Obama's Big Tent Bursting at the Seams

Barack Obama, just a couple of weeks into his presidency, has already squeezed one person too many into his big tent, Judd Gregg, his new Commerce Secretary, a right-wing Republican who once wanted to dismantle the department he is about to run. Now if Obama's intention was in fact to get rid of the Commerce Department because it serves no purpose, the appointment would perhaps have made sense, but it appears that is not the plan, and so Gregg is just a redundant clown in Obama's circus.

There are two other Republicans in the Cabinet, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a remnant of the Bush administration, and Ray LaHood, the Transportation Secretary. Time will tell whether keeping Gates was a good idea, but LaHood, a man from a party whose strategy for improving transportation involves more cars, more roads and more gas? Surely, the Democratic Party is not lacking in far more visionary people on this issue than the moderately interesting LaHood.

Perhaps the current national crisis is at the root of Obama's persistence in reaching out to Republicans, a sort of multi-party War Cabinet focused on the economy. But that misses the point: the country is not under attack from outside forces, at least as far as the economy goes; it is under attack from within, and more specifically from the Republicans themselves, who are intent on sabotaging any effort at stanching the bleeding. There is room to disagree on the nature of and even the need for a stimulus package, or a banking bailout, but the alternatives need to be both realistic and not destined to repeat the country's most recent failures. On that count, Republicans have made themselves irrelevant, and there should simply be no room at the table for them.

As it is, even without adding redundant Republicans to the Cabinet and otherwise reaching out to the GOP, Obama and the Democratic Party have a struggle ahead of them. They are remarkably unified at this point, but that's what happens when your leader has a 70% approval rating: it's kind of hard to dissent too strongly. At most you throw a tiff here and a tiff there, Dianne Feinstein-style, but really you try your best to toe the line. Sooner or later, though, Obama will be less popular and, at that point, he will be dealing with a party that is very large and very diverse, and whose many voices will want to be heard, especially at election time.

The Democrats' size and range are both the cause and the result of their recent electoral successes. Their candidates are by and large well suited to their constituencies and far more pragmatic than their Republican counterparts, a narrow band of increasingly hard-line conservative extremists. The new Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, is a perfect example of this. She was sent to Congress by a conservative upstate district, favoring a range of positions that are anathema to progressives, perhaps most injuriously her preposterous support for the English Only movement. Now a Senator running for statewide election next year, she has already switched radically on the issue of same-sex marriage (which she now favors) and she will also "evolve" on guns and immigration, or go down to defeat in New York's Democratic primary. Gillibrand's neck-twisting conversions are distasteful and not particularly convincing, but they are indicative of a Democratic Party intent on surviving and on thriving in power. They also demonstrate the wide ideological gaps in a party that has seen gains across nearly all demographics and geographies.

In fact, many of the party's new members of Congress are precisely from districts and states that were not particularly friendly territory until recently, in rural and exurban districts, and in the interior West and the South. That they find common ground with their urban and suburban elders on the Coasts is remarkable, and is fraught with risk in the long run. For that reason, it would seem like a much better idea to focus on those potential stray centrist Blue Dog Democrats than on wildly untrustworthy Republicans whose every instinct is understandably to regain power at the expense of the current President. Perhaps more to the point, shouldn't Obama be focusing on what he was elected, actually mandated, to do, which is to change things, and to do so in a progressive manner? It is hard to imagine that the independents, crossover Republicans and moderate Democrats who voted for Obama would be stunned if the man named the most liberal Senator set out to implement policies that are, well, liberal.

Of course, all of the bipartisan posturing by Obama may well simply be a way for him to be able to say that he tried and the Republicans did not cooperate, but it all seems like a dreadful waste of time and energy. The Republican Party needs to find its way back to some kind of even vaguely mainstream place, at which point it may be a more useful partner for Obama, but now is not the time (nor will it be soon judging by the rhetoric from the party's new leader.) The moment will also come when the Democratic cats of many stripes will need to be herded, and we know Obama will be up to the task. But for now, if the President believes the United States is in a crisis that threatens its very foundation, as he has intimated, then surely he should not worry about losing the Ben Nelsons and Susan Collins of the world. Time will tell if Obama is right about his plan to save the US economy, but hopefully he would rather be blamed for having acted decisively in a crisis and been wrong than for wasting time seducing one more reluctant politician into a tent that is already feeling way too cramped.

