President Barack Obama appears to want all of his decisions to be 100 percent politically safe. The trouble is there are few meaningful decisions a president can make, especially on matters vital to the country, that are 100 percent politically safe. Take, for instance, how President John F. Kennedy got the U.S. Senate to ratify his Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, the first nuclear arms treaty ever signed with the Soviet Union. There was intense bipartisan opposition to the treaty. Cold War liberals, Republicans, and John Birchers attacked the president for jeopardizing American "national security." They said the terms of the treaty could not be verified. They said it made it easier for the Soviets to hide the yields of their nuclear tests. And they said it proved that Kennedy was "soft" on Communism and being taken for a ride by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.
President Kennedy did not capitulate to the knee-jerk criticism of the treaty but forged ahead anyway despite its lack of support on Capitol Hill. Common sense held that the treaty had no chance of Senate ratification. In the Cold War environment in Congress Kennedy understood that getting the Senate's necessary two-thirds approval would be "almost in the nature of a miracle."
And what did President Kennedy do? He mobilized a "citizens committee" and committed his administration to waging an all-out campaign to win Senate approval of the treaty even if it cost him the 1964 election. He brought together business and religious leaders, scientists, farmers (the radioactive fallout from the tests was contaminating milk and other agricultural products), scholars, university presidents, unions, newspapers, and liberal organizations such as SANE (National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy), UWF (United World Federalists), and ADA (Americans for Democratic Action). At the right moment, President Kennedy went on television and appealed directly to the American people in favor of the treaty. On July 26, 1963, he told the nation: "This treaty is for all of us. It is particularly for our children and our grandchildren, and they have no lobby here in Washington."
It was not a 100 percent politically safe decision for Kennedy to make.
But it paid off. In September 1963, the Senate approved the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty by a vote of 80 to 19. What's more, President Kennedy had mobilized a coalition behind reducing the threat of nuclear war and nuclear armaments that he could tap for future actions.
President Obama threatens to make recess appointments if the Senate keeps obstructing him. (I'll believe it when I see it.) We've heard claims that "reconciliation" is an option with the health care bill. (I'll believe it when I see it.) The Employee Free Choice Act? Climate Change? There's no 100 percent politically safe way to pass these measures. Obama took so many daring chances during the 2008 presidential campaign but when it comes to governing it seems he has become risk averse. The Democrats' slogan for 2010 should be: "If Ben Nelson Doesn't Like It -- We Won't Do It!"
Every time JFK stood up for what he truly believed in despite its political risks his popularity shot straight up. It appears the Obama White House, with Rahm Emanuel leading the charge, has accepted the idea that America is a "center-right" country and therefore trying to pass anything boldly progressive would be politically disadvantageous. It's one thing to try out policies, see if they work, and then shift gears and try new ones. But it's an entirely different thing not even to try to put into effect bold policies because you've already convinced yourself they're doomed to fail and aren't 100 percent politically "safe." That's not what President Kennedy did. That's the stance of a loser. And if Americans agree on anything it's that they don't like losers.
Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A
We are the ones that Obama-Rhama are Punking and the right-wing media play a handy role in this.
Take the Wall Street Journal recently portraying the proposed proprietary trading rules as somehow tantamount to a return to Glass-Steagall. According to Naomi Prins, most of his post-State of the Union proposals weren't even close.
It won't affect their size and their ability to use bank accounts as backstops, doesn't add a public sphere to the corrupt ratings agencies, doesn't regulate derivatives etc... Yet the Wall Street crew immediately leaked that twenty Wall St. $10,000 donations would now be going to the G.O.P. (as if that proves Obama isn't their handy tool to blunt reform)
B.O. squandered a year on health-care bills he knew wouldn't pass, because Geithner and Summers knew that no one would've dared to filibuster T.B.T.F. reforms in March (while the meltdown was still so current). It was to postpone and distract the more troublesome populist outrage from the left (which worried Wall Street way more than this faux-populism of the Tea-Partiers).
I can still empathize with him as an individual even as I have been deeply disappointed by his performance in office.