When the New York Times' John Harwood reported that a top Obama adviser told him that progressives "need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult," it was a rejoinder that expressed far more than Village disdain for grassroots pressure and activism. It represented a deeper assertion, pervasive in political circles, that says we all must be patient with the Obama White House because we're only 10 months into the new administration. "Governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult" is a euphemism for both "stop pushing so hard," "don't expect so much change so fast," "he's trying to do too much too fast" and every other similar dollop of conventional wisdom.
In one sense, there's nothing surprising about this coming from the Village. Beltway journalists, pundits and politicians are inclined to despise anything even vaguely grassroots in nature, because anything grassroots in nature fundamentally challenges their authority and power. But in another sense, it's shocking that the same Beltway culture that so consistently venerates the political vehemence, aggressiveness and legacy of Ronald Reagan would manufacture a conventional wisdom assuming that the first year of a president's first term is the time for patience.
Here's a passage from Gil Troy's Reagan biography, Morning In America that explains how most of the major legislative initiatives that have been come to be called the Reagan Revolution happened in 1981:
That summer of 1981, Reaganism peaked. The Reagan legislative steamroller continued to flatten the Democratic opposition in the Congress with the passage of Kemp-Roth tax cuts on the heels of the Stockman-Weinberger mix of social program cuts and defense increases...[Reagan] had solidified his image as a no-nonsense leader determined to repudiate his predecessors' weaknesses...
By September, however, the Democrats counterattacked...his rivals blamed him for the growing recession. Much of the next seven and a quarter years would be spent scrambling on the scrimmage line Reagan and his men had initially reached with breakneck speed. If the first half-year of the Reagan era could be considered to be a conservative blitzkreig, politically the next seven and a half years became trench warfare. Reagan failed to advance his revolution much further...From refreshing, cleansing, sometimes inspiring, sometimes terrifying promises of revolution in 1981 would emerge a frustrating, polarizing, enervating legislative gridlock.
Recall that Reagan was elected in 1980 by a smaller percentage than Barack Obama was elected in 2008, and therefore Reagan had a much smaller legislative mandate than Obama. Recall, too, that while Obama came into office with polls giving him high marks and voters giving him huge majorities in both houses of Congress, Reagan came into office with polls showing him one of the most unpopular presidents entering office, with Republicans controlling only one house of Congress (the Senate), and only by a very narrow majority (53 votes).
The dichotomy is obvious: The Reagan administration, facing huge political obstacles, powered through the bulk of the Reagan Revolution's legislative agenda in his first year in office; the Obama administration, with far fewer political obstacles, has spent the first year slow-walking things like Wall Street reform and climate change, watering down health care reform, and telling the public to be patient (this is particularly strange, considering President Obama made sure to let us all know how much he wanted to emulate the transformativeness of Reagan).
To be sure, Reagan was pushing an agenda backed by Big Money, and Obama promised to push an agenda that would challenge Big Money -- so the former's charge was easier than the latter's. Additionally, the current Obama dynamic could still change. We still have a few months to go before that first year runs out. However, that "first year" idea is no artificial construction -- as Troy notes in his book, the reason history has seen presidents from FDR to Reagan to George W. Bush pass such large portions of their agenda in the first year is because that is when presidents are most politically powerful. They have election mandates behind them and they have the chance to change the paradigms of their predecessors...and the longer they wait, the more that "Big Mo" declines, the more the opposition is emboldened and the harder it is to pass anything.
So the next time you hear a pundit or a White House aide or a run-of-the-mill Obama sycophant tell everyone to be "patient" and stop pressuring the president to move the progressive agenda forward, remember Ronald Reagan. "Patience" today ignores the fact that if history is any guide, this moment will likely be the only opportunity in the near future to create transformative change. In that sense, "patience" now is the opposite of pragmatism -- it is political suicide.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
Carter was treasonously sabotaged by the Ragun and the Conservatives.
Look up "October Surprise"
No. Obama the constitutional law expert only needed a chair and a pen to undo executive privilege enacted by the Bush/Cheny duo. We used to wonder when he would do it. Now we wonder if he will.
Furthermore, how can he even be considered for being compared to Ronald Reagan? Reagan served for two terms. Obama has only been in for about 10 months now. He can't be compared to Reagan as far as accomplishments goes.
President Reagan won 489 electoral votes and President Carter won only 49. He defeated Carted with 9.7% point.
President Obama won 365 electoral votes, while Senator McCain won 173. Obama defeated McCain with 7.2% point.
Reagan carried 44 states and President Carter carried only 6 plus DC.
President Obama carried 28 states plus DC and Senator McCain carried 22 states.
