bush era of secrets and lies. The pro-gay President has personally killed attempts to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
And now he's caving completely on health care. The bill emerging from the Senate is not a health care overhaul. It is, as Howard Dean said, insurance reform. Good, but not what we want or need. Obama is letting the special interests dictate to him — even the millionaire doctors of McAllen, Texas.
In all these areas he's Nixon all over again. Nixon fed the right rhetoric, but governed from the left. It was Nixon who gave us the EPA, the CFTC, OSHA, and Harry Blackmun. Nixon's first term was an apotheosis of liberalism, created even as liberals poured hate upon him.
I have personal memories of that time, because back then I was a young conservative. Nixon angered his base and earned contempt from those elites he sought to placate. At the 1971 YAF convention which was my first visit to Houston, where I'd later go to college, we were given a chance to nominate our own dream ticket for 1972. We picked Reagan and New York Senator James L. Buckley. Nixon didn't even enter the discussion.
Of course, we know now that these contradictions between what he was doing and what his instincts wanted him to do tore Nixon up inside. It made him a monster. He should have, could have, been seen by conservative historians as the greatest President of the 20th century. Instead he was written out of their memory, and Reagan — who openly defied every liberal impulse — was given that honor.
In the President's defense, the hand he faces was dealt for him by Rahm Emanuel.
It was Emanuel who supported corporate Democrats in seat-after-seat over the last four years, in preference to true believers from the Netroots. It was Emanuel who gave us Tim Mahoney instead of David Lutrin. But it was also Emanuel who was hailed as a genius for giving us such "Democrats" as Travis Childers of Mississippi, Bobby Bright of Alabama, and Melissa Bean of Illinois. It was Emanuel who pushed for corporate cash, which graces the coffers of Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, the "gang of four" who are even, right now, killing all hope of health reform for another generation.
Emanuel's excuse is that we have to lean right because states like Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska and Montana still believe in the Nixon Thesis. It's the vision of a man who sees himself holding a popular minority but wants an electoral majority.
But that's not the way the stars have aligned. Voters elected Democrats, not proto-Republicans, and the recent fall in the President's approval rating has everything to do with that fact. The current Republican leadership continues to be repudiated, with fewer than one in five having anything but contempt for the Party of No. They are reacting as Democrats did after 1860, becoming nothing but Confederates and Confederate sympathizers.
Yet you look across the political landscape and Republicans seem ascendant. There are two reasons for that. Obama is failing to deliver on his promises, and those Republicans running for 2010 are, by and large, a breed apart from the scum now in Washington. People like Mark Kirk of Illinois, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Rob Simmons of Connnecticut are promising mainly to lean against the Obama Thesis of Consensus, not overturn it. They seek to moderate it, not reject it. It may not be the way they vote in the end, but it's the essence of their appeal.
The point is that President Obama is playing the 1969 game, but this is not 1969. It's 1933. People are hurting, they're angry, they're impatient for change. Yet he dawdles, giving every appearance of a man sinking slowly in quicksand.
What he should be doing next month is not going to Martha's Vineyard, but to Montana, North Dakota and Louisiana. He should be rallying his base against the corporate Senators who stand in the way, the Blue Dogs and Green Dogs who are taking the money and running.
He should be getting people into the streets to vent their anger against Republicans and DINOs. Instead he's going to the beach. Maybe he can dig up the bones of Bebe Rebozo.
Leadership is more than talk. It's more than negotiation. It's more than just pointing out a direction. It's pushing for what you want, overcoming obstacles, getting the j-o-b done.
Voters sense this President is failing the test. It's past time for him to knock some heads. Or this Nixon era will turn into a Carter one.
I believe you may rethink this in a month or two. We shall see.
I believe you may rethink this in a month or two. We shall see.
Don’t you think the real problem here is the lesson of LBJ. LBJ governed exactly as you want Obama to do. He used his party’s majority to push things through congress and was more than willing to beat down balking Democrats that might stand in his way. Yet now Johnson is remembered poorly, if it at all. When Hillary mentioned that he might deserve some credit for Civil Rights, she was widely repudiated. LBJ was one of the most effective US Presidents. On the whole, he was one of the best US Presidents (Great Society > Vietnam Escalation). But nobody, especially Barack Obama, wants to be the next LBJ.
Don’t you think the real problem here is the lesson of LBJ. LBJ governed exactly as you want Obama to do. He used his party’s majority to push things through congress and was more than willing to beat down balking Democrats that might stand in his way. Yet now Johnson is remembered poorly, if it at all. When Hillary mentioned that he might deserve some credit for Civil Rights, she was widely repudiated. LBJ was one of the most effective US Presidents. On the whole, he was one of the best US Presidents (Great Society > Vietnam Escalation). But nobody, especially Barack Obama, wants to be the next LBJ.
Johnson had much larger majorities, and the memory of JFK with which to win legislative battles. In terms of legislation Obama should be Reagan, and get his program through despite the opposition. He doesn’t need any Republican help, and he’s not getting any, but that’s not a barrier anymore.
If necessary you push the Senate Finance plan through on 51 votes, after it’s amended so it makes some sense. You shame the Blue Dogs into going along with their constituents. And you stand ready to make changes that are necessary next year — you’ll remember Reagan signed the “largest tax increase in history” in 1982, a year after his cuts of 1981.
The only butts which need to be kicked here and names that need to be taken are Democratic ones. The people who need to be convinced are the President’s supporters. The talk from Conrad and Baucus of bipartisanship being “necessary” is false.
Reagan was also adept at getting the press into line through adroit attacks on their partisanship. In the world of Limbraugh, Beck, Fox et al that can work now for Obama.
There will come a time for bipartisanship, once Republicans are convinced that the Obama Thesis has legs.
Dana
Johnson had much larger majorities, and the memory of JFK with which to win legislative battles. In terms of legislation Obama should be Reagan, and get his program through despite the opposition. He doesn’t need any Republican help, and he’s not getting any, but that’s not a barrier anymore.
If necessary you push the Senate Finance plan through on 51 votes, after it’s amended so it makes some sense. You shame the Blue Dogs into going along with their constituents. And you stand ready to make changes that are necessary next year — you’ll remember Reagan signed the “largest tax increase in history” in 1982, a year after his cuts of 1981.
The only butts which need to be kicked here and names that need to be taken are Democratic ones. The people who need to be convinced are the President’s supporters. The talk from Conrad and Baucus of bipartisanship being “necessary” is false.
Reagan was also adept at getting the press into line through adroit attacks on their partisanship. In the world of Limbraugh, Beck, Fox et al that can work now for Obama.
There will come a time for bipartisanship, once Republicans are convinced that the Obama Thesis has legs.
Dana
You say that LBJ had much larger majorities, but what he is best known for is beating HIS OWN PARTY into line on issues like Civil Rights. This is why the Democratic Party was so happy to distance itself from him and repudiate his memory. All the people who remained after he left office held a grudge and spent 40 years emphasizing his mistakes and downplaying his successes, in the historical record. This is the fate Obama wants to avoid.
That said, I’m not sure I entirely disapprove of Obama’s strategy. While massive overhaul might be more efficient, I think he is looking for incremental progress. People want him to blow his load and get things done while he still has the Election Mandate, but I think his plan is to remain a player for his entire 8 years. His ploy is to make things all about Congress, rather than all about him. This will help maintain his standing both within Congress and with the American People. Basically, he wants to be Phil Jackson, Not MJ or Kobe. The downside is that progress may be slower than necessary. Using an incremental approach to solve problems eventually leads to the possibility of cracks spreading faster than you can patch them. The big problem is that the house Obama bought is in very bad shape. The rotting beams might go before he finishes painting the walls. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and if Obama succeeds he will shape how Presidents approach policy implementation for decades to come.
You say that LBJ had much larger majorities, but what he is best known for is beating HIS OWN PARTY into line on issues like Civil Rights. This is why the Democratic Party was so happy to distance itself from him and repudiate his memory. All the people who remained after he left office held a grudge and spent 40 years emphasizing his mistakes and downplaying his successes, in the historical record. This is the fate Obama wants to avoid.
That said, I’m not sure I entirely disapprove of Obama’s strategy. While massive overhaul might be more efficient, I think he is looking for incremental progress. People want him to blow his load and get things done while he still has the Election Mandate, but I think his plan is to remain a player for his entire 8 years. His ploy is to make things all about Congress, rather than all about him. This will help maintain his standing both within Congress and with the American People. Basically, he wants to be Phil Jackson, Not MJ or Kobe. The downside is that progress may be slower than necessary. Using an incremental approach to solve problems eventually leads to the possibility of cracks spreading faster than you can patch them. The big problem is that the house Obama bought is in very bad shape. The rotting beams might go before he finishes painting the walls. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and if Obama succeeds he will shape how Presidents approach policy implementation for decades to come.
Distaste for LBJ has everything to do with Vietnam. Democrats hate him for that. I’m certain many Republicans (including southern ones) hate him for the Civil Rights laws, but that could have been overcome.
Rule number one is never get involved in a land war in Asia. This is something that both Johnson and Obama forgot.
Dana
Distaste for LBJ has everything to do with Vietnam. Democrats hate him for that. I’m certain many Republicans (including southern ones) hate him for the Civil Rights laws, but that could have been overcome.
Rule number one is never get involved in a land war in Asia. This is something that both Johnson and Obama forgot.
Dana
[Dana]: “People are hurting, they’re angry, they’re impatient for change. Yet he dawdles, giving every appearance of a man sinking slowly in quicksand.”
____________________
Hate to say I told you so, but I did in this very blog. I have never been convinced that Obama was as smart, wise, or had the skills to succeed at the job of President. Primarily because he never succeeded before in any other job he had. First thing he did when running was lock up his academic records to the same school I went to, Columbia. That’s the kind of thing a conservative does, or rather in Obama’s case, a corporatist.
Look no further than the deal he cut this week with big Pharma. No voter input allowed there, but he gained $150mn in ads. And as you note, LBJ wouldn’t be holding the Blue Dogs’ hands, he’d be putting a cowboy boot up the arses. But look what they’ve done to the needed votes on health reform — essentially ripped out the spark plug wires. Instead running around the world on vacations and spending so much forgettable time on TV, he should have been defining and arguing for single payer and public option — two things that Americans can wrap their brains around. But instead, he let the insurance industry and Rupert Murdoch redefine his plan as “death panels.” Passing anything to claim credit for reform is not good enough. Remember ‘Medicare Part D’ which was unfunded and introduced the donut hole? That passed with broad Democratic support in large part because they not only do not read the bills before voting for them, but they can’t even understand the bills they do write, much less their insane consequences.
Same for Geithner and Goldman; banks got theirs and they’re allowed to continue bribing the ratings agencies. Yes, we’re hurting and not merely struggling, but fighting to make ends meet out here. For the ordinary American, nothing’s changed: we’re still fighting two wars (without any goal or end in mind), gays are told to be quiet for now, Gitmo is going strong, Obama suddenly loves signing statements and wiretapping, and he refuses to give back any of the illegal powers Bush claimed after 9/11.
Can’t vote Republican; they destroy the nation every time. Can’t vote Democrat; they won’t even stand up for themselves, much less those who voted for them. And those two parties refuse to let a third party get a foothold.
At 47, I’m dumbstruck with frustration.
[Dana]: “People are hurting, they’re angry, they’re impatient for change. Yet he dawdles, giving every appearance of a man sinking slowly in quicksand.”
____________________
Hate to say I told you so, but I did in this very blog. I have never been convinced that Obama was as smart, wise, or had the skills to succeed at the job of President. Primarily because he never succeeded before in any other job he had. First thing he did when running was lock up his academic records to the same school I went to, Columbia. That’s the kind of thing a conservative does, or rather in Obama’s case, a corporatist.
Look no further than the deal he cut this week with big Pharma. No voter input allowed there, but he gained $150mn in ads. And as you note, LBJ wouldn’t be holding the Blue Dogs’ hands, he’d be putting a cowboy boot up the arses. But look what they’ve done to the needed votes on health reform — essentially ripped out the spark plug wires. Instead running around the world on vacations and spending so much forgettable time on TV, he should have been defining and arguing for single payer and public option — two things that Americans can wrap their brains around. But instead, he let the insurance industry and Rupert Murdoch redefine his plan as “death panels.” Passing anything to claim credit for reform is not good enough. Remember ‘Medicare Part D’ which was unfunded and introduced the donut hole? That passed with broad Democratic support in large part because they not only do not read the bills before voting for them, but they can’t even understand the bills they do write, much less their insane consequences.
Same for Geithner and Goldman; banks got theirs and they’re allowed to continue bribing the ratings agencies. Yes, we’re hurting and not merely struggling, but fighting to make ends meet out here. For the ordinary American, nothing’s changed: we’re still fighting two wars (without any goal or end in mind), gays are told to be quiet for now, Gitmo is going strong, Obama suddenly loves signing statements and wiretapping, and he refuses to give back any of the illegal powers Bush claimed after 9/11.
Can’t vote Republican; they destroy the nation every time. Can’t vote Democrat; they won’t even stand up for themselves, much less those who voted for them. And those two parties refuse to let a third party get a foothold.
At 47, I’m dumbstruck with frustration.