The reason Barack Obama is making so many Democrats angry is that he's too politically liberal, which makes him too economically conservative.
At a time that requires bold and perhaps unilateral leadership, President Obama is still working to build consensus. As a result, Obama continues to disappoint left-leaning Democrats from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party".
But if the political left wants to move Obama in their direction, they will have to become more politically liberal and less ideologically rigid.
How minds and hearts change
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I consider myself a social and economic conservative, in the sense that I want to keep what is good and act in a frugal and fiscally responsible manner for the sake of future generations. I do not believe that more government intervention is usually the solution to economic or social problems. Fundamentally, what will bring about change is not government intervention, but interpersonal relationships that bring about new insights and new experiences.
The reason I came to believe that healthcare is a fundamental human right and not a privilege for those who work hard is because I've seen people who work hard and lose their access to adequate healthcare. It was because I was exposed to relationships with people like Nicole Cochran, a successful small businesswoman in the music industry who lost everything simply because she got Multiple Sclerosis. An insurance agent told Nicole, "You can't be single, self-employed, and chronically ill in this country."
When I heard that story, my heart changed. Not to say that I was opposed to the idea of helping the sick. But the bigger issue, for me, was coming to realize that many people who go bankrupt or lose their health insurance did nothing irresponsible or wrong. When I had that new insight, I began to think differently about the issue of healthcare reform.
In order to have that new insight, I had to be willing to come into contact with information and people who are different from me. Nate Silver (remember when we knew him as poblano?) has already made some great points about the importance of racial diversity in helping to build strong support for President Obama in 2008. The same truth - that diversity opens minds and changes hearts - is what is going to bring about the change we need to move forward in the 2010 elections.
Why I come to Daily Kos
I came to Daily Kos through the back door, after seeing repeated links on the Obama for America campaign blog in 2008. I got curious, appreciated the different and unique viewpoints and the wide-open "small-D" democratic community, and posted my first diary in July 2008 addressing some concerns about the incivility and attack ads by the Tennessee GOP against Barack Obama. My first diary on the rec list was about a vicious murder of 2 people in a Unitarian Universalist church in Tennessee at the hands of a disgruntled military veteran who was steeped in the teachings of Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly.
Jim Adkisson wrote a manifesto explaining his reasons for the attack on innocent churchgoing people. He specifically targeted Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church for its support of the "liberal movement" and "gays". (Incidentally, Adkisson was also angry because his food stamps had been cut off.) The letter was found in his car at the time he was arrested, showing that the murder was premeditated.
I didn't come to Daily Kos because I am an economic liberal or a socialist or a proponent of economic redistribution. Having said that, I supported Barack Obama in 2008 in large part because I agreed with his points about the epic failure of compassionate conservatism and the hypocritical cynicism of the Republican Party. There is nothing about a more progressive tax policy that precludes charitable giving. It's just that those who are charitable wouldn't do so for the tax breaks alone, but rather because they have genuinely charitable aims.
I agree with the point made by Warren Buffett in his memorable interview with Tom Brokaw. Because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than personal income, Buffett pays a lower tax rate (as a billionaire) than his secretary does. You don't have to be a radical to recognize that something is dreadfully wrong with that system. The $288 billion middle class tax cut passed by the Democrats as part of the Recovery Act is a good first step in the right direction, but the real answer is that taxes should be raised to pay for two wars, the Bush and Reagan deficits, and the economic recovery efforts of the past 2 years.
More on that later.
What is a liberal?
Because of my personally conservative leanings, I was a little surprised when a former college classmate began referring to me as a liberal. He's an Evangelical Christian, an African-American Republican who became a Christian while in prison. He frequently refers me to articles lamenting the impact of 1960s Great Society liberalism on the African-American community and reminding me that liberals are responsible for supporting judicial philosophies like Roe v. Wade, which legalized a medical procedure that he sees as murder.
