President Obama After One Year

A year after President Obama was elected, progressives can say that we got pretty much what we had a right to expect. President Obama ran as a centrist. In the campaign, he repeatedly talked about how he wanted to govern in a bi-partisan manner, with the Republicans as genuine partners. Given this campaign, it should not be a surprise to progressives that he has largely pursued a centrist agenda in office.

On key issues, this has meant that he has moved the ball forward, but certainly by less than we would have liked. His stimulus package was an important first step toward stemming the downturn and getting the economy growing, but it clearly was not large enough. We knew that even back in February, and with the economy having performed worse than projected, the package looks even more inadequate today.

He has supported cap and trade legislation as a step to limit greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to including some green elements in his stimulus package. At this point, the cap and trade proposals being considered in Congress have already been substantially weakened. At the moment, they are bogged down in House and Senate committees, with health care being given top priority by the administration and congressional leadership. At best, we can say that whatever gets through Congress may be a good first step towards achieving necessary emissions reductions.

President Obama has supported the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easier for workers to gain union representation, however this has also taken a back seat on the administration's agenda. The proposal faces serious opposition in the Senate and overcoming a filibuster will not be easy, but with some limited compromises and some arm-twisting from the administration, a version of the bill may pass next year.

President Obama's stance towards the banks and financial reform has been especially disappointing. It is essentially a status quo agenda, where his reforms would have done little to fundamentally change the industry, even before they were weakened by Congress. It is especially disturbing that he has not followed through on commitments made during the campaign to help homeowners facing foreclosure through bankruptcy reform or alternatively right-to-rent legislation.

There is now a growing consensus across the political spectrum for breaking up the "too big to fail" banks, including former Fed chairs Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, and current FDIC chair Sheila Bair. At this point, President Obama would not be stepping out of line to join the chorus. Instead, his reform is a Rube Goldberg contraption that does little to address the fundamental issues.

President Obama put forward pretty much the health care program that he had run on during the campaign. It is a mixture of extending subsidies, mandating coverage and a public plan. However, his support for the public plan has been less than enthusiastic. President Obama and others in the administration have been quite explicit in their willingness to jettison a public plan to get a bill through Congress.

His conduct in the health care debate has perhaps been the biggest disappointment from a progressive perspective. During the campaign, Obama repeatedly railed against lobbyists, making a big point out of his refusal to accept lobbyists' money. However, in pushing his health care package, he made backdoor deals with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital industry and the other major interest groups. This looks like exactly the sort of politics that President Obama insisted he would change if he got in the White House. Instead, he seems to have quickly fallen into the usual way of doing politics in Washington. This is perhaps not a surprise - it would not have been easy to confront the Washington lobbyist crew head-on - but it is a disappointment.

Interestingly, grassroots progressives have been remarkably effective in countering the Obama administration's willingness to compromise on the health care plan. They have insisted that the Democrats in Congress refuse to support a bill that did not include a public plan. By maintaining the resolve of progressive members, they have forced the leadership to include public plans in the proposals coming to the floor in both the House and Senate. The public plan will almost certainly be a weak version, however it can at least provide a starting point that can be improved through time.

This victory on health care can provide a model in other areas, like global warming, financial reform, and even the administration's foreign policy agenda. If grassroots activists can impose discipline on progressive members of Congress, it will help to ensure that not all of the Obama administration's compromises are with the right. Financial reform is an area in which the threat of blocking action by progressives can be especially potent, since that the bill taking shape is likely to offer little of value to progressives.

To sum up the first year, progressives got pretty much all that we should have expected. President Obama has created opportunities for change that would not have been available otherwise, but he is not going to substitute for a progressive movement. If we are going to see real change it will require organized and sustained pressure.

 

 

Comments

[racetoinfinity]

You're right in all your points, except that I think Obama campaigned as more progressive, at least in his promises, despite the fact that he emphasized bi-partisanship. He has been a huge disappointment, in the economic reform sphere the most, as far as I'm concerned. His cozying up to the big monopolistic banking investment casinos who are sucking our economy dry for their enrichment is appalling, and, as you say, even Alan Greenspan (!) is in favor of breaking up the too-big-to-fail behemoths!

[sonoffestus]

President has always been a centrist and a bit right of center in my opinion. As was Bill Clinton. Having said that, would anyone one in their right mind want another republican administration?

The republican /conservative agenda has brought the country to it's knees, if you want to kill it completely vote the GOP, the conservative party of destruction.

[ppace60657]

Compare it to the last guy's first 10 months and it looks pretty darn great!

[racetoinfinity]

I can't believe all these Obama apologists. He's a neoliberal disappointment of the first order. ANYTHING after Shrub would look like an improvement; a tropical storm after a hurricane looks like great weather!

