TNR: Liberal Despair and the Cult of the Presidency

[BzaDem]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75643/liberal-despair-and-the-cult-the-presidency

--snip--

I've been writing for several months about the curious sense of disappointment afflicting liberals -- the belief that they've been let down by a president who is, in fact, racking up historical achievements. Part of the reason for liberal dismay in an ahistorical understanding of how progress works. In the liberal memory, political success is bathed in golden-hued triumph. In reality, it is a grubby, stop-and-start process that looks pretty ugly up close. That's the heart of the argument Michael Tomasky makes in his essay in Democracy, "Against Despair":

--snip--

To read through any number of thorough histories of the New Deal is to be struck not by the differences between Roosevelt (man of action) and Obama (pensive equivocator) but by the many consistencies in how politics actually unfolds in real time–the difficulties inherent in trying to effect change, the readiness to accept half a loaf, and the regular reassurances sent to the moneyed classes that the liberals hadn’t taken over the candy store. It’s worth noting, for example, that the second act to become law under the New Deal, after the Emergency Banking Act, which was a progressive piece of legislation, was a conservative bill, the Economy Act. It cut salaries of government employees and benefits to veterans, the latter by 15 percent. Arthur Schlesinger, in The Coming of the New Deal, writes that literally an hour after signing the banking act, Roosevelt outlined this bill to congressional leaders, saying the next day and sounding more than a little like some Robert Rubin progenitor had been whispering in his ear: "For three long years, the federal government has been on the road toward bankruptcy." (And maybe one had: Schlesinger notes that Roosevelt’s budget director, Lewis Douglas, was certainly no Keynesian.) Just imagine Obama having tried something like that, alienating both veterans and AFSCME within a week of taking office. The Economy Act was opposed by many liberals in the House, so FDR turned to conservative Democrats and Republicans, who passed it.

--snip--

Rachel Maddow offered a perfect example of the phenomenon the other night. She delivered her fantasy version of the speech President Obama should have given. It was filled with unequivocal liberal rhetoric. I was struck by this portion, explaining how she would pass an energy bill:

--snip--

In reality, you can't pass any of the climate bill by reconciliation. Democrats didn't write reconciliation instructions permitting them to do so, and very little of its could be passed through reconciliation, which only allows budgetary decisions. Maddow's response is to pass the rest by executive order. But you can't change those laws through executive order, either. That's not how our system of government works, nor is it how our system should work.

If Maddow's speech had to hew to the reality of Senate rules and the Constitution, she'd be left where Obama is: ineffectually pleading to get whatever she can get out of a Senate that has nowhere near enough votes to pass even a stripped-down cap and trade bill. It may be nice to imagine that all political difficulties could be swept away by a president who just spoke with enough force and determination. It's a recurrent liberal fantasy -- Michael Moore imagined such a speech a few months ago, Michael Douglass delivers such a speech in "The American President." I would love to eliminate the filibuster and create more accountable parties. But even if that happens, there will be a legislative branch that has a strong say in what passes or doesn't pass. And that's good! We wouldn't want to live in a world where a president can remake vast swaths of policy merely be decreeing it.

--snip--

[zipplewrath]

1. This ignores the recent history

Bush, with much smaller congressional majorities, was able to push through huge bills. This analysis presumes Obama actually WANTS to pass strongly liberal legislation. There has been absolutely no evidence of that what so ever. He's a centrist and an incrementalist. Once you understand that, everything he says and does makes vastly more sense.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Yeah, Bush gave away money to rich people in this country

What a tough political mountain THAT was to climb.

Scaring people after a terrorist attack, another toughie.

Obama takes on powerful entrenched interests with HCR, finance and energy reform, things don't change overnight and the armchair critics on the Left scream. "Why"?

Will you ever admit that his task is far more difficult than what W. was able to achieve, or will you just keep shopping that canard?

[BzaDem]

5. +1. Not only did Bush only pass easy things, but he FAILED on most of what he wanted.

SS privatization was his main goal of his second term. It was hated so much that it never even got a vote.

ANWR was another major priority. Didn't get anywhere.

Immigration reform was yet another major priority. We all know how that turned out.

Saying that Bush easily got through his agenda is revisionist history.

[zipplewrath]

8. Pretty much all of that is post Katrina

You basically skipped his entire first term, save the ANWR thing which was hardly his priority.

[BzaDem]

11. Most of the SS debate (his main 2nd term issue) happened before Katrina. n/t

[zipplewrath]

16. Um, same year.

His second term started in Jan '05. Katrian was Aug '05. That's a pretty short debate for something that was expected to take 2 years.

[BzaDem]

20. Do you seriously not remember the debate between his state of the union and Katrina?

Here is a New York Times editorial in June of that year, aptly summarizing the state of the debate (and it's failure).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/opinion/23thu1.html

[zipplewrath]

33. Yes, I do

I also remember that it wasn't going well. I also remember that after Katrina, they didn't have a prayer.

[depakid]

10. "ANWR was another major priority. Didn't get anywhere." errrr....

Actually, it did move forward- through reconciliation (which of course could and would have been used by Republicans if the shoe was on the other foot to create a robust public option).

No- expansive offshore drilling was best accomplished (like NAFTA and destruction of the safety net) through cynical triangulation.

And that's worked out really well- even better than those others, hasn't it?

[BzaDem]

13. No, it did NOT pass through reconciliation. That is BS.

If you did a 30 second Google search you would realize this.

http://www.petroleumnews.com/newsbulletin/136136612.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902029.html

[depakid]

15. The point was if you actually were listening is that THEY USED THE PROCESS-

unlike the timid and complicit Dems- and the administration, whose priorities lay with protecting the insurance industry and PhARMA. Now you've locked yourself even further into a dysfunctional and unsustainable paradigm- without even a method for transitioning out!

What's more- incentives needlessly placed in the legislation by insurance lobbyists moved everyone toward high copay, high deductible junk insurance (and did so while ripping off and pissing off the rank and file of one of the Democrats most important constituencies).

That's triangulation for ya! Adopt polices that foul the Gulf- bankrupt citizens over medical bills. Change we can all believe in.

And you wonder why some people are looking back to Republicans again- while others in your coalitions are disillusioned and staying home.

[BzaDem]

18. Last time I checked, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the second part of HCR.

They ACTUALLY used the process. The reconciliation bill passed both houses and was signed by the president. The bill increased subsidies, lowered the excise tax, closed the donut hole, and more.

Republicans were too scared to actually use the process to close ANWR. (And by actually used the process, I mean pass a reconciliation bill.)

[depakid]

37. They sold out the public option- drug reimportation and went through a pathetic display

before finally realizing that if they didn't act on something they'd get stomped so royally that it would take another 12 years before they got back into power (and big money).

That process- and the kowtowing and grovelling before Republicrats cost the real Democrats (the ones who believe in and stand up for traditional Democratic values) their chance at being the majority party for a generation- not to mention squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to affect real, substantive and structural change.

Sad really- as it didn't have to be that way- and if not for dysfunctional attitudes of people like Chait, et al., it might have been different.

[Laelth]

42. +1 Well said. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[cliffordu]

6. Perfect. Absolutely perfect response to the drivel.

:applause:

[zipplewrath]

7. What powerful entrenched interests has he "taken on"?

Surely not Big Pharma that was in the room on day 1. Not the entire healthcare industry that was in the room. And I'd hardly call the single payer crowd "powerful" but he did keep them out of the room. It certainly hasn't been the oil industry. It hasn't been the MIC. It certainly hasn't been the banks. They got saved, and got their bonuses too. Guns in National Parks.

Exactly who are these powerful interests he's confronting?

[BeyondGeography]

9. Health insurers, investment banks, oil companies...Do they love him?

What powerful interests did your hero George W. Bush take on?

[zipplewrath]

14. He didn't "fight" any of those folks

He gave the insurance companies 20+ million new customers. The investment banks got SAVED, and handed out huge bonuses. The oil companies got promised more acres of drilling in the gulf. How is any of that "taking them on"?

[depakid]

17. You've GOT to be kidding

:crazy:

Actually- if the administration or the Democrats actually HAD done anything of the sort- we'd be looking to increase our majorities in the House and Senate- rather than facing the very real possibility of losing them.

[BeyondGeography]

21. Yes, they love him so

:crazy:

Increased regulation of health insurers, the Volcker rule, the drilling moratorium and the BP "shakedown."

Obama, the corporate wet dream.

[depakid]

25. The only thing standing between them and the torches and pitchforks...

Some of us actually grasp what's going on with the legislation and regulation (or lack thereof).

Others go on the general perception created throughout the process(es)- hence Nate Silver's most recent prediction of about a 40 seat loss in the House. Wow.

Wouldn't have thunk anything remotely similar to that this time last year.

[BeyondGeography]

28. And when the worst doesn't happen, you'll come up with some other bullshit

Meantime, keep pretending Obama is beloved by the corporations and basically a politically ineffective version of George W. Bush.

[depakid]

35. The reality of the situation is what it is- despite your sorry efforts at denialism

Rather than going after abusive health insurers and the astonishingly avaricious PhARMA co.'s - using any of thousands of horrific stories to set the narrative and use populist resentment to drive public policy (and that's what drives policy in the US) he basically said "they're not bad people" -and sold out the public option and drug reimportation (God forbid using the US's own buying power) in a series of backroom deals!

Instead of restoring accountability and the rule of law to pre-Bush II norms, banksters, fraudsters- every assorted corporate criminal under the sun from Coal Barons to food poisoners like Peanut Corp have been given a free pass!

That's been such an utter and complete disgrace that one can objectively go back on the record and hold Bush I's Justice Department up as MUCH more responsible and effective agency.

The list goes on and on an on- and has finally come to a head in the Gulf, where there's no more hiding the results.

My guess is that a lot people have begun to realize just how bad this is going to get- which is why they've been so frantic with the apologetics lately.

[BeyondGeography]

38. Yes, populist resentment is what drives policy, and, guess what, many people resent the government

There has been a 30-year-long effort to weaken government in this country that has been largely successful. Were you here for that? So when government starts to "demonize" business (would that it were so easy) the first thing you face is an army of resistance, POPULIST resistance, about big government, which, given the media's favorable predisposition toward them, is far more powerful at this moment in time than the interests of offended subconstituencies that you mention.

What's an utter and complete disgrace is the denial of the left of the extent of the political problem that years of Reaganism, corporatization of the media and the cultural givens of this country, that Obama faces. So when things don't go exactly to plan, they retreat into their familiar position of political loserhood.

[WeDidIt]

12. Tax cuts are budgetary items

He needed 51 votes to pass his tax cuts in reconciliation.

Also, Democrats weren't crass enough to threaten a filibuster on EVERYTHING.

[Birthmark]

2. Yes,

Librulz iz teh stoopid.


















:sarcasm:

[depakid]

3. DLC TNR likes to pretend that 1994 never happened- and that the reasons for it

are no longer salient.

Frankly, I'd rather read a piece from the National Review than TNR- and especially by the clueless and condescending Chait- who's show time and again that he'll say absolutely anything. I mean, with National Review- you know hat you're going to get- upfront- rather than in the back.

[riderinthestorm]

32. I think it's interesting they by-pass the entire corporatist takeover of American politics

that began with the assassination of JFK.

Eisenhower saw it clearly and warned us. The military/industrial complex morphing into a monster starting in the 50s was a clear sign. 1994 was just another in a long line of signs that indicate how powerful the corporations have become.

It's interesting TNR goes back to Roosevelt to try to make comparisons. They have been other Dem presidents since then but none others completely uncorrupted by corporations and their vast financial resources.

Obama engenders such distrust from progressives because he appears to be so closely aligned with the DLC/corporatist elements of the left. He is a centrist anyway but obvious actions like secret meetings with Big Pharma while ignoring single payer advocates stinks to the high heavens for progressives.

[MadHound]

19. I just love being talked down to,

I just love the assumption that I'm somehow ignorant of how politics works and ignorant of history.

The reality is most liberals weren't expecting a magic pony. We were expecting modest gains, especially in light of the fact that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the WH. Instead what we have been treated to is a continuation of the assault on many different areas of our society.

Education is a prime example. Instead of a rollback, or even moderation of NCLB, we're instead treated to an escalation on the assault on public education.

The wars, instead of making moves towards peace, Obama has doubled down on the war in Afghanistan, dragged his feet in getting out of Iraq, and now is looking to leverage us into a conflict in Yemen, Iran or both.

Civil liberties, liberals were expecting a return to some sort of sanity, instead the Obama administration is continuing Bushco policies.

In these and many other areas liberals weren't and aren't asking for a magic pony, they are asking Democrats be Democrats, or at least fulfill the role of sanity that Democrats did traditionally. Instead, we're seeing the Democrats trying to outdo the conservatives at every turn.

This isn't asking for a magic pony, this is asking Democrats to do the job we elected them to do. Is that asking for too much?

[BzaDem]

22. FDR's second New Deal bill cut salaries of government employees and veterans benefits.

"It’s worth noting, for example, that the second act to become law under the New Deal, after the Emergency Banking Act, which was a progressive piece of legislation, was a conservative bill, the Economy Act. It cut salaries of government employees and benefits to veterans, the latter by 15 percent. Arthur Schlesinger, in The Coming of the New Deal, writes that literally an hour after signing the banking act, Roosevelt outlined this bill to congressional leaders, saying the next day and sounding more than a little like some Robert Rubin progenitor had been whispering in his ear: "For three long years, the federal government has been on the road toward bankruptcy." (And maybe one had: Schlesinger notes that Roosevelt’s budget director, Lewis Douglas, was certainly no Keynesian.) Just imagine Obama having tried something like that, alienating both veterans and AFSCME within a week of taking office. The Economy Act was opposed by many liberals in the House, so FDR turned to conservative Democrats and Republicans, who passed it."

My point is not that this is a good thing, and it is also not that everything Obama is doing is a good thing. My point IS that what Obama is doing (in a broad, general sense) is not unusual. (And much of it, like Afghanistan, is what he SPECIFICALLY campaigned on.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Yes, and that was the legislation that slowed the recovery from the Depression

the one that Republicanites use to claim that the New Deal made the Depression worse.

[MadHound]

29. Yes, but did FDR privatize government? No

Right now the Obama administration is working hard to privatize education. He is also furthering the assault upon unions, something that FDR wouldn't touch, he knew where his bread and butter came from.

Furthermore, none of FDR's policies put future generations at risk, yet Obama's assault on education is doing just that. We already have one generation lost, thanks to Bush, and another that we're going to lose, thanks to Obama. How many more generations of students do we have to lose thanks to this insanity?

Oh, and just because a candidate campaigned on a particular promise doesn't mean that he can't, or shouldn't change his mind once in office and he sees that things are changing. It is obvious, to even the most ignorant viewer, that the Afghanistan war is quagmire that we can't win, and that it is time for us to get out. We are burning through our treasure in order to prosecute this war to the extent that we are now doing harm to the civilian population. Do you continue down the path of stupidity just because you made a campaign promise, or do you do the sensible thing when you see the need for it?

[BeyondGeography]

34. FDR wouldn't touch race either

because he "knew where his bread and butter came from."

Stop with the lionizing of FDR and the demonizing of Obama. It's stupid.

[MadHound]

41. Sorry that you find the truth "stupid."

Get back to me when Obama has pulled us out of a Great Depression, implemented sweeping social programs that are still the backbone of this country seventy five years later, and won a World War, one that was also a just war (unlike what we're currently involved in, wars for empire).

[LWolf]

23. Er...

I believe that "liberal disappointment" has to do with the new administration pushing decidedly NON-liberal positions and actions.

To make any progress at all, we'd at least have to attempt to head in the right direction.

That hasn't even been on the table.

[WinkyDink]

26. Oh, yes; Liberals are simply IGNORANT of one of the LIBERAL Arts.

[dorkulon]

39. That's kind of a dumb thing to say.

As if the 'liberal' in liberal arts has anything at all to do with the term 'liberal' as applied to American politics. Besides, it's a cinch that the majority of Americans ARE historically ignorant to a woeful degree, including liberals.

[Individualist]

27. DLC bloviation. Unrec.

[Enrique]

30. Jonathan Chait bashed liberals for opposing the Iraq war

and supported the least democratic democrat in the 2004 primaries, Joe Lieberman.

[Catherina]

31. The New Republic? Really?

:rofl:

[jonnyblitz]

36. no shit. we are surrounded.

:shudder:

[Catherina]

40. It won't do at all n/t