At first, I vehemently denied that I was a liberal. "I'm a social and fiscal conservative," I told him, reminding him that I voted Bush in 2000 and supported Obama in large part because of his campaign pledge to restore PAYGO rules and end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I reminded him dutifully that President Obama and the Democrats had actually cut taxes since he took office in 2009, and helped reform federal contracts and cut the F-22 program.
But that wasn't his point.
He wasn't talking about policy issues. He was talking about an attitude of mind that made me susceptible to getting easily duped. Unlike him, as someone cocksure of being right and unwilling to "waste his time" listening to other viewpoints, I was respectful and patient and took the time to read broadly and even read (God forbid!) the liberal blog, Daily Kos.
There are a couple policy issues that he wanted to talk about - abortion and gay marriage. For him, those political and legal issues were a litmus test. If I was willing to allow that abortion might be considered something other than murder, then I had lost all moral sensibility. If I was willing to allow gay couples to openly live in sin, then I was too open-minded for him. After all, "If you won't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
When I started asking to talk about things in the Bible like, "Judge not lest you be judged," or, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (your neighbor being the foreign guy whose nation is your nation's sworn enemy), he would have none of it. It was obvious that I had become deluded by liberalism.
And then I understood where he was coming from. He wasn't talking about social or economic liberalism. He was talking about an attitude of the mind and a way of approaching ideas, summarized this way by philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer:
That is why a person who is called experienced has not only become so through experiences but is also open to new experiences. The consummation of his experience, the perfection that we call "being experienced," does not consist in the fact that someone already knows everything and knows better than everyone else. Rather, the experienced person proves to be, on the contrary, someone who is radically undogmatic; who, because of the many experiences he has had and the knowledge he has drawn from them, is particularly well-equipped to have new experiences and learn from them.
As it turns out, I am a sort of a liberal. But I'm not the kind of liberal who wants to "destroy the Rethuglicans" or "drive a stake through the heart of the opposition" or anything like that. I'm the kind of liberal described by John Kennedy in this way:
If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Why Barack Obama is too liberal for the left
President Obama frequently says things that make the left afraid. He said in 2002, "I don't oppose war in all circumstances." And then, once elected, he proved it by escalating the troop presence in Afghanistan even as he began the withdrawal from Bush's war of choice in Iraq. Obama talks about the need to address our long-term debt and even seems willing to talk with the likes of Alan Simpson or Pete Peterson. He said promised in his victory speech:
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.
Obama's willingness to listen to those who disagree with him makes him too liberal for the left. He's too open-minded. Too willing to compromise. Too willing to delay. Too willing to cede political territory in a war against cutthroats and cynics who will stop at nothing to take back political power. President Obama's most ardent supporters-turned-critics on the left will remind him of the money they donated, the hours they volunteered, and the sacrifices they made to help put him in office. "Why are you willing to make peace with a sworn enemy and appease the Republican Party? Why do you continue to let them delay and obstruct the progress we desperately need?"
Of course, part of the concern is misguided. President Obama has no power to make the 41 Republican Senators do anything. Sen. Jim DeMint memorably said that blocking passage of healthcare reform could be "Obama's Waterloo." And as it turns out, obstruction has worked for the GOP. First, they delayed progress as long as possible by lamenting the lack of bipartisanship. Then, they held things up in months of committee meetings and markups. Next, after hundreds of votes, they complained that their viewpoints weren't being included enough. It was around this time that Al Franken was seated, then Ted Kennedy died. After that, Republicans played Lucy with the healthcare football, continuing to ask for changes and then vote against the proposals when their ideas were heard. Finally, it was only through budget reconciliation that the Democrats were able to move the bill through the Senate, leading to vigorous Republican objections about process and procedure and backroom deals.
