(Updated below, Nov. 17, 2010)
It's certainly possible that Barack Obama plans to appeal District Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling holding Don't Ask, Don't Tell ("DADT") unconstitutional. Doing so would be a strong, and historically conventional, assertion of the Presidency's ultimate right as Commander in Chief to decide how the military will operate.
But a White House threat to appeal the federal court ruling doesn't necessarily mean that the White House will appeal that ruling. Nor does the White House's request today for a temporary stay of that ruling while it "decides" whether to appeal. The United States has 60 days to appeal any ruling against it, and it might be wise for it to pretend it may appeal the ruling until the last minute, to increase pressure on conservative Democrats to toe the party line and vote to repeal the entire DADT law during the upcoming, post-election "lame duck" session of Congress.
Obama has made no secret of his preference for overturning DADT legislatively rather than through the courts. A single trial judge in California can be dismissed by conservative pundits as "activist" and demagogued endlessly in tomorrow's culture wars. What's more, a single judge's ruling has no precedential value should other courts be asked to decide similar but jurisdictionally distinct issues in the future. A legislative decision to overturn DADT, on the other hand, could only be reversed if both a future Congress and a future President chose to re-impose military bigotry, after gay soldiers already are incorporated openly into the military and over the predictable filibuster. In other words, the Congressional solution Obama seeks would be better from a P.R. perspective AND stronger legally than merely letting the District Court ruling bear the weight alone.
But even though it would be better for Congress, the President, and the federal courts all to condemn DADT rather than have the decision made by a single judge, the problem of how politically to obtain that sweeping condemnation remains.
The political problem is that if the Justice Department doesn't appeal Judge Phillips' injunction, the pressure on Congress to repeal DADT dribbles away. Remember that just last month, Democratic senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor voted against ending the GOP's pro-DADT filibuster -- but only after reserving their votes until the very end of the hearing, and confirming that the motion would fail anyway. In other words, they likely would have voted to repeal DADT if there had been a chance of actually succeeding, but chose not to rile their more conservative constituents in a lost cause.
If DADT is already dead by court order, conservaDems and moderate (or precariously closeted) Republicans aren't likely to go out on a limb during the "lame duck" session by voting to drive another stake through its already-dead heart. But if they believe the court's order may not stand, they still may be susceptible to pressure to repeal the underlying law outright. Will they succumb to that pressure, and do the right thing? No one knows, though Lincoln's and Pryor's delay in voting last month is a good sign that those two, at least, are secretly in the "repeal" camp. What is for certain, though, is that the chances of Congress repealing DADT next month are maximized by the White House's pretense of appealing -- or even, if still more pressure was needed, by actually appealing, since that appeal could be dismissed later.
Bottom line: the DOJ's and White House's saber-rattling about appealing Judge Phillips' ruling does not necessarily mean they will appeal. Even an actual appeal of that ruling wouldn't necessarily mean the White House is actually unwilling to let Judge Phillips' decision stand in the end. The White House's behavior so far is equally consistent with a negotiating strategy aimed at ramping up pressure on Blue Dogs and other Congressional Panderers-to-the-Right to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell for good. Only time will tell which one it really is.
UPDATE, NOV. 17, 2010: DADT repeal remains alive in the Lame Duck Congress -- and the GOP, if no one else (you listening, Dan Choi?), knows that having another crack at it is important to Senate Dems, and therefore is putting a high price tag on letting hearings happen: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/dadt-not-dead-yet
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Where should I focus my writing?
Over the past 5 years I've blogged in four different places. I'd like to winnow it down, both to bring myself some focus and possibly to work on a blog-to-book project. I know this will take some time, but I would very much appreciate my friends' thoughts on the subject. Here's an overview of my blogging career, and the question that I'm hoping to answer:
The NeoProgressive: First came The NeoProgressive, an only mildly partisan, idea-based blog arguing for a resurgence of true Progressivism -- not the way the word's used now, as a safer synonym for "liberal," but it the early 20th century sense. A NeoProgressive, in my view, could tend liberal or conservative but would nevertheless be committed to the values that beat back the robber barons and made America great over its second 100 years. You can get a sense of what that blog stands for in A Neoprogressive Philosophy, Collated.
If I were to rejuvenate that blog, my NeoProg philosophy might address such disparate issues as helping Democrats rediscover a unifying base of ideas (as opposed to the "GOP-lite" faux-pragmatist pollwatching that drove the DLC) and exploring ways the populist component of the Teaparty movement (as distinguished from many of its corporate-funded organizers and leaders) could be enlisted to fight against the Citizens United decision, socialization of corporate liabilities (BP), etc. A book growing out of NeoProg could appear to reasonable people across the spectrum, not just Democrats, and would make some use of my "real" training in law and mediation.
VichyDems: Then came this blog, VichyDems -- fairly rabid at times, definitely opinionated and partisan, and focused mainly on helping identify and oust those "Democrats" who often work against Democratic principles in the name of "pragmatism." VichyDems dislikes the Democratic Leadership Counsel, hates Rahm Emanuel and reviles Joe Lieberman without restraint. A good example of VichyDems can be read here, in Obama, Teddy, and the Perils of Governing Without Conviction.
