Has Obstruction Failed?
Mark Schmitt says the key thing about Barack Obama’s first hundred days is the success he’s had in framing the terms of debate:
How successfully has Obama set the terms of debate so far? The first thing to notice is that he has completely marginalized the Republican right, and his bipartisan outreach has a lot to do with it. Those of us who welcomed Obama’s bipartisan and consensus-building tone were often criticized on the grounds that Republicans would unite in lockstep opposition to any Democratic president, and so, we were lectured, one had to fight them with equal force. Having witnessed the lockstep opposition to President Bill Clinton at close hand in 1993, I was hardly naive about the Republican strategy of massive resistance. The question was whether it would work. In 1993, Republicans got continuous positive feedback for their opposition — gaining in the polls, bringing Clinton’s popularity down, and effectively blocking, not just modifying, most of Clinton’s initiatives except for those in the giant budget-reconciliation bill. They could see the potential Republican majority right around the corner.
This time, though, the Republicans have little to show for their opposition and with nowhere else to turn, seem to be aligning themselves not only with the crazier elements of their own coalition but with a desperate last-gasp defense of the most unpopular — not to mention illegal and immoral — aspects of the previous administration. Such a result is extraordinarily helpful to the magnanimous president — it removes any ambiguity, tells him exactly where he stands, and gives him the moral high ground in moving forward with a mainly Democratic coalition. And the few Republicans who for personal reasons or for reasons of constituency do want to cooperate with the president will find themselves cut off from their party, and as they find it harder to keep a foot in each camp, they will have to move more completely and decisively, just as Sen. Arlen Specter did by switching parties.
I largely agree with this, but in many ways it still strikes me as far too optimistic. To take just one example, climate change. The administration and the congressional leadership have ruled out the use of the reconciliation process to pass their energy/climate agenda. Since it’s completely inconceivable that you could get 60 votes in the Senate for the sort of cap-and-trade proposal that Barack Obama outlined during the campaign, this means they’ve preemptively surrendered on an agenda that they ran and won on during the course of a two-year presidential campaign. And that campaign-season plan, though excellent, fell somewhat short of what scientists say is necessary to prevent a potentially irreversible catastrophe. As I wrote in my hundred days roundup that’s a very significant failure.
On health reform, it seems certain that a bill will pass and be signed into law that’s called “Obama’s health care bill.” But it remains very unclear to me and to everyone how much the bill will actually do to tackle either the social injustice or the fiscal instability of our current health care system. Meanwhile, on the banking sector the debate about the administration’s policies is essentially between people who think they’re screwing up because they’re corrupt (Simon Johnson, Joe Stiglitz, Paul Krugman) and those who think they’re doing close to their best when faced with objective political constraints (Felix Salmon, Brad DeLong).
But those political constraints don’t just appear magically out of the sky. They have something to do with the continuing atmosphere of partisan gridlock on the Hill. So you can say that congressional obstruction has succeeded in derailing Obama’s efforts on the most important short-term issue that congress has jurisdiction over, and also derailing his efforts on the most important long-term issue that he’s facing. That’s pretty impressive for a small and unpopular minority!
The hard right’s political strategy, in other words, may be pretty unsuited for short-term electoral victory—I think they’re in very bad shape for 2010 and 2012—but it’s surprisingly effective on policy terms.
63 Responses to “Has Obstruction Failed?”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 30th, 2009 at 11:03 am
But aren’t the relevant political constraints basically WITHIN the Democratic Part? And as long as we’re stuck with the archaic Senate and its undemocratic requirement for a supermajority to shut off debate, how do we get around that no matter how irrelevant the Republican Party becomes?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
(1) They don’t need to try to push carbon pricing through budget reconciliation because the EPA is going to flip the playing field upside down, meaning it will require congressional action to stop a carbon pricing scheme.
(2) The debate over the Administration’s plan for the financial system is more complicated than Matt is willing to admit, with some people thinking the Administration may well get the end result it needs at a relatively low cost.
(3) In any event, for the most part it is congressional Democrats, not congressional Republicans, who are operating as the marginal constraint (and Specter’s defection is going to make that all the more clear). So while it is true Obama can’t just get Congress to do whatever he wants, that actually has very little to do with the Republican opposition.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Thank you, Matthew.
This is the point I’ve been trying to make for months with mean, sarcastic quips in your
comment section — you finally put it
more clearly than I could have hoped
for.
The question is: WHY? Why, faced with
such an enormous coming together of
historical national and international
crises, and an unprecedented shot at fixing them, is Obama giving up without a fight? And, what can we do to turn things around?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Yeah, I’m not finding this post altogether convincing either. Matt’s a smart guy, but I’m rarely convinced by his understanding of legislative tactics. To put it another way: when it comes to the details of persuading cranky old Senators to sign on the dotted line, I still suspect Reid has more experience than Yglesias. The reconciliation thing is frustrating, but I have the feeling that a deep game is being played, involving both carrots and sticks. The EPA is the stick.