While President Obama has been vilified for doing too little, as it turns out Obama is the one who was calling for the job to be finished when everyone in the White House and on the Hill was declaring the process to be dead. It was President Obama's liberal approach - his openness to change, his flexibility of thought, his willingness to compromise, and his dedication to consensus-building that allowed both the House and Senate to pass their bills, and then push a final bill through for passage. Clearly, it was not the bill that Democrats or President Obama wanted. But it represents significant progress, and continues to be viewed more favorably by independents and even some moderate Republicans.
Obama has managed to redefine "liberal" in Kennedy's terms, taking back the positive definition of liberal from the legacies of FDR and JFK before him. In the process, Obama has managed to point out the fatal flaws of the Republican brand of conservatism. The rigidity, heartlessness, and ideological stupidity of the Republican Party has been on full display. And at a time when desperate Republicans are pouring more and more money into candidates, their favorability ratings remain significantly worse than the ratings of President Obama and the Democrats.
How being more liberal will help the Left win
In spite of my personally conservative approach on social and fiscal matters, I continue to stand with the left in 2010. I stand with the left because I believe that we have an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. I do not see any solutions from the Republican Party. They are continuing to snipe at each other and make themselves look ugly. Any previous civility - what Michael Gerson called "the Grown Up Party" in a WaPo editorial this week - has abandoned the GOP as they have taken a "say anything" approach and decided that kneejerk hatred of the "Obama-Pelosi agenda" is the best campaign strategy.
It's important to be right on the issues. Our economic situation is bad and writers like Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein are helping me to understand that short-term deficit spending is a good idea. But I never would have been open to listening to Krugman and Klein were it not for the fact that I'm willing to acknowledge that my conservative leanings could be wrong. I would never be open to arguments about ending DADT or providing insurance coverage for abortions if not for the fact that I understand the difference between exposing and imposing your beliefs.
In short, it's my willingness to be politically liberal that allows me to hear different viewpoints and accept their validity. (Saying a viewpoint is valid doesn't mean I have to change my mind. It just means I can see where you're coming from.) And the work of convincing frustrated independents and Republicans - the work Obama did in 2008 while Edwards and Clinton were fighting over the base - is what the left will need to do if we're going to continue making progress in 2011 and beyond.
Conclusion - The Way Forward
I started writing this diary as a response to feelings of frustration, demoralization, and anger reported by a a diary on the rec list earlier today. I'm angry and fed-up too. In fact, the one thing that the left and right can agree on right now is that we're all angry and fed-up. The right would argue that the left has no reason to feel demoralized as they have a huge majority in both houses of Congress and the White House to boot.
We are in power now. And in November, we will have an opportunity to send a message to 33 Senators and 435 House members. What we do in the next 4 months will determine the future of this country. Now is the time for the left to reach out from a position of strength (something most of us aren't used to, having gone through the wilderness of Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes) and show the open-minded, soft-hearted, liberal attitude that makes the Democratic Party great.
We are the solutions party.
We are the party that celebrates diversity, because we know that diversity makes us stronger, not weaker.
We are the party that acknowledges that differences are not deficiencies.
We respect, empower, and include others so that we can bring change to Washington DC.
The forces of the status quo want us to focus on the things we can't control - the arcane rules in the Senate, the incumbency racket in the national parties, and the role of the President in our political process.
But if we pull together in 2010, and continue the amazing and unexpected election results of 2008, we can not only change Washington. We can change America and set our nation on a better course for generations to come.
We will have to make tough decisions. I've said many times to anyone who cares to listen that I'm happy to give up my Obama tax cut if I can get the same commitment to a 2% income tax increase on capital gains and those in higher income brackets. There are important investments that our nation must make now - on clean energy, education, conservation, and national security - that will help future generations to have better opportunities and more freedom.
But unless we can let go of our fears and engage with our neighbors and allow others to open our minds, we are not going to solve tough problems. We will continue on in stagnation, economic frustration, and disappointment with our leadership. We will continue to get the failed leadership we deserve if we're not willing to reach out and pull together.
2010 is more important than 2008 because this is the time that we prove that the movement for change isn't about one charismatic leader. It's about us.