How Will Obama Enrage The Left?

I'm going to make a prediction here (one I have mentioned in passing before): Barack Obama is going to do something to absolutely enrage leftists, progressives, and the few remaining Americans who actually call themselves liberals; and, furthermore, he's going to do it within his first 100 days in office. The only thing I won't predict is what that "something" is going to be.

I say this for numerous reasons. Even before Obama started announcing his cabinet picks, he showed over and over again that he was more of a centrist kind of guy than anyone would give him credit for. The right wing, of course, was going apoplectic over Obama (Socialist! Radical! Ultra-liberal!) while at the same time conveniently ignoring George Bush handing out free money to Wall Street, or (for that matter) Sarah Palin running her state's government on a strict "redistribution of wealth" philosophy. But it should also be noted that the left wing was building their own caricature of Obama, one that looked strikingly like the one the right wing was building -- "Obama, the Mighty Progressive." The left refused to take Obama at his word when he spoke of compromise, post-partisan politics, or reaching across the aisle. Leftists everywhere consoled themselves by thinking, "He's just saying that to get elected, once he gets in there, he'll pass everything on our agenda and we'll be so strong in Congress that it'll actually happen."

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but Obama is guaranteed to disappoint. The right wing won't be terribly disappointed, of course, since they'll have plenty to complain about for the next four-to-eight years. The only disappointing thing to them will be that Obama will not turn out to be the boogeyman they created in an effort to scare the heck out of voters. This means Obama won't be as effective a Republican fundraising tool, since he won't be doing all those things that terrify Republican donors.

The left wing, however, is going to get disappointed with a short sharp shock, soon after Obama enters office. Because newly-inaugurated President Obama is going to pick one issue and swiftly smack the left in the face, by refusing to do what they want him to do. This will be a calculated move, and will likely pay off enormous political dividends for Obama over the life of his presidency.

Call it his "Sister Souljah moment," if you will. By appearing to "stand up" to the left wing, Obama will be seen as charting his own course as a strong and independent leader, beholden to no special interest group of radical progressives. That's how the news media will portray it, at any rate. His approval ratings will likely rise after he does so, since it will serve to calm fears from suburban Republicans and Independents that Obama is going to make too many radical changes too fast.

But it's going to absolutely enrage the left. You can bet the farm on that one. Taking the long view, however, I believe it will actually help Obama get more progressive laws passed. It's kind of doublethink, but bear with me. If Obama starts off his presidency showing strength and independence from the left, it will mean a lot more people out there are going to give him the benefit of the doubt over time. They didn't believe the cries of "Socialist!" in the election, and they're going to get more comfortable with Obama as a result. It will then be up to Congress to challenge him by passing laws even more sweeping than Obama asked for. Which Obama will (perhaps with a show of reluctance) then sign. Meaning more progressive legislation actually gets passed in the end. If Obama removes his "lightning rod" target for the right wing early on, over the long run he'll be able to get better laws passed, with more support from the public than they would normally have.

I could be monstrously wrong about all of this, to be sure. But from watching his campaign, and listening to what he actually said, the portrait of Obama I am left with is one of cautiousness and pragmatism, and not of some sort of progressive icon. Exhibit A in my thinking is the FISA bill he voted for. Exhibit B would have to be the numerous times he reluctantly moved left, without actually fully supporting a populist or liberal agenda. Exhibit C is his intervention with how the Senate treated Joe Lieberman. And that's without even examining his cabinet choices. All of these things point to a very centrist course for an Obama administration, with lots of compromises with political foes.

A good test case will be how President Obama handles the torture question. Will he convene a commission to investigate? Will he offer blanket immunity (or even -- gasp! -- pardons) to get honest answers about what went on? Or will he sweep the whole thing under the rug and "look to the future and not the past," while urging everyone to move on? The torture question is merely the tip of the iceberg (the best bad example, as it were) in how Obama is going to handle Bush's legacy. What Bush policies is Obama going to immediately rectify? What Bush actions will he reverse, even if it takes months? We've never really gotten clear and consistent answers as to how Obama is going to handle the Bush mess, which leaves me wondering what he will actually do when he gets the chance.

But it could be almost any issue, it doesn't just have to be how to deal with Bush's legacy. Barack Obama will likely not make the mistake Bill Clinton did when he entered office with the "gays in the military" issue. Clinton wanted to do what was right, the military balked, and we wound up with "Don't ask, don't tell," which has been a complete disaster. But the lesson here is that Clinton started off by picking a fight with his opponents -- with a bold move that he knew they would hate.

I think Obama is going to do the opposite. I think he's going to come out with some bold move that he knows the left is absolutely going to abhor. [Feel free to offer your own thoughts in the comments as to what exactly this is going to turn out to be, or even if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree entirely.] Because I simply cannot get rid of the feeling that, sometime next January or February, President Obama is going to make a point of picking a fight with some of his own most fervent supporters. They will then denounce him for his outrageous action, and go ballistic in an entirely predictable fashion. And (this is the part I'm least sure about, I have to admit) Obama will emerge from the fray even stronger politically than ever, with more "political capital" to spend on getting the rest of his agenda done. In other words, although it will require more of a "big picture" or "long view of history" type of viewpoint, I don't think it'll be as bad as it will first seem when it happens.