As for the bit about climate catastrophe — yes. But it’s still true that politics is the art of the possible. Matt’s right that on this topic, the range of political possibility frustratingly fails to overlap with the range of things scientists tell us are necessary. That’s worth getting upset about! But we ought to be getting more upset at ourselves than at Harry Reid, or Obama. Where is the f***ing protest movement? People ought to be marching on this topic. This is a difficult issue, politically, and we can’t expect the political establishment to act boldly unless we’re lighting a fire under their asses. I want to hear more discussion about that part.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Matt, you give way too much credit to the hard right for placing roadblocks in front of Obama’s agenda. Rather, it is the center left of the Democratic party that is proving to be the biggest impediment to Obama’s agenda whether it be Cap and Trade, Health Care, the size of the Stimulus or any of his other initiatives.
The hard right has been spayed.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I’m afraid that the banksters, the inadequate commitment to health care reform and the plan to use the filibuster to excuse the failure of cap and trade all are part of the same problem. There are too many corrupt Democrats bribed to continue handing these oligopolies taxpayer and consumer dollars.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The hard right’s political strategy, in other words, may be pretty unsuited for short-term electoral victory—I think they’re in very bad shape for 2010 and 2012—but it’s surprisingly effective on policy terms.
…until 2011 or 2013.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Well.. if MY is impressed with how effective the congressional republicans have been, then MY is very easily impressed. Obama’s priorities seem to be on track as far as I can make out.
The hard right’s political strategy, in other words, may be pretty unsuited for short-term electoral victory—I think they’re in very bad shape for 2010 and 2012—but it’s surprisingly effective on policy terms.
Yeah.. unsuited for the next 30-40 years… so more power to their long term electoral strategy.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I’m getting the feeling that Obama’s going to let the climate change issue wait until 2011 – let EPA move forward, but at a deliberate pace, so that nothing will actually take effect for a couple of years, then combine that with a hoped-for bigger Dem majority in 2011 to make auctionable cap-and-trade happen.
In the meantime, the silver lining of the global recession will be less carbon emissions than expected for the next year or two.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The problem with leaving carbon regulation to the EPA is that what one administration giveth, another administration may taketh away. We need legislation to lock in the regulations, as it were.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:37 am
EPA now, legislation in 2011 takes care of that problem.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The problem with leaving carbon regulation to the EPA is that what one administration giveth, another administration may taketh away. We need legislation to lock in the regulations, as it were.
That is actually not entirely true, since this isn’t a purely discretional issue. And, of course, a change in congressional control can mean a change in legislation, so there really isn’t any way to lock in a policy permanently.
But in any event, I think if the EPA pushes far enough, we will in fact get legislation.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
What form should this “fight” take? Short of having Republican Senators from states with Democratic governers killed, what would have an effect?
I think he has arranged things, politically, better than I could have imagined. Moderates are now faced with a choice to side with the forces of reason, or to side with the deranged right wing. It is unfortunate that many will continue to side with the deranged right wing, but short of criminal activity, there isn’t anything that can be done.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Matt didn’t address the blue dogs in this. That’s Obama’s major constraint on climate, banking, and maybe even health care. I’m not so sure the blue dogs are motivated by fear of whatever the right is up to. I think they’re just corporate sell-outs.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Americans need an enemy. Communism’s done, and Islamism is an amorphous mess.
The GOP is providing Obama, and more importantly America, a reliable punching bag. They might have had a shot if they had fought the stimulus battle while conceding torture. It makes it hard for independents to believe that they do anything on principle.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
The collapse of the automobile industry is having an impact on health care. A move to single-payer would have helped the industry compete. Since they’re not going to be around, they aren’t going to be the shining example of what single payer could have done for us.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Divide and conquer. Separate the Republicans and the Blue Dogs. Make the gulf between the two groups so wide that they can no longer find common ground. Crush the Republican party in the next two elections. Let the Blue Dogs know that if they do not fall in line, they will be next.
Carry out this strategy in gentlemanly fashion.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Matt keeps trying to stick with this point, but he is not very convincing. America is something like 35% conservative, 25% liberal, and 40% moderate. If Obama took as hard a line as Matt, et al wished, he would alienate that block of moderates who soured on Bush for the exact same reasons. Instead of looking at what has been accomplished, Matt would rather navel gaze and only consider what he wished had happened ($2 trillion stimulus, single payer healthcare, etc). As many people have mentioned, the debate within the Democratic Party regarding the issues is now the only debate that matters. That is a good thing for moving the President’s agenda forward. If moderate Dems and liberal Dems have a reasonable debate on the issues which considers the interests of the non-crazy 70% of Americans, what more could you want? That is why it is good for the Dems to keep the big tent open and why the Reps will eventually (far future) come back to sanity. The Democrats are becoming associated with the party of sanity and reasonableness. You may think that is weak-sauce, but you won’t get anything you want if you act the other way.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
What form should this “fight” take? Short of having Republican Senators from states with Democratic governers killed, what would have an effect?
