The Real Rivalry In the Team: The Cabinet vs. The Campaign Promises

Just as an add-on to my column this week, I wanted to add two more macro thoughts about Obama's appointments, and progressive unrest about those appointments.

First, I think there's a psychological aspect to what bothers progressives about Obama's refusal to appoint movement progressives to key positions. The public opinion data overwhelmingly confirms that Obama won with a clear progressive mandate - to argue otherwise against cut-and-dry numbers is to mimic an ostrich shoving its head in the sand, or to mimic the Braindead Megaphone's insistence that this is a "center-right nation." Additionally, nobody argues that his victory wasn't the product of huge progressive grassroots support. So in light of that, there's a perception that he's delivering the spoils of that victory to those who embody what the election rejected.

In that sense, there's a Rodney Dangerfield harrumph - we progressives get no respect. That's understandable, but we're going to have to keep our eye on the policy, understanding that personnel impacts policy, but isn't policy itself. And the policy is ultimately what defines true respect (and disrespect).

Second, the meaningless "pragmatic Team of Rivals" horseshit - and it truly is media-created horsehit - is clearly being used as a rationale to pack the incoming administration with Establishment figures. Indeed, the "rivalry" isn't between the "team" of appointees (most of them come from the same team - ie. the center-right team of permanent Washington). The "rivalry" is between the positions/ideology of the appointees and the positions/ideology Obama explicitly campaigned on.

For instance, the "rivalry" isn't between Bob Rubin proteges Larry Summers and Tim Geithner on economic policy - it is between Summers and Geithner the ideological deregulators and Obama's promises to better regulate Wall Street. Likewise, the "rivalry" isn't between Hillary Clinton and the other "hawks" on the foreign policy team, it is between Clinton who bashed Obama's proposals for more diplomacy with enemies and Obama's promises to diplomatically reach out to enemy nations.

The problem could be something of a cloistering effect. George W. Bush was criticized for putting yes men around him - people who didn't challenge his thinking. By contrast, Obama is being praised for assembling a "Team of Rivals" that will challenge his thinking and, by extension, his campaign promises (it's logical, after all, to believe his campaign promises are an extension of his thinking). But if that team is comprised mostly of the same kinds of voices from the same Establishment perspective, it will likely mean constant if subtle pressure on the President to water down his policies. In short, he won't be surrounded by yes men - he'll be surrounded by no men.

It's certainly possible that Obama will not be affected at all by the voices he puts around him, and that - as I wrote earlier - he is banking on getting center-right Establishment figures to carry center-left Establishment-challenging policy. We should withhold final judgment until we see the policies come January 2009 and beyond. We don't know that this conservatives -carrying-progressive-legislation strategy is his goal, but we can certainly hope, and we can additionally hope that he didn't appoint center-right Establishment figures to carry a center-right Establishment agenda.

That said, I think those who say that the latter isn't possible and that the only rationale thing to do is simply trust Obama's "buck stops here" promise yesterday are being willfully stupid and dishonest - both to themselves and to those they are arguing with. They claim progressives are being "purists" for the progressive agenda - as if they aren't being pro-Obama purists (ie. purists who refuse to question the Dear Leader). And really, what's better - supposed "purists" whose purity is about a set of policies, or purists whose purity is about who can most loyally worship an individual?

The truth is, we all want Obama to do well - but there's nothing disloyal, silly or uniformed about looking at his appointments and asking why many of them seem to individually represent positions and ideologies at odds with the positions and ideologies he campaigned on. And despite the insistence by some that we should "just wait until Obama's in office" and shut up and "give Obama a chance," there's nothing disloyal, silly or uninformed about speaking out about those questions and concerns now - because he is already exercising power when making these appointments, and as Frederick Douglass said, "power concedes nothing without demand."

As a great philosopher asked, "If not now, when?" And to that I'll add, if not us now, then someone else now. By that I mean, if there isn't progressive pressure now, then there will be pressure from somewhere else.

In fact, there already is - it's no accident that the conservative noise machine from Karl Rove on down is praising Obama's appointments, and effectively creating that rightward pull. If there isn't similar progressive pressure now, don't be surprised if the debate - and thus the policy - starts slowly creeping right. As Chris Bowers notes, even Bill Clinton understood the value of progressive pressure - and noted that without such pressure he was forced to the right. That means progressive pressure benefits Obama by helping him play off it and define the progressive center his campaign promises embody.

