Obama, Progressives, and the Question of a Successful Presidency
In a post on May 28th called "A Successful Presidency", I wrote about the last few failed Presidents (LBJ, Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush) before this last one, George W. Bush, who is arguably one of the two worst ever. After discussing these four, all of whom faced strong primary challengers from their disgruntled base, I wrote:
What happened in every one of these cases was that the President started with a lot of goodwill and support from the general public, but when they ran into trouble later in their term, the base turned on them, and once that happened, it was impossible to contain the damage. The reason for this is simple: your base is who fights for you and defends you when you are in political trouble, and if they aren't backing your play, you get cut to the bone- the damage goes deep. Trouble comes to every President, but you can survive it if you have troops on the ground who keep defending you and fighting your battles for you.
I raise this now because trouble has clearly come to this President; the economy is not getting better for most regular folks anytime soon, health care is in the balance, the Obama approval ratings keep dropping. I believe that the key to Obama's success at this fundamentally critical juncture is whether the President can get his base excited about him again, get them engaged in fighting by his side on the tough battles ahead. Health care reform will not pass without intense Democratic and progressive activism. Neither will the energy bill stuck in the Senate, or the banking regulations bill waiting for committee action in the fall, or the immigration fight next year.
Obama's re-election itself is the same way. You know those four Presidents I mentioned above who had tough primaries against candidates from their base, and then lost the general election? Those examples are part of a much larger trend in American history. In fact, since 1900, there have been 14 incumbents (including the Vice Presidents who took over for Presidents who had died) who have won re-election and not a single one faced a primary challenge. Meanwhile, there have been six incumbent Presidents who did not win re-election, only one of which (Hoover, in the midst of the Great Depression) went without a strong primary challenge.
Did primary challenges cause the incumbents to lose in the general? I think that would be an overstatement, but what those challenges did reflect was an unhappiness rising up from the party's base for Presidents in shaky political circumstances. And I'll add one more point to this analysis: George W. Bush had a lot of rocky moments in his first term, was not in great shape politically in 2004, but his passionate base carried him to victory. Bill Clinton was in huge political trouble in 1995, but his base stayed with him, and he survived his troubles and became all the stronger. Reagan had a terrible midterm in 1982, and a very weak approval rating through 1983, but his base stayed with him, and as the economy came back in 1983, he not only survived but won a landslide victory.
A story from the Clinton years, from the toughest, most divisive days of the NAFTA fight. I (thankfully) wasn't forced to work on NAFTA, but I was still talking to union folks every day about health care and other issues, and I knew the damage the fight was doing to our relationships.
We came up with the idea of getting the President to do a dinner and reception one night at the White House with labor leaders, all the union Presidents in the AFL-CIO, even the one who had been the toughest on us rhetorically during the NAFTA fight.
Clinton gave an amazing speech that night, basically saying that he knew we (him and the labor movement) would never agree on the fight, he knew how tough and divisive the battle was getting and how raw the emotions were, but that he wanted everyone to know that the White House was still their house, that they would always be welcome in it as long as he was resident, that he would always listen to them even when he disagreed, and that he would do everything in his power to help them on other issues. Then he stayed talking with people one on one and in small groups late into the night.
Did that solve all of our problems with labor rank and file in the health care debate, or the 1994 elections? No, of course not. But labor leaders also did not encourage Dick Gephardt to run in a primary against Clinton when he was at his weakest point in 1995, as many unions encouraged Ted Kennedy to take on Jimmy Carter in 1980. And they fought like tigers for him in the 1996 election, and in the impeachment fight, and most of Clinton's other big issue fights. That tough, awful NAFTA fight didn't break the bond between Clinton and labor. This is how a White House should operate with its progressive allies, not just labor but the broader progressive community as well.
The reason Bill Clinton did not have a primary fight in 1996 in spite of his being more of a moderate President in a tough political environment, and the reason he did not get deserted in the impeachment fight in spite of so many Democrats being appalled by the stupidity of his affair with Lewinsky, was because we always worked closely and respectfully with progressives, even when we disagreed. Contrast what Clinton did with labor leaders even as they were bitterly disagreeing with the White House, with the unnamed White House staffer who attacked the progressives who are actually fighting for the Obama health plan as "left of the left".
