home

The Bully Pulpit

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:07:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ezra with the rote "there is no bully pulpit" stuff. Drum with a bit more thought. Digby nailing it:

Of course presidents can't really "persuade" people of the opposing party in a polarized environment, for all the reasons Ezra lays out in his piece. But I feel as if this whole argument is about doing something that nobody but President Obama, op-ed writers and some of his more fervent followers ever thought was possible in the first place. They're the only ones who believed that the Republicans were going to fall at his feet and work together in bipartisan harmony --- or that his magical powers of persuasion would create a groundswell of support among Independents and rank and file Republicans.

When progressives called for President Obama to make speeches it wasn't with the goal that he lift his poll numbers or get Mitch McConnell to sign on. Indeed, that's the opposite of what they wanted --- the "Grand Bargains" required to get such a deal are worse than nothing at all from their perspective. The reason they wanted him to make speeches was to mobilize his followers to help "persuade" their representatives to pass progressive legislation --- or even just reaffirm his commitment to shared goals and educate the public about what those goals are. The administration abandoned any notions of doing this shortly after the election[. . . .] But Ezra's piece reaffirms that this is the way major change happens in this environment, so you can't really blame the progressives for pushing it. That's what they wanted --- major change. And in a bit of an ironic surprise, Ezra demonstrated that in this case, the progressives were the pragmatic sorts calling for "what works" --- not the president.

See also my 8 million posts on the PPUS and the "Theory of Change."

Speaking for me only

< Religion And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | MS/AL GOP Primary >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Bully Pulpit | 26 comments (26 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well everyone (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    loved the bully pulpit when it seemed like Obama had the GOP down for the count in the debt ceiling debate.  But then the Dem conceded more ground and the debate dragged on even longer.  It's one thing to argue about the bully pulpit in instances when it wasn't even deployed, but the debt ceiling was an example of Obama taking the stage, influencing the debate, and getting the American people behind him.

    Also, Jim Cooper?  WTF.  Ezra loves Jim Cooper.

    Are we REALLY still "debating" this? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    Is Ezra, somehow, against all laws of nature, getting younger and more green as he "ages?"  He's like Benoit Benjamin Button -- all hype, absolutely no game.  (Come on, any old school Clippers references garner double points.)  And Ez doesn't seem to be working on making it any better either.  As for Kevin Drum yapping to the beat of his of his own bongos, well, ack, why even bother?

    And you made eight million and forty-seven posts, Tent.  I just had my man Jeeves do a quick count.

    Heh (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    Benoit Benjamin.

    Parent
    Leadership and the bully pulpit aren't (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    just about the president giving speeches to persuade the people, but about flexing his political muscle and bringing the power of the office to bear in the halls of Congress; he's done that, in fact, on a couple of occasions for legislation and issues he was very invested in.  On health reform, Baucus was doing Obama's bidding - it's just that his bidding and ours didn't quite mesh.  Then there was the Simpson/Bowles Commission - that was Obama's creation.  Again, he put his power to work, just not in the way we wanted him to - and it was only because of a failure to get the needed votes in that committee that the Commission's work wasn't voted into law.

    There's a lot of examples just like that, where the people had pretty much already chosen a side, and he picked the other one.

    The problem with Obama is that we know he doesn't have any difficulty giving a rousing, inspiring, progressive-minded speech - his problem comes in the action phase, as in: he doesn't deliver on that vision and he doesn't do much within his power to make it happen.

    And, I'm sorry - I know too many people - and I am one of them - who have called, written, and faxed their Congressman and Senators imploring them to pass progressive legislation and vote against the bad stuff, and how's that working out for us?  Not so good.

    When he wants to rally support Obama (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    uses the bully pulpit.  Like today after a rogue soldier's unauthorized killing of Afghan civilians threatens to lead even the most ardent supporters of the Afghanistan debacle to question Obama's policies, which I hardly have to point out routinely result in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/world/asia/afghanistan-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Priorities.

    And did NATO really have someone officially employed who is stupid enough to think "the Afghans are in some ways used to the civilian casualty incidents?"  To suggest that anyone is or ever could be, IN ANY WAY, used to these "casualty incidents," i.e., killings, is beyond disgusting. I cannot even imagine what goes on in the minds of these people.

     

    What is the politics nonsense? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    Write about Goodell's latest travesty!

    thinking about it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    I'm interested in the NFLPA reaction, or non-reaction as the case may be.

    Parent
    I think they're done talking about it. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    Isn't assured that they'll have no further reaction? They agreed to the penalties because, to quote ESPN's Dan Graziano:

    The NFLPA agreed not to pursue collusion charges against the league in exchange for the league agreeing (a) not to cut the 2012 salary cap and (b) to spread the Redskins' and Cowboys' penalty money among the other teams so that the total amount of cap space league-wide would not be reduced.

    ESPN

    ...in other words, "that's a nice big salary cap you've got there, it'd be a shame if someone happened to it."

    I mostly want to know whether the much ballyhooed verbal "warnings" in 2010 were, in fact, the actual evidence of collusion and whether Jones/Snyder have standing to sue. As to the first thing, people are saying, "the Skins were warned, they can't whine now". But, in my mind, the verbal warnings WERE the collusion. It's like saying, "he wrote the victim 6 times saying he would release the photos if he wasn't paid $500,000 -- so it's not blackmail. The victim was warned multiple times." The warning letters WERE the blackmail.

    And the NFL approved the contracts! GAH!

    But I'll shut up about this now, as it's off-topic for this thread. Just mad to have to come down my Himalayan RGIII high with this story...

    Parent

    You got it (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    The evidence of "warnings" is the anti-trust violation.

    Who will sue though? The NFLPA AND/or Redskins players should sue.

