Obama Year One: United by Change, Divided by Reform
One year after Candidate Obama inspired the world to vote for symbolic "change," the Democratic Party is now deeply divided by two divergent, and seemingly irreconcilable, approaches to reform. If President Obama fails to grasp soon why his idea of reform has alienated key parts of his base--and if he fails to do something to bridge the divide--the result may be much worse than acrimony from the chattering liberal classes. He could have a full on mutiny on his hands by 2010.
One way to describe this divide is to say that President Obama has advanced "conservative reform"--repair and improve, but maintain what we have--whereas the base of the Democratic Party wants, and has aggressively demanded, "progressive reform"--out with the old, in with the new.
It is impossible to exaggerate how much friction these contrasting approaches to reform have created in just one year.
Consider, for example, the banking crisis. Having inherited the TARP program from the previous administration, President Obama continued to advance a policy of using government funds to mend the broken financial institutions and then create new regulations to steady the markets: improve, but maintain. The base of his party, by contrast, called for a complete overhaul of the financial industry, and a new set of legal measures that would neuter investment banks, reign in corporate power, and limit windfall profits: out with the old, in with the new.
The automotive industry bailout was the second big example of this divide. When the large American auto manufactures faced ruin, President Obama called for a sophisticated government bailout. His idea was to use to government resources to prop up the auto industry and shepherd them through bankruptcy. The Cash for Clunkers program then jump started the restructured manufacturers: repair, but maintain. The base of his party, by contrast, largely called for government to allow the Detroit-centered industry to die a natural death, pushing instead for a massive investment in the fledgling, West Coast green automotive industry: out with the old, in with the new.
The health care reform debate has also spotlighted this divide. Obama has pushed for a reformed and regulated private health insurance industry: repair, but maintain. The base of his party, by contrast, has called for the end of a health care system based on private health insurance, pushing instead for a non-profit, single payer system: out with the old, in with the new.
Next up on the environment--although this fight is now being obscured by the health care argument--Obama will call for investment in new energy sources, but will also push for repairing and maintaining the oil and coal industries. The base of his party, by contrast, will call for an end to the oil and coal industries, and a total switch over to a new energy economy.
And so on, and so forth.
With each of these fights, a larger and larger portion of the issues patchwork Democratic Party base is drawn into a increasingly bitter narrative of disappointment over Obama's approach to reform.
By 2010, just about every Democratic Party member with a stake in some issue will be saying the same thing about Obama: his policies are not a clear enough departure from the past; this is not real reform.
The collective malaise will only be compounded if Democratic losses in the midterm election are significant.
What should Obama do? Here are five suggestions:
First, Obama needs to recognize that he gained support during his Presidential campaign because he personally symbolized a departure from the past. His identity, his speaking style, his ability to draw young and old into politics--all of this symbolized progressive change for people.
Second, Obama needs to understand that he has not led the country in any discussion whatsoever about why a conservative approach to reform is better than a progressive approach to reform. He may have had these discussions behind the scenes, but he has not had them on the full stage of the public debate.
Third, Obama needs to find some way over the next three to six months to deliver some kind of reform that looks and feels to his base like a clean departure from the past.
Fourth, Obama needs to spend less energy and political capital dealing with the base of the Republican Party, and more energy and political capital reaching out and working with the base of the Democratic Party.
Fifth, Obama needs to play a more central role leading the push for reform. The base that elected him does not know what to do when his initiatives are pushed by uncharismatic leaders in the House and Senate. The President needs to be the voice and the face of reform, not just the beer table host.
In other words, Obama needs to realize that he is the focus, and as such, he foments or alleviates the base's concerns over reform. From what I can tell, the crush of crises put on his desk has led Obama to forget this crucial point
After listening to him talk on the campaign trail, expectations were very high for a President who pushed progressive reform. The base will work with him at a more conservative level, but not until he stands up and explains why this is important.
The clock is ticking.
So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
How right you are. I'm part of that disappointed base. When Obama appointed Geithner and Summers in November '08, I saw the unfortunate writing-on-the-wall.