To say that Reagan had a much smaller legislative mandate than Obama leave your readers scratching their heads in perplexity.
Furthermore, every President governs through tax increase or decrease, increase or cut in social programs when presenting budget proposals. Any objective observer will not consider passing such budget proposal as major legislative accomplishments. Passing healthcare, energy and financial reforms are major legislative accomplishments.
There seems to be a lot of furious paddling going on under the surface of the swan lake. Anyone remember the article about how much more white hairs Obama was getting?
all good things come to those who wait
Aside from that:
I agree that viewing from today's perspective (and perhaps the bias of "we survived it, so..."), things didn't seem so bad in 1980, comparatively.
However, things were pretty bad at the time, probably the lowest point the US had reached after recovering from WWII. Tthe 70s were pretty bad economically and all the turmoil from the Vietnam War and Tricksy Dick, then the Iran Hostage crisis, Three Mile Island, Cold War still going on, the cities were a mess (NYC at least). etc. I always hated Reagan, btw.
I think that growing up in the 70s and having a parent out of work had to be a much different experience than, e.g. Gen Y growing up in the 90s with a growing economy, America as the alleged lone superpower, with no apparent end in sight (yet).
The hypnagogic trance lasted until 2008, during which time the federal debt grew from under one trillion when Carter left office to 10.6 trillion when Georgie Boy skulked away. In short, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II borrowed nine trillion dollars and threw a party. At the end of that era American income and wealth differentials were greater than any time since the 19th century. We are only now awakening from our collective trance and have yet to see all this with clarity. It will take time to undo the damage. What Obama understands from Reagan's reign is that the style is as important as the substance.
The largest peace time economic growth in history.
23 million jobs created.
BO has spent more money (that we don't have) than all other presidents combined.
http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/10/gallup-obamas-third-quarter-approval-drop-largest-ever-measured/
Not. Good. News.
Again...THIS IS FROM GALLUP!!!! Not a right wing organization!
Thank goodness! i so hope you are right in this one!
Thank Goodness! I sure hope you are right on this one, PIN.
However, the "patiencers" are ignoring the political history you highlight -- the vast majority of significant Presidential agenda items are achieved in the first year, and the truly transformative ones in the first year of the first term. It all comes down to the old re-election rag. In the second and fourth years of any Presidential term, the highest priority of the entire House and one-third of the Senate is re-election, which leads legislators to avoid controversy as much as possible. By the third year of a second term, the President is politically a lame duck. So, you're left with the first year of each term, and the third year of the first term, to attempt to pass controversial legislation.
Now, it may be that President Obama's well-known desire to change the way politics is done has led him to believe that it should be possible to conduct legislative business independent of the electoral cycle; and this is the reason for the absence of a "full-court press" on any issue. If so, I wish he would clearly express that belief, because it would be taking a huge risk (failing to accomplish anything significant) in pursuit of an ideal.
"Progressives" are at last waking up to the fact that they were played like a violin during the election campaign and their feelings are hurt.
Perhaps next time, they won't be so easily seduced by meaningless campaign slogans and gimmickry.
We progressives were paying attention.
Trouble is most of the voters were fooled to accept the spoon fed candidate.
It's always been the least worst candidate.
And Obama is infinitely better than ANY GOP McCain Palin disaster.
It's the ordinary voter, not particularly clued in as to policy, who is confused and disappointed by the egregious systemic plutocratic corruption that persists under a Democratic presidency with Democratic supermajorities in both houses of Congress.
Less clued-in voters thought that Democrats were the opposites of Republicans. The Republicans didn't work out, so they voted for Democrats. The reality is that only Progressives are the opposite of Republicans. Centrists are essentially the same as Republicans. They believe in the supremacy of the plutocrats, rule by and for the rich, undertaxation of the capitalists, fiat by stakeholders, business as usual, and the right of the industrial cartels to dominate their policy areas, game markets, engage in opaque speculation, pay illegals below the minimum wage, and suck wealth from workers and consumers through price gouging and legalized graft. Centrists are owned by the war, banking, fossil fuel, and health insurance and pharmaceuticals cartels just as much as the Republicans, and will do their best to kill any real reform.
Democrats have total control and ownership of DC and of all outcomes of this Congress. That means that Centrists are now self-evidently the problem, not the solution. Whatever that is bad survives until 2010, is on their heads. And in their muddled way, ordinary voters will realize this.
Hence the disillusion of many Obama supporters.
No, Raygun traded the hostages for missiles.
Raygun and his worshipers treasonously interfered with Carters negotiations to have the hostages released.
Oliver North was the special operation officers for the "opp,s left the sand screens off in a desert" rescue attempt fiasco, and then later in more weapons being sold to Iran.
Raygun won by helping Iran.