Laying the Groundwork for the Backfire
Every time I read Ezra Klein pooh-pooing Barack Obama’s domestic agenda, I feel a bit baffled. He’s running on a platform that promises universal preschool, dramatic cuts in carbon emissions and investments in clean energy infrastructure, health insurance that would be affordable for all, comprehensive immigration reform, substantial labor law reform, large new spending on K-12 initiatives, and tax reform to make the federal code much more progressive overall. Is it as left-wing as what John Edwards ran on in the primaries in 2008? No. But it’s much more robustly progressive than what John Kerry offered in 2004, what Al Gore offered in 2000, or what Bill Clinton offered in 1996, and somewhat more ambitious than the Clinton ‘92 program. Presumably, that entire agenda won’t actually be enacted.
But if it were enacted, it would be the most dramatic shift in national policy since the high tide of the Great Society.
As I say, presumably it won’t actually all happen. And one key element in the struggle to prevent it from happening, will be the effort to argue, if Obama wins, that, eh, he didn’t really run on a bold progressive agenda. Under the circumstances, I think it’s important to argue that, yes, he in fact did run on strong progressive agenda and members of congress need to hear that if he wins, that signifies the political viability of a strong progressive agenda.
This is where I think some of the recent “socialism” scare talk and so forth gets interesting. Presumably, come January and February conservatives are going to be wanting to argue that Obama’s got no mandate, that Republican legislators have no need to fear him, and that Democratic legislators should live in terror of overreaching. To that end, it’ll be helpful to argue that Obama got elected as a tepid centrist. But in their last-ditch efforts to beat him, they’re doing the reverse, and dramatically overpainting Obama as a wild-eyed radical ready to unleash Marxism on the country. Well, if you spend a month or two running around saying that, and then the voters back the Marxist anyway, he’s got pretty much carte blanche to do what he wants if he wins.
87 Responses to “Laying the Groundwork for the Backfire”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
What with the ongoing and possibly worsening economic troubles, it may be quite some time until any sort of agenda can get attention.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:24 am
What will happen if Obama wins in a landslide? Will he be granted the illustrious “mandate”? Will we be able to expell whole families like the Kagans?
October 29th, 2008 at 10:28 am
True, but partial: if the #s hold and Obama gets his mandate, he’s gonna have to USE it — so it’s not simply a question of how the R’s will counterpunch, for which one has to be grateful they’ve been so foolish in their framing.
That’s how the fact of a global economic mess actually creates a political advantage for him, same as for FDR — IF he has the wisdom and a pair. His challenge is gonna be the DEMOCRATS in Congress, new centrists and the long-serving liberals alike, not the R’s.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Matt, I think it’s so cute that you think a little thing like “logic” is going to enter into what the Republicans do or do not argue in opposition to an Obama administration’s agenda.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am
yeah, well, Klein never really got over the Clinton thing. and despite her policy proposals being, on the whole, more conservative than Obama’s, it just became the thing du jour to say that “Clinton is more progressive” – among people who fanatically wanted Clitnon to win. its a big blind spot which results inevitably in baffling behavior and analyses.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Ezra says:
Hrm. Advancing a liberal agenda while acknowledging political realities and being careful not to overreach. Ted Kennedy would be ashamed.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“it’s … somewhat more ambitious than the Clinton ‘92 program.”
100% wrong.
Not even close.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
What with the ongoing and possibly worsening economic trouble.
Nonsense. In the middle of a recession is exactly the time to spend money and make bold changes. Jon Stewart made a joke about this the other night. “Yes. Now, in the middle of this crisis, is not the time for radical change. Now is the time to keep doing the same shit that got us here!” Well, the way he said it was much funnier.
Matt, I think it’s so cute that you think a little thing like “logic” is going to enter into what the Republicans do or do not argue in opposition to an Obama administration’s agenda.
I don’t think anyone expects Republicans to be anything other than dishonest. The point is not that we can change how Republicans try to fight us. The point is that we need to set the terms of debate for the coming fight. We can justifiably argue that this election was a referendum on conservatism vs. a bold new liberal agenda. Conservatism lost.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
He’s running on a platform that promises universal preschool, dramatic cuts in carbon emissions and investments in clean energy infrastructure, health insurance that would be affordable for all, comprehensive immigration reform, substantial labor law reform, large new spending on K-12 initiatives, and tax reform to make the federal code much more progressive overall.
Are you talking about the Democratic party platform, or the platform Obama is actually talking about? I haven’t heard him say much about universal preschool or comprehensive immigration reform.