In light of Godwin's Law, it's important to point out that VichyDems has never advocated for "purity tests" -- quite the opposite! The test of a Vichy, IMHO, isn't their political ideology, but their actions in wartime. There are relatively conservative Democrats, especially in purple states, who still believe in moving the cause forward. Bless them, and let's not primary them. But there also are Dems, some reasonably "liberal," who consistently help the other side. They are the Vichies I oppose.
The Vichy analogy was very intentional: in occupied France there were many conservative French people who agreed with much fascist ideology but who nevertheless resisted the Nazi occupation -- I'd liken them to some of the more conservative, but still party-loyal, Democrats. Then there were the Vichy French who collaborated with the Nazis. No one cared about their political views; the problem was that they gave aid and comfort to their people's enemy. The test of a Vichy, then and now, is emphatically NOT their ideology, but whether they assist the enemy. It's a misunderstood distinction but one that needs to be repeated nowadays as much as ever, especially as fights spring up among liberals over when it's OK to oppose Obama and when it's important to support him (Exhibit 1: the fervent disagreement over how to characterize Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake).
Sort of a sideline, but an important one, was VichyDems' early efforts, in 2006, to press Dem senators to filibuster Samuel Alito. Along with Bob Fertik, we did something no one had done before: tracked the position of every senator, developed game plans for lobbying them, and published their contact information (including their local offices, linking to fax services, etc.). Those strategies are common now, but at the time they were brand new -- MoveOn's use of those tactics followed ours. We succeeded in swaying two senators' votes -- Diane Feinstein, who admitted her vote changed due to unexpected constituent pressure, and Hillary Clinton, who denied her vote had changed even though we documented that it had. But, of course, we lost the war.
And even though I strongly supported his later candidacy, VichyDems was among the first to reality-test a new face on the Democratic stage. On January 26, 2006 I wrote:
Off The Bus: During the 2008 election, I was invited to become a national correspondent for The Huffington Post's "Off The Bus" citizen-journalism project, and jumped at the chance. Working with tremendous editors including Amanda Michel and John Tomasic, and overseen by Marc Cooper and Jay Rosen, a dozen or so of us, including Mayhill "Cling To Their Guns" Fowler and Dawn Teo, covered the 2008 election as quasi-professionals. I rode Clinton's campaign bus, was myself filmed by CNBC as I covered Hillary (look, ma, I'm famous!), and attended the Denver Democratic Convention. Huffington Post has been very good to me, and I still have posting privileges there that I will continue to use -- but my regular slot for Off The Bus, called "Warranted Wiretaps," covering the campaigns' press releases and press conference calls, isn't active now.
Warranted Wiretaps: Finally, I started my own edition of Warranted Wiretaps on typepad. There, as I did for Off The Bus, I still try to provide readers with access to primary-source news material that normally is available only to what Marcos calls "gatekeepers." My belief is that the American people are smart enough, and interested enough, to listen to entire press conferences etc. and reach their own conclusions about it. But, while I believe that's an indispensable resource in a modern democracy -- and while Wiretaps is the closest thing I have to a true journalistic project, rather than an opinion blog -- I can't keep it going by myself; for Wiretaps to continue, I'd need to find a way to evolve it (and finance it!) into a multiperson endeavor. Wiretaps isn't unopinionated, but in the end its goal is to give access and lets readers decide. Relatively dry, meta-journalism-y posts can be found here and here; at the other extreme, an example of how powerful a Wiretaps post can be (drawn from its doppelganger on OffTheBus) concerned death threats to ACORN employees.
So: NeoProg is nonpartisan, though liberal; it's relatively calm, thoughtful, and looks for ways to build bridges that will result in a more progressive America. VichyDems is partisan, and sub-partisan; it seeks to build the American Left, not as an end in itself but because our country does better when its people have strong beliefs and fight for them. Warranted Wiretaps is an experiment in journalistic transparency: it explores what happens when the gates come down and citizens can see/read/hear raw information for themselves; but it's not sustainable unless it grows. And Huffington Post remains a resource for occasional publication, for which I still and always say, thanks and God bless.
I love them all. Each reflects a side of myself. At least two of them (NeoProg and VDems) are good subjects for books (which I'd love to write -- Glenn Greenwald's "How Would A Patriot Act?" showed that blog-to-book can be a great method, if the blog's focus is discrete enough).
But I can't do it all, at least not by myself. Should I pick one fast horse and ride it hard? Should I pick two, one for my serious-journo side and the other for rants & opinions? Should I combine them all into one multichannel site of some kind, or would that just window-dress my problem? Should I look to join one of the better small-group blogs out there? Or just diary at DKos?
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions!
-Scott
The NeoProgressive: First came The NeoProgressive, an only mildly partisan, idea-based blog arguing for a resurgence of true Progressivism -- not the way the word's used now, as a safer synonym for "liberal," but it the early 20th century sense. A NeoProgressive, in my view, could tend liberal or conservative but would nevertheless be committed to the values that beat back the robber barons and made America great over its second 100 years. You can get a sense of what that blog stands for in A Neoprogressive Philosophy, Collated.
If I were to rejuvenate that blog, my NeoProg philosophy might address such disparate issues as helping Democrats rediscover a unifying base of ideas (as opposed to the "GOP-lite" faux-pragmatist pollwatching that drove the DLC) and exploring ways the populist component of the Teaparty movement (as distinguished from many of its corporate-funded organizers and leaders) could be enlisted to fight against the Citizens United decision, socialization of corporate liabilities (BP), etc. A book growing out of NeoProg could appear to reasonable people across the spectrum, not just Democrats, and would make some use of my "real" training in law and mediation.
VichyDems: Then came this blog, VichyDems -- fairly rabid at times, definitely opinionated and partisan, and focused mainly on helping identify and oust those "Democrats" who often work against Democratic principles in the name of "pragmatism." VichyDems dislikes the Democratic Leadership Counsel, hates Rahm Emanuel and reviles Joe Lieberman without restraint. A good example of VichyDems can be read here, in Obama, Teddy, and the Perils of Governing Without Conviction.
In light of Godwin's Law, it's important to point out that VichyDems has never advocated for "purity tests" -- quite the opposite! The test of a Vichy, IMHO, isn't their political ideology, but their actions in wartime. There are relatively conservative Democrats, especially in purple states, who still believe in moving the cause forward. Bless them, and let's not primary them. But there also are Dems, some reasonably "liberal," who consistently help the other side. They are the Vichies I oppose.
The Vichy analogy was very intentional: in occupied France there were many conservative French people who agreed with much fascist ideology but who nevertheless resisted the Nazi occupation -- I'd liken them to some of the more conservative, but still party-loyal, Democrats. Then there were the Vichy French who collaborated with the Nazis. No one cared about their political views; the problem was that they gave aid and comfort to their people's enemy. The test of a Vichy, then and now, is emphatically NOT their ideology, but whether they assist the enemy. It's a misunderstood distinction but one that needs to be repeated nowadays as much as ever, especially as fights spring up among liberals over when it's OK to oppose Obama and when it's important to support him (Exhibit 1: the fervent disagreement over how to characterize Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake).
Sort of a sideline, but an important one, was VichyDems' early efforts, in 2006, to press Dem senators to filibuster Samuel Alito. Along with Bob Fertik, we did something no one had done before: tracked the position of every senator, developed game plans for lobbying them, and published their contact information (including their local offices, linking to fax services, etc.). Those strategies are common now, but at the time they were brand new -- MoveOn's use of those tactics followed ours. We succeeded in swaying two senators' votes -- Diane Feinstein, who admitted her vote changed due to unexpected constituent pressure, and Hillary Clinton, who denied her vote had changed even though we documented that it had. But, of course, we lost the war.
And even though I strongly supported his later candidacy, VichyDems was among the first to reality-test a new face on the Democratic stage. On January 26, 2006 I wrote:
Apparently Barack Obama, hero of the last Democratic Convention and the front runner for first African-American President, is OPPOSING a filibuster "for strategic reasons."And that's VichyDems' position in a nutshell: even if a pol's in "our" camp, we still can push them to do better, and will. A book growing out of VichyDems would rally the base and call for a leftier Democratic Party, explaining why that's a good (and electorally practical) idea.
Bullshit. The only strategy the Democrats need to hear is this: YOUR BASE DEMANDS A FILIBUSTER, AND YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT YOUR BASE.
Lordy, I'm starting to think they're all Vichys. We need a hero. I had hoped Obama was it.
Off The Bus: During the 2008 election, I was invited to become a national correspondent for The Huffington Post's "Off The Bus" citizen-journalism project, and jumped at the chance. Working with tremendous editors including Amanda Michel and John Tomasic, and overseen by Marc Cooper and Jay Rosen, a dozen or so of us, including Mayhill "Cling To Their Guns" Fowler and Dawn Teo, covered the 2008 election as quasi-professionals. I rode Clinton's campaign bus, was myself filmed by CNBC as I covered Hillary (look, ma, I'm famous!), and attended the Denver Democratic Convention. Huffington Post has been very good to me, and I still have posting privileges there that I will continue to use -- but my regular slot for Off The Bus, called "Warranted Wiretaps," covering the campaigns' press releases and press conference calls, isn't active now.
Warranted Wiretaps: Finally, I started my own edition of Warranted Wiretaps on typepad. There, as I did for Off The Bus, I still try to provide readers with access to primary-source news material that normally is available only to what Marcos calls "gatekeepers." My belief is that the American people are smart enough, and interested enough, to listen to entire press conferences etc. and reach their own conclusions about it. But, while I believe that's an indispensable resource in a modern democracy -- and while Wiretaps is the closest thing I have to a true journalistic project, rather than an opinion blog -- I can't keep it going by myself; for Wiretaps to continue, I'd need to find a way to evolve it (and finance it!) into a multiperson endeavor. Wiretaps isn't unopinionated, but in the end its goal is to give access and lets readers decide. Relatively dry, meta-journalism-y posts can be found here and here; at the other extreme, an example of how powerful a Wiretaps post can be (drawn from its doppelganger on OffTheBus) concerned death threats to ACORN employees.
So: NeoProg is nonpartisan, though liberal; it's relatively calm, thoughtful, and looks for ways to build bridges that will result in a more progressive America. VichyDems is partisan, and sub-partisan; it seeks to build the American Left, not as an end in itself but because our country does better when its people have strong beliefs and fight for them. Warranted Wiretaps is an experiment in journalistic transparency: it explores what happens when the gates come down and citizens can see/read/hear raw information for themselves; but it's not sustainable unless it grows. And Huffington Post remains a resource for occasional publication, for which I still and always say, thanks and God bless.
I love them all. Each reflects a side of myself. At least two of them (NeoProg and VDems) are good subjects for books (which I'd love to write -- Glenn Greenwald's "How Would A Patriot Act?" showed that blog-to-book can be a great method, if the blog's focus is discrete enough).
But I can't do it all, at least not by myself. Should I pick one fast horse and ride it hard? Should I pick two, one for my serious-journo side and the other for rants & opinions? Should I combine them all into one multichannel site of some kind, or would that just window-dress my problem? Should I look to join one of the better small-group blogs out there? Or just diary at DKos?
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions!
-Scott
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Obama, Teddy, & the Perils of Governing Without Conviction
Four years ago, I wrote a pair of meditations on my irascible old blog, VichyDems, warning of the harm that would occur if Democrats regained national power without first abandoning the incrementalist, centrist approach advocated so unsuccessfully by the Democratic Leadership Council and instead returning, consciously and assertively, to their traditional, liberal roots. On the one year anniversary of the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the day after Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat was lost to a conservative male pinup with a pickup truck, my fears about the dangers of trying to govern without referring to fundamental principles seem to be coming true.
In the first of those posts, dated March 17, 2006 and titled An Overlong Dissertation on Courage, Strategy, Populism, and Respecting the Base, I expressed my fear that governing without boldness and conviction would do more harm than good to Democrats' electoral longevity. I began by explaining why the conventional distinction between "pragmatism" and "purity" is misleading:
Some "liberal" bloggers and commenters (and many, many "concern trolls" who love to give bad advice to the enemy) express "concern" (it's almost always that word, "concern") that targeting and ousting "Vichy" Democrats will cost us seats we need to win back one or both houses of Congress.
My usual response is this: I don't believe that's the case, because [politicians like] Joe Lieberman ... are more trouble than their seats are worth and if we unseated them, the rest of the caucus would sit up, take notice, and start acting cohesively again, which ultimately will win us a lot more seats than we lose.
The Republicans won complete control of government not by running to the center, but by running to the right and persuading the media and the American public to shift right with them. They don't tolerate defections from the party line; they stick to centrally-distributed talking points and abide by rigid party discipline enforced by a man nicknamed "The Hammer." They don't fall silent when discourse turns discordant; they trot out the Big Lie and repeat it so often that it becomes Truth in the same way that big mountains create their own weather. They won by doing the exact opposite of what the DLC crowd preaches we need to do to win.
It's as if the Democratic leadership doesn't understand how mirrors work: the key to Republican success wasn't in the fact that they ran to the right (and that we similarly must shift right if we want to win); it's in the fact that they ran AWAY from the center -- became more extreme -- and in doing so earned both the support of their base and the trust of centrist voters, who respect people who can articulate and adhere to principles even if they don't agree with all of them. Copying the Republican formula for success doesn't mean becoming more conservative.... [I]t means becoming more liberal and being proud of it. Articulating, and expecting some reasonable degree of adherence to, a unifying party platform is a good way to articulate principles and win elections, and if that means tossing one or two enablers like Lieberman overboard, good riddance; they're dead weight anyway.
Then I pointed out the danger of Democrats winning power without first reinventing their party along more principled, and more vigorous, lines:
But in addition to the above response, which I believe is true, I have a second reaction to the concern that attacking Vichy Democrats will cost us a potential majority: that until our "leaders" start listening to their constituents and acting like Democrats again, they (and we) don't deserve to be in power. Until we have our act together and are prepared to govern in a coherent, articulate, unified way, we should stay the hell out of it.
Our nation is facing tremendous problems; only a drastic change in course can possibly reverse them. If we Democrats are not prepared to change America's course, however, then it's better for the inexorable collapse to occur on the Republicans' watch than on ours. My preferences, in this order, are: (1) a dialed-in, unified, energized, liberal Democratic Party in power, correcting American's course and restoring her fortunes; (2) a faltering, dissipating, weakening Republican Party in power, living or dying with the consequences of their past actions while real Democrats continue to rebuild our party in the wings; and (3) a faltering, dissipated, weak Democratic Party in power, demonstrating once again to voters that we aren't ready for prime time and possibly being blamed for a nationwide economic, military and social collapse created by the Republicans but foisted on us.
A lot of intelligent, energetic grassroots activists are working to make sure that (1) above comes true. Most of the Democrats in Congress are working hard to see that (3) above comes true, even though they're too struck with Beltway Blindness to realize that's what they're doing. If they don't catch a clue and start working with us, (2) above is going to occur again in November, and then either (2) or (3) will occur in 2008. And that's simply not good enough. Democrats deserve better. America deserves better.
The reckoning is coming in 2010, not 2008, but otherwise, the crumbling of the national party is occurring exactly as I feared -- and for exactly the reason I predicted. On healthcare, Afghanistan, Wall Street reforms, LGBT rights, and every other issue where they hold both the moral and the policy high ground, the White House and Senate have waffled and compromised.
Even worse, they not only have allowed Joe Lieberman to continue pretending that his interests and goals are even minimally aligned with theirs -- letting him caucus with them, retain his chairmanships, and counting him among the fetishistic "60 votes" Reid supposedly possessed until Tuesday -- but they also have allowed his rebellion to infect others in the caucus. (The reason you remove bad apples from the barrel is that they ruin the apples next to them; Ben Nelson would never have the courage to block healthcare reform by himself.)