I think he has arranged things, politically, better than I could have imagined. Moderates are now faced with a choice to side with the forces of reason, or to side with the deranged right wing.
how do you fight?
easy. impose a bit of party discipline. the kind of discipline that republicans like reagan and bush and bush routinely imposed. it is not a surprise that they have been able to enact a large portion of their agenda – even though most polling shows a lack of public support for most of it over the last 30 years – through court appointments, legislation, will power and party discipline.
it is not a surprise that the last democrat to get his agenda through congress was lbj,the last democrat who was willing to impose party discipline through a lot of political hardball.
if a member strayed, a coveted chairmanship or committee assignment just might not be available for that member.
if a party member strayed, that member might find that the president was awfully busy and unavailable for any fundraising for that member.
the worst thing that can be done is exactly what obama has just done for specter: promised that he would support and fundraise for him regardless of how he voted on obama’s legislative priorities.
that tells dems that they do not have to support the president in order to get the president’s support. it mystifies me as to how obama therefore expects to be able to actually push these members to make tough votes for him.
vote with him because he’s so charming?
and you ignore a third option that a member of congress can gravitate towards. the lobbyists who hand out the checks to anyone who will support their agenda. the wonderful thing about that choice is that no one – other than activists who review a candidate’s contributions – will even know that that congressperson has voted a certain way, largely to support the choices of a large contributor.
evan bayh is probably the best example of that type. he talks a big game, positions himself as a “moderate” but he is one of the worst whores in congress, someone who obviously sells himself – and his vote – to the highest bidder.
obama – and anyone who wants to actually make big changes – has to be willing to make it difficult, if not impossible, for someone to make those choices, choices that work against the agenda he got elected to enact. so far, i’ve seen precious little evidence that he – or harry reid – understands that basic fact.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I like this point. I remember watching a Three Stooges short when I was 9 years old. There was a line, “Last one in is a Republican!” I didn’t understand this (it was 1972; Republicans were popular). My mom explained that in the ’30s no one admitted to being a Republican.
I think turning “Republican” into a term of derision, rather than a target for fear and hatred like communism, would be most effective. Reagan tried, with fair success, to do that to “liberal”.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
LBJ had 68 Democratic Senators. He could tell any 8 he didn’t need them. He could shield any Senators who were in electoral danger by letting them vote against him. He also had an electoral margin that dwarfs even Obama’s huge victory. He had the ghost of Kennedy to twist arms if he needed it. He had an opposition that was not stark raving mad. Obama is not close to being in the position of power LBJ was.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
obviously, you don’t have a full appreciation of how difficult it has been for america to confront it’s extraordinarily divisive racial history.
if you did, you would understand completely how difficult it was for johnson to push his civil rights legislation through congress.
legislation that would help to insure civil rights to a large group of americans who were seen as sub-human by large portions of the american population. legislation that was violently opposed by huge majorities of white citizens in many parts of the country.
legislation on issues that were literally leading to the violent murders of americans who were confronting those issues and had the courage to take the lead on those issues.
yes, obama faces tough challenges, but nothing on his legislative plate even compares to the issues that johnson dealt with in his historic legislation.
health care, bank regulation, the rest of the issues are important, but people are not being routinely beaten and murdered because of their advocacy of their positions on those issues.
that was not the case, regarding the issues that lbj confronted. and had the muscle to force through congress.
or haven’t you heard of slavery, the civil war, jim crow, lynchings and brown v board of education?
the fact that you would even attempt to equate the two eras is mindboggling.
simply stunningly stupid.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
LBJ also had Republicans supporting key parts of his agenda. In fact, a higher percentage of congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act if 1964 than of congressional Democrats. In other words, on that issue it was North-South thing, not a party discipline thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
spare me if i don’t believe that racial animus and hesitation about civil rights laws was confined to the south.
i just happen to be from michigan where george wallace won the democratic primary back in ‘68, a few years after the vote on the civil rights laws.
yes, opposition was more intense in the south and those politicians had more public support, but the idea that the north and northeast and midwest and northwest and western parts of the country were eager to embrace those issues and the new laws is laughable.
i’d seriously suggest that you go back and read a bit of history about race relations in places like boston and detroit and portland and cleveland and pittsburgh and chicago and milwaukee and any number of other “northern” cities where those citizens were not very happy about the laws outlawing segregation and discrimination.
it took just as much courage for those politicians to vote for the bill as can be imagined.
and it only happened because lbj, along with his congressional allies, pushed as hard as they could to get it through.
i see no inclination on obama’s part to go anywhere near as far as lbj had to go.
he’s still on the fence about reconciliation. defining it still as a “bargaining chip” as opposed to something that he will absolutely use, if necessary.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
LBJ’s civil rights successes also led to the resurgence of the conservative minority, and their domination of politics for forty years, ruining the country in the process.
I’m willing to forgive Obama his half (three-quarters?) measures if he’s afraid of triggering that kind of backlash.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
And there is no equivalent to the pictures of protesters being attacked with dogs and fire hoses in the climate debate. The problem is amorphous, immediate solutions require huge disruptions to our economy, and even then are not guaranteed to work.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“LBJ’s civil rights successes also led to the resurgence of the conservative minority, and their domination of politics for forty years, ruining the country in the process.
