After the (Grand Old) Party: Don't Go Home Just Yet

The Party

Last Tuesday, after President-Elect Obama poetically declared victory in the 2008 presidential election, a chanting & dancing crowd of thousands remained in front of the White House until the wee hours. Celebrations erupted not just in every quadrant of the capital, or even every major city in the country, but all over the planet -- including Antarctica.

Legions of Obama supporters across America made contributions that, together, broke records in both dollars and volunteer hours, propelling his candidacy from the middle of a crowded primary to the Oval Office. Together, we overcame the divisions left in the wake of a grueling primary; at least one thwarted right-wing assassination plot; and sustained campaigns to reinforce racial tensions, cast suspicion on Obama's allegiances, and malign ethnic & religious minorities. Like his domestic supporters, the international revelers celebrating Obama's election included people from every demographic.

Why Change Happens...

But while the crowds chanting, "Yes, we did!" are entitled to celebrate (as did a horde of we musicians in the streets of DC), it behooves us all to recall President-elect Obama's own words: "Change happens because the American people demand it." His success is a quintessential reflection of that principle. Without the decentralized support base that enabled him to shatter fundraising & mobilization records, Obama could never have overcome the once-unassailable Clinton campaign.

If the crowds celebrating Obama's victory go home in 2009, his Administration will achieve disappointing results. The President-Elect will confront a variety of national and global crises, as well as entrenched forces in Washington that will impede his agenda.

...and What Still Stands in the Way

Obama will confront numerous national and global crises, as well as forces within Washington -- and even his own Administration -- that will stand in his way.

Crises abound. The escalating costs of two wars eroded both the nation's military and our Treasury long before an already historic economic crisis recently added mounting pressure. Meanwhile, the climate crisis calls for an international response, yet international institutions like the U.N. have been long marginalized by Obama's unilateral predecessors.

Meanwhile, an array of institutions impeding change await Obama in Washington: an entrenched moderate consensus in Congress (and the filibuster of Senate Republicans), a civil service bureaucracy eroded by years of politicized hiring & appointments, and a self-aggrandizing and increasingly politicized Supreme Court.

In addition, several senior executive officials from the Bush era many continue to serve in the Obama Administration. For instance, Bush appointees who will remain in place include FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, Admiral and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Each of them hold crucial positions with enormous influence within the Executive branch and could impede the new Administration's agenda.

Furthermore, advisors to Obama have suggested that Robert Gates remain in place as Defense Secretary. Gates is a vast improvement over his predecessor in terms of independence, credibility, and professionalism. But he is a far cry from the best choice, especially for a President who largely owes his victory in the primaries to a movement opposing the War in Iraq.

Nuanced Struggles the News Might Miss

Beyond institutional obstacles to his agenda, Obama will also face several strategic decisions that could come to define his presidency.

First is executive power, which the Bush Administration aggrandized through excessive secrecy and assertions of privileges against inquiries from courts or Congress; overbroad and opaque signing statements; detention and surveillance programs that violated international law and the Constitution; politicized prosecutions; and unilateral policies on war, energy, and the environment that offended Democratic principles, as well as the the international community. Meaningful change will require the restoration of limits on executive power to achieve a balance place among the separated powers of Congress and the Judiciary.

But on the other hand, achieving substantive changes in the various policy areas that concern voters may require Obama to leverage every iota of executive power that remains legitimate. The effort to trim the executive's sails without stalling the Administration's mandate will emerge as a tightrope act demanding extraordinary foresight and care.

A step back from Washington's day-to-day dramas also recalls the role of the conservative and politicized Supreme Court, which -- if history is any guide -- will continue to pursue its radical agenda in a fundamentally illegitimate fashion, imposing its view of the law on contrived bases applied inconsistently across cases to limit progressive measures by Congress and the President. Whether, and how, to balance the Court is a key decision facing the Administration that could transform the future.

Cause for Concern: the Washington Consensus Within the White House

Beyond the obstacles a progressive President would face, it remains unclear on what issues Obama is willing to spend his massive political capital. During the campaign, he announced positions on several issues that proved profoundly incongruous with his rhetoric of change.

For instance, in his capacity as a Senator, Obama bowed to right-wing pressure on domestic surveillance. He first pledged to filibuster the FISA legislation authorizing unconstitutional intrusions on the privacy of law-abiding Americans -- which we have since learned included trivial and crass eavesdropping on even U.S. servicemembers. But he ultimately voted not only to approve warrantless wiretapping, but also to insulate from accountability the private corporations that enabled the scheme. Obama also claimed a unilateral right to invade northwest Pakistan, a stunningly short-sighted strategy based on the same infamous errors of the Bush Administration's military approach to the War on Terror elsewhere.