Obama has proven to be a corporatist neoliberal, and the more liberal and progressive parts of his base are quite disenchanted.
I might also add he has done very little besides signing the hate-crimes bill, to advance GLBT rights. He could have expressed support for not undoing gay marriage in Maine, and gotten his base out there to vote, but chose to remain silent.
I hope Obama proves me wrong soon. A first step would be to support breaking up the too big to fail banks, but he would have to get rid of Geithner I think to prove his seriousness in this, and go against his big donor bankster friends.
I consider it my job to push Obama as far to the left as I can, because I believe that strongly populist progressive solutions, and the morals that underlie them, are superior to conservative ideas. I also consider it my job to criticize him when he breaks his campaign promises or departs from the spirit of his campaign message. He spoke forcefully in populist progressive rhetoric, which raised people's expectations and hopes. One problem since then: He is now surrounded by DC and Wall Street elitists and conservative Democrats who are undermining him with their awful advice. Worst of all is perpetual failure Rahm Emmanuel, who is leading the party to 2010 disaster
You are asking Obama to do something he is not good at. Leading.
There is not that much to add. Feldman's proposals would create an exciting presidency but cause consternation for members of Congress from Republican States. The hope that a surge in popular support would overcome this obstacle may well be right. Newspapers would accuse Obama of demagoguery and the accusations that he is a dictator would gain steam. Obama has the skills to defuse these charges, but he would have to ask for tax increases. This proposal makes more sense if the present health plan fails, and Obama agrees to keep the fight going by proposing a new and better plan.
In the meantime, MMJ and drug laws have emerged as a way to energize youthful voters and give the Democrats greater strength overall. But right now the Democrat must rally. The Republicans are energized, and we are flummoxed.
'Obama: Year One'
He's only been president a little over nine months.
Come back on Jan. 20, 2010.
The irony of this President is that he is NOW afraid of the very change he campaigned for . . . why?
Well, it could be because of the secret deals he has made (in other words he's been bought and paid for), the rabid wingnut factor destroying any civilized process, let alone dialogue . . .
He's gone into "Put the brakes on as hard as you can and keep this thing afloat for 4 years, and then we'll see where things stand" mode.
Ergo a health care (insurance giveaway) bill that won't kick in until 2013, and no real shift on the other major issues that are tearing this country apart and sinking the middle class.
Meanwhile the rich continue to get richer, and that would include the President.
I have to say, I agree with some of your statements in your post. I agree that more clarity need to come from our president on the healthcarereform & the reason for me stating this is because I have co-workers who really don't understand, what he's offering as for as healthcarereform. I also agree, that he probably need to get with the democratic party and listen to them & let them tell him why? they haven't made a move on the healthcarefeform as of yet, as a good leader you have to keep in touch with your party and allow them to respond,whether for or against what your proposing, but listen & then something positive just may occur. I always tell people if leadership is out of order everything else will also be. I like, this President and think he is the man for the job, and I ain't in no way apologizing for voting for him, I believe he will be successful and he will meet his goal while in office as the Commander & Chief.
Why is it that people say, "Obama must do this... Obama must do that..." when it is a fundamental architectural design-element of our system of government that "the President of the United States cannot 'do' anything?"
Our Constitution places all of the powers of the Federal government into the hands of the Congress. It places almost none of them in the hands of the Executive Branch, or for that matter, the Judiciary.
The aforesaid document also places a tremendous amount of trust in that tiny singular sentence which comprises Article 2, Section 4. It was the express intent of the authors that there should be "zero tolerance" for "high crimes," specifically including (but not limited to): "B-R-I-B-E-R-Y, and Treason."
And so, "here we are." Article 2, Section 4 is ignored, and the only thing that our press (including this very website) does in response is to create a score-keeping "LobbyWatch." More than $1 million a day is paid in bribes to "any civil officer," and there's nary a peep of protest. So tell me, exactly what do you expect? Your so-called "supreme law of the land" don't mean squat. When "money talks," nothing else can be heard.
