There were a few recent diaries emphasizing that Obama is hearing his base (if we even are the base). The subtext - as I read it - was to STFU. But, of course, Obama responding to the concerns of the base is precisely why the base needs to criticize - the point is to get a response. Unfortunately - what is becoming increasingly clear - is that the hostility towards the base (hippie punching) is a symptom of a frustrated administration who finds itself unable to right a still-faltering economy.
I was recently listening to political scientist Jacob Hacker discussing his book Winner-Take-All Politics. At the very end of the talk, in response to a question, Hacker argues that movement progressivism needs to consistently pressure Democratic politicians on economic issues. Hacker invoked the famous FDR statement: "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." In other words, that's what movement progressivism should be doing - holding Democratic politicians accountable for enacting progressive policies.
Unfortunately - in several areas, notably the economy - the response to criticism by the base has been increasing hostility (aka hippie punching). As Ezra Klein notes with respect to the now-infamous OFA email, hippie punching isn't necessarily negative (particularly for the "professional left"):
Paul Krugman is one op-ed columnist. Firedog Lake is one Web site. They have readers. But they are not the state of Ohio. Time and again, however, we see evidence that they have gotten deep inside the White House’s head. In letters, in offhand comments, in outbursts at press conferences, in my personal reporting, members of the Obama administration and members of the Obama reelection campaign will let slip that they are dwelling and worrying over these arguments. They may not agree with them. They may not think they’re fair, or sophisticated, or useful. But they’re thinking about them. And if you’re the “professional left,” that’s exactly what you want.
But while the hippie punching might be seen as a positive for the "professional left," I really see it as a sign of growing frustration by an administration that is out of ideas for the economy. Brad Delong offers an interesting view regarding the evolution of the adminstration's reaction:
Back at the end of 2008, our questions (at least my questions) were: "What if the downturn is bigger than we currently think it will be? . . . What is Plan B?" And the answers were all along the lines of:
1. You are a pessimist. We are already doing unprecedented things to stabilize the economy--and odds are that in a year we will be worrying about inflation and unwinding the stimulus rather than about unemployment.
2. Obama is genuinely post-partisan, and won't have anything like the trouble Clinton had negotiating with Republicans: our policies will evolve as the situation evolves.
Back in the late summer of 2009, our questions (or at least my questions) were: "You aren't getting any cooperation from Republicans--they appear to have doubled down on the Gingrich-Dole strategy that you win the next election by making the Democratic President a failure. The economy really needs more stimulus. What are you going to do? . . . And the answers were:
1. We are doing all that we can.
2. This is really hard.
3. Things will probably still work out all right.
4. If worst comes to worst, we will trade long-run budget balance via a spending cut-heavy package of long-run spending cuts and tax increases for short-term stimulus to get us out of the short-term unemployment mess.
5. Hippie punching.
By the late summer of 2010, our questions (or at least my questions) were: "You are in a total war with the Republican Party. They aren't giving you anything. It is time to seriously push the envelope of executive authority to put policies in place that will reduce unemployment." And the answers were:
1. The best policy is to achieve long-run fiscal discipline so that the confidence fairy will show up.
2. Hippie punching.
And now it is the late summer of 2011. Our big question still is: how is Obama going to use executive branch authority to reduce unemployment? There are lots of options: adjourn congress and do some recess appointments to get the Federal Reserve more engaged in actually pursuing its dual mandate, quantitative easing via the Treasury Department, shifting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their do-nothing position by giving them a microeconomic stabilization mission, talking about how a weak dollar is in America's interest.
And this time what I am hearing back is only:
1. Hippie punching.
It is difficult to read this in any way but as a group of people inside a bunker who (1) have been wrong about the situation, (2) are scared to use the powers they have to try to make things better, and (3) really do not like being reminded that they were wrong about the situation.
That seems to me to mean that the Obama administration right now has one and only one macroeconomic policy idea: hope that the country gets lucky.
And I would add to the economic hope-we-get-lucky plan, the apparent political strategy of hope-our-base-is-afraid-of-the-batshit-crazy-Republican-nominee. Maybe it'll work... and maybe we really will get lucky.