Comments

[murderBYzeN]

I like the way the clintons reascended to the throne despite losing the election....that was definitely the change we needed...except it wasnt change

[LaFilleEnRose]

I don't recall that he said he'd change Washington. I think he said he'd change the tone in Washington. That means he's not gonna demonize the other side but treat them with respect. Getting them to vote with him is not what he promised. To me he's kept his side of the bargain and will probably continue to do so.

[Carnacamarna]

I think you're nitpicking here, and the Republicans need some demonizing. You can demonize respectfully especially when the charges aren't far-fetched.

[musselmanm]

Very interesting thoughts.
Each point makes sense. I do really hope that our country can come closer together.
If we can get some votes here and there from the other side of the isle. perhaps we can form a more perfect union.
I do not really expect much as I believe this was a way for the republican party to violently obstruct the recovery of our country and get off when we pass our new laws.
But perhaps we can have some tricle across activity from our republican brothers and sisters.
One can hope.

[dagmaclugh39]

Always remember: a two-party system is only one party away from a one-party system. The Republicans know this, and politic accordingly.

[Michelle Mixon]

The Republican strategy is to undermine President Obama. I say bi partisan be damned President Obama you tried and the Republicans blew it so now do what you were voted in to do fix this mess that Bush and Cheney made. We understand it will take a few years.

[hasheville]

This week I have gotten sick of turning on cable news and having to hear LIndsey Graham, etc. come up with distortions to undermine Obama. I agree with the author that there is plenty of diversity within the democratic party to represent the views of the majority of Americans. Throw in some libertarians, greens and other assorted independents and we're covered! The founding fathers never wanted our system to evolve to what we have today: we are hostage to 2 parties and one of them has, for decades, only represented the interests of the themselves and the elite. The potential of this country is held hostage and our vision narrowed because the debate is framed by only the democratic and republican parties and, as I said, one party doesn't even want to represent the American PEOPLE. It is a monopoly that should become extinct because the republicans don't respect that it is a PRIVILEGE to be only one of two parties that supposedly represent us all. Let them go the way of the dinosaurs.

[Ergon]

It's been an interesting learning process for Pres. Obama, but he needs to lisen to more voices than just the 'centrists' of his own party. I believe there can be real dialogue between traditional liberals and conservatives, as long as we don't confuse them with the present day Democrats and Republicans.
Am I the only one wishing for Ralph Nader and Ron Paul to also be represented, or have all the populists been sidelined?

[LiberalDem]

President Obama needs to learn very quickly that most GOP pols have zero interest in working with him to get the economy help.

He very much needs to seek out people such as Nader, Paul, Kucinich, Paul Krugman for some imput.
The bunch of Washington centrists currently holding sway is very disheartening.

[Jonni Rae]

It has been an interesting learning process for all of us. In spite of the repubs obstructionism, a bi-partisan group, however small, was able to come up with a compromise. This is the face of change. It ain't pretty, but it is happening. Obama aims to really change how Washington works. He is setting an example right from the start. This is good. Stict ideology will give way to pragmatism. More repubs will get on board, I am sure of it. They will become moderate, or be gone.

[JoeHurley]

As a conservative, I'm perplexed at Obama's attempt to pull Republicans in to his administration.

Republican politicians are on the ropes because they haven't truly represented anyone's interests but their own.

We have a two-party system. It was pretty clear cut where the parties stood on the issues before G.W. Bush:

Republicans wanted to reduce the size of government and reduce taxes. Democrats wanted to expand government to strengthen the social "safety-net", and if necessary, increase taxes to cover a larger budget.

Republicans used to stand for fiscal responsibility, a stronger military, and a dominant foreign policy. Democrats have traditionally been willing to trade off a balanced budget to achieve a better social order. Democrats generally (in recent decades) have wanted a smaller footprint in our relations with the world, and have valued talking over fighting to a greater extent than Republicans.

Generally, Republicans were pro-life, and Democrats were pro-choice.

Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, bloated budgets, and disregard for the Constitution, and Congressional Republican cooperation with his agenda have decimated the GOP's image as the grownups in Washington.

Why would you be a Republican in a Democratic White House? If you fit in to a Liberal administration you should really be a Democrat anyway.