By allowing Lieberman to block passage of an institutional public option instead of affirmatively blocking his games by using reconciliation or by mimicking the Republican threat to declare filibusters unconstitutional, as they arguably are; by increasing troop strength (twice) in Afghanistan instead of bringing our troops home; by deferring a decision on Don't Ask Don't Tell, and naming Wall Street insiders Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to oversight posts; by constantly courting the center, placing comity above principle, triangulating instead of leading, and seeking incremental advances instead of bold new deals -- by all these concessions, Obama and Senate leaders have forgotten that courage begets voter confidence and voter confidence begets electoral success. To the extent the debacle in Massachusetts is a referendum on anything besides Martha Coakley's execrable and lazy campaigning, it is a referendum on Democratic leaders' failure to hew to liberal principles.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who knows no legislative strategies besides "compromise", bears much of the blame, as do other senior Senate Democrats. (The House side's coffee is noticeably hotter than the Senate's these days.)
But the ultimate responsibility for the Democratic Party's tepidity, and its electoral setback Tuesday, rests with Barack Obama, who for one year now has governed with an unseemly timidity. In his first year, Obama did not issue an executive order eliminating discrimination against gays in the military, as the Commander-in-Chief unquestionably has the right to do (and as Democrat Harry Truman did to desegregate the military in 1948). He did not go to bat for the public health insurance option when it was on life support in the Senate Finance Committee and again on the Senate floor. He elected (twice) to increase troop strength in Afghanistan instead of acknowledging that Afghanistan is no longer Al Quaeda's base and bringing our troops home. Instead of appointing agents of real change, he named Wall Street insiders Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to key oversight positions and appointed a consummate triangulator and centrist, Rahm Emanuel, as his Chief of Staff.
The bragged-about fact that Obama passed 97% of his Congressional agenda this year demonstrates merely that he played it too safe. As Robert Browning wrote over a century ago: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
There is a divide among Democratic activists today, between those who urge unity and support for Obama, and those who advocate dissenting at least enough to stop Obama from taking his base for granted and force him to shift left. What some people don't realize is that this divide, between progressive ideals and the pseudo-pragmatic impulse to compromise, is part of Obama's nature itself. The man himself doesn't seem to know which camp he belongs to.
In Joe Lieberman: Barack Obama's "Mentor In The Senate"?, which I wrote on April 3, 2006 in response to then-Senator Obama's embrace of Joe Lieberman over challenger Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, I discussed the contrast between Obama's progressive potential and his predilection for overcautious triangulation. The questions I asked about Obama's political soul back in 2006 -- about whether Obama would choose the old-school Democratic path of triangulation and compromise, or would save the party by leading a resurgence of Progressive ideals and courage -- are even more pressing today:
I want to like Barack Obama. His riveting, energizing speech at the last Democratic National Convention converted him from an attractive Senate candidate into the leading Democratic candidate for first African-American Vice-President and, eventually, President. His statement that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states" not only articulated the beliefs of that misunderstood, underrepresented and vital majority of Democrats and Independents who possess some sort of religious faith, but his use of evangelical "code" language -- "awesome God" -- reclaimed territory we had ceded to the Republicans and showed that not all Democratic politicians are tone deaf to religious nuance. I really want to like Barack Obama.
But then I read things like the following, which comes from an otherwise-delightful New York Times article about Democrats ignoring and even booing Joe Lieberman at a recent event:
[H]owever, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room.
When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."
Joe Lieberman -- gutter of bankruptcy protection for working people facing disastrous health emergencies, supporter of an illegal war that's killed over 2,000 working-class Americans, apologist for hospitals that deny birth control to rape victims -- secretly has a "good heart" and "cares about working families"?
Yow.
Here's what's good about Barack Obama: despite his relative youth and political inexperience, he is in the first ranks when it comes to political astututeness. He understands the game, plays all the angles with a skill approaching genius. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be better than Bill Clinton.
Here's what's bad about Barack Obama: at an age and place in his career where he should still be known for idealism, he instead is known for political astuteness. He has mastered the game instead of the ideals, applies his genius to playing the angles instead of changing the world for the better. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be worse than Bill Clinton.
NOT being a "Star Wars" geek in any way, I hate to say this, but some analogies just leap out at you: Barack Obama is the Anakin Skywalker of the Democratic Party. He's an incredibly gifted young man whose gifts who will do either incredible good or incredible harm to the Democratic Party and to the nation. ***
This incident is not the only one; Obama also spoke out against the Alito filibuster, working against us behind the scenes by trying to persuade other senators not to rock the boat, and he likewise is lobbying others not to support Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Obama looks good on the outside, but in his short Senate career he has come down on the wrong side of nearly every issue this blog's readers care about.
Notwithstanding the above, I think Obama can be saved. What's needed is for [him to take] ... a nobler path than the one outlined by Bill, Hillary and Joementum. When we progressives recapture the soul of our party, the party may recapture the soul of Obama. Then Obama may be a tremendous force for good. But we need to show him that the path he's currently walking is a dead end.
Please understand: I'm not trying to undercut Obama. As regular readers know, I supported him vigorously in both the 2008 Democratic primary and in the general election, because I believed he was the best, and potentially the most progressive, candidate. I don't regret that choice. I want him to succeed. Hell, I cried when he won in November, and again when he was sworn into office one year ago.
