Since there were never substantive policy differences between Hillary and Barack, many of us looked to intangibles such as style and temperament to decide who we’d support.
Recall, for example, heated arguments here and elsewhere coming from Clinton supporters who could not fathom why anyone who believed in universal health care would prefer Obama, seeing as Hillary’s stated position on the matter was slightly more sweeping. They scoffed at the notion that Obama’s leadership style would more likely lead to greater progress in the end. Such claims were impossible to quantify (unlike stated policy positions), so they were often dismissed as kool-aid thinking.
Meanwhile the kool-aid thinkers pointed to a political culture that had reached a dead end, where righteous proclamations by politicos led only to gridlock. Where unilateral power-plays backfired because they pissed off too many people. (E.g. Hillary’s attempt at health care reform or Bill’s early gays-in-the-military gambit.)
Now we’re hearing an ever-increasing clamor of righteous language from progressives: “We’re at 60 now, so there’s no excuse!” “Obama could immediately reverse DADT with an executive order!” “Obama is as bad as Bush when it comes to due process!” “Why won’t Obama draw lines in the sand with a public option??”
Six months into the new administration, “patience” is becoming a dirty word among progressives.
But here’s a thought: Obama won the primaries. That means his style for effecting change won out – a style that he made no secret of during the primaries. (Remember his admiration of Reagan’s transformative abilities, or statements like “we can disagree without being disagreeable”?)
Frankly, we cannot know for sure how it will all play out until many more months and years have passed. Even then we won’t be able to compare the results to a competing style. It’s impossible to say what final health care package would have emerged with a Clinton presidency. My prediction is that, at the end of Obama’s presidency, we’ll look back with a considerable sense of accomplishment (similar to the way conservative tax-cutters and deregulators felt after Reagan) and greatly admire Obama’s finesse.
My point is not that we should shut up and stop pressuring him. As he’s pointed out repeatedly, he needs our pressure. But he also needs widespread political capital – which, so far, he’s been doing a great job of maintaining.
A thought exercise: While we all agree that the number of discharged soldiers under DADT is tragic, what would you do if, say, you had the choice between eliminating it immediately but losing substantive health care reform, or eliminating it a bit further down the road and gaining a strong public option. I know this is simplistic and hypothetical, but it’s the kind of juggling/chess (choose your metaphor) that Obama is attempting. By remaining ostensibly open to opposition ideas (e.g. health care) or old-guard concerns (e.g. gays in the military), he’s projecting an overall image of stability and moderation. This is enormously valuable when it comes to keeping the basic trust of average Americans (who don’t read Kos every day), relegating the rants of the Limbaughs and Hannities to the ludicrous extreme fringe where they belong. With his famous “long-view” Obama is being very careful not to give them the ammunition they need to convince the great swaths of America that he’s radical, dangerous, etc.
So, by all means, let’s keep up the pressure. He expects us to. (“I can’t do this alone.”) Sooner or later he’ll tell the generals he can no longer delay repealing DADT – but they’ll appreciate him for taking their concerns seriously, and they’ll stay loyal to him. Sooner or later he’ll tell Congress that far too many Americans are now aware (thanks, in part, to our efforts here) of the obvious benefits of a strong public option, and so representatives can no longer appease their big insurance-industry donors.
All in all, I think we walk a fine line while we do our job as citizens. I don’t begrudge Keith Olbermann declaring so strongly that Obama is wrong in the way he’s handling DADT. Olbermann is playing his part in the political process. In fact, such declarations serve not just to move the ball down the field with pressure, they also contribute to the sense among mainstream Americans that Obama is deliberate, moderate, patient, and conciliatory, rather than exclusively beholden to the left. Remember, he’s a strategist. His positions and decisions are rooted in what’s ultimately possible, not what’s necessarily most immediately righteous. And because he’s a strategist, like any good chess player, he may make a few missteps. But he’s very good at what he does, and, ultimately, I’m convinced, he’ll win the game – as long as he doesn’t lose the majority.
So, please, let’s not go overboard with personal attacks that could start to snowball. Keep applying the pressure, but keep displaying those Obama bumper-stickers!
Bottom line, he won the election. That means we get to find out if his style – his patience, his approach to the culture wars, his bipartisan gestures, etc – proves ultimately as effective as some of us believed.