I’m willing to forgive Obama his half (three-quarters?) measures if he’s afraid of triggering that kind of backlash.”
oh,so i should have continued to have to go to “colored” drinking fountains when i visited my relatives in alabama in the sixties?
and i should have simply relegated myself to the fact that legal discrimination could still exist?
in order to avoid a backlash?
April 30th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Do you hate John F. Kennedy, frankie d? He never even brought the Civil Rights Act up during his presidency, because he was carefully testing the waters and waiting for the right moment.
Would you have preferred the bill had come up two years earlier, failed, and disappear for a decade?
April 30th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
on a less facetious note…
what makes obama’s hesitation so ridiculous and indefensible, imho, is that most of the measures he half-steps on have broad public support. which was not the case for most of the civil rights legislation that johnson signed.
sure, there were certain spikes of sympathy for the plights of black folks back in the ’60’s, but that support was about an inch deep. once the reality that those laws imposed struck home with the white population, it became obvious how courageous johnson had been.
richard nixon and “law and order” was a direct result of johnson’s measures and the silent majority was certainly not supportive of those civil rights laws. in theory, maybe. in practice, absolutely not.
proof of that fact is the supreme court having to address, just yesterday, the voting rights act from that era. if that law had indeed enjoyed such broad support, that 40+ year old law would not even be an issue in 2009.
on the other hand, obama’s problem is not lack of public support for his agenda. his problem is the simple fact that certain powerful members of congress continue to feed at the trough of special interests and cater to those needs, as opposed to the needs and wishes of their constituency.
in a situation of this sort, discipline can be very easily imposed. if obama is willing to play a bit of hardball with the likes of bayh and landrieu and conrad, et al.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“how do you fight?
easy. impose a bit of party discipline. the kind of discipline that republicans like reagan and bush and bush routinely imposed. it is not a surprise that they have been able to enact a large portion of their agenda…”
I wasn’t surprised that people said this back when it looked like the Republicans were unbeatable. But I’m amazed that people are still saying this now that the Republicans have been soundly defeated (”have been able”? odd use of the present perfect…), and defeated because of the very same insistence on party discipline that you think is going to get Obama everything he wants.
I mean, really, do you read the news? In this week alone, the hard-line GOP—represented by the Club for Growth—simply gave a senator to the Democrats, because they couldn’t stand that senator differing from the party line on a few issues. “Party discipline” is shrinking the Republican Party every single day.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Since it’s so easy, you should be able to tell us exactly what he can threaten them with.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
spare me if i don’t believe that racial animus and hesitation about civil rights laws was confined to the south.
I’m not aware of anyone making this claim. However, as far as the vote in Congress was concerned, North versus South was much more predictive than Democrats versus Republicans. Here are the numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Anyway, the relevant point is that the affirmative vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly wasn’t produced through party discipline.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
” in a situation of this sort, discipline can be very easily imposed. if obama is willing to play a bit of hardball with the likes of bayh and landrieu and conrad, et al.
Since it’s so easy, you should be able to tell us exactly what he can threaten them with”
as i said before, the first place is fundraising.
you support my agenda, i fundraise for you.
next, personal support.
you support my agenda, i come and campaign for you. i take all sorts of nice photos with you and i even do an ad for you.
if you do not support my agenda, i’ll have an impossible time getting to your state to fundraise for you. and i certainly am not going to do any photo ops with you and you can certainly forget one of those last second ads.
and oh yea, if someone else comes along who actually looks like he’d be a bit friendlier, i might even think about supporting that person. or at best/worst, remaining silent as he/she challenges you.
doing what he’s just done with specter is the worst thing to do. he’s already told specter that no matter what he does, he’ll support him.
and specter has already rewarded him by informing him that he will not support reconciliation, and oh yea, he’s already voted against his budget.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Enough with frankie d. He’s just trying to make this thread all about him.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
They don’t need him to fundraise for them. Conrad and Bayh in particular are institutions in their states, plus Conrad doesn’t even have to run again until 2012 when Obama will be more concerned with raising funds for his own re-election.
So, FAIL. Care to try again?
April 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Hear Hear Frankie D. And where is Obama spending his political capital? On right-wing Democrats and people like Arlen Spector. People that are opposed to traditional Democratic issues!
It’s insan. Obama’s is capitulatiing to the conservatives–both within the Democratic party and within the Republican party.
The Democratic party has become the sane conservative party. I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding that. Obama just wants to hoodwink you liberals into thinking he’s on your side. You’re a bunch of suckers and will be trying to convince Obama and the party to listen to you while he clearly favors the conservatives like Bayh and Spector.