But that doesn't mean I've smoked the hopium. Party unity is essential, but so is competent, courageous leadership. I want Obama to be the best leader he can be; at present, he's falling short. If, as Howard Zinn said, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, then dissent with one's own party's leaders is the highest form of loyalty to that party. (That's why, in my VichyDems days, I blogged under the pseudonym "Thersites"; in the Iliad, Thersites was the courageous soldier who dared to speak the truth about the failings of his own side's leader, Agammemnon.)
For exactly one year now, Obama has been keeping his powder dry, apparently without realizing that, in fact, he has almost no powder left. Political capital unused tends to dissipate like the dew; to be preserved, let alone compounded, political capital -- which Obama had a surplus of just one year ago -- must be invested if it is to be preserved. The fact that Obama's late effort to save Martha Coakley in Massachusetts failed, and that a state that overwhelmingly elected him in 2008 just handed Teddy's seat to a conservative Republican, demonstrates the truth of this assertion. There's a reason Teddy Kennedy held onto his seat for 46 years: he leavened his practicality with principle. If Obama and D.C.'s other Democrats want to retain their seats the way Kennedy did, they need to follow his example.
It's not too late yet for Obama to deliver the change he promised -- and to salvage as much as possible of Democrats' Congressional advantage next November. For example, he doesn't need Congress to eliminate DADT; he simply needs to act like the Commander-in-Chief, order an end to discrimination, and tell his soldiers (including the general staff) to follow his orders.
Likewise, healthcare reform can be salvaged without any disrespect to Massachusetts voters by the simple expedient of pushing House progressives to pass the Senate bill as-is, with a promise to effect further reforms later this year (via reconciliation if necessary). If that fails, a bold, principled Obama could rock the GOP's world by immediately pushing a singlepayer plan through the budget reconciliation process -- which could be accomplished well before the November elections and re-establish Democrats as a party with the courage of its convictions -- after which Obama could negotiate with conservatives to replace that (to Republicans) intolerable law with a reasonable compromise, including a strong public option, that they would not dare to filibuster (because that would leave singlepayer in place) and that would not be subject to reconciliation's ten year sunset provision. (Mark Kleiman wrote brilliantly on that negotiating strategy here.)
Obama could even do what the GOP threatened to do three years ago by dispatching Joe Biden, as President of the Senate, to declare the filibuster unconstitutional and simply call a vote on any healthcare reform package that can win a simple 51 votes. That may seem crazy, and it may be overreaching, but as a lawyer who's examined both sides of the Constitutional argument, I've concluded that Kevin Drum arguably is right about this and that the "nuclear option" could be exercised -- or at least threatened -- in colorable good faith.
Most readers probably disagree with some or with all of these proposals. That's fine. The point is, bold options remain open to Obama. It's not too late.
But he's losing his window. His choice -- the direction his presidency, and his political soul, will take -- must be made soon. As he surveys the debacle his party has made of Teddy Kennedy's legacy in Massachusetts, and embarks on his sophomore year as President, it's past time for Barack Obama to finally decide what sort of leader, and what sort of man, he chooses to be.
Friday, January 15, 2010
A Man's Reach Should Exceed His Grasp, Or What's The Presidency For?
INTRODUCTION: This is a repost of a piece I originally wrote, under my then-pseudonym, on April 3, 2006.
Originally, it was in response to the widely-misunderstood (including by me) report that the then-still-Democratic Joe Lieberman was Senate "mentor" of a brand-new senator, Barack Obama. Most assumed that title reflected a close personal relationship, when actually every new senator is assigned a more senior colleague to show them the ropes -- a relationship that may become friendship, but is not necessarily so. At the very least, Lieberman's formal "mentorship" of Obama should not have been held against Obama.
Obama's embrace of Lieberman's candidacy, on the other hand -- and his lackadaisical effort for Ned Lamont once Lamont wrested the nomination from Lieberman and Lieberman betrayed Democrats by running against Lamont as an independent -- was legitimate ground for criticism. And the points I made in 2006 about Obama's political soul, my questions about whether he would choose the path of triangulation and compromise and centrism, or would instead strike out boldly to lead Progressives back into dominance of the Democratic Party, were spot on.
I supported Obama in both the 2008 Democratic primary and in the general election, because I believed he was the best, and potentially the most progressive, candidate. I don't regret that choice.
But that doesn't mean I've smoked the hopium. Obama is not a perfect leader, and the caution that stood him so well in the campaign is not serving him so well as President. It's undeniable now (though many still do deny it) that Obama never seriously strove to have a public option included in his healthcare bill; that was a burst of chaff designed to distract GOP attackers, and both they and we liberals fell for it. He and his familiar, Rahm Emanuel, constantly pressured Congressional progressives to compromise, while applying little or no pressure on Congressional Democratic conservatives like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln (let alone playing real hardball with Joe Lieberman). Yes, he passed 97% of his Congressional agenda this year -- but that demonstrates only that he played it safe. As Robert Browning wrote over a century ago: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
Could Obama still lead? Absolutely. He's not dead in the water yet. But he has been keeping his powder dry, apparently without realizing that, in fact, his powder's almost completely gone already; power unused tends to dissipate with the dew, while power invested tends to compound, like money.