Referring to the party’s platform (as I think you’re doing) is meaningless, as there’s tons of crap in each party’s that has no chance of being enacted. The mandate comes behind what people think they are voting for. For GW Bush it was tax cuts and NCLB. For Obama, it will be his tax plan, some version of a healthcare plan, and probably climate restrictions. He’s sure as hell not out there building a mandate on labor reform or immigration.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“But it’s much more robustly progressive than what John Kerry offered in 2004, what Al Gore offered in 2000, or what Bill Clinton offered in 1996, and somewhat more ambitious than the Clinton ‘92 program.”
The crucial thing in determining the ambitiousness of Obama’s domestic program is finding where it stands relative to the Democratic consensus of the day.
And Obama is further to the right of the the Democratic consensus of the day than any Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Folks like Matt Yglesias and David Brooks find this a feature. I find this a bug.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I wouldn’t put too much stress on what’s claimed now, even if the claim isn’t coming from Obama and gets him wrong. After all, Bush ran as a moderate and then claimed a “mandate” to do whatever he wanted.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Petey is right, of course. For some reason no one wants to remember just what a major progressive agenda Clinton was pushing in 1992. There were two major promises that he made in the course of his campaign.
1. He would enact a national health care plan
2. He would allow gays to serve openly in the military
The fact that he failed on both counts notwithstanding, Clinton ran and won on these two issues.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I should clarify. Petey was right in what he said about Clinton ‘92. However, this is just silly:
And Obama is further to the right of the the Democratic consensus of the day than any Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Obama is going to push the country substantially to the left. He’s not perfect, but no one is. I’ll take a center left Dem who can get things done over a perfect lefty who would rather curse the darkness than light a candle any day of the week.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Rob Mac-
You forget Clinton also had a huge BTU tax too. Clinton ran on raising taxes, Obama on cutting them.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
1. He would enact a national health care plan
2. He would allow gays to serve openly in the military
. . .Clinton ran and won on these two issues.
. . . and thousands of gay vets are still enjoying their univeral health care today!
October 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The last month has been about Obama allowing the Republicans enough rope to totally discredit their fear based, overheated rhetoric.
It has been interesting to watch, Obama’s “attacks” on McCain have been on policy, where he just keeps asking for McCain to explain “one thing he would do different than George Bush” and on “the game” Republicans play to get elected. And McCain, to his credit, has rolled out the examples on a daily basis. All Obama has to do is point to the train wreck…and laugh.
Then he gets serious and addresses real stuff.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Maybe my memory is foggy, but I sure don’t remember any Clinton ads (or debate lines, or… pretty much anything) talking about gays in the military. It might have been in his platform, but it sure wasn’t something he ‘ran on’. Even the health care plan was, if I recall correctly, fairly low key- the details were left intentionally very vague at the time. The emphasis was on ‘feel[ing] your pain’, not policy, and certainly not particularly liberal policy.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“Obama is going to push the country substantially to the left.”
The zeitgeist and the Congress are going to push the country moderately to the left.
The biggest roadblock to enacting a progressive agenda going forward is going to be the WH, and anyone who doesn’t see that has been too busy drinking the kool-aid to be paying attention.
Again, the anti-leftism of Obama may be a feature to Matt Yglesias and David Brooks, but progressives will discover it to be a bug once the honeymoon is over.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Matt,
Could you stop bringing up John Edwards? I’m so pissed off at that asshole I could spit.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
There were two major promises that he made in the course of his campaign.
1. He would enact a national health care plan
2. He would allow gays to serve openly in the military
Clinton was the first vote I ever cast. I don’t remember boo-bullshit about gays in the military in the campaign. If that was in there, it wasn’t a key plank.
He *did* run on health care and wound up proposing a system of mandatory HMO’s (which sounds crazy and foolish in retrospect).
He also got my vote because he came to my high school and told me that college was going to be free when he was president. That obviously didn’t come to pass.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
The biggest roadblock to enacting a progressive agenda going forward is going to be the WH, and anyone who doesn’t see that has been too busy drinking the kool-aid to be paying attention.
Whatever, Petey, you have problems.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The zeitgeist and the Congress are going to push the country moderately to the left.
The biggest roadblock to enacting a progressive agenda going forward is going to be the WH, and anyone who doesn’t see that has been too busy drinking the kool-aid to be paying attention.
Again, the anti-leftism of Obama may be a feature to Matt Yglesias and David Brooks, but progressives will discover it to be a bug once the honeymoon is over.
Says Petey who recently used a rightwing Bush White House lawyer as a character witness against Obama, without disclosing this character witness’s proclivities. Very dishonest. Everything you type is suspect.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Luis has it right. We should also remember that presidents rarely have policy mandates; they assume them. Obama, like Clinton before him, is able to get by on vague “change” rhetoric because that’s about as detailed a consensus as anyone can achieve. So Obama (if he wins) will have his mandate to “change” things, but all that means to most people is that come Nov. 6, 2012 the country is in good shape. Whatever agenda he chooses to pursue will be open-ended, and he’d smart to avoid the Clinton model.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I’ll just add that what the naysayers won’t admit is that Obama has had a well-run compaign which augurs well for how he will govern if he wins next Tuesday.
Also an Obama victory will drive a stake into the heart of the Southern Strategy which the right wing has been using to thwart a progressive agenda since time immemorial.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The thing about Petey is, he doesn’t really want to win an election. Anyone moderate enough to win is by definition, too far right for Petey. If Edwards, his initial preferred candidate, had won, Petey would spend the next 8 years denouncing him. Hell, if we elected Zombie Gus Hall president, Petey would be condemning him as a right deviationist. This, of course, is lots of fun for Petey, but it doesn’t do much toward using the political system to address the country’s real problems
October 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Rob Mac:
Petey is right, of course. For some reason no one wants to remember just what a major progressive agenda Clinton was pushing in 1992. There were two major promises that he made in the course of his campaign.
1. He would enact a national health care plan
2. He would allow gays to serve openly in the military
The fact that he failed on both counts notwithstanding, Clinton ran and won on these two issues.
Off the top of my head, Clinton ran to the right of Bush Sr. on Cuba and Israel. He went back to Arkansas to execute a mentally retarded black guy in the middle of the campaign. He did the Sista Souljah heckling thing. And he won because Perot was in the race to split the Bush Sr. vote.
Once elected, he listened to Rubin and balanced the budget and passed NAFTA and reappointed freemarket ideologue Greenspan, giving us the Tech and Real Estate bubbles. Could have been worse, but not really a progressive Superhero as you guys seem to think.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
But in their last-ditch efforts to beat him, they’re doing the reverse, and dramatically overpainting Obama as a wild-eyed radical ready to unleash Marxism on the country. Well, if you spend a month or two running around saying that, and then the voters back the Marxist anyway, he’s got pretty much carte blanche to do what he wants if he wins.
Yes they are trying, but they are failing.. miserably. That is faulty logic on your part. They were/are also trying to paint him as a pal of terrorists. Does that mean that President Obama has carte blanche to become Osama’s bff? Voters are backing Obama (and democrats in general) because they are sick and tired of the GOP and its abject failures. Obama is kinda special (and appeals to independents) but almost any dem for President would be winning this. Winning the election is not carte blanche for democrats to implement every leftist dream project there might be.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The thing about Petey is, he doesn’t really want to win an election.
No, the thing about Petey is that (1) he’s been almost always wrong about every analytical stance he’s ever taken, whether it’s horserace politics or policy; (2) he forms incredible, irrational attachments to the political figures he supports; and (3) after his chosen political messiahs collapse and his predictions prove wrong once again, he continues to hold grudges against everyone who disagreed with him along the way.
There’s no ideological or analytical consistency with Petey; there’s just a bitter little man who can’t bear to admit he was wrong. In 2004 he supported Edwards when Edwards was running as a moderate, neoliberal hawk; in 2007 he supported Edwards again when Edwards was running as a liberal populist with a more dovish foreign policy; while supporting Edwards he frequently claimed that Clinton was the worst pick of the bunch, and that he’d happily support Obama if Edwards didn’t make it; after Edwards’s post-Iowa collapse he promptly turned on Obama and Obama supporters and remade himself as a Clinton fanatic, transferring all his irrational sentiments from Edwards to Clinton.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I’ll just add that what the naysayers won’t admit is that Obama has had a well-run compaign which augurs well for how he will govern if he wins next Tuesday.
The campaign has been pragmatic, calculated, and one step at a time, building support both broad and deep before moving. Certainly no reason to think that this approach would change once in office.
I suppose that if you think that ‘progressive’ means ‘we must solve all the world’s problems before the next congressional campaign starts’ this is troubling, but if you think ‘progressive’ should be defined to include ‘building a majority that is sustainable over the long haul’ it should be just about the best news you’ve ever heard.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
To that end, it’ll be helpful to argue that Obama got elected as a tepid centrist. But in their last-ditch efforts to beat him, they’re doing the reverse, and dramatically overpainting Obama as a wild-eyed radical ready to unleash Marxism on the country. Well, if you spend a month or two running around saying that, and then the voters back the Marxist anyway, he’s got pretty much carte blanche to do what he wants if he wins.
I think it’s kind of convoluted logic to assume voters vote for Obama based on Republican criticism of Obama, and not on, say, the actual candidate’s own criticism (and praise) of himself.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
If Petey wasn’t five years old in 1992, he’d remember that Clinton’s “progressivism” was very well hidden by his message that he was a Democrat willing to get tough on crime and welfare, with a dollop of “feel your pain” thrown in to offset George I’s perceived indifference to the struggles the working class was having during the recession at the end of Bush’s term in office.
Bill Clinton ran as the original “compassionate conservative.”
Petey’s posts are always provocative and sound persuasive, until you realize that he’s working out some political psychodrama that’s all in his head, and his “analysis” has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Exhibit A: “The biggest roadblock to enacting a progressive agenda going forward is going to be the WH.”
Pure comedy gold.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
My hope for Obama is that he learns the real lesson of Clinton, pass legislation. Clinton lost Congress in ‘94 because he failed in ‘93 to get his bills through congress. Even playing small-ball is better than lose-ball.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“The thing about Petey is, he doesn’t really want to win an election. Anyone moderate enough to win is by definition, too far right for Petey.”
All three of the major Democratic candidates for the nomination would have won the general election.
We nominated the most conservative of the three because folks like Matt Yglesias and David Brooks preferred the most conservative of the three.
But any of them would have won, and the two who were less conservative than Obama would have governed in a less conservative manner.
It’s just that I preferred to enact more progressive legislation over the next four years than you’d prefer to enact.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“while supporting Edwards he frequently claimed that Clinton was the worst pick of the bunch, and that he’d happily support Obama if Edwards didn’t make it; after Edwards’s post-Iowa collapse he promptly turned on Obama “
Democratic nomination contests are about building coalitions. If Edwards had won Iowa, he was desperately going to need the Obama supporters to beat Clinton, and I acted thusly.
I underplayed my significant Obama misgivings during the fall of ‘07 in order to help Edwards, and I had more than ample opportunity to regret that tactical decision in the spring of ‘08.
I actually learned a valuable lesson. The Petey persona has always been founded on trying to be a truth-teller. I forgot about that and was willing to commit sins of omission in my enthusiasm to help Edwards in fall ‘07. In doing so, I think I did harm to the cause, and will try to never repeat the mistake.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am
We nominated the most conservative of the three because folks like Matt Yglesias and David Brooks preferred the most conservative of the three.
Oh, bullshit. Get your tongue out of Bill’s ass. It’s over. Obama said he was going to be a transformative candidate like Reagan, and unlike Bill. He’s got the numbers to do it. Bill Clinton is going to looked upon as a cypher, Obama is going to be on money.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Neither FDR nor LBJ ran on a left platform, but both won overwhelmingly and proceeded to go progressive. If he wins by more than a squeaker, I’d like to see Obama do the same (except for the war parts).
October 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“The Petey persona has always been founded on trying to be a truth-teller.”
Then the Petey “persona” is a monumental failure.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
There were two major promises that he made in the course of his campaign.
1. He would enact a national health care plan
2. He would allow gays to serve openly in the military
As others have said, Clinton barely mentioned gays in the military in the campaign. It is true that one of the focuses of the CLinton campaigh was increasing public investment (”putting people first”), which he pretty much abandoned once he came to office in favor of deficit reduction.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“and the two who were less conservative than Obama would have governed in a less conservative manner.”
Then why when there were 3 general candidates left (Clinton, McCain, Obama) did Ann Coulter choose Clinton? Repeatedly calling her ‘the most conservative candidate in the race?’
To be completely fair though, I don’t think we know yet whether Obama is a pragmatic centrist or a pragmatic progressive, but I think he’ll pleasantly surprise Petey.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Matt, don’t you think Ezra is still just pissed off about the health care debate Obama had with Krugman? Ezra’s thing is health care, and Edwards and Clinton’s plans were better. I’m not a political science student, but I think that the health care plan will come out of the Senate anyway. I think Kennedy has one already written, if he lives long enough.
