Obama And Defining The Center

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 09:56:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I think this bit from Ezra Klein exemplifies Beltway Dems' fundamental misunderstanding of politics and goes far in explaining why even when Republicans lose elections, they gain ground in the policy debate:

For the first two years of his administration, Obama benefited from huge Democratic majorities that allowed him to get things done by locating the senator who would be the 60th vote in the Senate and aiming legislation right between the whites of his or her eyes.

"The 60th vote" generally has no idea where they stand on any particular piece of legislation. For the most part, they look to see where everyone else stands first and then pick ground between the two sides. More . ..

The President should take bolder positions to define where the Center is. Consider it negotiating. Republicans always know how to do that. Consider one aspect of the silly health bill repeal debate. By starting at full repeal and getting folks like Ezra Klein to demand they provide a "replace," the GOP wins. Why? Because now whatever they propose, no matter how absurd, will be a "concession." So it will be, in the weird world of the Beltway, time for Democrats to "concede" something too.

I personally do not know exactly what the GOP has in mind, but I do know that they would seem to have a fairly wide field of play on the issue.

Politics does not stop after a bill is passed. And neither does political bargaining. The health bill WILL be changed by this Congress. The question is how it will be changed. Sadly, it is clear that nothing remotely positive will result.

Speaking for me only

< Mexican Military and Drug Cops Catching the Little Fish | Did Obama's Economic Team Stink? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama And Defining The Center | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ezra's advice for the rest of the term (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by ruffian on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:06:25 AM EST

should have been his advice from the start:

For those ideas that are outside the current congressional consensus, the right question for it isn't "are there the votes" so much as "is this a good idea?" and "can we convince the people?" One of those questions is for Obama's economic team. But the other is for Obama himself.

We had an immensely popular president with a clear mandate for change and wasted a huge opportunity by following the '60th senator' approach. I was reading an article about the Kennedy administration that talked about how he built public support for his ideas by having frequent public press conferences and demonstrating his knowledge of the issues, building public confidence in his ideas. Of course, he actually had ideas he wanted to push, and was not just trying to be mediator in chief.

There is no Congressional consensus (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:16:31 AM EST

Presidents really get to define the consensus in their First Hundred Days.


: Yes and I actually think that (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:25:44 AM EST

quite a few of those fence sitters were rather disoriented when he said that anything done would have to be done in a bipartisan way.
The fact is that that group generally want some sort of direction from Leadership - it makes it easier for them on several levels - not the least of which is not taking too much responsibility for their decisions.
Anyway, Ezra, like so many in DC these days, confuse the "center" of the Senate with the "center" of American political thought as a whole. The Senate is not a reflection of American political thought at this time in history - if it ever is or has been.
The House is a much better reflection of where Americans are - most times.

: Yeah, really is a waste of time (none / 0) (#7)
by ruffian on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:48:33 AM EST

to try to figure it out. But it appears that is what the administration did.

Especially as (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:25:01 AM EST

he is the first president to really have the power and knowledge to harness 24 hours cable news, the internet, Twitter, etc. and an audience that has the means and desire get their information instantly and in more methods than ever been humanly possible.

The campaigned in 2008 and govern like its 1988.


I think the Republican media machine (none / 0) (#8)
by ruffian on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:52:40 AM EST

effectively scared him away from taking advantage of that. From the start they described things sarcastically as 'Obama's america', etc., complained that he was all over the media, which he was not, then of course Obamacare, etc. I think the administration fell right into the trap and got shy about overexposing him.


: Well (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 03:15:51 PM EST

he was all over the media, especially in the first year - I think he overplayed his hand. But there's a smart way to do things.
Of course, constantly disappointing and selling out the people who supported you in the first place doesn't help you get your message out either.

Honestly, I'm sick of the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Anne on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:32:20 AM EST

punditocracy's obsession with "getting things done" that completely ignores both the content and the consequences of the accomplishment-of-the-moment, although it has been ever-so-convenient for the faithful "progressive" Obama supporters who can do the same thing: praise the checking-off of items without paying any attention to the price paid or the quality of the policy.

What this president should do is predicated on the assumption that it isn't that he doesn't want to do what we want him to, but that he needs a better strategy to make it happen.

I wish I believed it was a matter of strategy and/or communication, but I believe, after two years of this, that Obama is doing this the way he wants, and is getting the results he wants.

Did he want the Act repealed? Of course not, which means I think he will do whatever he has to to make sure that when all is said and done, he can still say that he is the first president to accomplish major health reform - even if that means that the warmed-over Republican plan the House has repealed gets new life as a decidedly-Republican plan that the Senate leadership will be ordered to get on board with.

And after their usual desk-thumping and red-faced anger in front of cameras, and promises of standing firm. I'm pretty sure they will, ever-so-reluctantly, because they need to show the American people that they can "get things done."

: I think (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:35:34 AM EST

we need to redefine what "getting things done" means. Is it enough to pass bills? No, I don't think so - they pass lots of bills naming post offices and such. "Getting things done" should include passing bills and taking stands on things that will actually do something to help people.
IMO, of course.

Even If We Take (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by The Maven on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:38:24 AM EST

Ezra's pronouncement at face value, it's a bold announcement that by "aiming legislation" at the 60th vote, Obama's policies by definition were to the right of center, as the theoretical "center" in any Senate of 100 members would be the 50th, not the 60th vote. This also is an acknowledgement that the Obama Administration placed a greater value on the appearance of getting something done (by hoping it could get past a filibuster) rather than on any specific Democratic policy goal.

So not only does this expose the Beltway Dem mentality, it serves as a damning confirmation of what actual liberal (and some not-so-liberal) observers have noted all along: that the president has no commitment to ideological principles beyond wanting to be seen as a man who accomplishes things. The substance, then, of those accomplishments is of little to no concern. And we end up with half-measures of legislation that undermine the Democratic cause. One step forward, two steps back.