It's not too late yet for Obama to simply declare DADT dead, by executive order, and then to send a message of firm discipline by dishonorably discharging any homophobes who refuse to respond in good faith with the changed situation. They're soldiers; they should follow orders, period. Likewise, if this weak-tea healthcare reform bill fails, as it still might, then it's not too late for Obama to immediately push through a bold singlepayer plan, without fear of filibuster, via the budget reconciliation process -- which could be accomplished well before the November elections and re-establish Democrats as a strong party instead of a bunch of weak wafflers -- after which he could negotiate with conservatives to replace that (to them) intolerable law with a strong public option that would not be subject to a ten year sunset provision. (Mark Kleiman wrote brilliantly on that negotiating strategy here.) (The other excellent components of the current bill, like the elimination of preexisting conditions, are popular enough to be passed over any filibuster threat.) It's not too late for Obama to fire Rahm (as he should), or to demand that Harry Reid change the Senate's filibuster rules at the start of the 2011 session (when only a majority, not a supermajority, is needed to do so). It's not, in short, too late for Obama.
But he's losing his window, and his choice -- the direction his presidency, and his political soul, will take -- must be made soon.
To explain again what exactly is the decision Obama faces, I'm reprising this old (and in places anachronistic) VichyDems post from four years ago -- and urging that now, at the end of his freshman year as President, a chastened and wiser Obama finally make the decision of what sort of leader, and what sort of man, he chooses to be:
ORIGINAL POST:
I want to like Barack Obama. His riveting, energizing speech at the last Democratic National Convention converted him from an attractive Senate candidate into the leading Democratic candidate for first African-American Vice-President and, eventually, President. His statement that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states" not only articulated the beliefs of that misunderstood, underrepresented and vital majority of Democrats and Independents who possess some sort of religious faith, but his use of evangelical "code" language -- "awesome God" -- reclaimed territory we had ceded to the Republicans and showed that not all Democratic politicians are tone deaf to religious nuance. I really want to like Barack Obama.
But then I read things like the following, which comes from an otherwise-delightful New York Times article about Democrats ignoring and even booing Joe Lieberman at a recent event:
[H]owever, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round
of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room. When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."
Joe Lieberman -- gutter of bankruptcy protection for working people facing disastrous health emergencies, supporter of an illegal war that's killed over 2,000 working-class Americans, apologist for hospitals that deny birth control to rape victims -- secretly has a "good heart" and "cares about working families"?
Yow.
Here's what's good about Barack Obama: despite his relative youth and political inexperience, he is in the first ranks when it comes to political astututeness. He understands the game, plays all the angles with a skill approaching genius. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be better than Bill Clinton.
Here's what's bad about Barack Obama: at an age and place in his career where he should still be known for idealism, he instead is known for political astuteness. He has mastered the game instead of the ideals, applies his genius to playing the angles instead of changing the world for the better. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be worse than Bill Clinton. ***
NOT being a "Star Wars" geek in any way, I hate to say this, but some analogies just leap out at you: Barack Obama is the Anakin Skywalker of the Democratic Party. He's an incredibly gifted young man whose gifts who will do either incredible good or incredible harm to the Democratic Party and to the nation. And if Joe Lieberman indeed is his mentor, then Lieberman is the Senator Palpatine to Obama's Anakin -- a moderate-seeming, soft-spoken statesman who pretends to want only the good of the Republic but actually serves those who would destroy everything it stands for -- and who seeks to magnify his influence by exerting a maleficent influence over a young politician whose skill, electability, political prospects and even ambition far exceed his own.
This incident is not the only one; Obama also spoke out against the Alito filibuster, working against us behind the scenes by trying to persuade other senators not to rock the boat, and he likewise is lobbying others not to support Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Obama looks good on the outside, but in his short Senate career he has come down on the wrong side of nearly every issue this blog's readers care about.
Notwithstanding the above, I think Obama can be saved. What's needed is for his elders in the party to lead the young Senator down a nobler path than the one outlined by Bill, Hillary and Joementum. When we progressives recapture the soul of our party, the party may recapture the soul of Obama. Then Obama may be a tremendous force for good. But we need to show him that the path he's currently walking is a dead end.
Step one is to send a message to him, and all similar triangulators and accommodationists, by forcefully and overwhelmingly jettisoning his "mentor in the Senate," Joe Lieberman. Please donate to Lieberman's Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, here.
And may the Force be with you.
(My kid brother is going to be so proud of this post! But I'm not making another Star Wars reference for at least a year, I promise.)
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
Originally, it was in response to the widely-misunderstood (including by me) report that the then-still-Democratic Joe Lieberman was Senate "mentor" of a brand-new senator, Barack Obama. Most assumed that title reflected a close personal relationship, when actually every new senator is assigned a more senior colleague to show them the ropes -- a relationship that may become friendship, but is not necessarily so. At the very least, Lieberman's formal "mentorship" of Obama should not have been held against Obama.
Obama's embrace of Lieberman's candidacy, on the other hand -- and his lackadaisical effort for Ned Lamont once Lamont wrested the nomination from Lieberman and Lieberman betrayed Democrats by running against Lamont as an independent -- was legitimate ground for criticism. And the points I made in 2006 about Obama's political soul, my questions about whether he would choose the path of triangulation and compromise and centrism, or would instead strike out boldly to lead Progressives back into dominance of the Democratic Party, were spot on.
I supported Obama in both the 2008 Democratic primary and in the general election, because I believed he was the best, and potentially the most progressive, candidate. I don't regret that choice.