You liberals must really hate yourselves to keep on fooling yourselves like this.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I’m no blind Obama supporter, Jason; there are many ways in which I would wish him to be more progressive than he is. But it’s simply delusional to believe that he can just snap his fingers and ram anything he wants through the Senate. That’s just not the case.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
nyway, the relevant point is that the affirmative vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly wasn’t produced through party discipline.
you’ve got to be kidding?
what do any of those numbers have to do with determining how effective johnson was at imposing party discipline?
frankly, it is amazing to even have to make these points.
lbj is widely recognized as the president who was most effective at working congress and getting what he wanted.
that is what he did: he twisted arms and bumped heads and did what he had to do to get his legislation passed.
i can only imagine that you lack an appreciation of the historical context and the amount of party discipline that was necessary to get the legislation in front of congress and to jump through all of the procedural hoops and then get the votes he got.
let me repeat: people were getting murdered in the streets as a result of these laws. it took courage on everyone’s part – north, east and west – to support that legislation.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Who is making the case that Obama can ram anything he wants through congress? Using political capital is not guranteed. It’s a risk. Whether Obama chooses to put his weight behind conservatives or liberals he is not guaranteed to win.
But isn’t this what the game is all about? Pushing, the best one can, towards the policy goals one believes to be the best? I, for one, am sick of the Democrats being such cowards. I can’t think of anything they have actually spent political captial on in the last decade other than through their support of bankers in the face of popular anger toward bankers. I couldn’t have imagined a more cowardly caucus than the modern Democratic party.
Just look where Obama has chosen to spend his capital. Just look what he has preemptively taken off the table. He may be cool and hip and a vast improvement over Bush, but, hey, he seems to be the same old Clinton-style conservative Democrat.
I actually care enough about my country to want to fight for the policy goals that actually have a chance of working–liberal policy goals. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so out of touch and so wedded to the tired old victim mentality that they have to move to the right to win. There’s no more room to go to the right. The Democrats are now basically the conservatives of 40 years ago.
How’s it feel to “win” an election but give the opposing team everything they dreamed of and more?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
They don’t need him to fundraise for them. Conrad and Bayh in particular are institutions in their states, plus Conrad doesn’t even have to run again until 2012 when Obama will be more concerned with raising funds for his own re-election.
So, FAIL. Care to try again?
sure, a senator from a neighboring state, one that went for a democrat for the first time in decades, one that has sizable minority populations in its urban area, that senator wants his president as an enemy.
you can bet your life that both of them will have a photo of obama shaking their hand on their wall and will beg for an obama fundraiser.
or have the typical rules of politics been suspended?
if bayh and conrad, et al – and they are certainly not the only ones – are so secure, why don’t they just switch parties and run as republicans? if they are institutions, their party affiliation should not matter. but of course they will not, because they benefit from their connection to the democratic party, which is led by a popular president.
effective presidents use that popularity to push their agenda.
obama has not shown that he’s capable of doing that.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I love this woolly abstract wanking about “political capital”- you should be on CNN or some other brain-dead talking head fest. Put up- tell us PRECISELY what carrots and sticks Obama has available to apply to Conservadem senators like Nelson and Bayh- or shut up. Your buddy at least came up with one, though unfortunately it was flat wrong.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Of course it matters. As Blue Dogs they have a major influence on legislation. As Republicans they’d have much less. Duh.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
You’re the one who held up LBJ’s civil rights legislation as an example of his ability to arm-twist.
Do you have any other examples in mind?
Yes, after the laws were passed, then there was backlash. But by that point the laws were already passed.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
lbj is widely recognized as the president who was most effective at working congress and getting what he wanted.
Yes, but in the case of civil rights legislation, he was working with a lot of Republicans in Congress, and meanwhile a lot of Democrats in Congress were refusing to work with him.
So that isn’t a story about LBJ imposing party discipline. It is indeed a different sort of success story, but not that particular kind.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t know why you pretend to not understand how the art of political support works.
Here’s a start on something constructive Obama can do. He can throw his weight behind a liberal candidate for Senator of Pennsylvania. He can give a speech that is critical of Bayh. He can refuse to help him raise funds.
Jeez. I’m starting to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith. Surely you understand how this game works? Obama uses his bully pulpit to argue for liberal causes and throws his support behind liberals and attacks conservatives. Kind of how Obama supported Joe Lieberman during his primary–but reversed. Kind of how Obama supported other conservative Dems last year–but again, reversed to help the liberal and not the conservative.
If you prefer a conservative Democratic party simply say so. Don’t pretend that you don’t understand how political capital works or that Obama is spending his political capital on liberals. Quite clearly Obama is making a tactical decision to move to the right and get the support of right-wing Republicans rather than getting the support of liberals. That’s fine if you disagree–just be honest about it. Jeez.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Thereby affecting Bayh’s re-election chances not one iota, while making Bayh into a bitter opponent who will go out of his way to be even more obstructive.