 

[UPDATE: When I posted this, I wasn't aware of this story at the top of Huffington Post. It seems like we may not even make it to the first 100 days!]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Daisy1111]

Progressives are not happy with Obama's centrist ways? Does that mean they're racists?

[Michale32086]

Ziiiing!!!!!! :D

Michale......

[Michale32086]

Querent

}}}}
No on'es interested in your point of view, McHale. Least of all me.
{{{{

And yet, here you are.... Funny how that is, eh??

}}}}
I remember you from before the last time you got banned, and you can pretend not to be a Repug if you want, but we both know better.
{{{{

"We"?? You got a rat in your pocket???

You can THINK you know better all you want.. But, in the end, all you have is your own bigotry...

Michale.....

[NordicSci]

Is Obama is proving to be "more of a centrist kind of guy" than some may have expected? No. Perhaps some on the left were misreading Obama (drinking the right-wing koolaid). On the other hand, characterizing him as more centrist is to confuse ends with means. As MurrayAbraham said, it is about the art of the possible. In Audacity of Hope, for example, Obama often lays out his left leaning philosophical views by contrasting them with the other side, and then explaining how you bridge the divide. Liberal ideologues need to relax a bit and recognize that Obama"s approach to governing will focus on getting results, often by working with the other side, not by picking counterproductive ideological fights. I don"t think this is the same as "caving-in" or "governing from the center" but reflects Obama"s considerable instincts for how to get the "change we need." And as I tried to say in my earlier post, the left needs to be careful that it doesn"t back him into a corner that ends up doing more damage to the larger cause. I think this is the key message of Chris"s post. Give the man some space to maneuver in and judge the results with greater circumspection.

[MurrayAbraham]

He will only enrage those on the left who drank the right wing koolaid describing him as "the most liberal member of the Senate", and those who still don't understand that good governing is the art of the possible not the a contest in ideological purity.

[arvay]

It isn't really a matter of pleasing or enraging the left. It's really a question of what he does about the major challenges we face.

If he decides to keep a large number of American troops in Iraq for an extended period, that's going to continue to irritate the Muslim world, and serve as a recruiting tool of the islamist militants by verifying their view of America as killing Muslims while we protect Israel. Likewise, if he just sends more troops to Afghanistan and attacks Pakistan, he may undermine the Pakistani government and help install a radical government.

If advisers like Robert Rubin, who as head of Citibank implemented the corrupt financial "instruments" that triggered the economic crisis, prevail in fashioning the solutions, we're going to repeat this kind of "market-driven" debacle.

If he glosses over torture, he will have betrayed America's most persuasive ideas and sunk to the level of the North Koreans. Likewise for domestic wiretapping.

This isn't some kind of cute political "triangulation" game -- these are real policies with tangible results. "Centrist" sounds a lot like "more of the same, with different explanations."

We'll see. Obama possibly can turn America around, or he could just be one more politician steering the wounded ship toward the rocks.

[Michale32086]

@Querent

}}}}}
Quite true, chaos. McHale used to be in the Navy, you know. He worked for somebody called Leadbottom.
{{{{{

Actually, USAF and US Army... Never Navy...

Michale.....

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Michale and Querent -

OK, If I hear the word "squid" or "flyboy" or anything of that nature, I'm going to have to ask you guys to take the fight outside...

Heh.

To everyone, I haven't gotten through the whole list, but if I don't stop here for a bit I'm never going to get today's article written. So check back later tonight, when I have a chance to finish up here. Thanks to everyone for all the great comments!

-CW

[Michale32086]

How about "wing wiper" or "knuckle dragger"???

Hoooaaaaaaaaa! :D

Yer one of the ONLY HuffPo commentators who feel it's their responsibility to discuss things with those who comment to your commentaries... (I get a nickel for every time I squeeze in the word "comment" or any derivative thereof.. :D)

Kudos to you...

Michale.....

[NordicSci]

Chris, you make a good point and it is just the kind of smart politics he will likely practice. As you point out he takes a very pragmatic approach to governing, which if people on the left had actually listened carefully and read his books should be no surprise. That he hasn"t been the raving left-wing ideologue in his appointments shouldn"t surprise anyone but a few wingnuts on the right. He puts getting results above ideological symbolism. One small quibble, I recall thinking Bill Clinton got trapped by the left into addressing "gays in the military" early in his transition. It was not a fight he wanted to pick at that stage, but he was forced to address it by some supporters early in his presidency. This is why the left needs to give him some space to work his magic.

[PlanetKansas]

I already know the issue that will enrage the Liberal Left, Gay Marriage.

It is too divisive to the 48% that voted against him, and he needs to build a coalition if he wants to reform taxes, the economy and foriegn affairs.

Recall Clinton tried Gays in the Military the month he took office, a courageous stand, but it only solidified the far right apoplexy that dogged him for the rest of his administration, and the outrage fed the suspicison that killed Hillary's Health Care Reform.