Now, fortunately, this attitude clearly doesn't permeate the White House in general. Valerie Jarrett, who welcomed progressives to the table when I worked in the Obama/Biden transition, happily accepted an invitation to Netroots Nation last weekend, and answered all questions, even the toughest, with a warm and welcoming attitude. Her entire team at the White House, especially Mike Strautmanis and Cecilia Munoz, does a great job of welcoming ideas and even dissent.
One of the reasons the unnamed staffers' quote generated so much attention and anger among progressives, though, is that it was reminiscent of the arrogance the Obama team showed throughout the campaign. Strautmanis was the only senior campaign staffer I knew who seemed to care at all about progressive outreach during the general election, and it wasn't his job (he was doing congressional liaison work). In fact the campaign publicly discouraged their donors from giving to outside progressive groups. And it did not go unnoticed that the last major caucus the President met with in the House was the Progressive Caucus, or that outreach to bloggers and progressive media has been slower and lesser than to a lot of conservative media folks.
The other key problem is the lack of passion Obama and his White House seem to bring to fighting for what matters to progressives. The tap dance they've been doing on whether Obama not just supports, but will fight for, a public option has been going on since the transition, and it's only one of many policies they are determined not to commit too much to. The unwillingness to pick fights and go toe-to-toe with insurers, drug companies, Wall Street, and other special interests is making the progressive community a lot less willing to pick fights for them.
You see the warning signs everywhere, from Paul Krugman's columns to Bill Maher monologues to the dropping numbers from Democrats in the latest DailyKos poll. But what worries me the most is the hard-core Obama people I know, the ones who were most excited about him during the campaign who are growing so disillusioned.
One question going forward is which strategy prevails in this White House- the more open and welcoming Jarrett/Strautmanis strategy, or the angry, arrogant strategy of the anonymous source trashing the left-of-the-left in The Washington Post the other day. More fundamentally, though, is this essential strategy question: will this White House choose to fight for things, such as the public option, that the base actually cares about, that makes us want to fight for Obama in return?
The answers to those questions will have an enormous amount to do with whether there is grassroots passion to push through health care reform and other major issues, whether or not there will be a destructive primary fight in 2012, whether or not Obama gets much activist help weathering the tough days ahead on the economy, and most important of all, whether his Presidency is judged a success by history. I have hope that he will come back from these troubles, because many Presidents have, and he is a good and smart man. But I'm starting to get nervous.
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
I prefer the Liberals take charge, not the progressives. Liberals care about people. Progressives care about government, systems and numbers.
What he did to american citizens in the bailout and what he wants to do to us in the health are what is losing his base..He is doing it to us..
Obama = NO LEADERSHIP TO BELIEVE IN.
He will not take the side of the people on any issue, has proposed more of the same including upping the ante in Afghanistan, and his people and policies to date will just push the American way of life over the cliff, sooner rather than later.
Maybe we need that for the people to wake up, and the old order to come down.
What is happening now is tragedy adding to disaster.
Perhaps it was naive to have ever believed things could have been otherwise.
I for one do not believe anything he says anymore. Ditto for all of the members of Congress.
Why would anyone get excited about George Bush Lite?
Calling Obama a progressive is similar to calling Bush a liberal.
The Corporate Party has two wings (Dem & Repub) but only one constituency: global corporations.
Obama represents the Dem wing of the Corporate Party.
A concise and sickeningly reality.
Good to see people seeing the light.
"Let the pragmatists re-elect Obama. Progressives have to work to elect what we want." Yes - Progressives remain progressive - eventually we will get there. Obama has the choice to make - will he be with us?
Candidate Obama had the best grass routes organization ever, they even out foxed the
Clinton machine? Well why isn't the Obama team mobilizing organizing, and creating
events all over the country in support of healthcare? How about getting those millions and millions
of people who have NO insurance to march, and support President Obama?
