Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks’s article this morning presents himself as Obama’s wannabe political consigliere, dispensing advice on how he can emerge from the malaise and growing unpopularity that has beset his administration.
Brooks’s advice now is basically the same that it’s always been: if you want to be popular, move to the right. Oh, and let Republicans stymie your agenda.
Citing declining poll support for Obama’s health care plan (whatever that may be), Brooks writes:
Amazingly, some liberals are now lashing out at Obama because the entire country doesn’t agree with The Huffington Post. Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes.This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country — and good luck getting anything done after that.
Brooks is setting himself up as a one-man Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist organization that has been committed from its founding to moving the Democratic Party to the right. As I discuss in my book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, the DLC realized in the mid-1980’s that it couldn’t win a policy debate on the merits: people just didn’t support its centrist or right-leaning policies. So instead of engaging in that debate, they did something very clever and reframed the question. Instead of arguing that Democrats should deregulate Wall Street, cut back on environmental protections, or weaken their support for reproductive freedom because it was the right thing to do, they instead argued that politicians should shift to the center because that was where the American people were.
Suddenly they were speaking politicians’ language. In a contest between doing what was right and doing what will help you get elected, political expedience will win almost every time.
Unfortunately for Democrats (and for the country that had to deal with consequences of DLC ideology becoming the organizing philosophy of the party), the idea that moving to the right can help Democrats win was then and is now spectacularly and obviously wrong.
First off, as political scientists have known for decades, shifting policy positions is a recipe for electoral disaster because people don’t vote on the issues. In fact, only about six percent of the average voter’s decision is based on agreement with a candidate’s issue position (in many cases, voters don’t even know the candidates’ issue positions on even the highest profile issues -- if you doubt that, ask your friends to explain the differences between the Democrats’ and the Republicans’ health care plans).
But shifting positions for political reasons is also dangerous because it threatens voters’ perceptions of politicians’ leadership and integrity, which are very important factors in deciding the vote.
In this case, accommodation of Republicans also threatens Obama’s political fortunes in two other ways: adopting failed Republican health care policies would increase costs and reduce care, putting an additional burden on the economy -- imperiling Obama’s 2012 reelection. Second, failure to pass major elements of his agenda will be perceived as a political defeat that will put in doubt Democrats’ ability to deliver.
Nevertheless, decline in support for Obama’s policies (whatever those may be) can’t be ignored, if only because congressional Democrats do blow with the winds of public opinion, regardless of whether or not they should.
Brooks, of course, is ignoring the real reason for the decline in Obama’s support on health care: this debate has been very one sided. While Republicans have marshaled clear (though often dishonest) and passionate arguments to maintain the status quo, Obama put his persuasive power on hold while he got sucked into an insider negotiation with Congressional centrists and Republicans -- and has been entirely unable to make a coherent or morally compelling case for his agenda, to effectively rally his movement behind him, or to put pressure on Democrats. Obama could do those things, he just hasn’t -- throughout his career he’s waited until his back is against the wall until he’s willing to soil his hands with the kind of hardball politics that actually delivers victories.
So now Brooks is arguing that Obama shouldn’t articulate the progressive agenda he ran on -- and should let Republican attack campaigns determine his policies.
I hope Obama can tell the difference between clever DLC-style frenemies like David Brooks and the strategists who actually want him and his agenda to succeed.
Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz
Commercial Banks
Barack Obama (D) $3,244,103
Computers/Internet
Barack Obama (D) $8,497,422
Education
Barack Obama (D) $22,915,462
Health Professionals
Barack Obama (D) $11,716,570
Health Services/HMOs
Barack Obama (D) $1,425,501
Hedge Funds
Barack Obama (D) $3,091,347
Hospitals/Nursing Homes
Barack Obama (D) $3,335,944
Insurance(#2)
Barack Obama (D) $2,270,065
Lawyers/Law Firms
Barack Obama (D) $43,071,129
Lobbyists(#3)
Barack Obama (D) $603,125
Oil & Gas
Barack Obama (D) $889,051
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Barack Obama (D) $2,124,560
Real Estate
Barack Obama (D) $10,395,123
Retired
Barack Obama (D) $42,934,278
Securities & Investment
Barack Obama (D) $14,808,875
Telephone Utilities
Barack Obama (D) $580,412
Tobacco(#5)
Barack Obama (D) $45,804
TV/Movies/Music
Barack Obama (D) $8,966,774
Brooks tries to wed matter and anti-matter by coupling this statement (“Fifty-nine percent of Americans now think the country is headed in the wrong direction.”) with this (“The administration…. has joined itself at the hip to the liberal leadership in Congress”) While Mr. Brooks earns infinitely more to write this stuff than I do to comment on it, suffice it to say: WTF?!
One of Brooks’ observations deserves special note: “the number of people who call themselves either Democrats or Republicans declined, while the number who called themselves independents surged ahead.” It doesn't occur to him that this reflects the complete lack of distinction between the status-quo-Democrats and the discredited Republicans, the turning away of even life-long Democrats (such as myself) from what seems to be futile party affiliation.
In November 2008, this country voted for change; bi-partisan support writ large. The Brookses of the world will continue to point out that “attitudes toward Obamacare exactly match public attitudes toward Clintoncare when that reform collapsed in 1994” without acknowledging that the lies arrayed against it are exactly the same and now much better funded. But some of us know that without change, neither party is worth a damn. And without health care reform, our economy (and well-being) will be doomed.
Though I often enjoy Brooks' work....Glen Hurowitz is absolutely right here.
Glen writes ..."...throughout his career He's (Obama) waited until his back is against the wall until he's willing to soil his hands with the kind of hardball politics that actually delivers victories"..........here, here.
If we have learned anything from the last thirty years it is that it is virtually impossible to SAVE political capital.
The forces arrayed AGAINST the President in this health care debate are vast, powerful, firmly entrenced and committed to the status quo.....and have an OCEAN of ill-gotten blood money at their disposal with which to defend their self-interest. Nothing less thal a full-court press will do.
Why is it that every day we see well-heeled, well fed attendees shaking with anger over the prospect that their priviliged rung on the ladder of the immoral ponzi scheme that is American healthcare-for-profit? Why don't we as often see the people across town suffering and dying of preventable diseases? Not sexy enough?
If the President, (and we) want to wait "till our "backs are against the wall"....the guys on the other team will just as happy to push us right through that wall ...as they have been to perpetuate a system that values a dollar more than a human life!!
It's time for the President to say on our behalf (in the words of Stokley Carmichael) "Stick 'em up MF'ers...we TAKIN" whats ours"
tm
Get the job done or get out of the way so we can hire someone else with maybe enough of a set to stand up against the right wing conservatives that have so damaged our homeland.
This election, I had voted for Obama, and I had voted against a couple Republicans. Although I was satisfied with the Republicans I had elected, I had felt that the party has ignored its constituency, and decided to sell it's soul, moving farther right to grab bible-belt votes. The GOP seemed to try and divide Washington more and more. I had thought that the only way to combat this shift was to vote in Obama, whom I felt was fully capable in resetting this nation.