There are several alternative approaches that President Obama could take. Now that the campaign is over, he may enjoy greater flexibility to adopt them.

On surveillance, Obama could reject executive fiat by submitting warrantless wiretapping programs to meaningful congressional oversight and at least disclosing the other unconfirmed programs that remain secret. That position would better fit with his principled repudiation of torture and detention: Obama has long affirmed habeas corpus and its applicability to military detainees.

On national security, he could replace President Bush's appointments, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and instead turn to former generals Wesley Clark or Colin Powell. He could also heed the plan proposed by Vice President-elect Biden and Senator Lugar (R-IN), which would recraft the relationship between Washington and Islamabad to force transparency on the Pakistani military establishment and refocus on the basic popular needs like food and roads. Extending support for democracy by ending support for dictators across the Muslim world would better fit Obama's willingness to restore diplomatic relationships with antagonists like Iran and Syria (which, in case anyone missed it, we recently invaded).

The Culture Wars and Presidential Limits

Beyond constraints in Washington and potential dissent within the new Administration, the nation also continues to face deep cultural rifts beyond Obama's reach.

On the same night that Americans world-historically elected the first post-colonial leader of a superpower, Californians viciously rejected marriage equality, denying millions of Californians the established constitutional right to marry the partner of their choice. Even more dejecting was the crucial role played by church-going people of color duped into undermining their own interests by setting a precedent to rescind and rollback civil rights.

In this context, even a President willing to engage can do only so much. The Clinton Administration in 1992 proposed to allow gays in the military to serve openly, and was ultimately forced to settle for the openly discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy after encountering widespread opposition. Similarly, Democrats promoting gun control unwittingly helped propel the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1990s. Obama is well aware of Clinton's example, and will likely choose only those political battles he can win.

No President can refashion the landscape of a society alone. There remains work to be done.

A Beginning, Not an End

Grassroots progressives propelled Obama into office, but we must continue to voice our interests to reiterate & strengthen his mandate. On some issues, like surveillance and militarism, we must pressure the Administration not to pander to a consensus crafted by a conservative establishment. On others, like anti-discrimination enforcement or climate change, the Obama Administration will rely on popular support in order to overcome institutional obstacles in Washington.

A progressive agenda is achievable, but will require continued grassroots pressure and mobilization. As Michael Moore put it, "We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people....Every citizen can be guaranteed health care....We can stop melting the polar ice caps....[but] we really don't have much time."

The act of staying engaged, of supporting Obama beyond the election and laying the foundation for policies reflecting our interests, is both as simple - and as complicated - as participating in the civic life of our society. It includes community organizing (to which the President-Elect traces his political roots); fundraising for grassroots and non-profit groups; hosting block parties; convening discussion groups, documentary screenings and study circles; pursuing service learning opportunities; reaching out across generations and ethnic & faith boundaries; direct action; and coordinating letter-to-the-editor campaigns. Ultimately, "any action may prove more consequential than it seems at first."

President Obama knows this, and has called on all Americans to fulfill our constitutional role for precisely this reason: "this victory truly belongs to...you....[A]s we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century....The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep....but...we as a people will get there."

And the opportunity is far greater than merely empowering the next President.

A Chance to Claim a "Permanent Majority"

Last Tuesday's defeat of Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) could ultimately prove as momentous as Obama's victory. Without Shays and his former colleagues championing principled conservative interests, and without any GOP House members representing New England, the Republican party runs the risk of increasing ideological isolation and has become relegated to electoral insignificance in the Northeast.

A political monopoly by Democrats in that region could support progressive interests in the short-run. However, the GOP could be structurally marginalized if a party emerged on the west coast or the northeast to challenge Democrats from the left. Were a new tension (for example, between Democrats and either Greens or Libertarians) to grow more salient to regional election results than the stale tension between Dems and Republicans, the national policy discourse would shift -- and with it, over time, so would "moderate" political attitudes.

French sociologist Maurice Duverger established in the 1950s and 1960s that elections based on the single-member district plurality method that we use to count votes necessarily reinforce the position of two dominant parties. He noted that political attitudes are distributed on a bell curve, and that strategic pressures force parties to compete for votes by advancing positions high on the curve.