[northstar11]

obamas term so far ---

he has opened the door to change but has stood back and said "after you, sir"

the leader does not say "after you" -----

[myjs]

Year?

[EbonBear]

Since the election. Since he's only had about 10 months in office, this review is probably a bit early.

[jmpurser]

Well, I would say the Obama administration's strategy on health care is to surrender, not compromise. That's pretty much their approach to bank regulation as well. Still it's better than their war crimes policy of "pretend it didn't happen".

As a progressive I'm bitterly disappointed, even disgusted, at the Obama administration. I had hoped we'd begin the generational struggle to recover from what the Conservatives have done to this nation but instead it looks like we're going to have to wait at least 3 more years before we begin to heal.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

I agree completely. All except the having to wait 3 more years part. Unfortunately, history indicates that Obama will win the Democratic primary, if there's even an opposition candidate. Our choice would then be to re-elect Obama or vote Repug. In fact we will have to wait 7 years. Depressing, isn't it?

[jmpurser]

I don't "have to" vote for anyone. As a matter of fact I do accept that Obama will be the Democratic nominee in 2012 which leaves me looking for a third party. I know I won't "win" but since apparently I'm bound to lose under either major party I've got no reason to stick with them. At least this way I won't be participating in my own mugging.

[JimR]

Some of are disgusted by progressive whining at not getting everything they want, and refusing to work with people who aren't as far left as they are.

(No, I'm not Republican, so save it.)

[admiralmpj]

What JimR said.

[tyrdofwaitin]

It's really the first nine months --- hardly full=term is political-speak. Nonetheless, Baker makes a very valid point: Progressives will have to be consistant with our pressure and our fortitude; Obama said as much during his campaign. The first months of the Obama administration are distinguished in two profound ways --- one having nothing to do with Obama and the second, having everything to do with Obama. First: Just imagine where we'd be now with McCain, Palin, Boehner and McConnell at the wheel; frightening. Second: Because Obama is "a politician's politician with a conscience" we have the makings of a quiet revolution in the works; lots of his accomplishments will have to be made under the radar; the rest we'll have to push hard for. Let's get off our duffs and apply the pressure. BTW--demonizing the president is welcomed by the wing-nuts; please avoid if possible.

[Tierra]

Sorry Charlie....ah Dean....." To sum up the first year, progressives got pretty much all that we should have expected. "

Why would you demean and downplay the proppensity as progressives to believe what Obama promised during the campaign? The Audacity of Hope ( that sounds so naive now..., doesn't it? ), Change We Can Believe In, et al.

I see a lot of references to the word " disturbing " in your post. It is, in fact, " disturbing". This guy Obama cut and ran from his progressive base. That makes him an opportunist ( he calls it pragmatist ).

And then you state we never should have believed him, because he ran as a centrist. BS, I say. We a have right and an expectation to believe everything that comes out of the man's mouth during a campaign. These are the issues he is running on.

It's much worse than "disturbing" Dean; it's called betrayal and capitulation, and there will be a price to pay. Tell it like it is Dean....or are you yet another MSM guy who drank the Kool-Aid?

I am outraged.

[JimR]

His base was not progressives. I am sorry you self-deluded yourselves into thinking that, but Obama has alwasy been a centrist, he ran as a centrist, and it is as a centrist that he has been governing.

[TommyMcCarthy]

It's just not accurate to say that his base was not progressive, Jim.......

I wonder how you define "base"?

I do agree that a fair amount of self delusion took place during the late campaign.....in which the Obama people were quite happy to allow progressives to engage in what I call "projection".......

I have spotted your comments here for some time.......(for what it's worth, I'm a member of YOUR "fan" base...heh­).........­.so I'm sure you remember the MANY Huffpo commenters who seemed to believe that Obama would say, do, enact, or repeal this or that progressive heart's desire....­......when I couldn't recall him saying any such thing!

That said, Obama DID make a number of promises......most of which he has either ignored, delayed (indefinitely), watered down, or outright broken.
On that score, to date, if one phrase defines theadministration after one year it would be:
RETREAT FROM POSITIONS BOLDLY STATED.

I never had to become a progressive, since I was never ashamed of being a liberal.
The President's agenda, as best we can determine, IS that of a staus quo centrist....once you allow for the fact that the entire spectrum has shifted RADICALLY rightward. (how else do we explain Ms. Palin??)

Surely you don't think Obama's "base" was jumping up and down chanting "Yes we can!"
for that, do you?

It's clear to me that Obama is GOVERNING as a Republican lite (VERY light)

Guess it turns out that:

No, we CAN'T

Regards
tm

[AnotherTry]

During the campaign, GLTs were told that we needed to work for issues that affect all of us, like the economy, healthcare and climate change and that our demands for equal rights was not a priority as it only affected a small minority.

How can anyone believe that allowing your government to treat its citizens unequally doesn't affect all of us????

Equal rights should have come before all these other issues. with majorities in both houses, it would have been a slam dunk.

[weatherwaxx]

The first year of the Obama presidency will come along in the third week of January 2010. I'll be the first to agree he's done at least a year's work these past nine and a half months, but aren't you just a wee bit premature?

[cheforacle]

Very good and fair peace here. I am an unabashed Obama supporter who thinks he is doing a fine job but I think Dean Baker gives a very fair assessment. Is Obama middle-of-the-road? Yes. But if we get health care reform and cap-and-trade, although their initial forms will be weaker than wanted eventually they will each evolve to achieve their goals: in health care reduce costs and insure everyone and in energy, fight global warming effectively and in a way that helps our economy greatly. If we judged FDR on the type of Social Security bill he signed we would think it was terrible because it excluded large portions of the over-65 populace including but not limited to African-Americans. But we have not judged him on that but rather what the program became.

[Thinker-Belle]

Summing up the first year a bit early don't you think at a little over 9 months? Expectations for how long "change" takes on a national level are absolutely ridiculous. Yes, hold the president responsible for doing his job, but since he is not a dictator, congress should no longer be excused for not doing theirs - dems and repubs. I agree with the writer that real change will require organized and sustained pressure . . . along with a dose of reality, a deep breath and a Civics class!

[Truthahn]

This was not a good blog post. The following quote is simply wrong:

"President Obama put forward pretty much the health care program that he had run on during the campaign. It is a mixture of extending subsidies, mandating coverage and a public plan."

Obama and Hillary spent much of the primary debates arguing over the coverage mandates. Hillary was for, Obama was against. To imply that Obama campaigned on a pro-mandate position is misinformation at best, and plain dishonesty at worst.

[rainbowblue]

you're right. as i have pointed out over and over hear, Obama had the WORST plan of the dem's. let's not forget his idea of a penalty of somesort for not signing up right away (though he had no mandate). Obama was clueless and still is clueless on the health care debate, why people defend him I don't know since he makes as much sense as Snow and Lieberman on the issue.

[EbonBear]

Because the options we have are Dennis Kucinich (Medicare for all but he's been marginalised), Republicans (no plan at all) or Obama. In the end, we support Obama's plan because it's the least worst.

[andycan]

The governement must have a greater role in society, if corruption can also be prevented.
The US government is democratically elected, therefore it represents rich and poor. Corporations only represent their shareholders and are ruled autocratically by their CEO's and their board of directors and are geared to profit.
The fight against government started by Barry Goldwater and championed by Reagan and the two Bushes is a sofistry : it leads to less freedom and less democracy rather than more because it results in favour of large corporations against the democratically elected arm of the people.

Government should also not be beholden to corporate lobbies.
The emasculation of governemnt leaves the poorest and weakest memebers of society completely exposed.

[weatherwaxx]

As they say, the GOP claims government is bad... and then they get into power and prove it.

We need campaign finance reform, and we need to stop giving corporations more rights than living human beings have.

[racetoinfinity]

Hear, hear to both points!!

Act: http://www.change-congress.org/partners

[JoeSausage]

Nothing short of a Revolution is going to give progressives the change they're demanding, in the time allotted. That's a given. Civilization doesn't turn on a dime, especially when it's dominant philosophies like capitalism and democracy are both riddled with institutionalized corruption and entrenched cronyism. Status quo, baby. Let them eat cake!
Progressives, like everyone, are victims of modern culture, living in a world of instant gratification and encroaching attention deficit. No change is going to be fast enough. We want it now! And with a zealousness that rivals even their counterparts on the Right, progressives seem more than willing to bite off their nose to spite their face.

[weatherwaxx]

Not all of us are MTV generation, short-atte­ntion-span progressives. HOWEVER -- it's a mistake to just sit back after an election and assume that the candidate you elected will do everything single-handed. The corporate lobbyists have their billions... we have our phone calls and emails. We don't dare stop or our voices will be drowned out.

Congress reacts to campaign contributions ... and to voter prodding,

[JoeSausage]

I applaud voter activism! Honestly I do. My observation, or fear really, is that progressives, disillusioned by their own unrealistic expectations, will do something drastic. You know, throw the bum out! Without any regard for what the alternative might mean, in the grander scheme of things. But seriously, write your Representative and Senator, make your voices heard.

[JimR]

Yup. Great post.