Hopeful Signs
I’m not blind to the obvious: President-Elect Obama has been named the most liberal senator two years running of 2007, and already, ‘progressive’ bloggers, magazines, columnists, and lobbyists are clamoring for a hard turn left. There are encouraging signs, however, that Obama is not going to make the mistake of alienating further the almost half of America that did not vote for him by overreaching.
The Rahm Emanuel pick is one such sign. Far too much attention is being paid to his ‘partisan bulldog’ history, and not enough to his policy background, firmly in the centrist Democrat approach favored by the DLC and the Clintonistas. Another sign is in the attempt by the President-Elect’s team to save Joe Lieberman from the Republicans. While Obama has not opined specifically, reading between the lines (a Christopher Dodd statement that Obama would not want a fight over Lieberman, and a very conciliatory tone adopted by Harry Reid on CNN’s Late Edition), one can see the influence of Obama here, as well.
Here’s more from a Wall Street Journal interview with Emanuel published this weekend, prior to his acceptance of Chief of Staff:
…I asked Mr. Emanuel if the election of an unabashed liberal like Mr. Obama has made the New Democrat strategy obsolete. Perhaps what we witnessed on Tuesday means that liberalism is ascendant and the U.S. is no longer a center-right nation. “I think the country is incredibly pragmatic,” he responded. “Pragmatic and progressive. But you still have to mix and match different approaches to reach your objectives. You have to be flexible.”
He said the similarities between Barack Obama and the last Democratic president matter more than the differences. “Both Barack and Bill Clinton have an incredible connection to the public,” he said. “Both ran on a message of hope. Both ran against failed policies that let the country down prior to them being elected. I don’t think the country is yearning for an ideological answer. If anything it’s the opposite. They want real solutions to real problems. And if we do an ideological test, we will fail. Our challenge is to work to solve the actual problems that the country is facing, not work to satisfy any constituency or ideological wing of the party.”
An Obama administration could very well be planning to govern from the center. But there’s still the reality of the Democratic congressional leadership, which is brimming with left-wing barons who have their own agenda.
Barney Frank wants to slash Defense spending by 25%. Charles Rangel wants to bring back the draft. John Conyers, who has called for slavery reparations, is also sympathetic to Europeans who want to indict Bush administration officials for war crimes. And Henry Waxman is angling for steep energy taxes to combat global warming.
The question is whether these veteran lawmakers will simply steam roll the new White House occupant, the way previous liberal majorities in Congress had their way with Presidents Carter and Clinton.
“Barack Obama can stand up to them,” countered Mr. Emanuel. He started to defend a couple of his colleagues — “Charlie Rangel also supports reducing the corporate tax rate, and go ask corporate America how pragmatic Barney Frank has been during the financial crisis” — but then he paused. At first, I thought it was because Mr. Emanuel had run out of examples, but it turned out that he wanted to make a larger point.
“Let me say this as to my colleagues,” he began. “Although committed to their philosophy, they are incredibly pragmatic. They have lived through an experience in the minority. And they know how they got to be in the minority. And they know one very important political principle. They know that if President-elect Obama succeeds, all of us succeed. And if he doesn’t succeed, his failures won’t be limited to him.”
…Mr. Emanuel said that the best way for Democrats to avoid overreach in the next two years is by thinking “less ideologically and more in terms of future versus past.” You have to “constantly be turning over the intellectual topsoil in order to stay fresh,” he said. “The economy demands it. The political system demands it. The country doesn’t want divided government. It wants progress.”
To be sure, the Democrats will push a liberal agenda – of course, they will. That’s why they are Democrats. But there are some parts of the agenda that are less divisive than others. And the constant refrain of ‘pragmatism’ bodes well for an administration that will not wear ideological blinders.
Finally, if there is any good to come out of the economic crisis, it is that major tinkering with redistribution, always a favorite hobby of ‘progressives’, may be held hostage to a budget deficit that is now incredibly out-of-whack. Ditto for major health-care ‘reform’ (read: increased government control).