    Parent

    Digby is her (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by sj on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    usual thoughful self.  Her commenters, however... ew?  That pieceofcake is a pieceofwork and forecefully reminds me of why I prefer TL.  Talk about a chatterer.  ew.

    And this is why (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    comment editing capability would be good.

    Parent
    Your "8 million posts" (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:51:32 PM EST
     can be reduced to one word:  Leadership. Obama either has it, or he doesn't. Everybody knows the Republicans are lying, hypocritical, anti American, anti Humanity, water boys for the criminal, corporate/Wall Street thugs bent on stealing everything America has to steal.

    The sooner Obama accepts that, and then shouts it from the highest steeple the sooner our country begins healing itself.

    America is ready for that. We are so, so ready for that.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    Obama has sucked as a leader.

    That's the ticket.

    Parent

    I believe President Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    is a leader, but that his style of leadership, on domestic issues, is out of synchronicity with the times.  His leadership often came across, to me, as allowing ideas to arise and then stepping back and letting the different sides argue and work to iron out their differences.  The style of leadership being cautious, detached and facilitative---any harmonious outcome that emerges is deemed a success.  

    Since leadership takes different styles, this is not necessarily a flaw, indeed, it can be effective.  However, the Republicans have never been willing to participate in (a) the ideas, or (b) arguing honestly, or (c) working out differences.  Moreover, the times were dire. The president inherited a real mess, but the Republicans were not about to help him clean it up.  Indeed, their response, was, what mess?  

    On national security and foreign policy, this style of leadership gave way to a my way or the highway style of leadership (e.g., in Libya, it was, what war?  Or, NDAA will be dealt with by a signing statement, don't worry your little head over it).   Maybe, the issue is what he wants to lead on. And, we might benefit by  a  mix of his styles.

    Parent

    i'm sorry (none / 0) (#26)
    by smott on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    I thought you said Repubs were water boys for Wall St thugs?...

    And Obama....isn't?....

    Parent

    If BTD thinks we are going to waster (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    our precious time tracking down and reading his 8 million previous posts on PPUS, he is sadly mistaken.  Tell us again.  We are very busy people.  

    Oculus (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    BTD is a big boy and can speak for himself, and I have read all of BTDs posts over the last 2-3 years and have disagreed with his point consistently across all of them.

    Anything else?

    Parent

    My comment was SNARK. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:15:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Good snark (none / 0) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    at that.

    Parent
    Ezra makes good points backed up by data (none / 0) (#16)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    and yet people still call it "rubbish!" Therefore becoming an object lesson in the very point he's making.

    People don't come to be for/against an idea in a vacuum.  The timing is important, the context is important, emotions are important, silly crap becomes important.  This is exactly why Reagan did so "well" - in essence, because people were tired of the "take care of everyone else" feelings the 60's and late 70's engendered.  I.e. the context in which trickle down took off was one where a good deal of people where saying "gimme mine."

    A lawyer who argues in the lab-like atmosphere of a courtroom can persuade all-day because of greater control of the context (rules, juror selection, only consider this info, exclude that info, etc.)  Real-life doesn't work that way, and the examples Ezra provides surely proves that (and probably would in court I might add.)

    It's familiar rubbish (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    that, as Digby points out, really is beside the point.

    Do you have a response to the quote from Digby and my 8 million posts on the subject?

    Parent

    Response: Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    1. Digby provides no real support for her points.  She just says it is not so and that is supposed to be the case.

    2. Similarly, I know that there is a sense that BTD's theories on all of this is some kind of settled law, but it is little different.  There aren't a ton of studies on the issues, but almost all studies we have about voting patterns and tactics and polls and such say that (a) people wanted Obama to try nonpartisanship, and (b) in many ways his tactics WERE successful and people that don't think they were are people who tend to think the stimulus, ACA, Iraq war draw down, the bailout and most of the other big accomplishments were nothing and irrelevant.

    (b) is really the fundamental point.  Your view on Obama's bipartisan approach isn't really determined by individual battles.  It is determined by how good you think the legislation that was passed is.  That's really the discussion we are having.  I think he's been the most successful progressive president in decades (probably the most successful president period in a long time) given what he pulled off.  Thus for me (and folks like Drum) his tactics worked.

    If you are like BTD, for example, and think the Deal was a horrible, soul crushing failure, then of course: you think his tactics stink.

    But let's be real about the fundamental source of the disagreement.  It's really about how you view his accomplishments.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:09:35 PM EST
    That's really not true but I will say the Deal was a horrible failure that will be an inexcusable one if it is not reversed at the end of this year.

    Parent
    Digby (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    The reason they wanted him to make speeches was to mobilize his followers to help "persuade" their representatives to pass progressive legislation --- or even just reaffirm his commitment to shared goals and educate the public about what those goals are.

    The group of progressives Digby is talking about  is not going to be persuaded by another speech, seems to me.  I don't believe that PPUS crap works either, but time and time again, there are polls that prove there a many many that do.  Every little bit helps IMO.

    That last part about reaffirming committment sounds kinda like it "he likes me, he really likes me."  Not at all like your "pols are pols and do what they do."  

    Parent

    Not so much that part (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    This part "I feel as if this whole argument is about doing something that nobody but President Obama, op-ed writers and some of his more fervent followers ever thought was possible in the first place. They're the only ones who believed that the Republicans were going to fall at his feet and work together in bipartisan harmony --- or that his magical powers of persuasion would create a groundswell of support among Independents and rank and file Republicans."

    Parent
    Well I think Drum (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    points out the problem in trusting Gallup polls to tell you everything about public opinion.  So if that's the data you're referring to I'm unconvinced.

    Parent
    The Bully Pulpit | 26 comments (26 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment