Before you write your kneejerk reaction to my diary: Mark Warner is not God, it's a joke, so please don't throw that in my face in the comment section, because you'll only find that you've cured my recent insomnia.
There's a huge debate on the left right now. With all due respect to another diarist on the rec-list that frequently writes amusing and insightful things, this is an important debate for the Democratic base as we sort out what happened over the last 2 years.
This isn't one of those nuanced debates where the grownups in the middle are right and the folks shouting are all being overly dramatic. In the debate over Barack Obama, one side or the other is spectacularly wrong (there's a huge distance between the two)...and whoever is right, it has huge implications for 2012 and the future of our party.
Now - both sides oversimplify the debate, play the victim, and occasionally look very silly. But beneath all of the nasty invective, biting sarcasm, and personal grudges, there's an intense and interesting debate. Here's how I'd sum up the two sides. I'm going to avoid labeling either side and just call them "Side One" and "Side Two". I fall squarely in Side Two, but I've tried not to prejudice these statements. I probably failed, but I'm only human.
Side One believes one or more of the following things:
- Obama is center-right/a neo-liberal/not personally committed to progressive policy.
- Obama lacks the political skills to be an effective President. He employs absurdly poor political messaging and strategy at nearly every turn.
- Obama is incompetent. While he has some intellectual strengths as a writer/thinker, there are many ways in which he is not actually up to the job of governing.
- A huge percentage of Democrats in Congress are not simply ideologically moderate or overly friendly to corporations - they are corrupt and drunk on power.
- Obama is partially (or totally) corrupt and/or a Corporatist. If he's not corrupt, then he's too weak to stop the corrupt corporatists in his cabinet from thwarting policies that would help the working/middle class.
- Obama is either anti-gay, could care less about gay rights, or displays moral cowardice on this issue.
- Healthcare reform was a farce.
- Obama is a warmonger whose positions on civil liberties violate the constitution.
- Obama's mediocrity is "dangerous" in that it comes at a critical time when we need a real leader.
- Obama's defenders are superficial, too attached to the man personally, and comparable to Limbaugh's "ditto-heads" in their blind devotion. In the process of devoting themselves to this man, they contort themselves in an embarassing manner and sell out progressive positions in the process.
- Obama should (and can) use the bully pulpit to pass better legislation, shift the Overton window to the left, and stick up for the Democratic base. For whatever reason (cowardice/stupidity/bad advice/weakness/his center-right ideology) he refuses to do so.
- Obama missed a historic opportunity to move the country to the left. The balance of his achievements do not negate this missed opportunity, the midterm debacle, or the watered down legislation that he passed. A more populist/stronger/politically savvy/incorruptable Democratic could have done much more.
- The Public Option was the most important part of healthcare reform. Democrats should have pushed for single-payer system or Medicare expansion and then taken the public option as a compromise. With large Democratic majorities and the Presidency, healthcare reform's passage was predetermined. The only question was how progressive it would be.
- Obama's defenders rely too heavily on process excuses (filibuster, moderates in the Democratic caucus, GOP obstructionism) that are frankly quite weak. Legislative rules (reconciliation, for example) are malleable and can be ignored. If Democrats played hardball with their wayward members, they would see better outcomes.
- In the face of economic ruin at the beginning of his term, Obama chose to act weakly and pursue half measures. While conservatives share the blame for the continued economic misery, Obama now owns this recession. He failed to pass a big enough stimulus or focus on job creation. This was a willful choice on his part.
Side Two:
- With the exception of the War in Afghanistan, trade, and teacher contracts, and a few other scattered issues, Obama is a progressive. He's slightly to the left of the center of the Democratic party.
- The Obama administration has made some tactical mistakes, but they have achieved some tremendous successes that outweigh those mistakes by a factor of 10. While the small mistakes dominate the headlines today, Obama will go down as one of the most effective progressive Presidents in history. He's moved the country remarkably far to the left.
- To a certain degree, the events of the midterm were predetermined when the economy collapsed. Economic misery = political revolt. While Side Two acknowledges that many tactical and negotiating mistakes weakened legislation, Side Two does not accept the premise that Obama could have passed a significantly bigger stimulus or enacted policies that improved the economy (except maybe a bit at the margins).
- Obama is not just well-intentioned - he is one of the most incorruptible politicians in history. While many of his policies favor the wealthy, the nature of this recession and the programs he inherited from Bush (the bailouts, deficit, etc) made some of his policy choices unavoidable.
- Obama (and his team) understand that demand-side stimulus is the key to fixing the economy. They are committed to pushing as much money to the demand-side as they feel is political possible. It's not a lack of will, but a lack of ability that is hampering their efforts to fix the economy.
- Obama's liberal critics ignore the realities of the legislative process. They assign to much power to supposed "party bosses" in their ability to threaten or cajole conservative members of the Democratic caucus.
- Healthcare reform was (on balance) a REALLY good thing. Entitlement programs can be improved, and this one will be improved. Liberal critics of healthcare reform are unrealistic about what it accomplished, obsessed with the public option (a good policy that - as debated - was a tiny part of the legislation), and insufficiently grateful to Democrats (POTENTIALLY including Obama) who lost their seats because they fought for this legislation.
- On balance, Obama is pretty good on civil liberties. Investigations might not have accomplished anything other than a catharsis for the Democratic base. It's tough to unravel the damage done by Bush, who left Obama with a tangled legal mess of tortured detainees (some were innocent, some where spectacularly guilty) and civil servants leftover from the Bush Administration. He can do better, but he's done pretty well.
- While we're slightly wary of Afghanistan escalation, Side Two gives Obama latitude to try to fix that mess before withdrawing as quickly as he feels is possible.
- Obama has been given insufficient credit for winding down the war in Iraq.
- Race plays a huge role in the criticism Obama faces from the Right. It makes is harder for him to do a variety of things that white Democratic presidents could do easily (like express populist outrage). When he pushes for legislation that benefits the poor, this involves a delicate dance due to racial sentiments of the American public. While there is nothing at all racist about Obama's critics on the left, it is annoying to hear them (carelessly) use racially charged rhetoric employed by the Right. Obama himself wants nothing to do with racial complaints or excuses, but that doesn't mean his supporters can't acknowledge reality.
- The economy is the main driver of political opinion, but the Left contributes to Obama's political problems by refusing to defend him strenuously. While it is admirable (and often VERY useful) for progressives to push Obama to the left, it's gotten out of hand and become a sport for the personal enrichment of various television and internet celebrities. That being said - 99% of progressive critics believe they are advocating for their cherished principles (not financial gain). The problem is that Obama could use a bit more partisanship from these people and a bit less ideology.
- On the flip side, Obama has failed to reach out to the base through direct contact, careful messaging by his lieutenants, and strategic initiatives. While Side Two agrees with the Administration that the base should be more grateful, the reality is that they're not, and this situation needs to be addressed through substantive and symbolic efforts.
- Side Two finds it hard to defend Obama's efforts on DADT, but many will continue to withhold judgement until the clock strikes "2011".
- (UPDATE: Moved to Side Two from "Both sides". An error on my part). The Democratic caucus is full of moderates because that's the only way that Democrats can win majorities. All things being equal, the Senate should produce maybe 46 Democrats and 54 Republicans (because liberals tend to be concentrated in high population states that are underrepresented in the Senate - thanks New Jersey compromise...). Majority minority districts and Democrats' tendency to crowd into urban areas create a similar structural imbalance in the House. In order to win conservative districts, we have to nominate moderate candidates. The result is that when Democrats hold the majority, their messaging is continually weakened by moderates and lack of partisan cohesion. Liberal activists often confuse this persistent structural problem with a lack of backbone by all Democrats. They fail to differentiate the good Democrats with the bad ones or even cut some slack to the bad ones.
So what do the two sides have in common? That's a more interesting question as we move forward. Here's a list of statements with which both sides can agree.
- The Democratic Party is better for America than the GOP.
- The tea parties/GOP suck.
- The working/middle class is getting hosed. We need more demand-side stimulus or the economy won't improve.
- DADT should be repealed and failure to do so would be an inexcusable failure of Barack Obama.
- Barack Obama should be renominated in 2012.
- While there's disagreement about the DEGREE to which healthcare will help people, there's general acknolwedgement that it's better than the status quo and can be improved.
- Not only did Moderate/Conservative/Blue Dog elements in the Democratic Caucus undermine and water down progressive legislation, and they did so to their own political detriment.
- Bipartisanship will not happen. The GOP would vote against tax cuts on the rich if they thought they would improve the economy or help Obama's popularity. They'd vote for gay marriage and a women's right to choose if they thought it would help their chances in 2012. The GOP is an entirely political beast right now that is unconcerned by public policy interests, facts, experts, or the fate of our nation (Insert my own opinion here: I hate to say this, but at least the despicable teaparty has policy objectives and principles that they occasional adhere to - the GOP just wants to win)
- Conservative deregulation and inattention to the middle class caused the economy to derail. Obama's actions - while not enough - have been more beneficial than detrimental to the economy's recovery.
- Race plays a role in the popularity of Obama's policies and therefore impacts his political calculations.
- While polls show a high percentage of liberals approving the job that Obama is doing, both sides recognize that there is a softness to that approval (enthusiasm gap) that must be addressed.
- Poor economic conditions cause grumpiness. It is a contributing factor to the intensity of the teaparty movement, the snippiness of the President's defenders, and the grumpiness of the President's liberal attackers. That's not an indictment on any of these groups, just a realization that economic turmoil makes people of ALL IDEOLOGIES generally grumpy (for good reason) and causes them to react harshly and assign fault to people with differing perspectives.
- Obama needs to do a better job with messaging. In particular, he should have used more populist rhetoric. While there are disagreements about how effective this would have been, both sides general agree that the rhetoric should have included more class-based appeals and populism.
- Thus far, Obama has failed to transform Washington. While both sides can agree that government openness and competence has been improved, they also agree that Obama hasn't done anything on that front that a typical Democratic administration wouldn't also do.
I think that point #12 is the most important one. We're all grumpy right now. Some of us are grumpy because we can't find work or we feel economically insecure. Others are grumpy because our friends, neighbors, or family are feeling that way. To top it all off - there's little we can do to control the economy, and there's an entire political party working to destroy it while members of our own party fecklessly (or actively) enable them.
We agree on many things, but the debate over those other things should continue because there is a HUGE chasm between these two sides. This is a political blog and it's a place for political arguments. The debate should continue!
PS: While this diary is a high-minded attempt to engage both sides, it's not an attempt to say "Look at me, I'm so pure, I never engaged in over the top rhetoric!" So don't take it as that. I'm much more comfortable down in the trenches lobbing rhetorical bombs and making arguments than I am trying to bring people together, and this diary doesn't change that.
Update: I moved Iten #15 (structural problems with Democratic majorities) in Both Sides to Side Two. Accidentally put in the wrong place.