In Hawaii, Obama was preferred 72% over 26% for McCain -- nearly a 3-to-1 margin. The nation's capital city voted 93% for Obama, versus 7% for McCain. It's not implausible for a Green candidate to overcome so marginal a Republican showing (as the DC Statehood-Green Party's mayoral candidate nearly did in 2006), and with a consistent appearance in second place comes media attention.

In turn, media frames the public discourse and, over time, constructs social & political attitudes. For example, conservative talk radio played a crucial role over the course of a generation in helping support the religious right and its political avatars like Sarah Palin. Similarly, television and the film industry have done a great deal to humanize the LGBT community for many Americans.

While corporate-supporting moderates and committed progressives struggle over the Democratic party, Republicans remain riven between neo-conservative fascists and small-government libertarians. In this context, the emergence of a credible progressive voice on the national political landscape could transform its geography for generations by shifting the center.

Today's Opportunity vs. Gingrich's Over-Reach

In the 1990s, then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich argued that the Republican Party had attained a "permanent majority" that would relegate the Democratic Party to essential irrelevance. On the one hand, predictions of the GOP's collapse may appear to risk the same historical error as Gingrich's prediction. But 2008 is distinguishable from 1994.

In 1994, the Members of Congress who swung the House to Republican rule won their elections -- and subsequently governed -- based on an assertive conservative ideology. The rejection of their dominance in the 2006 and 2008 elections ultimately reflects popular disillusion with the GOP's over-reach.

In contrast, today's Democratic leadership in Congress is decidedly centrist. To the extent it risks popular disillusion, it is that of its progressive base, not with moderates alienated by an agenda-driven approach to politics. With Democrats firmly gripping the center, the wings of the electoral bell curve are up for grabs. A party aggressively defending civil liberties and seeking opportunities to help working people will find fertile electoral soil on the coasts.

Thinking on a generational scale helps reveal other changes wrought by Obama's election. In addition to its widely discussed hope for helping heal race relations, it will also transform John Kerry's historical legacy. A candidate who resigned his own anti-war legacy and failed to vindicate the tragic legacy of Al Gore, Kerry will one day be remembered for his prescience in giving Obama his first national exposure, setting him on his course to the White House.

The Need to Keep up the Heat

As it sweeps into the Washington, the Obama Administration could spell the beginning of a new era in American politics. But it will need our help.

Grassroots mobilization may not be sufficient to remove all of Obama's obstacles, but it remains at least necessary. Without continuing pressure from civil society, Obama will face constraints imposed by the moderate Congress, the right-wing Court, and holdovers from the Bush years within his Administration and the federal bureaucracy.

But continued pressure could change everything. Moderates in Congress will either heed the emerging progressive consensus, or yield their seats. Holdovers from the prior Administration will recognize that their own political and historical futures depend on supporting the President's agenda, rather than predictably impeding it.

And even if it fails to inspire the Court to take seriously the constitutional limits its role, popular pressure could at least embolden the President to intervene (as I propose in my ongoing Bush v. Gore series, which will ultimately propose a concrete plan for the Administration to balance the Court). Obama will confront the Court only if his base begins to clamor for the restoration of civil rights, constitutional transparency & consistency, judicial impartiality, and checks on judicial aggrandizement.

Finally, if Obama's supporters remain engaged and continue to advance progressive interests by building credible third party alternatives in regions where Democrats are dominant, we could witness the end of the Republican Party as a national force and a return to sanity in our national discourse.

As we have proven to ourselves, the world, and Washington: Yes, we can, indeed.

Comments

[Jannah]

The popular and political will exists right now to overturn don't ask don't tell. Obama could accomplish that as soon as he takes office. I'm expecting it early in the administration, and hoping it could become a stepping stone to further ending discrimination.

[Shahid Buttar - Huffpost Blogger]

I would personally love to see this happen, but don't hold your breath. Obama appears to approach political questions with an eye towards maintaining moderate support, and seems inclined to wait for political "cover" (e.g., from activists promoting orientation equality) before taking an assertive position.

While the position of LGBT Americans has certainly improved in recent years, the outcome of the vote on Proposition 8 in California says to me that we have work to do on the ground before we can expect visible support from political moderates. One way to get there could include pressuring bona fide progressives to once again engage the liberty of LGBT servicemembers to serve openly. A legislative push by progressives on the Hill, for instance, could go a long way towards shifting the frame of public discussion and could give Obama the cover he'd need to engage.

[Endrju]

I was speaking, on election day, to a fellow in the military, and don't ask don't tell came up. His position was enlightening.

Basically, leadership doesn't seem to care one way or another, so long as the job gets done. The difficulty comes in the introduction of it (which also bleeds over to women in the military.)

