The Left isn't Leaving Obama -- Yet

Over the last week, pundits and journalists alike have declared that the showdown between Obama and The Left has begun. As the FT's Edward Luce announces: "The liberal backlash against President Barack Obama has begun with many prominent left-leaning economists in the US attacking the administration's plans to bail out the banks." Indeed, Paul Krugman, Arriana Huffington, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Rachel Maddow, and Michael Moore have indeed criticized last week's announcements on the new bank bailout and Afghanistan.

Yet, a crack up of the Democratic coalition or fracturing of the progressive movement it is not. And that's what counts.

American politics is the business of building coalitions. These coalitions bring together money, messaging, expertise and votes in the form of organizations -- be they churches, unions, or lobbies. Individual defectors are only important to the extent that they can bring some organizational capacity with them. David Frum's new blog has not lead to the collapse of the conservative movement. But, if the Heritage foundation endorses gay marriage, regulation and tax-hikes, then they've got a problem.

The crux of the Obama vs. The Left claim are the criticisms by leftist economists of Geithner's budget proposals. Such critiques were inevitable: the leftist intelligentsia has never had the same relationship with governing Democrats as the conservative intellectuals have had with Republicans. There are historical and structural reasons for why this is so.

Historically, conservative intellectuals have been entrepreneurs who were instrumental in building the conservative counter-establishment from its early beginnings in the 1950s to the massive expansion of the New Right in the 1970s. They were deeply entwined with practical concerns of founding organizations, raising money, mobilizing voters for an insurgent Republican Party far beyond their intellectual duties of criticizing the Liberal Establishment and proposing a conservative policy agenda.

In contrast, liberal intellectuals have sat on the sidelines waiting to be asked their opinion, to volunteer a policy opinion or take a cabinet post (which they habitually resigned from soon thereafter). The organizations of the Democratic coalition came from the grassroots, be they blacks or feminists, unionists or environmentalists, who successfully controlled the party from the 1960s through to the early 1990s, only to be partially eclipsed by a resurgent centrist, southern Democrats and corporate lobbies.

They have played these different roles for structural reasons. Conservative intellectuals were initially excluded from academia, the press and even the Republican Party, forcing them to create their organizations with which to publish and promote their ideas. The financial backing of such endeavors has done and continues to come from donors who lend their support on the basis of the implementation of those ideas as government policy. This has tied conservative intellectuals to the practical concerns of governance and the electoral success of the Republican Party.

The discontented liberal intellectuals, on the other hand, reside exclusively in academic institutions with tenured appointments. Their payroll is not tied to Democratic interest groups nor is their status evaluated by the pragmatic implementation of their policies (although they may be very practical policies nevertheless). This gives them a freedom to articulate their discomfort as they please without fear of the retribution their conservatives counterparts encounter for the same offense.

Newsweek's Evan Thomas, description of the "Nobel headache" is more accurate. The liberal intellectuals can make a noise and generally be a pain to Democrats, but they've never been an intrinsic part of their coalitions nor do they command or coordinate important political resources as their conservative counterparts have done.

Major threats to the Democratic coalition lie ahead. Card-check will be the first test of the coalition as it is proposed by its most important partner: labor. The fissures are unlikely to emerge until after the 100 days, the breathing room interest groups have given the administration to get to grips with the economy. After that, patience will be thin and expectations will be high. Then will begin the true test of whether Obama can hold together a coalition that few Democratic presidents have been able to before him.

Comments

[Abo]

In time not being Bush won't be enough if, aside from minor tinkering, there is no change from Bush.
It does not bode well.

[Deanoj4]

Immigration will be the defining moment in his presidency. We already see that wars can be passed on to other presidents and economic issues. However, I think immigration has a different tone with the public at large.

[Deanoj4]

Mr. Russell, the division will happen when immigration hits the floor my friend.

[rsprags]

The Demo have different views and concerns, however, we will be as one against reports like this and the repurg. The so call "academics" need to be a part of the solution rather than seating around complaining about the President and His team. I want all you media types to sit back and go to school these next 8 years; you are in for a lesson well learn. You all have no idea how organized and together we are and why we are standing with our President and his entire team.