This is not a popular opinion. Carl Rove brilliantly segmented the issue of gay rights into a single symbolic issue of marriage (re: families, children). Most gays already have equal protection under the law against hate crimes and discrimination, can get health insurance for their partners in most businesses, and if need be, can handle estate issues with a will.

This does not mean gay marriage isn't important, but to pursue this singular issue, with the nation at a delicate balance, will only increase the shrillness on both sides of the political spectrum.

To get anything done, Obama needs to change our way of political discourse, and from that, the rest of his agenda will fall in place. A couple new appointments to the Supreme Court may do the heavy lifting for him. Civil marriage for gays will happen. Are their advocates willing to give it a few more years and allow Obama to focus on the other 5-10 national crisis'?

[UncommonSenz]

OK, I have an honest question for all the "Obama has already sold out progessives" folks.

If he picks people that you find ideologically repugnant, but they actually make good on all of his promises, do you have a problem with that?

This isn't a sarcastic or rhetorical question, it is a serious one. If we look back in 4/8 years and say "you know, I hated person X but they really did everything on the agenda"... would it matter that you hated them in the first place?

If it doesn't matter, if the actual results matter more than what their ideology is, then the ONLY thing to judge will be actions- because ideology doesn't affect the actual actions.

When Obama sewed up the nomination, there was all this talk about how Hillary would cause him to loose the general (by many of the very same folks complaining now). She would never help... they would ruin anything they could get their evil hands on.. she would keep her people from voting for him... etc. There were people SURE that she would act this way. But she didn't. She did everything that was asked of her. All I am saying is that if the end results are all that matter, then let's judge those.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

UncommonSenz -

Once again, I find your comment uncommonly sensible.

-CW

[wanttruth]

Great post, UncommonSenz. I agree. I want results too. I'm sick of the ideological fights. I fully support President-elect Obama!

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

I'm proud to call myself liberal!!!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

RoveRoveRoveYourBoat -

I just had to say yours is the funniest login name I've seen in a long time!

-CW

[levibatgirl]

I never saw Obama as terribly left leaning. That was Kucinich who I liked and supported at first.

But I like Obama very much and voted for him without hesitation.
Centrist or not, he will not s.c.r.e.w the middle class, lie or corrupt his office.

Don't forget how many will keep reminding themselves what a disaster JMc/SP would have been.

(((shudder)))

[ruthinking]

Getting an email from Joe Biden, asking me to help Hillary (our new friend) pay off her debt.... UGGGGGGGGGH

[UncommonSenz]

Why this has to be repeated, I don't understand. But apparently some people just don't get it.

All of the "Obama has betrayed liberals" nonsense is just idle speculation. You look at his picks, decide there is no way they could ever do anything worthwhile, and condemn them to failure... all before they even serve ONE day in an Obama administration. Or, you take some pundit's gossip about "what Obama will or won't do" as gospel, and then condemn him on nothing more than rumors.

It's like some sort of bad joke. He doesn't even take office for well over a month, and yet he has been tried and convicted for imaginary trespasses you ASSUME he will commit. How rational and open minded of you!

Nobody is saying he is above criticism. Nobody is saying he will not make mistakes, or decisions that people of all kinds of political leanings will find upsetting. The only thing I am saying, is before declaring as fact that he sold out, left progressives behind, or betrayed any of his promises, give him at least the CHANCE to do what he said he would. Honestly, how hard is it to judge somebody on their actions instead of your biased doom and gloom predictions of what he will do?

[eleutheros]

I took pre-packed frozen fish from the freezer the other day. The instructions for thawing had me removing the fish from its packaging and letting thaw the refrigerator for 6 to 8 hours. From there i could bake, broil, poach, etc. with any number of other ingredients. Well, we as a nation have been in a ideological deep freeze for the past eight years. A failure to properly thaw could ruin dinner ( see the 2010 elections ) And to take the cooking metaphor a bit further ( not a sports metaphor - isn't that "change"?), BHO has shown himself to be a pretty good cook so far. Maybe we liberals and progressives need to put the menu down, relax and enjoy our drink before dinner and wait for our waiter to surprise us with the Chef's specials that aren't included on the menu. It took GWB and his Christianist regime almost a full eight years to bring this country to the brink of ruin. It's going to take time and patience, and yes, some reaching out, to correct the ship.

[UncommonSenz]

To overwork the already stretched metaphor, it is like they are saying "That fish is going to taste horrible!" while looking at it in the freezer. No need to see how he prepares it, how the ingredients he chooses will blend together, and what techniques he will use to execute the preparation of it.

Just as you can't judge a meal while the ingredients are still in the freezer- you can't judge an administration that has yet to have a day in office. But some here are just hellbent on being pessimist and rushing to judgment. The beauty is, if he pulls off an expert meal (and I hope he does) all of your premature hand wringing and paranoia will be quaintly irrelevant. But by then, I am sure you would have some other rumor to jump on...

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

OK, now I'm getting hungry...

-CW

[LiberTLover]

Wow. The man hadn't even been sworn in yet and the left is grumbling already. Maybe he should just say "thanks but no thanks" and concede to McCain and Palin and the left can see how much they will enjoy that.