You really are an idiot.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
at least jason sees what is going on.
it amazes me that obama supporters refuse to acknowledge what is going on, right in front of their faces.
for whatever reason, obama is trembling in the face of a feeble opponent, when he should be using every weapon in his disposal to move his agenda forward.
unfortunately, this is reminding me more and more of clinton’s first term.
i’d worked for clinton in ‘92 and was appalled as he slowly but surely surrendered on issue after issue.
i see nothing from obama that indicates that he is going to operate any differently. i see plenty of thing that are disturingly similar, including a lot of clinton’s old people in crucial spots.
we will see, as time goes on, but so far, not good.
i’m simply waiting for health care “reform”. my guess is that it will involve a mandate, with an assurance that insurance companies will “offer” “reasonable” coverage to all americans at “reasonable” rates, while a public option will be sacrificed to bipartisanship.
those are our fighting dems.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
okay. I see I am wasting my time with you Steve LaBonne.
I don’t know why I bother with pompous jerks like you.
Idiot? If you think Evan Bayh is going to win a popularity contest against President Obama and gleefully take him on if Obama criticizes him (instead of cowering to win back Obama’s support) than I think you are the idiot. In fact, I think you are beyond an idiot and a pompous little fraidy-cat like Bayh and all the other cowardly conservative Democrats.
But I’m done talking to a jerk like you that apparently isn’t capable of having an honest and decent discussion. Evidently all you bring to the table is silly name-calling and you can’t even back that up with anything credible.
You must have lots of friends in real life.
Jerk. Hope you have the horrible day you so richly deserve!
April 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
scott p says:
Do you have any other examples in mind?
let me repeat: people were getting murdered in the streets as a result of these laws. it took courage on everyone’s part – north, east and west – to support that legislation.
Yes, after the laws were passed, then there was backlash. But by that point the laws were already passed.
you reveal your abject ignorance by that incredible remark.
you need to go back and read a bit of history.
there is a long line of murders in the south, up to and after the passage of the civil rights laws.
yes, there was a backlash, but events before the passage of the laws were just as violent.
haven’t you ever heard of medgar evers?
the birmingham church bombings?
the murders of the three young men in philadephia, ms, the place ronald reagan made even more famous in 1980?
bull connor?
there were many more murders and much more violence. i only name a few instances.
really, your shameful ignorance about american history is on full display.
the american educational system in its full glory.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Jeez. I’m starting to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith.”
I’m starting to wonder if you can comprehend a fairly straightforward argument. The argument in defense of Obama here is that he is achieving as much as is possible given current political conditions. You seem to think that his endorsement automatically guarantees a win for his chosen candidate. I think you need to provide some support for this assumption, as I think it is wildly optimistic.
I would also assert that you have no idea what deals are being made behind closed doors among Obama and obstinate Democratic senators in terms of how much support they give his legislative agenda, and how much support he provides them in two years.
Obama did not win the type of landslide his critics on the left seem to have given him. He still faces a Washington political and media establishment that, in Josh’s Marshall’s apt phrase, is “wired for Republicans.”
You can argue bad faith all you want. I won’t return the charge. But I do think you’re wildly unrealistic in your expectations of what he can achieve by threats, coercion, and the force of his personality alone.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Here’s a start on something constructive Obama can do. He can throw his weight behind a liberal candidate for Senator of Pennsylvania.
Specter is going to be a Senator for almost two more years, even if he loses in the Democratic primary. So that seems like kinda a bad idea right now. A smarter idea, it seems to me, would be to make it clear to Specter that he can have Obama’s support, but only if he ends up more or less supporting Obama’s agenda (say roughly as much as Casey does).
If you prefer a conservative Democratic party simply say so.
The problem is that the Democrats aren’t entitled to a certain number of slots in Congress. So the issue isn’t just composition, but also number.
And if you look at something like Senate-split states, the Democrats from those states, frustrating as they may be too liberal Democrats, are still much better than the Republicans from those states. So even if you do want to push for some competitive primaries, you don’t want to push so hard that you actually lose many seats in the general, because that will quickly wipe out any advantage to having a more ideological pure remainder.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
bj is widely recognized as the president who was most effective at working congress and getting what he wanted.
Yes, but in the case of civil rights legislation, he was working with a lot of Republicans in Congress, and meanwhile a lot of Democrats in Congress were refusing to work with him.
So that isn’t a story about LBJ imposing party discipline. It is indeed a different sort of success story, but not that particular kind.
dtm,
dont you understand some basic facts about what was going on then.
yes, some dems opposed him. but dems were also in control of the levers of power in congress and lbj had to exert enormous pressure just to have the committee chairmen move that legislation to the floor. it has an extremely complex history that is well worth reading about.
there had been many, many attempts to do so in the past and the only success was in 1957, when lbj, as senate majority leader muscled through a somewhat limited, but still important, civil rights law.
the fact that he was able to get the legislation to the floor, despite the intense opposition is proof of his genius, and his ability to bend congress to his will.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Brewman,
I certainly comprehend your argument. It has been repeated ad nauseum for almost 20 years by many in the Democratic party. The Democrats can’t push too hard for a liberal agenda or it will “backfire”. I understand it. In the late 90s I shared this belief. I now have changed my mind.