As I said at the beginning of this post, I don’t have rose-colored glasses on. I know conservatives are in for a rough four years – but I don’t think it’s going to be nearly as bad as some think, it is. And to the extent that Obama benefits from a business cycle that will probably favor his reelection (I think the next nine months are going to be brutal, but beginning with the fourth quarter of 2009, a recovery will begin, and 2010 will be a very, very good year), well, what of it? If the country prospers, and he keeps us safe, I’m okay with that…
UPDATE 10:56 pm.: As you can see above, I originally said Obama was named National Journal’s most liberal senator two years in a row. Actually, he was named for 2007 – I don’t believe 2008 rankings have been released. However, he was the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, the 10th in 2006, and the first in 2007 – anyone see a trend here? That’s why caution remains in order. Obama must do more than say he will govern from the center – he must actually do so…
So what you’re saying is Obama plans to govern by doing what he said he was going to do during the election? And that, like virtually everyone with a brain was saying even as early as the primary, Obama’s probably not that liberal? I’m shocked, shocked.
I’d also like some evidence that anyone is “clamoring” for a “hard turn left”. I guess, given the rest of your post, if you’re counting universal health care (which is favored by a fairly large majority of Americans) as a “hard turn left” then I guess that is what those dastardly bloggers are aiming for. But I’d really love to see you point out something a serious American progressive expects from Obama that is more “hard left” than it is “marginally moving closer to the median of the rest of the civilized world”.
Ryan, you’ve got to be kidding me. The whole ‘progressive’ pundit world is full of articles decrying observers who have said America continues to be a center-right nation, and asking Obama to go full left. If you haven’t seen it, you aren’t looking very hard.
Paul Krugman:
From a story in the Boston Globe:
The labor unions are ‘ready to help’ – you suppose they’re ready to help him move to the center?
Give me a break, Ryan…I’m cautiously hopeful, but he’s got to prove it, first. You’re given him the benefit of decisions he has yet to make…it’s be no means certain that he will govern from the center. His early rhetoric and the choice of Emanuel give me hope that perhaps – perhaps – he will. That’s all we can say at the moment, and you have no more of a clue than I do how events will turn out…
“…[B]y no means certain”, that is…
…And yes, universal health care is a CONSIDERABLE move to the left. What world are you living in? This has been on the Democratic wish list since Hillary botched it in the early ’90s. It may be a nice sentiment, Ryan, but think of our obligations already with the financial bailout, the two wars, Social Security, a Medicare system that is in critical condition…and you want to add universal health coverage? AND you want me to think that’s not part of the ‘progressive’ agenda?
I’m not the fool you take me for, my friend…
And really, Ryan, what is this nonsense about “everyone with a brain saying Obama is really not that liberal”? You’d have to have NO BRAIN to believe that. His voting record is what got him the honor of being named National Journal’s most liberal senator twice in a row. It’s not a partisan survey, it’s a straight-up analysis of votes…
Actually, I’m wrong about the two years in a row part – correction will be appended to post above…
Regarding the 2008 numbers, I doubt Obama (or McCain) will have cast enough votes in the Senate to generate a record for the National Journal to dissect.
He wasn’t even present enough times.
As an independent voter who voted for Obama, my vote was more a message to govern to the left of George Bush. It was not a vote to govern way to the left of center. There are a spectrum of policies, and unfortunately, the ballot only gave me a binary (discounting libertarians, green party, etc.) option.
It sounds like Rahm Emanuel gets this. I’m not sure that other congressional Democrats get this. I hope they realize that the independent vote, to a some extent, had to do with “Obama is not George Bush”. Paul Krugman does not get this. He’s mad that there are media articles saying America is a center-right nation, and he believes that the election results are a repudiation of this. Well, I’m not sure where the average political leanings are (center by definition?), but I certainly reject the notion that Obama has a mandate to govern way to the left (of center, not George Bush).
One other thing: virtually all government programs are about redistribution, even those Republican’s are in favor of. That includes defense spending. Yes, I want a strong defense, but my preference would have been to put some of the money for Iraq into real homeland defense (and Afghanistan, as it was). The rest of the spending for Iraq (an offensive move, though some say a strong offense is a good defense) could have been put in to energy technology and basic science. (Remember how we quibbled about the $3(?) billion supercollider (SSC)… peanuts.) Neither Democrats nor Republicans have slowed government programs — they both have priorities regarding how they want to redistribute our tax dollars.
I didn’t suggest that Obama is not going to govern like a liberal. I merely said that what he’s not going to do is make a “hard turn left” by any sensible definition of those words. Universal health care, which rumors indicate Obama isn’t even going to pursue all that fervently, isn’t a hard turn left. It’s a basic step that brings us into the broad consensus of the entire civilized world. And it’s supported by more than 60% of American voters, most of whom say they would be fine with having their taxes raised to pay for it.
