- ‹ previous
- 2184 of 2728
- next ›
The Great Persuader
THE GREAT PERSUADER....Will Barack Obama be a great president? He's got a big election victory behind him, solid congressional majorities in both houses, an electoral coalition eager to support him, and a country seemingly ready for serious change. But what kind of change? Technically, his platform is as progressive as we've seen from a Democrat in a generation. But did he really sell it to the voters? Did he even make the effort? The public face of his economic policy, after all, was almost entirely based on tax cuts, a distinctly conservative notion. His energy plan was largely based on the promise of "green jobs." He mostly avoided talking about social issues. He got people's votes, but did they really know what they were voting for?
I'm not sure. A couple of months ago I wrote a piece for Mother Jones about this, and after Obama's speech at Invesco Field I almost changed it a bit before publication. But in the end I didn't, and I think that turned out to be right. Because it's still not clear to me that Obama even tried to sell the public on specifically progressive change:
Majorities may come and go, but FDR built a liberal legacy that outlasted him because, by the time he left office, the public believed in the New Deal and everything that went with it.
Now fast-forward 70 years and ask yourself, What is it going to take to pass serious climate change legislation? A liberal majority in Congress? Check. Interest groups willing to rally? Check. But to paraphrase an old military saying, the opposition gets a vote too. And the opposition's message to a public already tired of high gasoline prices is going to be simple: Liberals want to raise energy prices. Your energy prices.
And make no mistake. Barack Obama's cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions may be technically one of the best we've ever seen, but it will raise energy prices. That's the whole point. So once the public understands that there's more to Obama's plan than green-collar jobs and serried ranks of windmills on the Great Plains, they're going to have second thoughts. And those congressional majorities, who face election in another couple of years, are going to have second thoughts too.
The right way to address this won't be found in any of Obama's white papers. There's a story there, if you dig deep enough, but it's long and complicated and relies on things like increased efficiency, consumer rebates, and R&D funding that pays off in another decade or so. In the short term someone is going to have to tell the public that, yes, there's some sacrifice required here, but it's worth it. Someone needs to come up with a garden-hose analogy to convince a financially stressed public that doing something for the common good is worth a small price.
That someone, of course, is Barack Obama, but it's not clear yet if he gets this. His speeches soar, but they rarely seem designed to move the nation in a specific direction. Is he pushing the public to support cap and trade even though it might cost them a few dollars? Or merely to vote for "change"? It's sometimes hard to tell.
I'm not arguing for hair shirt politics. Presidential candidates win office by promising to solve all the problems of the world, not by hectoring the electorate. And as I mentioned in the article, FDR ran a notably mushy campaign in 1932 and look how he turned out.
But even if that was a good excuse for holding back during the campaign season, now's the time to start using the bully pulpit. Obama has a notable streak of temperamental caution that serves him well, but it could also betray him. Maybe he could have turned the tide against Proposition 8 in California if he'd been willing to take a risk on its behalf. Maybe he can overcome conservative opposition to a progressive energy plan if he's willing to take some risks selling it to the public. But if he doesn't, all the congressional majorities in the world won't help him in the long run. I sure hope he understands this.
Here is a smart republican take (form National Review) on what will happen next - seems pretty accurate:
"The liberals in Congress will soon push to discourage entrepreneurship and economic growth, nationalize the medical system, weaken the military, use state power to coerce Americans into removing mentions of God from the public square, accepting abortion on demand and the altering the definition of marriage. And an early test for President Obama will be his reaction to pressure in two areas from his own party that may brand his administration early as decidedly leftist. He will be pushed to take various measures to stifle dissent through enacting the Fairness Doctrine and ending the secret ballot in union elections. And he will be pushed to make a decision that cost the newly elected President Clinton his honeymoon period ? changing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about gays in the military. On all of this, the congressional liberals and their media allies will be unrelenting. And yet all this represents opportunity for the GOP."
Before you guys erupt, the same guy also said:
"REJOICE ? Electing an African American president closes a painful but proud chapter in American history. What a country."
Here is a smart republican take (form National Review) on what will happen next - seems pretty accurate:
"The liberals in Congress will soon push to discourage entrepreneurship and economic growth, nationalize the medical system, weaken the military, use state power to coerce Americans into removing mentions of God from the public square, accepting abortion on demand and the altering the definition of marriage. And an early test for President Obama will be his reaction to pressure in two areas from his own party that may brand his administration early as decidedly leftist. He will be pushed to take various measures to stifle dissent through enacting the Fairness Doctrine and ending the secret ballot in union elections. And he will be pushed to make a decision that cost the newly elected President Clinton his honeymoon period ? changing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about gays in the military. On all of this, the congressional liberals and their media allies will be unrelenting. And yet all this represents opportunity for the GOP."
Before you guys erupt, the same guy also said:
"REJOICE ? Electing an African American president closes a painful but proud chapter in American history. What a country."
Add to that the upcoming election in 2012....
You can achieve "serious progressive change" while in office, but you can't gain office that way. (Human nature.) I expect once Obama is comfortable as president, he will be more activist than many expect him to be.
you can't gain office that way in a two party system that disallows any other contender from debates.
I voted for Obama, but my state turned out to not have a chance of turning blue -- apart from being pleased I joined with the historical change, I wish I had voted third party.
Two party systems suck and force everyone to be bland and middle of the road. Result: we all get squished, like grape. (Obscure reference?)
Glad to see I'm not the only crazy person on the Internets.
Who cares what he ran on or hyped? He stated his platform, and now he can implement it. If it works, he'll get reelected in a landslide. Or even if it doesn't and people think it works. Like with FDR, who didn't really beat unemployment and the depression in two terms (things were still pretty dire in 1938), but still got the nod for term 3.
People are pragmatists and if Obama implements a new, progressive paradigm and it works, he'll cement the changes.
As the man says, hope. But we won't have any results to look at until March 2009, so relax until then.
Obama didn't have to tell people he was liberal, John McCain did that for him.
I, for one, welcome America's first Marxist president.
That Obama fellow is too radical for my tastes.
Yeah but let's also remember that FDR himself didn't campaign in 1932 on the New Deal (there were some hints, but if I remember correctly he talked about balanced budgets more than WPA-like initiatives).
I think Agorabum is right - the touchstone will be (especially given how far the Republicans went to paint Obama as a socialist) effectiveness of progressive governance. If we can actually get some things done (and I do like Kevin's list of 3 items - seems eminently reasonable to me) then people will climb on board.
I admit to sharing Kevin's concerns. I am, however, heartened by how he ran his campaign.
The solution to the climate/energy crisis is more far reaching than most people realize: we need to transition from an energy economy based on mining and burning increasingly scarce, costly, toxic fuel to one based on harvesting abundant, ubiquitous, free, clean wind and solar energy.
An economy based on harvesting an endless supply of free energy is fundamentally different from one based on burning limited supplies of fuel.
Obama's comments during the campaign about the energy/climate challenge suggest that he gets this. And he gets that we face no task more important than making this transition to the post-carbon, free-energy New Industrial Revolution of the 21st Century as quickly as possible. The obstacles are not technical or economic -- the obstacle is the enormous, entrenched wealth and power of the dinosaur fossil fuel and nuclear industries and their death-grip on US energy policy. Obama's challenge will be to break that grip.
I'm obviously illiterate. Kevin himself pointed out the FDR precedent. I think I should go to sleep...
Obama is the second really smart president we've elected in quite a while. I think I'll sit back and see what he does and specifically avoid giving the man any of my well thought out advice.
Kevin,
I am concerned that we are moving too fast here. First things first - who won the pool and the free subscription to Mother Jones (or do we have to wait for the MN recount and a few other stragglers)?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The public face of his economic policy, after all, was almost entirely based on tax cuts, a distinctly conservative notion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm already starting to see this right-wing bullshit way too much. (Et tu, Kevin?) Setting aside the fact that his economic plan was much more than tax cuts, Obama's tax plan was to raise taxes on the wealthy so that they could be cut on the middle class. You tellin' me that making our tax code more progressive is a "distinctly conservative notion"? C'mon. A little thought, please.
If you need cap and trade, or a carbon tax, the trick is to make it revenue-neutral; say, replace SS with a carbon tax.
"A tax on what you burn, instead of what you earn."
It rhymes, so it must be a good idea.
Kevin I've shared your concerns and I always value your analysis, its pragmatic and progressive and always a little fearful.
After watching our next President's acceptance speech whatever doubts i had that he will agitate wholeheartedly for substantive progressive change in America are gone. I never thought we would find a leader with such a humble optimism; cognizant of the enormous burden such an optimism brings, and steeled for the weight.
Mr. Drum is right - Obama did not sell himself with an obvious progressive platform.
His health care plan, in particular, sucked.
But he DID say, forcefully, and repeatedly, that the Iraq war was unjustified and based on lies. That's not exactly a liberal position (especially within our liberal-hawk media) but it's a good one. He did, unfortunately, couch this dove sentiment inside a claim that it hurt our security, gotta finish the fight in Afghanistan, and what-are-you-looking-at Pakistan, blah, blah... I'm sure Thomas Friedman (schmuck) would agree.
So his "less-wars-is-a-good-thing platform" got my vote. And "Vote for the guy who pledges to directly kill less foreigners" is kinda progressive. In the US at least.
Flubber is wrong that Obama's health care plan is bad. I'd agree it's not as good as Edwards' or Hillary's, but it's a lot better and more progressive than the status quo, and formed a major part of Obama's campaign.
Also, running on tax cuts for most non-rich people and tax increases on the rich to fund tax cuts and health care for most people is hardly a conservative campaign.
I agree with the implication of Mr. Damiani's post,though he wrote it humorously-- for the last month, we were told Obama is a socialist and a radical, and he did not scream "No, I'm not!" Instead, he just said, "Change." "Change" is a powerful word, with connotations McCain tried to play up, and so I think a lot of folks expect something vaguely big and different.
Jeez, Kevin. The guy's been elected less than 24 hrs. Give him a break before you pile on!
"But even if that was a good excuse for holding back during the campaign season, now's the time to start using the bully pulpit."
OH, For christ's fucking sake, can he get a NAP first?
How about giving him a couple of days to, y'kno, pick a cabinet before you start bemoaning how he's not really progressive enough, and how you warned us that he's too centrist and won't really live up to our {your} expectations.
plus, there's that little detail of him not being sworn in yet.
sorry, Anon at 3:34 is me. i don't comment much, and i was a little annoyed.
carry on.
He did at least make a vague sounding call for shared sacrifice. We will see if he intends to flesh that out with actual details. We have a nearterm need for a Keynesian stimulus, and if he invests in the right kind of infrastructure, rather than simply giving money to whomever, it could be a decent firststep towards solving the energy/climate problem. I'm hoping that cost effectiveness will be the top priority for any such proposals (with externals such as emissions, and future demand for scarce resources factored in of course). We will see what we get. He can't do everything he/we would want, but will have to pick his political battles well.
Oh, Kevin, can't it wait until tomorrow? We're still having a good time partying. I, for one, am not ready to start thinking about whether Obama will DO THE RIGHT THING or not.
People from California bleat on about Prop 8 and how Obama did not lend his bully pulpit to help out. Well other states, like my state of Florida, had similar anti-gay amendments on the ballot.
Florida was a close race that fell into Obama's side. Did he need it to get to 270? Hindsight says no. However, Florida was one of "many paths to victory" planed by his staff. He did not have a myopic victory plan like Gore or Kerry. That is one of many reasons why he won. He tried to put all states in play and make McCain chase down states that were "Bush states" in 2000 & 2004.
Therefore, there is no way he would risk Florida or other states with anti-gay amendments on the ballot by lending a hand for California's Prop 8.
One, he would have to do it for all states with these measures or it would look like he was going against his statement that "there are no red states or blue states. We are all the United States of America."
Two, these are "states rights" issues, not national issues.
Three, he has stated that he does not support gay marriage, but supports civil unions. One could say he should have helped out in Florida over California, because our Amendment 2 wipes out civil unions for gays and non-gays, but that is one for the courts will work out.
Finally, four, he could not come out to support defeating California's Prop 8 because it would have cost him swing states like Florida, which were part of his path to victory.
"Two, these are "states rights" issues, not national issues."
Yeah, exactly what should a candidate for President do about an individual state amending its constitution? Would Obama making a bigger stink about Prop 8 really have been an appropriate thing to do? Did W. ever do much to rally support for gay marriage bans on the state level, even back in 2003-04 when he wasn't politically toxic?
Mike
I supported McCain, but I hope Obama grows into a great president and, regardles of how he does, it was a beautiful thing to see American elect a black man president.
He ran, like most candidates, as a con man and he was particularly good at it in terms of concealing his true philosophies and certainly his past philosophies. But in a sense, so what about his deception? He is now president, a smart guys and, hopefully, he will try to step up to the job.