Very soon it will become "official." The $upreme Court will soon declare that bribery is, in fact, "corporate freedom of $peech." Just sit back and watch it happen, and do not pretend to be surprised.
Spot-on Jeffrey. It's time for Obama to deliver on the promise of his campaign in a big way. His continual deference to entrenched power is going to guarentee a one-term presidency. I thought I was voting for a leader, but instead of leadership we get excuses. I'd like to think he's going to step up and turn this around, but increasingly I doubt that he's got the personal convictions or moral courage to do it.
"The President needs to be the voice and the face of reform, not just the beer table host.
Exactly this. Number one on the list of what bothers Obama voters the most.
you are not an Obama voter
If what you write is true, then the Democratic party is in no better shape than what we are seeing happen with the Republican party... it means it is just as full of intolerants who will only be happy with strict adherence to their idea of change and their ideology.
Rush Limbaugh, in speaking about RINOS said that "moderates lack principals". From my perspective your article is suggesting something similar about moderate Democrats. Why else would a group within the party conduct a "mutiny"?
It makes me sad to read this because I am a proud Democrat, but perhaps people like me will get pushed into "independent land" before long. It seems as if we Democrats, with our high ideals tend to turn sour so quickly when our ideals meet the slow process of governing.
We complained about the impetuousness and lack of discipline of the Bush administration, and then admonish the Obama administration for being nuanced and evaluative. Maybe what this really says is that a “key” part of the Democratic base really wants a Bush like president, but with Democratic ideals.
The liberals are in important part of the Obama base without which there would be no President Obama.
I am a progressive Democrat, but there would also be no 'President Obama' without the moderates, the independents, and a number of republican voters.
President Obama didn't campaign as a progressive Democrat, and if he had, he would not have been elected.
(ps - I would love to have a progressive president - but I'm willing to get there in steps)
In my view, your observation is correct. Obama is not responding to the Democratic base nor to the mandate of change that he indicated would come once he was elected. You made some good and positive suggestions.
Two points of disagreement. I don't believe that the base will work with anyone, who continues and/or promotes the Bush Administration policies on things like transparency, torture, rendition, or the expansion of war in the AfPac region. I fail to see what a reasonable "conservative" alternative would be in the areas I mentioned. On matters of principle there is no negotiating.
Second, It does not appear to me that Obama has "forgotten" or lost his way due to the crush of crises on his desk. Looking at his actions in the Senate, it appears he has always been a centrist. His vote on FISA indicates this, so his actions now should come as no surprise. During the campaign he purposefully courted the base, but intended to govern from the center right position he has pursued since taking office. Obama's brilliant rhetoric and tailored message of hope and change, registered with a public sick of the last 8 years. However, his actions, as President, should be our guide to what he really believes. I believe that Obama knows exactly what he is doing in the financial, healthcare, WOT, etc.. I hold him responsible for his actions without any hope of him "waking up" or finally "understanding" what he has been "unknowingly" doing.
All Presidents move to the center. Obama has lost the Independent vote by staying so far left.
Who is this base? Just the far left? What about the moderates and independents? Don't they count too? Would you have an extremist party like the Republicans have become? Obama clearly talked about being the President of all of the people and he is doing that.
Sure, as Friedman said yesterday, it would help if all of the initiatives were tied together with a theme we citizens could support.
Never-th-less monumental things are getting done, in terms of saving the world from economic ruin, health care, energy, foreign relations, clean-up of messes of the last 8 years, etc.
No, you don't count because you never get involved. Why should those of us in the so-called "far left" do all of the work to get these democrats elected, (i.e. phone bank, canvass, research, donate money and time) only to have them get in there and do nothing we wanted them to do? Why don't Democrats actually believe in their convictions once they get elected? Since we always lose by getting all mushy and milquetoast trying to appease the other side, why not just this once you all listen to us and start pushing through the agenda that was campaigned on?
Sorry, but you have the same assumption as the author of the article. I and many other moderates and independents did get involved and helped in many ways to get Obama elected. donating time, money, etc..
Push for what you think is right, but don't expect everyone to be ideological pure or your just like Rush and company on the other side.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