Can you please give the other side the respect to acknowledge that we simply disagree on how quickly change should be pushed? Look at how quickly public opinion has changed on gay rights in the last few years. Lots has changed and now is the time to push for liberal policy goals. Someone needs to push because even if you don’t obtain your goals someone is at least making the argument and this percolates in public opinion and lays the groundwork for change in the future. As Frankie D has shown, pushing for Civil Rights in the 60s was probably the right thing to do (even though Kennedy initially acted like modern Democrats and wanted to pull his punches). Likewise, liberals like me today see that the time to push for liberal ideas is now.
So, assuming we substantially agree on the best policy results, we simply disagree about the short-term effects of pushing a more liberal agenda. I think this conventional wisdom that Obama appears to be operating under, and which you claim I don’t see and the mental midget Steve LaBoom thinks I am an idiot for not seeing, that Obama has to run to the right or else they will crush him (as if Bayh and the cowardly caucus is to be feared) is hopelessly outdated and erroneous and in fact it is this cowardice and the inability to fight for their beliefs which is what is holding Democrats back from substantial policy victories.
The other option is that huge numbers of Democrats are now really conservative. Which is partly true I think. That’s why I’m wondering if Steven LaDouche and the like-minded conservative Dems really want to argue in good faith–that moving too quickly to the left will cause backlash–or if they realy are conservative tools that are itching for a fight with liberals.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
the fact that he was able to get the legislation to the floor, despite the intense opposition is proof of his genius, and his ability to bend congress to his will.
But again, much of that “intense opposition” was from Democrats. So whatever else you want to say about this episode in praise of LBJ and his legislative skills, it wasn’t an example of party discipline.
And by the way, anyone who had in fact read histories of this era and these legislative fights should easily recognize this fact. Civil rights legislation broke the Democratic Party into warring factions largely along regional lines, and accordingly LBJ had no choice but to work with Republicans. Why you are denying that basic fact is beyond me, except I guess you are trying to defend your point about Obama.
But with all due respect, you just choose the wrong example if your theory is that what Obama should be doing is enforcing party discipline. Rather, using this example, what one would conclude is that Obama should be working with Republicans in order to replace the Democrats in opposition.
So is that your point? That Obama should be working with a lot more Republicans? Because again, that is what LBJ did.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
The assumption in a lot of these reports is that even with Specter’s defection, it will not be easy getting 60 votes for controversial measures that conservative Democrats like Nelson oppose. It might be difficult to get 60 Democratic votes for the bills themselves. But surely even dissenting Dems would give the leadership the 60 votes necessary to bring cloture and ensure the bills at least got their day in court. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Dems had the discipline to get 60 votes for cloture on everything on their agenda and then the 50 or 51 necessary for passage. Now, the big question would be if Republicans would be more willing to play ball if by trading a willness to give a measure bi-partisan support they could win assurance on amendments to make bills more palatable to their followers. They might decide that walling themselves up in their castle and pulling up the drawbridge plays better for them politically. But, by getting across the 60 vote threshold Democrats might also find Republicans more willing to play ball.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
DTM,
I actually agree with your analysis. Obama would be better off offering conditional support of Spector rather than the uncoditional support he has given. That way he has a way to put pressure over him in the future. This is another example of how to use political capital. Thanks for coming up with this wrinkle.
As to your second point, yes, I am arguing for the Democrats to move to the Left but that doesn’t mean I can’t understand politics and that the liberals won’t always win. I understand the risk. I just think it’s worth the risk.
For instance, instead of unconditionally supporting Spector (or even conditionally like you suggest) he could support a real liberal. He could have even strung Arlen along long enough so Arlen wasn’t prepared to fight the primary and anyway, the right-winger probably would have won anyway. So Arlen would be a 3rd party candidate. And he is such a weasel that I bet Obama could still present the deal to him weeks before the election and it wouldn’t really cost Obama much of anything.
Anyway, lot’s of ways it could play out and I don’t think I’m being unreasonable when I say I think Obama had a stronger hand here than simply giving Arlen and unconditional promise of support.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I’m afraid you’re going to be in for some disappointments. Ben Nelson won’t even commit 100% yet to voting for cloture on a White House appointee (Dawn Johnsen) who’s not even a cabinet member. (Though I think he probably will when push comes to shove.) These Conservadems are destructive, self-important assholes. I only wish it was as easy to get rid of them as our naive friends in this thread think.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
This notion that Obama can get conservative Dems to cave by throwing his weight around is a little silly.
Here are some results from the 2008 presidential and senatorial elections:
Louisiana:
McCain(R) 59% Obama(D) 40%
Landrieu(D) 52% Kenedy(R) 46%
Montana:
McCain(R) 50% Obama(D) 47%
Baucuas(D) 73% kelleher(R) 27%
Arkansas:
McCain(R) 59% Obama(D) 39%
Pryor(D) uncontested
Indiana:
Obama(D) 50% McCain(R) 49%
(2004 senetorial election)
Bayh(D) 62% Scott(R) 37%
Long story short, conservative Dems are more popular in thier states than Obama is. The notion that he is going to cow them into submission through the sheer force of his popularity is idiotic.