[zerotimes10]

JoeHurley:
How incredibly smart and coherent are your thoughts.

I am truly impressed.

What the heck are you doing here lol! :)

[JoeHurley]

I'm not too sure. I think I must have masochistic tendencies. Most comments responding to my comments involve grade-school level insults.

[skymuffin]

What a thoughtful and lucid comment. I am at the opposite end of the political spectrum from you, but you sound like someone who would be able to debate the issues in an interesting way so that we could both try to understand each other's viewpoints, rather than all of this screaming and insulting that goes on these days on radio and television that passes for "punditry".

I, too, am puzzled by Mr. Obama's reaching out to the right wing. As Rachel Maddow on MSNBC says, maybe it's time for our president to realize that "they're just not that into you" and move on, because all of this wooing is so one-sided.

BTW, he's not a liberal. He's a centrist who admires Reagan, for Pete's sake. Personally, I prefer Dennis Kucinich, but Obama is what we've got, and since the left did help him get elected, why is he taking us for granted and being spineless like a typical Democrat?

[JoeHurley]

President Obama is publicly reaching out to the Republicans for two reasons:

(1) This is the beginning of his administration and he may well need Republican votes for future legislation. (Think Bush allowing Teddy Kennedy to draft the "No Child Left Behind" bill at the beginning of his administration. Or Johnson needing the Republicans to pass the "Civil Rights Act".)

(2) With such a massive and risky bill, the Democrats need political cover. In case things go horribly wrong, they hope not to be the only ones left holding the bag.

As far as Obama's admiration of Reagan is concerned, he was pretty clear that it was limited to Reagan's ability to connect with the American people, and his (necessary) willingness to work with Tip O'Neil, and cut bipartisan deals (it was necessary because the Democrats controlled the House)

Obama does not admire Reagan's policies. Remember that it was Regan who said that; "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.". Obama just won the election by (amongst other things) repudiating that very statement.

I could describe why I classify Obama as a Liberal, but it seems self-evident. Liberal isn't a dirty word, he won the Presidency running as a Liberal. Is he as liberal as Dennis Kucinich? No. But he's decidedly more liberal than Hillary, and that's why he beat her in the Primaries.

[FearlessFreep]

"Since the left did help him get elected, why is he taking us for granted?" Because he can.

[Paul Jenkins - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which point to probably the biggest problem for the GOP: the dearth of introspective and forward-thinking conservative talent in the GOP.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

"On that count, Republicans have made themselves irrelevant, and there should simply be no room at the table for them."

Mr. Jenkins, I can't let that statement go unchallenged.

You're saying:

"There should simply be no room..."

1) "...at the table in Congress for Republican Members of Congress" or
2) "...at Obama's backroom dealing table for Republican Members of Congress" or
3) Both.

If it's #1, as it seems to be, you are expressing a PROFOUNDLY UNDEMOCRATIC view hostile to genuine, public debate - a view in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and her undemocratic and unConstitutional view of Party power ("[The Democratic Party] won, we wrote the bill" and "I decree part of the Constitution off the table").

Further, if you meant #1, WHERE exactly is the forum that provides "room to disagree on the nature of and even the need for a stimulus package"?? THAT'S WHAT OUR CONGRESS IS FOR. And yet you seem to believe that the Democratic majority in our federal legislature should SILENCE the Republican minority - which represents millions of American citizens (and "won" too) - by ensuring that the Republicans "simply [have] no room at the table."

A Democratic Congressional majority, if it means anything (an increasingly open question), means having the ability to vote DOWN "unrealistic" politically-motivated ideas offered by a scorned minority. In what kind of self-governing representative democracy are those scorned voices a serious threat, or something to be undemocratically suppressed and silenced??

[islandchris]

One would hope that the slope of the unemployment graph would focus everyones attention. I agree that the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant. We have plenty of conservative opinion WITHIN the Democratic Party. See Alistair Cooke's attempt to explain the British Political parties to his American audience - every party from Labour through Liberal to Conservative maps to the Democratic Party in the US.

To get a sense of what the Republican Party is in this context, you would have to go to some of the far right European Parties for a comparison.

