A few days ago, Matt Yglesias wrote about a Ron Brownstein article discussing, without saying so, the Emerging Democratic Majority. Yglesias wrote:
Roundabout 2005, a lot of people were working on the idea that Karl Rove and George W. Bush had cemented some kind of permanent Republican lock on the government. Many of the people doing this were rightwingers crowing about their own genius. But many seemed to be envious critics, simultaneously horrified by and admiring of Rove’s brilliance. Ron Brownstein and Democracy had the neat idea of running a “re-review” of several books from this era and looking back at where they went wrong. It’s a very interesting essay and I recommend it, but I think it has two flaws.
. . . The other shortcoming of Brownstein’s analysis is what Ed Kilgore points to here, namely the fact that you can’t really leave the governing out of the story. . . . The evidence . . . suggests that objective events in the world—as opposed to political tactics—have a huge impact on policy outcomes. Which means, in turn, that the actual quality of the policymaking coming from incumbent politicians winds up making a difference. Under the circumstances, one of the main things the Republican triumphalists missed was simply the possibility that Bush’s policies would work out really poorly and help drive a backlash. But that’s exactly what happened, first in Iraq and then with the arrival of a global economic crisis.
(Emphasis supplied.) I have much more critical words for Brownstein's piece than does Yglesias. Brownstein entirely misses the point that it was not the process of how Bush enacted policies that drove Republicans over the cliff, it was almost entirely the RESULTS of those policies (yes, I have written this line umpteen times now.)
Even while coming somewhat to this view, Ed Kilgore refuses to make the final leap:
None of these observations [by Brownstein] in any way contradicts Brownstein's contention that Rove's strategic failures, not Democratic emulation of his tactics, did most to make the 2006 and 2008 Democratic victories possible. That's generally true, though in part because relatively few base-oriented and pro-polarization Democrats thought of Rove as a role-model or embraced the cynicism of his approach to policy. But if we are to learn from Rove's mistakes and avoid repeating them, it's important to understand that "base" and "swing" strategies--or for that matter, "polarization" and "bipartisan" strategies--work or fail not because of their intrinsic value for good or for ill, but because they put any political party's values and policies to the test of voter preferences and real-world results.
(Emphasis supplied.) This paragraph from Kilgore makes no sense. Karl Rove was a wildly successful political operative. His client, the President of the United States, was able to almost wholly enact his policy agenda, the Republican agenda. And it was an unmitigated disaster. Rove did not fail. Bush's policies failed. Republican policies failed. President Clinton's fabulous speech at the Democratic Convention laid this out remarkably clearly and people like Brownstein and Kilgore simply do not want to accept it - RESULTS matter. That is why the Democrats control the federal government except for the Supreme Court. The question now is how to keep this control.
When FDR won his landslide in 1932, the coalition he formed had no knotty "identity politics" issues. Or at least he choose to not address them. The FDR coalition was blown up, admirably, by LBJ AFTER winning the biggest landslide victory since FDR's. By enacting the Civil Rights laws in 1965.
But President Obama, while enjoying the strongest electoral and political position a Democrat has seen since 1964, does still face the problem of "identity politics." For power in the United States does not stem solely from the ballot box.
While it is true that on many specifics, President Obama has basically repudiated his campaign promises, on a very basic one, he has not -- he did not present himself as a figure who was going to kick over the existing Establishment - which is white and male. He promised to navigate it. Sure, "Yes We Can" and "Change" are what the Left blogs fooled themselves into believing Obama was about, but the reality is Obama presented himself as an incrementalist who would engage everyone (and, except for the progressive base, he largely has.)
There is a reason for this - Clinton put his finger on it, the white male Establishment and the white male who thinks the Establishment is protecting him, are still together. This is still a strong power that impedes progressivism.
President Obama is, I think trying to take a page from President Clinton's old "I feel your pain" political style and applying it to the one group that can stand in his way. FDR used to do this with business interests during the New Deal.
This raises two issues for me. The first is for Obama - to what extent can he or should he trim his policies to placate the irrational fears of the white male Establishment and other white males who identify themselves with that Establishment (never mind that Establishment has been screwing them for decades and centuries). In the end, a politician will be judged on results.
The other question is for Progressives. Understanding that President Obama is acting like a politician, what will they do to make him have to address their concerns?
Remember, pols are pols and do what they do. I do not condemn them for it. But it is important that progressive activists absorb this lesson. There have been some encouraging signs that the lesson is being learned. Not by the Left blogs of course (I disagree with Eric Boehlert on that.) But by other progressive activists. Let's hope the lesson is absorbed by a widening group.
Speaking for me only