What Obama needed to do was marginalize the Republican opposition so that the debate was between conservative Dems and moderate republicans on one hand, and liberal dems and the white house on the other. He has succeeded at that largely. The next step is to negotiate with conservative dems and whaterver is left the moderate republican faction (basically Collins and Snowe). He can’t just dictate his terms. He needs to negotiate. I think he’s done a fairly good job so far. You may disagree, but don’t presume that he doesn’t have to negotiate.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
dtm,
what part of party discipline dont you understand?
maintaining party discipline means getting enough votes within your party, to pass legislation, especially when that legislation is extremely controvesial. especially when they might be inclined to vote against that legislation for any number of reasons.
did lbj get republican support?
yes.
did he lose some democratic support?
yes.
but he ultimately was able to muster enough democratic votes to pass historic legislation that no one else had been able to pass. often, bills on similar issues had been bottled up in committee.
that is an example of maintaining the party discipline necessary to pass controversial legislation.
on the other hand, obama cannot even muster enough democratic votes to get one of his campaign promises to a vote. the employee free choice act is dying a slow death. his stimulus package was compromised – some think fatally – largely because of wavering support from dems. he cannot even get his office of legal counsel head confirmed, largely because democratic support for her is bleeding.
i’m surprised that this issue is even controversial.
party discipline is what republicans typically show, witness the votes where they all vote unanimously.
party discipline is that lbj maintained, which is why he was the last democratic president to get his legislative agenda passed, pretty much intact.
the fact that he didn’t get every single democratic vote, or the fact that he got republican votes is irrelevant. what is important is that he worked the system and his party well enough to pass extraordinarily controversial legislation.
dems even joke about their lack of party discipline. you can find them on cable tv every day joking about their diverse, hard to manage democratic party.
why is it so controversial to point that out?
and to point to the last good example of someone who knew how to knock heads and impose discipline from the democratic party.
if you cannot understand these basic facts, i’m sorry.
but i’m through with this discussion.
its like trying to argue with someone who says that michael jordan was not a great basketball player. some things are self-evident. no matter that i’m not a huge jordan fan, based on his record and his accomplishments, i would never deny that he was a great player.
similarly, the idea that lbj was not a giant, the last democratic president to be able to marshall party discipline sufficiently to pass his historic legislation is just so whack that it makes no sense to continue to discuss it. that argument flies in the face of established history.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
this poster has never indicated that any president could ever get rid of anyone he disagreed with.
at the very least, any president, with the full weight of his resources, as the head of the party, can make life extremely difficult on any member he might wish to come down on.
it is that fear of god, not appeals to the goodness of senators or congressmen, that keeps folks in line.
and while an individual congressperson may want to buck a president, that understanding is usually what keeps them in line.
and in our system, the key to making someone’s life miserable starts with money. raising money. leaning on the party bigwhigs to withhold money. any number of matters that basically revolve around money.
a popular president, can make life hell for anyone, in that political sense.
it is funny that republicans – and lbj – were able to make folks understand that fact, while dems nowadays appear to be constitutionally incapable of understanding those political realities.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I don’t get all the enthusiasm for congressional action over the executive branch issuing regulations. My reading of the tea leaves says any legislation likely to reach the president’s desk was almost certainly going to provide beaucoup give always to polluting industries. Seems to me edicts from the EPA are much more likely to get us to a system of 100% fully auctioned emission permits. Maybe once things get going, we can even close our eyes and pretend we live under a Westminster-style government where the people who won the election get a chance to actually govern.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
If the GOP strategy fails in terms of short term electoral victories, then it largely fails. There is a big difference between 55 & 60 votes, but there is an even larger difference between 60 and 65. No longer do Dems need a unified block. They can let the 6 most skeptical Democrats compete for who will become the 60th vote with the smallest inducement. This leaves the Dems in a much better position.
So let the Republicans trade short term obstruction for medium term losses. Global warming is not urgent enough that we can’t wait two years so that we get a well written, not-watered down cap-and-trade. It will be even easier because the economy should be on the upswing by then. Any C02 that gets emitted because we don’t pass cap-and-trade this year can be offset by stronger legislation later. If we’re talking about a 50 year scope for our cap-and-trade plan, then a 2-year delay would mean we’d need a 4% stronger standard each year after the plan is finally passed. This is hardly a deal-breaker for the environment.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Of course this thread is dead, but I wanted to write this yesterday when it was still alive. It still seems worth mentioning.
LBJ’s left a huge legacy which obscures the main body of his career, a career that was the epitome of crass, unprincipled political calculation. Sure, the presidency has some power, but LBJs power came primarily from his senate career, with decades of dealmaking that both allowed him to spend enormous political capital (of the classic “favors done banking” style) and the understanding of how to maximize the impact of that political capital.
Ironically, frankie d and Jason would abhored the pre-presidential LBJ, but that’s what enabled his legaslative legacy.