A few years ago, I read that the progressive Congress elected in the 1930’s pushed FDR to the left. Or at least gave him a way to appear centrist by proposing ever more ambitious plans. If we want more from our government, we now have the means to organize and push Congress to write stronger bills. It doesn’t all rest with Obama anyway. His big thing is legislation and administration that works and doesn’t create a backlash. Some of that responsability lays with us.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The weird thing is that Petey’s not even a lefty.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
All three of the major Democratic candidates for the nomination would have won the general election.
Pretty sure Rielle Hunter would disagree with that one.
I would say that four or five of the six major and semi-major Democratic primary candidates would have won the general (not sure about Richardson either; he was such a poor campaigner).
October 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Then why when there were 3 general candidates left (Clinton, McCain, Obama) did Ann Coulter choose Clinton? Repeatedly calling her ‘the most conservative candidate in the race?’
Even our beloved Al here expressed a preference for Hillary over the opposing candidates.
Regardless of how Clinton felt “deep down, in her heart of hearts,” ultimately she believes that America is a conservative country and that Democratic success stems from advocating many conservative solutions and pandering to conservative interests. Plus, the Clinton inner circle has always been dominated by the neoliberal “Washington consensus” when it came to economic advisors. Obama isn’t bound by this cultural straitjacket and doesn’t have the same institutional baggage.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“I underplayed my significant Obama misgivings during the fall of ‘07 in order to help Edwards, and I had more than ample opportunity to regret that tactical decision in the spring of ‘08.”
Wow, who knew that we had a Carville-caliber political player among us? Have you sold the book rights to your “What Might Have Been” memoir yet?
“I actually learned a valuable lesson. The Petey persona has always been founded on trying to be a truth-teller. I forgot about that and was willing to commit sins of omission in my enthusiasm to help Edwards in fall ‘07. In doing so, I think I did harm to the cause, and will try to never repeat the mistake.”
Yes, Petey–without you, Edwards might have pulled it out. In fact, you drove him to commit adultery. Are you happy now??
October 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I like how Petey has a “persona.” He can distance himself from his views by claiming that it’s not really him, it’s his “persona,” like maybe Tom Leykis isn’t a raging misogynist; he just acts that way to get ratings.
Anyway, Petey Persona, what signs should we watch out for to confirm or refute your prediction of a populace and Congress itching for progressive change being thwarted by a conservative Obama White House?
October 29th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
That’s funny. All this time I thought the voters were the ones who chose the candidate, not a conservative NYT columnist and a blogger.
I just hope Yglesias uses his incredible powers for good, because I’d hate to see the Washington Wizards win every NBA championship (although if he could heal Arenas, that’d be good for the league as a whole).
October 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Petey is right and the people praying for a super-progressive Obama are likely to be disappointed.
Watch this segment from the recent Frontline special.
Obama became the head of the Harvard Law Review during a fierce campus debate about Affirmative Action and the representation of African-Americans in the Harvard Law Faculty and on the Law Review. He could have used his position to give top editorships to other AA students. Instead, Obama only gave 1 top-editorship to a fellow African American. He game 3 top-editorships to members of the Harvard Federalist Society. He even hung out with them socially – according to one fellow student whose disgust at this is still evident on her face.
His moderation is a feature – not a bug. Its a damn good feature.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Well do I remember, just before my primary, hearing one farmer say to the county clerk, “Well, I thought about all the candidates, but once I found out who Matt Yglesias preferred, I had to choose Obama.”
October 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
He game 3 top-editorships to members of the Harvard Federalist Society. His moderation is a feature – not a bug. Its a damn good feature.
Well, supporting the Federalist Society is never a good feature.
Obama, by all accounts, is good at governing and policymaking. From the perspective of the greater good for the nation’s legal system and health of its politics, the best thing to do would have been to make moves that would serve the purpose of, ultimately, castrating the Harvard Federalist Society. Obama, at heart, isn’t a machine politician out to wreck the other side, but I trust that he’s going to pass good policies and that these will create an enduring liberal consensus. The neck-stomping can be done by the rest of us.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
He also got my vote because he came to my high school and told me that college was going to be free when he was president.
I can’t believe you would admit that on a public forum. At any rate, I’m sure Obama will wave his hand and eliminate costs for everything that you determine to be a “right” found somewhere in your personal Constitution that no one else has seen. Hopefully you will use the “free” education to take Econ 101.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Obama became the head of the Harvard Law Review during a fierce campus debate about Affirmative Action and the representation of African-Americans in the Harvard Law Faculty and on the Law Review. He could have used his position to give top editorships to other AA students. Instead, Obama only gave 1 top-editorship to a fellow African American. He game 3 top-editorships to members of the Harvard Federalist Society. He even hung out with them socially – according to one fellow student whose disgust at this is still evident on her face.
