A Team of Zombies, and Zombies Defending Zombies

Has Barack Obama created a "team of rivals?" I wish he had. As my new newspaper column out today shows, Obama, far from creating a Lincoln-esque "Team of Rivals," has instead created a Team of Zombies. And unfortunately, that has some very serious policy consequences.

Obama's national security team includes not a single opponent of the Iraq War (see below for an interesting wrinkle in this -- zombies defending zombies).* It is chock full of Bush administration political appointees who are -- somehow -- being held over. Not surprisingly, we've just seen this team ask for a massive increase in defense spending.

Likewise, Obama's economic team is filled with the same deregulating, pro-bailout, pro-NAFTA pro-outsourcing hacks whose policies brought the economy to its knees. And that's not just at the top levels, as we see, it's all throughout the government's economic bureaucracy. And, of course, the new economic advisory board Obama announced today has just two representatives from organized labor, and is teeming with right-wing economists (Martin Feldstein of the Reagan administration); CEOs from corporate outsourcers (GE and Caterpillar) and Wall Street firms (UBS); and board members from bailed-out investment houses (Laura Tyson from Morgan Stanley).

I agree with Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) who has said he thinks Obama is being ill-served by this team -- and I think he's being ill-served precisely because he hasn't put together a real team of rivals. He's put together a team of ideological zombies -- members of Permanent Washington whose careers somehow cannot be killed as they mindlessly lunge forward with the same kinds of policies and political theologies that the country resoundingly rejected during the election.

The silver lining, of course, is that the progressive movement, working in tandem with progressive members of Congress, has actually forced Obama to reject at least some of the ideological bent of his team of zombies. It will be this "Make Him Do It" Dynamic that will ultimately be the difference between substantive change and mere hopeful rhetoric, because that is what will pry Obama away from the zombies he's surrounded himself with.

Read the whole column here.

* One news reporter in Washington emailed me to say this assertion in my column is wrong. His proof? U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Now, I appreciate Rice having spoken out about the war well after the invasion, and I don't think she was a full-on proponent of the war in that she tepidly raised some questions about its cost, but she certainly was not what an objective person would call an opponent of it either. This is the same Susan Rice who went on National Public Radio right after Colin Powell's decisive speech at the United Nations and said the speech was a grade "A" and that "he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that" (the latter part of that declaration a full-fledged lie).

In fact, just weeks before that, she praised the Bush administration's march to war and explicitly endorsed the use of military action against Iraq on NPR:

RICE: It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. And hopefully we'll bring as many countries with us as possible.

KEYES: Do you think this administration is handling this the wrong way?

Ms. RICE: I think up to now, they're handling it largely the right way. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.

The reporter's insistence that Susan Rice was a Iraq War opponent kind of reminds me of the pathologically dishonest revisionism that Time's Joe Klein exhibited when, in 2007, he righteously claimed that he was always an opponent of the war. This, after he appearing on national television in 2003 saying, "War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it probably is."

I mean, I'm not surprised that the Beltway media would try to defend the Team of Zombies. Zombies are prone to defend zombies, after all. And there's a motive for the D.C. media. They got things so blatantly wrong on Iraq -- they so utterly abdicated their basic journalistic responsibilities -- that there seems to be an intense desire on the part of reporters and producers to try to revise the entire history of the lead-up to the invasion. And again, while I do appreciate Rice not being a full-on proponent of the war, it's straight-up crazy to look at her public comments in the lead-up to war and label her an Iraq War opponent.

Comments

[sunny123]

Once again, David, you are spot on. I agree with the posters...we voted for change, not same old same old. Reading what the Senate republicans took out of the stimulus bill ensures they don't care for the common people, food stamps, school constructions, education programs...they want things to stay the same. I think we should only have tax cuts for small business, payroll for those making under $150,000. I think the bankers need to be made to pay back their bonuses for ruining their businesses. I am ready to get away from banks and go to the Credit Unions instead.

Great job. Thanks.

[mjc]

Having read the comments here I have to agree with David and with the posters. Perhaps Obama really soaked up the popular support he got on the campaign trail but that is not going to get any significant change happening in Washington. He wants now to appoint Greg Judd as Commerce Secretary, a guy who disdains the national census, which of course is one of Commerce's projects, and a Republican who has made certain that a Democratic governor will replace him in the Senate with a Republican; amazing! He can dictate his own terms for taking the job....../ It is also difficult to believe that his best friend, his "mentor", Daschle, could have neglected to tell Obama that he had tax problems; this little fiasco will probably end the universal health care legislation so looked for by Americans. The Republicans are taking gleeful note of Obama's missteps and are beginning to sound like the GOP of yore on every subject. Jim DeMint....not at all representative of his name.....thinks the stimulus plan proposed by the Democrats is the worst legislation since the introduction of personal income tax!!! Soon they'll be delighted to bring down social security as well; those are the GOPPERS of the dinosaur era......circa 1910, 1920, 1930. Obama needs to forget being bipartisan and begin being a Democrat.

[jcephrie]

I can't resist: BRAINS

This is why I didn't vote for Obama - not the centrism he so clearly espoused during the campaign, which we are seeing here and will continue to see unless we take to the streets and demand change, but because he does not support a national initiative process (like that recommended at ni4d.us). Just think what a headache we can cause the kleptocrats if we didn't have to vote for their toadies to get a bone thrown our way.

[anachoret]

It makes one think of Howard Dean...
Obama can keep a bunch of holdovers from Bush, he can reach across the aisle to placate Republicans, but, according to all the talking heads, Dean, the ex-head of the Democratic National committee and a man who is well loved by a large group of voters within the Democratic Party, cannot be worked with.
Just an example, but, like the economists you mention, it seems like an example that points definitively towards the strategy of Triangulation, which many thought we had left to the last century. The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party appears outweighed by the vigorously flapping kleptocratic wing, which keeps us flying in circles, and continually calls it a change of direction.

[skylights]

In your column, you write, "The president has not only retained President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, but also 150 other Bush Pentagon appointees."

But these 150 are only being retained temporarily until Obama can find replacements. This is to ensure a smooth transition.

[goodneighbor420]

I give up! From local govt to national, nothing but idiots in charge. Need to fire the lot of em and start over....but that's a dream.

[jhNY]

Obama probably came to town thinking there was something and somebody in DC he could build on. A few more weeks of pounding by all the plutocommentariat on teevee, and a few more weeks of crap advice by the ossified mediocrities who presently surround his plans for defense, security and the economy, will probably inspire him to realize that he's got one trustworthy ally in with whom to defend his presidency: himself. Mr. Obam is an inspiring, even-tempered, contemplative person who has reached the highest office in breathtaking speed because he's an American original. There are no others like himself waiting in the wings. He's it. Unique. That's why he's going to have to continually address the American people. Directly. No surrogates. And talk over all the wise heads who would cripple his reach and shade his vision.

The people elected him because in their collective wisdom they recognised his power to pull us away from the cataclysms strewn on every side by the Bush cabal. His Beltway buddies need to stand aside and hope for a miracle. We need nothing less.

[TexasDem0]

Is Barack Obama trying to be a one term president, or what?
Why does he feel he has to appease the GOP?
The public has made it clear, the GOP failed and we want change.