The problem is that he likely will start by simply following liberal democratic proposals (tax increase, EFCA, stimulus package, government regulation, etc.). Aside from his great ability to come across as reasonable and centered, there is little evidence that his politics will be that way. On the good side for him, assuming he does not blunder in some masive way on terrorism, he has four years for the economy to become strong and, like Roosevelt who would have been thrown out of office if the 1936 election had occurred during an economic downturn such as 1935, but instead was re-elected during the the economic upturn of 1936, his re-election fate will be governed by the timing of economic developments.
I think Kevin is dreaming if he thinks Obama will try to persuade the country to accept higher energy prices or make any other significant real sacrifice.
Unfortunately, he will start focusing on the question of his re-election.
[I]t's still not clear to me that Obama even tried to sell the public on specifically progressive change
Geez, can't pull anything over on you, can he?
You write: "FDR ran a notably mushy campaign in 1932 and look how he turned out. But even if that was a good excuse for holding back during the campaign season, now's the time to start using the bully pulpit."
The first sentence above is the response to the rest of your post. As for the second sentence, it is well to remember that the inauguration isn't until late January. Obama doesn't have "the" bully pulpit until then. Moreover, remember that Bill Clinton got off to a rough start by botching appointments during the transition and getting dragged into controversies that weren't really on his agenda. There will be a time for detailed policy proposals. Now is not that time.
Spoken like a true right winger-- always ready to criticize the other fellow but no word on your own plan or agenda. This is precisely why Mc Cain lost.
Kevin,
Don't think it gets said often enough around here, but I think you're a very good writer.
First in a series: The Obama Presidency, Why Did It Fail?
Also, SecularAnimist's take on the energy thing is exactly right, I think.
What can I say, I'm feelin' the Obama love thing.
On the other hand, nothing could make me say anything nice about the doofus Alaska governor.
Kev, what a buzz kill. The last year has taught me that Barak is full of surprises. Some how he makes good choices. Even when I figured he was wrong, he turned out being right. I am very in awe of this.
I have liked politicians before, but this guy is scary good. Not to say that mistakes won't be made, they will. But I am a believer and think that he will do a lot of good. A fucking lot of good.
i'm with keith, why are you whining already?
I still think Inkblot would have made a better president.
I read a study supporting revenue neutral Carbon Credit Auctions. The trick is to give the people a tax rebate dividing up the income from the auction.
Ya knuh-OHHHH, kindUH like they do UP in A-LASS-ka with oil revenues. It'd be very popular.
"And make no mistake."
Mostly OT, but I HATE the "make no mistake" construct. Every time I see it or hear it, I feel like telling the perosn "The hell with you! I'll make all the goddamn mistakes I want!"
second-guessers are Go!
Kevin,
Obama is the first candidate in my own lifetime that I recall actually suggesting a tax hike (for the rich). Biden even said that paying taxes was patriotic. While campaigning. Sorry, pointing to the tax issue as a sign of Obama's 'centrism' makes no sense.
I still think Inkblot would have made a better president.
I dunno. Obama wants to spread the wealth around. All Inkblot spreads around is litter. Then he blames it on me!
I'm not the one who heaves litter over shoulders when covering up a number 2. Get real Domino, we know it is you who makes the mess.
1. Get the budget passed.
2. Get the energy infrastructure going.
3. Get us pointed out of Iraq.
Do that, and we'd have one hell of a successful first term.
One time, Kevin lined Domino's bed with an old copy of The Communist Manifesto. Domino was reading it, instead of shredding it with his claws like he was supposed to.
Here is a smart republican take (form National Review) on what will happen next - seems pretty accurate:
"The liberals in Congress will soon push to discourage entrepreneurship and economic growth, nationalize the medical system, weaken the military, use state power to coerce Americans into removing mentions of God from the public square, accepting abortion on demand and the altering the definition of marriage. And an early test for President Obama will be his reaction to pressure in two areas from his own party that may brand his administration early as decidedly leftist. He will be pushed to take various measures to stifle dissent through enacting the Fairness Doctrine and ending the secret ballot in union elections. And he will be pushed to make a decision that cost the newly elected President Clinton his honeymoon period changing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about gays in the military. On all of this, the congressional liberals and their media allies will be unrelenting. And yet all this represents opportunity for the GOP."
Before you guys erupt, the same guy also said:
"REJOICE Electing an African American president closes a painful but proud chapter in American history. What a country."
I'm a liberal, and I sure as hell hate economic growth. Not as much as I hate the military, but enough.
Brian, get real.
That is, Inkblot was reading it. I think Inkblot put something in my treats.