His moderation is a feature – not a bug. Its a damn good feature.
I don’t know, the Republicans know he hung around with Ayers so he must be a radical redistributionist.
Why does Petey keep going back to Obama’s Harvard Law Review days to figure out how he will govern? It’s like the Repuglican/morons blaming the current financial mess on the Community Reinvestment Act which was originally passed in 1977. It’s tangentially relevant but not central.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“His moderation is a feature – not a bug.”
Depends on where you sit.
I’m in favor of pushing a progressive agenda into law, and believe that the next Congress is going to be a once in a generation opportunity to do so. I think the key stumbling block is going to be the Obama WH.
So from where I sit, Obama’s anti-leftism is a major bug, not a feature.
But again, it depends on your goals. There is a very good reason lots of Republicans were heavily pushing forward Obama for the Democratic nomination. They understood the progressive opportunity of the next Congress, and correctly understood Obama would be their best bet to frustrate it.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“Why does Petey keep going back to Obama’s Harvard Law Review days to figure out how he will govern?”
It wasn’t me going back there. Check the names for the various comments.
I think Obama is anti-left because he’s been campaigning that way for the past 22 months.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Folks, if you want to understand Petey, consider this observation by Michael Berube:
The difference is that Petey likes to pretend he’s a Democrat, so Petey supported Edwards because Edwards was a shitty campaigner, so he’d never have to turn against him.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“Why does Petey keep going back to Obama’s Harvard Law Review days to figure out how he will govern?”
1) I’m not Petey
2) Its not often that one has total power and the opportunity to use it. Obama had that chance as the head of the HLR – he had 100% discretion in picking the top editors – so he could have gone along with the wishes of a good portion of the student body and used his position to advance the cause by appointing multiple AAs to important positions.
He didn’t “have” to refuse to do so – he chose to. It wasn’t “politics” or “compromise” – he didn’t WANT to use his position to go off on some ideological crusade.
Brush it off as “long ago” all you want. We’ll see how he acts in office. Of course, he will play along with Pelosi and Reid for the interests of the party – he’s not going to veto everything that crosses his desk, by any means – but I really don’t think he is any sort progressive Crusader that is going to use his position to “castrate” anyone.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Clinton’s pledge to allow gays to serve openly in the military was a major campaign issue in 1992. No, it wasn’t the centerpiece of his campaign, but it got a ton of coverage.
It’s important to remember that Clinton’s first two years in office were largely derailed by Congressional opposition–though the Congress was controlled by Democrats at that time. Congress fought him on all of his initial appointments (anyone remember Nanny-gate?) and only just barely passed his initial economic package (Gore cast the deciding vote as VP). And, of course, Congress rejected universal health care.
It was only after being defeated by his own party in his efforts to move the country to the left that Clinton tacked to the right on economic policy. I’m not saying the guy’s a hero. I’m just describing the history as I remember it.
This time we have a much more progressive congress and a stronger majority. Petey’s idea that the Obama White House will sandbag a progressive agenda pushed by Congress sounds highly unlikely, however. The Congress will surely allow Obama to largely set the agenda for the next two years. I think a coalition of blue dog Dems and Republican “dead enders” are more likely to kill progressive change, most likely through a series of filibusters in the Senate.
(And by the way, “Rob Mac” is not a persona. It’s a pseudonym. All the opinions I express are my own.)
October 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“Petey supported Edwards because Edwards was a shitty campaigner”
Of course. That must’ve been it.
Politics must be a lot like a sporting event for you, mark f, given that you don’t give a shit about policy.
Y’know, there is an actual reason that Republicans like David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan were so goddamn intent on getting Obama the Democratic nomination. Democrats who’ve been too busy getting drunk on the kool-aid to pay attention won’t figure that reason out until the hangover sets in, say, around the summer of ‘09. But don’t worry – that reason won’t be going away. There will be plenty of time for folks to catch on.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“Y’know, there is an actual reason that Republicans like David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan were so goddamn intent on getting Obama the Democratic nomination. ”
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! It’s because he would be certain to lose and the Republicans good improbably retain power, right? At least, that’s what you were telling us just a month ago, so it must be true.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“Of course, he will play along with Pelosi and Reid for the interests of the party – he’s not going to veto everything that crosses his desk, by any means”
If it were just an issue of him vetoing or not vetoing the things that cross his desk, Obama wouldn’t be a problem.