How about the millions of people who have lost their homes, and businesses because they
got sick - and the insurance they THOUGHT they had - was NOT covered when they got sick?
How about the millions of businesses who can NO longer provide healthcare?
Where are all those millions of people?
There are much more of them, then the carnival freaks who show up at town halls,
and that event in Washington on Saturday.
How isn't the Obama team mobilizing those millions of people - and having marches in
support of President Obama?
Let's take it to the carnival freak that are the Republican party - and show them
who really is in charge.
I noticed this was written last month by Mike Lux.
There is no health care crisis, that's why there aren't millions of people taking to the streets.
The "health care crisis" was manufactured by the Dem wing of the Corporate Party to justify forcing everyone to buy insurance, whether they want it or need it.
One reason it isn't happening is because there is no real reform on the table. Until Obama steps away from special interests and stands for the people, he has nothing to offer.
I would not go to any WH sponsored rally at this point because all they have done is craft another giveaway to corporate America on the back of the taxpayers of this once great nation.
Exactly correct Pax. There was no intention of actual reform. That has become rather obvious, as well as nauseating.
The issues that are packaged with the most lavish speeches have a way of screwing us the most. The more cover sought with pretty words, the louder the alarm is sounding in my gut.
Now the President is heading to Wall Street to "urge reform". I'm sure we will get plenty of lofty lip service on this one as well.
Is this another circuit of "back room" meetings??
You are the President, tell Congress to GET IT DONE!
This is not rocket science here, reinstate the regulation that has been repealed!
That won't happen either. We'll get the next round of great theatrical performances from our corporate wh@re government and a lot more indigestion.
We need to begin pushing back hard in a persistent, collective movement. Between the ponzi schemes of Wall Street and the SCOTUS completely selling us down the river with an all out corporate election buffet, and Obama ready to give ALL "oversight" responsibilities to the criminal FED, we are approaching the end game.
The writing is on the wall and is screaming out at us to listen and act.
The Progressives might not be very happy with the president at this time. However, they must realize Obama is a very pragmatic president. We will get our healthcare reform and get out of this horrible recession. We all will have to compromise on lot of issues for the next four years. Progressives will not get everything they want. If you have four years to change a country, four years to work with a weak Democratic majority, four years to work with an out-of-touch vindictive Republican minority, you need to be pragmatic. You need to go balls-to-the-walls to produce and complete a successful and workable agenda. The American public might not like some of your accomplishments, but if the economy is back on track, you might be reelected. That is part art, skill and luck. Obama is the type of pragmatist that sees the big picture and will pick accomplishing his goals rather than short political gains much to the consternation of the Democratic Party. The Progressives need to go along to get along.
That's the line of thought I've been drifting toward. He's up against a lot and he doesn't want to fire any false shots. I'm dismayed that some people want to lose faith in him so readily. I got all rebellious and didn't vote for him, but I would today.
Nonsense. This doesn't explain his appointments, or why his administration is apparently on an all-out war against the environment. The fact that Obama is, incredibly, touting "clean coal" is mind-blowing. His administration also just okay'd the clearcutting of an Alaskan forest.
"Pragmatism" to the point of "selling out" is not what I voted for.
Sad, but true.
As the expression goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."
The so called "pragmatism" is clearly tactical.
Just smoke and mirrors. The real agenda has been made resoundingly clear.
Opposing equal marriage, opposing investigation of torture, bailing out banks so they could hand out multi-million dollar bonuses, supporting individual mandates without a public option to turn "health insurance reform" into a giant corporate giveaway - why should progressives support Obama. It's all well and good to say you do all the dirty stuff to get the power to do all the good things you really want. But once you've compromised everything to get power, you generally forget what you wanted to do with the power in the first place.
Single-payer was the progressive solution. Mandates were the solution of the right - captive consumers for the health care industry. When the centrist solution of a public option to contain costs was rejected, I knew it was time to get to work to get the lobbyist-owned fake Democrats out of office.