But that doesn't mean I've smoked the hopium. Obama is not a perfect leader, and the caution that stood him so well in the campaign is not serving him so well as President. It's undeniable now (though many still do deny it) that Obama never seriously strove to have a public option included in his healthcare bill; that was a burst of chaff designed to distract GOP attackers, and both they and we liberals fell for it. He and his familiar, Rahm Emanuel, constantly pressured Congressional progressives to compromise, while applying little or no pressure on Congressional Democratic conservatives like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln (let alone playing real hardball with Joe Lieberman). Yes, he passed 97% of his Congressional agenda this year -- but that demonstrates only that he played it safe. As Robert Browning wrote over a century ago: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
Could Obama still lead? Absolutely. He's not dead in the water yet. But he has been keeping his powder dry, apparently without realizing that, in fact, his powder's almost completely gone already; power unused tends to dissipate with the dew, while power invested tends to compound, like money.
It's not too late yet for Obama to simply declare DADT dead, by executive order, and then to send a message of firm discipline by dishonorably discharging any homophobes who refuse to respond in good faith with the changed situation. They're soldiers; they should follow orders, period. Likewise, if this weak-tea healthcare reform bill fails, as it still might, then it's not too late for Obama to immediately push through a bold singlepayer plan, without fear of filibuster, via the budget reconciliation process -- which could be accomplished well before the November elections and re-establish Democrats as a strong party instead of a bunch of weak wafflers -- after which he could negotiate with conservatives to replace that (to them) intolerable law with a strong public option that would not be subject to a ten year sunset provision. (Mark Kleiman wrote brilliantly on that negotiating strategy here.) (The other excellent components of the current bill, like the elimination of preexisting conditions, are popular enough to be passed over any filibuster threat.) It's not too late for Obama to fire Rahm (as he should), or to demand that Harry Reid change the Senate's filibuster rules at the start of the 2011 session (when only a majority, not a supermajority, is needed to do so). It's not, in short, too late for Obama.
But he's losing his window, and his choice -- the direction his presidency, and his political soul, will take -- must be made soon.
To explain again what exactly is the decision Obama faces, I'm reprising this old (and in places anachronistic) VichyDems post from four years ago -- and urging that now, at the end of his freshman year as President, a chastened and wiser Obama finally make the decision of what sort of leader, and what sort of man, he chooses to be:
ORIGINAL POST:
I want to like Barack Obama. His riveting, energizing speech at the last Democratic National Convention converted him from an attractive Senate candidate into the leading Democratic candidate for first African-American Vice-President and, eventually, President. His statement that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states" not only articulated the beliefs of that misunderstood, underrepresented and vital majority of Democrats and Independents who possess some sort of religious faith, but his use of evangelical "code" language -- "awesome God" -- reclaimed territory we had ceded to the Republicans and showed that not all Democratic politicians are tone deaf to religious nuance. I really want to like Barack Obama.
But then I read things like the following, which comes from an otherwise-delightful New York Times article about Democrats ignoring and even booing Joe Lieberman at a recent event:
[H]owever, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round
of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room. When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."
Joe Lieberman -- gutter of bankruptcy protection for working people facing disastrous health emergencies, supporter of an illegal war that's killed over 2,000 working-class Americans, apologist for hospitals that deny birth control to rape victims -- secretly has a "good heart" and "cares about working families"?
Yow.
Here's what's good about Barack Obama: despite his relative youth and political inexperience, he is in the first ranks when it comes to political astututeness. He understands the game, plays all the angles with a skill approaching genius. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be better than Bill Clinton.
Here's what's bad about Barack Obama: at an age and place in his career where he should still be known for idealism, he instead is known for political astuteness. He has mastered the game instead of the ideals, applies his genius to playing the angles instead of changing the world for the better. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be worse than Bill Clinton. ***
NOT being a "Star Wars" geek in any way, I hate to say this, but some analogies just leap out at you: Barack Obama is the Anakin Skywalker of the Democratic Party. He's an incredibly gifted young man whose gifts who will do either incredible good or incredible harm to the Democratic Party and to the nation. And if Joe Lieberman indeed is his mentor, then Lieberman is the Senator Palpatine to Obama's Anakin -- a moderate-seeming, soft-spoken statesman who pretends to want only the good of the Republic but actually serves those who would destroy everything it stands for -- and who seeks to magnify his influence by exerting a maleficent influence over a young politician whose skill, electability, political prospects and even ambition far exceed his own.This incident is not the only one; Obama also spoke out against the Alito filibuster, working against us behind the scenes by trying to persuade other senators not to rock the boat, and he likewise is lobbying others not to support Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Obama looks good on the outside, but in his short Senate career he has come down on the wrong side of nearly every issue this blog's readers care about.
Notwithstanding the above, I think Obama can be saved. What's needed is for his elders in the party to lead the young Senator down a nobler path than the one outlined by Bill, Hillary and Joementum. When we progressives recapture the soul of our party, the party may recapture the soul of Obama. Then Obama may be a tremendous force for good. But we need to show him that the path he's currently walking is a dead end.
Step one is to send a message to him, and all similar triangulators and accommodationists, by forcefully and overwhelmingly jettisoning his "mentor in the Senate," Joe Lieberman. Please donate to Lieberman's Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, here.
And may the Force be with you.
(My kid brother is going to be so proud of this post! But I'm not making another Star Wars reference for at least a year, I promise.)
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)