What Krugman and most of the progressive commentators are saying, quite correctly, is that all the conservatives and Republicans running around reminding us that this is a center-right nation need to be told to shut up. It isn’t a center-right nation, it’s a center-center nation. People want universal health care because that’s where the middle is. They want out of Iraq because that’s where the middle is. Neither of these policies is particularly liberal outside of Grover Norquist’s fever dreams. As for your particular piece of snark, I do think labor unions are ready to help Obama move the country to the center, after 8 years and more of Republican rule have dragged us so far to the right of it.
And speaking of fever dreams, I know it’s hard to believe people don’t think Obama’s that liberal, but surely you have been able to read something in the last year that wasn’t written by National Review or RedState. Surely you recall the primary, during which Obama was widely-considered the least-liberal of the three major Democratic candidates. Consider, for instance, the way he Harry-and-Louised Clinton and Edwards on health care. And surely you have read a conservative who actually understands reality, like perhaps Daniel Larison, who has repeatedly pointed out that Obama’s more wild-eyed supporters and critics were bound to be wrong because they were so remarkably bad at listening to what Obama actually had to say.
So here’s my challenge for you. Disregard silly vote rankings for a bit and tell me exactly what Obama has said he plans on doing as President that is really markedly liberal in any substantive way. What hard left turn has he promised us we’re about to take? Because it seems to me that his words are not going to provide you with much here, given that all the claims of “socialism” and such were basically manufactured by the right-wing noise machine. But I want to see how you turn a guy who says he wants cap and trade, universal health care (without a mandate, no less, and certainly not single-payer), and withdrawal from Iraq into some kind of frothing liberal.
I think Ezra Klein makes my point pretty concisely. Responding to the fear at the Corner that Obama will focus on “structural things like unions, open borders cum amnesty, and fairness doctrine/talk radio, etc. that would all be seen as investments in ensuring more liberal voters in the next elections”, Ezra points out that Obama explicitly opposes two of those things and will almost certainly not go out of his way to stump for the Employee Free Choice Act.
This is what I mean: Republicans have largely invented the idea that Obama is some kind of hard-core partisan leftist, but nothing in his actual platform indicates that he’s anything of the sort.
David Brooks — certainly no liberal — addresses this issue in today’s New York Times:
“(Obama’s) selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff suggests that Obama’s not going to be mindlessly leftist, and that he’s going to shape a legislative strategy that is attentive to Congressional realities while not deferring to a Congressional leadership whose interests may not be his own. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both tripped up in their first two years by their Democratic Congresses. Obama intends for Emanuel to ensure that that doesn’t happen.”
I would predict that the only leftist bias you’ll see in the next few years would be Supreme Court and other judicial nominations. Aside from that, I would be surprised to see a tilt anywhere to the left of Bill Clinton in foreign or domestic policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Look, you guys seem to not realize that I agree with you – I think the choice of Emanuel gives us hope that Obama will not govern too far from the left. My point to Ryan, especially, is don’t give him credit yet – he hasn’t even taken office! Instead, the pragmatic (to use one of Emanuel’s favorite words) approach is to be hopeful yet cautious…
I dispute that premise. Pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, opposed the Bush tax cuts, hates Sarah Palin, works for the NYT.
He is just a pet conservative of the left, not an actual conservative. He exists so liberals like you can use his arguments while insisting that he is “certainly no liberal”.
Furthermore, the fact that a knee breaker like Emanuel is selected says nothing about the policies that knees will be broken over. He could be a missile aimed at DLC/Blue Dog types just as easily as Move On types.
Mark: We do agree. My objection is merely to your indication that Obama was ever remotely likely to govern from some place far to the left of the center. We have just endured a campaign in which all sorts of insane things have been attributed to him, and I’m just a little defensive I guess. You see the choice of Emanuel as a hopeful sign; I see it as an extension of the cautious, center-left existence Obama has consistently projected to people who were paying attention.
Bob: If David Brooks is a liberal, then you guys are in bigger trouble than I thought. A Republican Party made up exclusively of people to the right of Brooks is going to lose a lot of 1964-style elections. Furthermore, a Republican Party made up of people who don’t think Sarah Palin is an embarrassing farce is going to have about six members.
Fair enough…
Brooks may be a Republican but what conservative views does he actually hold?