[flossophy]

Nice post... it's refreshing to read something like this on HuffPuff.

[Navy VET EOD]

Danke!

[Navy VET EOD]

I color myself a socially progressive Concord Coalition fiscal conservative (i.e. keep the government out of my personal affairs---religion, bedroom, library, garage, garbage cans, medicine chest, telephone line---and into protecting and upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights through programs that deliver optimum ROI).

Without the "I", there is no "ROI". There is no ROI for doing nothing, or submitting a non-quantitative "counter-proposal" that reeks of excessive psilocybin and Loco Weed consumption.

I understand Obama and do not believe he's about to award Wall Street any "gimmes". I'd like to see ALL Wall Street managers and analysts follow the example of Randi Newton too, but it's more about the system than it is the individuals. Just make sure they don't receive any excessive compensation. If you need 'em for a while (like a CI), ok. But keep a very close eye on them.

I look at the "bailout" programs as a blood transfusion. The economy is on the table in the OR. Those responsible for our current economic debacle (i.e. Goldman, Morgan-Stanley, et al) are the disease. The goal is a body free of disease, and that's part of the plan (e.g. bringing hedge funds---fi­nally---un­der federal regulatory scrutiny and risk management oversight (i.e. repeal the repeal of Glass-Steagal and amend it to include hedge funds and funds-of-hedge funds).

We're not at the point yet where we remove the diseased tissue. But it's coming.

[privategirl]

I am glad to know that we have a President who is not like Clinton, who buckled whenever the liberal media turned on him. Nor like Bush, who had a "my way or the highway" attitude and only played to his rightwing base. It's good to have someone who does not seem to lean too far left nor too far right.. He respects what everyone has to say even when they vehemently disagree with him. The bottomline is, the buck stops with him and he knows it. It's a refreshing feeling to have some level of MATURITY in the White House. I wish those in the liberal media, who sometimes seem only interested in pushing their own agenda, would imitate him.

[gabberwok]

There is no "liberal media" outside of MSNBC. The problem you have is that reality has a known liberal bias. (That's why Glenn Beck is such a successful conservati­ve.)

[Navy VET EOD]

Here, here, privategirl! I'll drink to that!

[PATina]

I wish those in the liberal media, who sometimes seem only interested in pushing their own agenda, would imitate him.

The problem w/ this statement is that those in the "liberal" media believe in liberal ideas. The WHO is not as important to them as the WHAT. For some of you.... your belief is more in the WHO and the WHAT really isn't that important.

For example... if President Obama (the who) came back from Europe saying we are going to invade Iran and institute a regime change (the what).... as much as they like President Obama... those liberals would call him out on this because they don't believe America should be involved in regime change. Some of you, even those of you who opposed Bush's Iraq regime change, would be totally supportive of President Obama because your belief is in him and not for or against any particular policy.

And by the way... Clinton was one of the most Conservative Democratic presidents we've had in this country. If he had buckled to the liberals..­. we would have universal health care already.

[Navy VET EOD]

"Some of you, even those of you who opposed Bush's Iraq regime change, would be totally supportive of President Obama because your belief is in him and not for or against any particular policy."

I understand your point. "Some" (hopefully fewer than "most") see our new president as more of a hero, role model, and would follow and find a way to agree with him no matter what.

That's true of almost any public figure, even someone like Tom DeLay.

Regardless one's "leanings" (liberal, moderate, conservative), the responsible citizen should always be prepared to make an independent, informed judgement when it comes to public policy.

For example: although I'm very impressed with Obama's general approach to solving our nation's problems, I do not agree with his present position on prosecuting the Bush war criminals. They should be tried. He's being way too "nice".

[Coolcat101]

What kind of title is "academic?" And last I checked, you don't speak for me, and I'm on the "Left." Either way, since you are such an insightful person, I look forward to seeing you run for President in the next 4 years and represent "the Left."

[marthainmaine]

Is Obama even trying to hold together a coalition of liberals? Two words. Howard Dean.

[TheBaffler]

He's holding together a coalition of centrists, conservatives, and pseudo-liberals.