The problem is that legislative priorities will heavily be dictated from the WH, not the Capitol. And the priorities that will be coming from the administration will be significantly to the right of where the upcoming Congress would be willing to go.
And again, the next Congress is likely to be the most amenable one for progressive legislation that we’re going to see for a generation.
Obama’s unwillingness to take advantage of that opportunity is a feature for libarbarian. It’s a bug for Petey.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“I think the key stumbling block is going to be the Obama WH.”
Well, that’s because you’re deranged.
Anyone who thinks that Obama is more conservative than Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel should really just shut up. Compare the Dem congressional endorsements in the primary, and try to convince people here that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry decided to endorse the more conservative candidate.
Like I said above, Petey, you have a talent for provocation. but your understanding of politics would fit into a thimble, with enough room left over for your thumb.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Petey’s idea that the Obama White House will sandbag a progressive agenda pushed by Congress sounds highly unlikely, however. The Congress will surely allow Obama to largely set the agenda for the next two years.“
(My bolding.)
The second sentence is correct, and is the heart of the problem.
If Obama was silent and invisible for the next two years except to sign bills, things would be peachy – we’d get far-reaching and sensible progressive legislation turned into law. But that’s not how things are going to play out…
October 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“Neither FDR nor LBJ ran on a left platform”
While you are correct about FDR, in ‘64 LBJ ran pretty far to the left. The Great Society was at the core of his ‘64 campaign.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Politics must be a lot like a sporting event for you, mark f, given that you don’t give a shit about policy.
Petey’s making inferences about a person’s motives without evidence. How out of character!
For the record, I do care about policy. And I think the Mitt Romney insurance scam that you and Hillary Clinton pretend is “universal health care” is bad policy.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I am pleased rather than concerned that Obama refuses to play old fashioned polarization politics of the traditional left and right. He already has Larry Summers touting universal health care and I won’t be surprised when a Bob Nardelli chimes in with his support. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet already support preserving and extending the estate tax. Colin Powell and Richard Lugar support a time table for withdrawal from Irag.
What is of some concern is the lack of really effective and massive grass roots movements for progressive change. There will be a significant challenge in transforming the massive active support for Obama’s campaign into an independent movement that can push for change from the ground up.
There will certainly be compromises, probably some caution, and probably also some disappointments in an Obama administration. But rather than speculating about how we may be disappointed, let’s play a part in organizing that movement.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Brush it off as “long ago” all you want. We’ll see how he acts in office. Of course, he will play along with Pelosi and Reid for the interests of the party – he’s not going to veto everything that crosses his desk, by any means – but I really don’t think he is any sort progressive Crusader that is going to use his position to “castrate” anyone.
Okay I will brush it off as long ago and yes indeed we will see what happens if he is elected, Petey.
Now read slowly, because this is highly complicated, dense stuff.
I believe Obama, if elected will try to follow through on his campaign promises – see his website for help on this – as W. did in 2000-2008 and Clinton did in 1992-2000. His success will be determined by many external factors, like how Congress behaves, how well the Democrats do in Congressional elections, how quickly the global economy recovers, etc. I assume McCain will try to follow through on his campaign promises if elected.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Its always amusing when some dude on the internet decides that you are just someone else’s sock-puppet and refuses to believe otherwise.
Amusing in the way that people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that Bill ayers ghostwrote his memiors are amusing.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Wow, a lot of stuff thrown out here.
“The left” hated LBJ when he was in power. Absolutely couldn’t stand the guy. Read any of the literature and political commentary from 1963-9. They constantly derided him as an uncultured hick and a liar and a buffoon and a racist, gave JFK the posthumous credit for the Great Society (shortly before they started denouncing the Great Society as a fraud that didn’t go far enough), while convincing themselves retrospectively that JFK was just about to withdraw from Vietnam before he was killed, and then Johnson messed everything up. LBJ didn’t really run as a leftist in 1964, either. His campaign strategy was centered around winning over moderate Republicans turned off by Goldwater. Johnson ran as the Great Conciliator, frequently quoting the prophet Isiah, “Let Us Reason Together.”
Re: Clinton in ‘92, you can watch the ads on The Living Room Candidate website. Many of them emphasize Clinton-Gore as “different kind of Democrats”, promoting their support of the death penalty and “ending welfare as we know it”. Clinton did say he supported gays in the military during the primaries, but this never became an issue during the general. As for Clinton “running on tax increases” — not true. He repeatedly promised a “middle-class tax cut” during that campaign, along with investments in R&D and making college affordable, both during the primaries and during the general. He threw those promises overboard a month after taking office, after being told by Greenspan, “Drop all that ‘investment’ bullshit and cut the deficit, or I jack up interest rates and tank the economy even further.”