Let the pragmatists re-elect Obama. Progressives have to work to elect what we want. We can support Obama by getting rid of the so-called centrists in their next primaries. Then he'll be forced to side with the better angels in his nature.
I don't agree with you. The crises have provided a rare opportunity, all of which has been wasted by this administration. In terms of what people identify as "Progressive" issues, this administration has shown no interest. But most of these issues are the issues that the middle class has, and the moderates have. Failure to stand for something will cause a backlash.
I, for one, no longer support this administration, and am trying to find a constructive way to take the agenda away from Obama and crew-and I am a life long Democrat who does not consider myself particularly liberal.
I am not impressed by speeches that give one impression, while actions are being taken, consistent with the intent of the mentioned staffer, to undermine the interests of the American public for what appears to be private gain. Pragmatism isn't setting up a faux opposition by insisting on bipartisanship, them splitting the difference with that constrived extreme as a means to avoid accomplishing any real change. Obama uses the bipartisanship to try and thwart the progressives while seeming "pragmatic", "inclusive" and "adult".
Obama was a hard left Senator. #1 on the Liberal-O-meter. The left expected him to govern that way and I think that's his preference. But the country is not where the Left is. The American people are marginally center-right. He really won the election because of the disgust with Bush, the Republicans, and in particular, the economic freefall that started last September. The country really isn't firmly where Obama and the Democrats are. And what the people really don't want is their President scaring the hell out of them, but that's just what he's doing. Way too much money spent immediately, concerns over the cost and effectiveness of Cap & Trade, and too much change with health care. And it seemed he and the Democrats wanted to do it all before the essential specifics of all these issues were clearly communicated to and understood by the public. The initiatives looked suspiciously like one underhanded deal after another. The way this effort was envisioned was nothing but a recipe for disaster, unless they could have accomplished everything before people wised up. Well, they've now wised up and Plan 2 had better be something open, honest, and informative. If they try to now head butt this health care mongoose through, their majority will very likely be a short one.
The independents are who got Obama elected and that is who he is losing
He's losing the support of progressives. They'll never vote for Republicans, but I don't see them knocking on doors for Obama in the next election. And I expect progressives to support primary challenges for all the Blue Dogs who are up for reelection in 2010.
I wrote a long comment and then erased it because this lament is a waste of time. As they say this bird is done, train has left, this horse left the barn. This goose is cooked and rotten, ready to be put on the curb. What a waste of emotion and time? All those crowds, what were we thinking?
Hope.
Additionally, the country doesn't have truth detectors attuned to Chicago-level politics. Obama and his team have no shame in making the most strong promise, then flipping. I read Chicago newspapers saying this in so many words--even pro-Obama ones!
His pastor made a comment about being his being a politician too.
"...we always worked closely and respectfully with progressives, EVEN WHEN we disagreed.
Wow, really? "Even when" you disagreed? For this statement to carry the slightest weight, you should be able to demonstrate that, more often than not, the Clinton Administration actually AGREED with progressives.
Here is the list of progressive accomplishments for which I gave the Clinton Administration some credit (posted many times over the years on HuffPo):
* Elimination of the "gag order" which prevented agencies which received federal money from discussing abortion.
* Approval of RU486.
* A watered-down Family and Medical Leave Act.
* A modestly more progressive tax policy. That's all, folks!
My list of progressive failures -- even outright betrayals -- is far, far, longer. Health care (RIP Senator Wellstone), Lani Guinier, DADT, NAFTA, GATT, PNGV, the BTU tax, the "end of welfare as we know it," zero progress on demilitarization of American foreign policy, Kyoto, Glass-Steagall.
Please, don't pretend that Democratic party bigwigs treat progressives with anything resembling respect.
The only way to get respect is by winning primary challenges.
PALIN in 2012 will truly give all the Democrats something to talk about, since that is what turn them on. They have no loyalty to anybody but themselves. They are destructive and have a knows it all mentality. I'm sick of them, for we have worked so hard to get here, and we are willing to sit and complain on every single nonsense. Enough already! President Obama is not GOD and is working hard to turn this Economy around. So, GET UP AND KNOCK ON DOORS, MARCH IN WASHINGTON SEPT. 13TH.