Comments

[sunny123]

David, I hope you are not right. I am afraid that what you said so well is probably more true than we wish it would be. It does make one wonder if perhaps "progressives" are just too stupid to be appointed? Please keep up what you are doing. We need your clear voice.

[Camel54]

Rove and his ilk are praising Obama's choices not because they believe in them. Those people believe in nothing but their own power. They do it so it will divide the left. They do it to make liberals lose their belief that they have made political progress; to push us back into the type of agenda-driven in-fighting that has kept us on the losing side of national politics for too long. It is entirely possible that Obama is making his selections based on the fact he believes these people, working together with him, are what is best for America right not and not best for Team Blue or Team Red. Maybe he's making those appointments to help smother the right-wing attack machine since congress is mostly blue--it will be hard to make a decent "Pelosi/Reid" argument if the president is being advised by people well admired on the other side. Feel free to continue the lamenting of disappointment since that's another thing we lefties do best. Fact is, for all the lamenting done during the campaign, Obama did what he chose to do and he won decisively. My guess is he will do the same thing now.

[capitalismisntamoral]

"agenda-driven in-fighting"? ok, personal agendas, sure.
but without an agenda (a progressive one), what is the point of
getting elected and having power?

If he's so afraid of the 'fight' involved in putting a so-called progressive
(which Pelosi and Reid are clearly not) into ANY cabinet post, what
the hell did I waste my time making calls and my weekends knocking
on doors for?

It seems to me that Obama should have the power - he has a mandate - to
put whomever he wants in his cabinet.

As far as I can tell, the only ones with reason to be unhappy so far are
his zillions of progressive supporters/volunteers. Nice 'strategy'.

On the other hand, Obama's voting record isn't all that progressive.
He promised to be a non-partisan and be a uniter not a divider yadda
yadda

Can't say I'm all that surprised. I expected to be disappointed, just not
this soon.

Perhaps, the 'strategy' is to piss off the supporters so that we are
forced to stay engaged and make demands of our govt (for a change!)
instead of sitting around waiting for him to solve our problems for us.
A motivated base forming the wind at his back to blow away the
entrenched special interests...

[PATina]

The truth is, we all want Obama to do well - but there's nothing disloyal, silly or uniformed about looking at his appointments and asking why many of them seem to individually represent positions and ideologies at odds with the positions and ideologies he campaigned on. And despite the insistence by some that we should "just wait until Obama's in office" and shut up and "give Obama a chance," there's nothing disloyal, silly or uninformed about speaking out about those questions and concerns now - because he is already exercising power when making these appointments, and as Frederick Douglass said, "power concedes nothing without demand."


Thank you for better articulating what I've been trying to say since Obama started picking his cabinet.

[Rule Of Law]

"...even Bill Clinton understood the value of progressive pressure - and noted that without such pressure he was forced to the right."

And that pressure gave us NAFTA, Welfare Reform, the repeal of Glass-Steagall that allowed mega financial mergers, and the Securities Modernization Act which removed oversight on the derivatives, hedge funds and credit swaps that are now the basis for this Recession.

I've written essentially what you have. That the tide of center right thinking might pull him off course. But the apologists for, how did you say, Dear Leader, have already begun their revisionist posting about how Obama is Not idealogical! No one runs on the platform he did without a clear ideology.

Between these two poles--the right wing chuckling over his appointments and vetting them in the press for their own reasons, and the unwillingness of his supporters to take your view into consideration and examine each and every move Now, not later, seem to be working almost hand in glove. Rove appears not to have lost his touch.

[Rule Of Law]

and the "Securities" Modernization Act, should read "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000."

[belltor]

If Obama can advance progressive policies and have those right of center cabinet members
on board that train, it helps deflect the almost guaranteed pushback and criticism of those on the right
who would certainly criticize a cabinet of very left leaning members making progressive changes.

[noamjunior]

happen to notice US foreign policy for the last 8 years?
so why exactly are you complaining?

[jcephrie]

Maybe the foreign policy before that could have been better?