Besides the politics of negotiating with Congress, I suspect that having a self-admitted “disciple” of Greenspan like Ben Bernanke as Fed chair would constrain a progressive agenda next year. After all, everyone feels the effects of rate increases immediately, but federal programs take a couple years to get going, and (except for universal health care) don’t penetrate people’s lives in a day-to-day manner. Faced with a choice between the two, most politicians would opt to keep the Fed happy.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
The difference is that Petey likes to pretend he’s a Democrat, so Petey supported Edwards because Edwards was a shitty campaigner, so he’d never have to turn against him.
Petey is nuts. Petey *hearts* Clinton. Petey liked Edwards ‘04 because he was the southern, DLC guy. Petey hated the fuck out of Howard Dean, because only southern white guys could win. Then he liked Edwards ‘08 because he was the southern DLC apostate. He’s losing his mind because he’s been this sort of fucked-up, southern-white, commissar and maybe no one ever needed him.
I like wild-eyed leftists and that’s not where Petey is coming from.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:22 am
jon stewart just mentioned this to obama on the daily show.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:28 am
You all should just agree to meet back here in July 2009.
By then we will all know whether Obama is a progressive, liberal, neo-liberal incrementalist, centrist, or corporate tool.
None of you have written anything insightful in six months.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Okay, Petey is irritating. His combination of self-righteousness and dishonesty is far worse than the sum of its parts. That said, I’m not sure that denouncing him on comment threads really does much good. This isn’t to say that we should treat Petey civilly and try to reason with him either — I’ve seen Neil Sinhababu and Matthew Yglesias attempt this to no avail, and don’t expect it to work better for anyone else. I think ignoring him might be the best route. Yes, I suggest we do precisely what I am obviously not doing right now.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Bill Clinton most assuredly DID make ‘gays in the military’ a huge part of his campaign. And, in fact, it was the first policy issue he addressed as president…even before being sworn in. His efforts introduced the phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into the American lexicon. He failed, of course, and I was completely disillusioned about what a president could accomplish when facing the bureaucracy of the federal government.
New York Times November 12, 1992:
“Addressing a specific policy decision for the first time since he was elected President, Bill Clinton said today that he would rescind the Defense Department’s ban on homosexuals in the military after he takes office in January.”
http://shorterlink.com/?UY8MKR
October 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
[Petey's] losing his mind because he’s been this sort of fucked-up, southern-white, commissar and maybe no one ever needed him.
The funny thing is that Petey is a college-educated young professional who lives in the northeast (New York City, even). His affection for the cult of the southern white male is, ultimately, the act of a supreme, almost self-hating, poseur who only wishes he were a southern-white commissar.
He hated Howard Dean because of the war. He felt that it would be best for Democrats to support the war as a means of supporting liberal domestic policies through the back door. Gephardt and the rest of the Congressional Democrats had the same thought in 2002, and it dramatically failed. But Petey’s convinced that if we can only convince voters that we really agree with Republicans when it comes to attacking brown people, then they’ll trust us to pass universal health care.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Wow, you guys are delusional.
Clinton lost the healthcare issue in the early 1990’s not because of the Repubs, but because of the Blue Dog Democrats who joined with those Repubs and blocked it, for fear of budget deficits (Rubin was right there with em).
It wasn’t just the Repubs that pushed Clinton to the center right; it was his own fellow Democrats.
John Kerry has already said publicly that “universal healthcare is dead on arrival in the Senate.”
And Obama will face the same Blue Dog Democrats who insist on PAYGO (see Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Party promises, even if he has a majority in both houses.
Obama’s economic advisor Jason Furman (former Rubin assistant) has already had extensive meetings with the Blue Dogs promising them that the Obama administration will honor the Party’s PAYGO promises.
All those expensive new programs? Not gonna happen , folks.
You’ll get a few tax cuts and healthcare mandated only for children.
If you’re lucky.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Please register to gain free access to WSJ tools. An account already exists for the email address entered. Chrysler LLC Chief Executive Robert Nardelli , in testimony before a Senate committee, said he would be willing to accept a salary of
January 17th, 2009 at 3:42 am
nregc zasop tvworjh owkaybnhi dtferclwn gmxpli cihzywbep
March 11th, 2009 at 5:20 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 13th, 2009 at 12:19 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Incredible site! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive!
viagra