The final scary point - how many of these Republicans insisting that only Tax Cuts will work also happen to think the Earth is less that 10,000 years old. Anyone with that world view should not be entrusted with any position of responsibility.

[NotMcCain]

What makes you call it "posturing"? He knocked himself out trying to reason with and cooperate with Republicans.

Their agenda is clear to us, of course, but apparently he's more idealistic than that.

I hope this has been a useful education, but I don't think he'll EVER stop trying. Unlike many of us who are far more cynical about these people---our President actually BELIEVES in bipartisanship as a tool of solving problems.

He. Believes. In. It. Even if 99% of the Republicans (and their supporters in the press), DON'T.

[jcwtts1]

You don't change the entrenched way of doing business on day one. He has been president for three weeks. He has reversed the gag rule, passed SCHIP and signed it into law, and passed the first draft of a recovery plan. He has also met with the GOP more in three weeks than Bush met with the dems in 8 years. The mistakes O made were rookie mistakes and he won't make them again. He didn't spin before the bill which he should have, he gave up his campaign war footing and he shouldn't have and he thought the situation was dire enough that the GOP wouldn't play politics with it. He learned and he learned fast. The reason we are passing the bill is that O is going on a mini tour on Monday before he addresses the nation, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, he is hitting Indiana, Ohio, and Florida. Two open seats in 2010 and a state he is trying to solidify as blue. If he does this right he will crush the GOP and that is why they agreed to pass it. People wonder why he is still on the attack, because senators are home and as they interact with people they are going to get a different view of what is happening.

[eddoreandarisia]

Very well put!

[Irmanator]

Well said.

[StillIRise]

Good post.

[in4success]

absolutely not a waste of time! and he needs to force them to filibuster every chance he gets so the american people can see up close how infantile, obstructionist and partisan the bas tards are. feature their petulance and regard for party over country... EVERY TIME they threaten to fili he should call their bluff and make them bring their little beds and talk their craziness for hours.

[mcfried]

I couldn't agree more.

[zerotimes10]

I worked for many months on the Obama campaign and got to know him as well as could be expected. Obama is very much the person who seeks fairness and opposing points of view. I also saw a man who after trying his best to reach out a hand, will start talking you down with all the intelligence and wit that he knows he has.

He may be too nice some say and that may be true, but he is also a man who after trying his damndest will step in and say enough. He wants to at least say that he tried. This works to his advantage in the long run. And the long run is not something that is in America's DNA. We want it now like cryin babies in a nursery.

[Irmanator]

"We want it now like cryin babies in a nursery." Perfect.

[MsLiz]

Beautiful. That's my kind of leader.

What you are describing is also my notion of fatherhood and God. (Okay, ridicule me everyone.)

[nellpost]

I totally agree!

[StillIRise]

Good post, and I agree. It is never a "waste of time" to do the right thing, no matter how his gesture is received or how others respond to it, which he has virtually no control over. In extending himself to those on the other side of the aisle, as a true leader should do, he is giving them the opportunity to do the right thing as well, yet they have made the choice to play politics as usual. The glaring distinction between the goodwill of President Obama and polar opposite of the Republicans is being made evident for all Americans to see, and President Obama clearly comes out on top, not only with the bill that he wants, but with his credibility intact. The Republicans on the other hand come out of this looking like Republicans ... which is not a pretty picture.

[peterg76]

They have to call the Republican's bluff, because they won't bargain in good faith until the Democrats demonstrate that they won't capitulate to every Republican whim. I can't understand people's notion that if a fillibuster actually happened then it would be the end of civilization or something. Good or bad, a fillibuster is a part of how Congress works. It's their *job*. They volunteered for it. And the many people without jobs are not impressed by their horror at the prospect of actually doing work.

[Helzapoppin]

not only is it a tremendous waste of time and energy, but all it is accomplishing is lending legitimacy to failed Republican policies and ideology

[jcwtts1]

no it is giving the GOP ownership of their mess. For example if the bill works, O gets the credit. If it fails he gets to say, well, if only the GOP had taken my view and included more long term spending we wouldn't be in this mess. O is not a king, he can't just do what he wants. If you want him to be able to do what he wants then go to CQPolitics, check out the senate races for 2010, we have a chance to win 10 of them. Start sending money to people running for the seats. If we win all ten seats and hold our own seats in trouble then we can govern any way we want. But unless you get us 66 votes plus you MUST have some consensus.