Knowing the size and number, and institutionalized notions of sexuality, among those of the soldiers themselves, how do you role it out? Flipping the switch could prove to be debilitating when the resources to handle the problems arising from the change. You can't roll out incrementally (say certain job types), because advocacy groups simply won't stand for it.

[Jashand]

Shaid,

You're right, progressives' work begins now.

Rham Israel Emaneul as chief of staff and word that Lawrence Summers (who thinks "Africa is under-polluted") will be Treasury Secretary, foreshadow Obama as another "triangulator" -- Clinton's fatally flawed attempt to appease right-wing ideologes. Clinton's triangulation led to Gingrich's control of the House and the de-railing of his presidency.

We'll know Obama's direction very soon. A veer to the corporatists would be marked by proposals for "cap-and-trade" legislation (instead of an honest revenue-neutral carbon tax), for conscription into military (or make-work civilian) service, more wars, i.e., Afghanistan and Pakistan, fake energy "independence" projects like "corn-based ethanol", "clean coal," and more corporate bailouts.

A serious move towards progressivism would feature an end to torture, trial of all detainees, curtailment of executive power, passage of the Employee Free Trade Act, universal health care, a revenue-neutral carbon tax to create broad incentives for greenhouse gas reductions, an end to US unilateralism and military bases in the Middle East, an even-handed policy towards Israel with aid conditioned on its pulling back to its UN-created borders...

Advancing any progressive agenda will require much more political action in this country than has been seen since the early '70s. The civil rights, anti-war and environmental movements succeeded not only by electing officials who (when pressed) would hear their messages, but by incessant political action, protest, and litigation. We have much to do.

[Shahid Buttar - Huffpost Blogger]

The Obama Administration may well prove itself "progressive" from day one with respect to Rule of Law issues (e.g., torture & detention), on which there appears to be a growing consensus across the political spectrum.

At the same time, the Administration appears likely to reveal a more moderate stance reflecting the "triangulation" you describe with respect to most economic issues (e.g., labor rights), foreign policy, energy, and controversial national security measures such as surveillance.

The two areas in which the recent discourse may give Obama an opportunity to move quickly would be healthcare and climate change. If bold proposals early in the Administration proves successful, look for more down the road. However, if they meet the same fate as did Clinton's healthcare package 15 years ago, the Administration will be less likely (or able) to defend progressive ideals over the rest of its term in office.

[micahdw]

I wouldn't get too excited about the emerging progressive consensus. I would be extremely surprised if 2010 was not an excellent year for Republican candidates throughout the country and I somehow suspect that it won't be the year that the Greens sweep to power.

There can be a critical difference, though, in terms of what type of Republicans are elected. Gingrich's revolution has been relatively successful in terms of creating a permanent majority that favored many of the priorities of the Contract for America. The new Dems who swept to power in 2006 are quite a bit more moderate than those they joined. The Democratic Party, and this current president, is at most centrist and probably center-right when compared to the world spectrum.

What we need is not marginalization but engagement. There is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party going on right now and if the Sarah Palins prevail, it may be good for the Democrats in the short run but bad for the country in both the short and longrun. Competition between competing philosophies is good for the country and we could use some Rockefeller Republicans checking fiscal excess.

My concern, therefore, is not that the Republicans will NOT be marginalized but that they will ... and that the Democrats will remain the Republicans (in historical terms).

[Shahid Buttar - Huffpost Blogger]

The co-optation of the Democratic party by the pro-business / Rockefeller "moderate" consensus is indeed a fundamental problem with long-term consequences. Ultimately, what we're discussing here is whether progressive interests are best served by a moderate Republican Party, or by one farther out on the ideological fringe.

If the GOP moves further right, Democrats will indeed remain dominated by moderates friendly to corporations and generally willing to accept a militarized foreign policy. That's precisely why third party challengers from the left could be so transformative over the next 10-15 years.

Just to be clear, I don't think the Greens are poised to sweep to power in 2010, either. But (a) I see no reason to presume a GOP comeback so soon; and (b) credible challenges could start appearing by then in the northeast and California. If those challenges persist through, say, 2016, they could force into the mainstream all kinds of marginalized ideas shared by both Greens and Libertarians (e.g., curtailing the War on Drugs, downsizing the military, etc.) that would play well in the national discourse. If those ideas challenge the moderate consensus more effectively than neo-conservatives, they could transform the national political landscape by 2020.

[dino213aa]

I would much rather have the Libertarians around than the GOP. Talk about a pipe dream. A true small government ticket, instead of the Republican double-standards.