Here's my question. Why should Pres Obama have to get us excited about HIM for us to get out and fight? Shouldn't the base and all the progressive s be out there already ebating the drums for Health care reform?
But, I can see that as per usual, the Dems have once again proven that they have very short memories. Why do the Dems feel that Obama will do everything for us? Why can't members of Congress also show us some freakin' leadership?
Everybody's feet is being held to the fire okay? We are fighting and want President Obama and the Democratic Congress to fight, too.
They're fighting, but they're defending a turkey. The initiative is too expensive (CBO analysis). That alone should scare everybody. Obama and the Democrats, with this majority, should be looking hard to produce something affordable, inclusive, and offering good care. And if they find a mix that achieves these goals, they'll get plenty of support from the American people. Right now though, it looks for them like the only thing really worth fighting for is to not lose.
blind loyalty is the MAIN PROBLEM with Repubs/Con
critical thinking and questioning our leader is the STRENGTH of progressives.
you want to follow like gullible sheeple, go ahead. the rest of us will try to actually make progress and hold our elected representatives responsible for their words and actions.
since when did questioning what is the best path a bad thing. only Repubs follow blindly to whatever sinkhole they are lead, ie. last 8 years. no one said anything, it was a barrage of support for any policy, including invading the WRONG country, torture, rendition, suspension of habeas corpus.
this has nothing to do with loyalty or trust. this has to do making sure that we make progress for all Americans, not just the rich ones. you want blind sheeple who will obsequiously follow you into the self destruction, then you should run as a Repub and flaunt those conservative ideals that most of them don't even live up to.
You want people who are critical thinkers, who are constantly questioning the best path, and who will support good ideas and call you on bad ideas, then you run as Dem.
Absolutely right!
Both the administration and democrats in Congress are to blame, especially Se. Reid whi is a weakling too.
He's supposed to be president of the United States, not president of the left half of the Democratic party. I'm displeased with the signing statements, but overall he's on track to have me knocking on doors for him again.
The Right-wing Republicans (wingnuts) are not all of America, nor do they represent the Majority of America. That's what you and President Obama need to remember.
And remember too, Mister President, the Left-wing Democrats (wingnuts too) are not all of America, nor do they represent the majority of America either.
Get that fist ready. He's gonna need you.
If you go down the list in every election the Democrats are right on almost every issue that affects ordinary working Americans.
Strong, pro-unions that protect workers' pay, health and workplace safety, environmental laws that protect the public's drinking water, the air we breathe and food we eat, consumer protections against corporate fraud, Medicare and Social Security for seniors whose retirement pensions are low or non-existent, total government-run military medical coverage paid for by the taxpayers, the finest educational institutions in the world, West Point, Air Force Academy and U.S. Naval Academy, government subsidies for first-time home buyers, subsidies for ethanol production (about $7.5 billion per year), subsidies to war profiteering companies like Haliburton and KBR, Exxon, funding for mercenary armies like Xe (Blackwater) and of course the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where billions go down the black hole every month.
The Republicans clearly love the wars since they never protested them at town hall meetings. They love all their corporate welfare and health insurance company contributions but they have no intention of giving up their Medicare, Social Security or Veteran's Administration benefits but they whine over the cost.
Bush and his Republican cohorts busted our country and now they want to blame Barack Obama for not fixing their screwups overnight.
To the GOP: take a long hike down the Appalachian trail with your red state hypocrite, Mark Sanford, because you've been lost in the woods for the last 20 years.
Overspending is truly the albatross around the Democratic Party's neck. If they could find a way to accomplish what they want and not break the bank, theyt'd be hard to beat. But people realize that stuff has to be paid for and that's something Democrats have a problem with. It was Republicans thinking they could buy votes too that has recently stymied their efforts as well.
Mandating that all individuals purchase health insurance and doing nothing to create competition to keep rates down and coverage active isn't going to keep costs down for captive consumers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