[StillIRise]

How is it giving legitimacy to Republican policies and ideology? With every attack on this bill - a bill that our country needs and that the American people want - the Republicans are losing more and more credibility. They may have bigger mouths than our people do, and a better propaganda machine, but all it's accomplishing is to show them for who they are.

The time and energy that is being invested in debating the bill is called the democratic process, and it should be no less than what it is. The problem is that the Republicans have chosen to abuse this process ... but that's THEIR problem. I'd rather see this time and energy than to have the bill crammed down the throats of the American people like it would have been done under the Bush administration. President Obama will have the bill he wants in the end, and he will have gotten in the right way ... the democratic way.

[Jenny3]

During the 2 year campaign I knew that Obama was going to be extremely conciliating, it is who he is.
I had hoped that triat might work well in his governing abilities. I was WRONG! . . . it has turned out that he is so HORRIBLY CONCILIATING - (or lacking wisdom and cojones) - that he has just recycled Clinton and Bush people for all the jobs. . . . His campaign statement about giving us change - - - WAS A BOLD FACED LIE.
Gregg is the last straw. The admiration and respect I had for the guy is gone.

[JimR]

We don't live in a dictatorship. I'm an Obama supporter, but just because you're elected president doesn't mean you always get your way. (The only reason that worked for Bush is because the Democrats in Congress were spineless weasels, but I digress.) Compromise is how the system is SUPPOSED to work.

I live in Mass., but have relatives in New Hampshire, and they tell me Gregg has been a damn good public servant. But you've already prejudged him, sounds like. I thought we left that kind of narrow thinking and refusal to consider other viewpoints behind with the Bush administration. Guess I was wrong.

[StillIRise]

I agree with you Jim. President Obama is being the kind of leader that the American people deserve. He respects the process of our democracy, which is inclusive of compromise and debate, and he will not forego that simply for the sake of appearing strong, which would actually be a weakness. We are so used to seeing the kind of toxic partisanship and pseudo-dictatorship of the Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Republicans, that when we see our President actually demonstrate true leadership, which is a lot harder than simply having his way as Bush did, we see it through the lens of what we're familiar with, but what we forget is that what we're familiar with was wrong! Obama is showing more strength and spine and character than Bush or the Democrat and Republican Congress have ever shown, and I admire him for it. He's definitely still the person I voted for, and I for one am very proud of him.

[eddoreandarisia]

First Jenny3, you should use the written out "two" than the number when used in a sentence like your first one. Second, what is a "triat"? If you can't make even the most elementary attempt to review and edit your post, you shouldn't expect anyone to consider your viewpoint.

[MsLiz]

I really hate the gonad reference. It's an overused cliche' and a tasteless one at that.

[boophus]

I remember during the campaign a post that had thousands of responses. It said we we were gonna lose because Obama wasn't coming out all aggressive and testosterone driven. He remained a gentleman and a decent human being. We have so far forgotten how the 3 branches of government are supposed to work. 1. Congress holds the purse strings 2. Compromise prevents the other side from feeling stomped on like Bush did.

Republicans would rather see the country slide into economic devastation rather then accept that thier ideas have proven to be wrong over and over. They were never the party of fiscal conservatism ... every republican president has increased the national debt far more than democratic presidents.. The government records are clear. Republicans continue to push for larger and larger Defense budgets...For what Imperialism? If we cut it 85% we would still be the largest spender on defense in the world . Thank you republicans for putting DEFENSE first in a country where people are starving, homeless, lacking medical care and jobs. Thank you for waving the flag as patriots and doing your damn best to destroy our economy.

I am getting really fed up with republicans. I think the democrats in house should strip the bill of all tax cuts. Tax cuts won't help if you ain't got a job. They should also look at the stimulative value of anything they include. Moodys has outlined the stimulative value of various actions based on historical data. Use the historical

[camper65]

The problem is that when this "Crap sandwich" doesn't work, and taxes start rising exponentially, and "rebates" (welfare) is being given to people who don't pay taxes, only the Democrats will be held responsible. 2010 isn't that far away. Remember 1996!! "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it."

[JimR]

I agree. The Democrats have learned NOTHING.

[MsLiz]

Actually 1932 is the year to remember.