Obama's Agenda: Hope, Change and Lobby-Centricity

President Obama's self-imposed rule against lobbyists in his administration, and the method whereby he is now implementing his progressive agenda, hews toward a rather perverse irony, if not hypocrisy. He is admirably abiding by his anti-lobby diktat in most administrative nominations (with just a few small exceptions); and yet, he is simultaneously handing over his most important policy initiatives, through Congress, to the very special interests he feigns to keeps at arm's-length, furnishing them with a golden opportunity to sabotage the types of real reform they fear most. Don't let a crisis go to waste? K Street is taking that apercu to heart.

A number of observers have touched on Obama's "Congress-centricity" -- that he's given his 535 former colleagues on Capitol Hill the role of actually formulating all of his policies while he sets the broader vision for them to follow. For his part, David Brooks attributes the administration's surrendering of the legislative authorship to Democrats' failure to pass health care reform during the Clinton years -- when it was drafted behind closed doors in the White House, only to be shot down in Congress.

And of course, what is "Congress-centric" is also "lobbyist-centric" to an equal or even greater degree. Executive branch officials may be forcibly insulated from lobbyist influence, but the policies they will be enforcing will carry the stench of special interests through and through. A prime example is a recent bill to reform federal regulators' bank takeover powers that was written by the finance lobby's lawyers.

And it doesn't stop there. Lobbyists are demonstrating their clout in influencing Obama's progressive agenda and economic rescue measures day by day in the halls of Congress. In April, a crucial cramdown bankruptcy reform bill was quashed by Democrats who couldn't stand strong to a last-minute bank lobby surge. For health care reform, lobbying efforts occluded the legislative route for single-payer early on, and have since succeeded (as of this writing) in challenging a government-run insurance program to compete with the private sector*. And in cap-and-trade, Obama's original and promising plan to auction off 100 percent of the emissions allowance has since been watered down to a piffling 15 percent, with 85 percent being disbursed for free like alms to the poor.

In particular, the debate over health care and cap-and-trade now transpiring in Congress has been an all-out legislator-lobbyist orgy of disappointment, leaving each historic policy proposal vapidly deflated. And though "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" makes for a usually-wise platitude, Voltaire wasn't dealing with the exorbitance of American health care or the ecological cataclysm of global warming. Moreover, to classify the draft bills in their current states as "good" is potentially dangerous. If Potemkin village versions of each bill are to pass, it means symbolic reform will occur at the expense of real reform. And while special interest prima donnas toast to their invincibility, the inadequate policies will remain as political eyesores for those who had let them pass when the time for real reform is again called for.

Obama may have a vision, but Congress must get by with astigmatism. Being all too familiar with this, one must wonder why the administration is allowing its agenda to be sullied and sundered before its very eyes. And this isn't to say the White House is taking a hands-off approach. Quite the contrary, Obama's White House has actively courted more members of Congress so far than any other president in recent history. It's too bad such promising policies keep surfacing from the muck of the Swamp as lobbyist-infused let-downs. And with each new instance, the ironic hypocrisy of Obama's ardent anti-lobbyist stance rings truer.

One reason may be that Obama is still sympathetic to his former job. Laws are technically meant to come from the legislature, so he is leaving it up to legislators, out of respect for the system, to take the initiative from start to finish. The problem is that radical change (the type that got him elected) doesn't mix with respect for the "system", especially when the system itself is in need of some overhauls, namely in campaign financing.

Kevin Baker argues in Harper's that Obama's reticence could make him more like Hoover--an admirable thinker, no doubt--than like Roosevelt--a president who eventually embraced the need for radical change. And The Economist's Lexington column this week, quoting Arthur Schlesinger, warns of the presidential mediocrity--not greatness--that comes with too much deference to Congress.

Obama is circumventing his own touted position against special interests by outsourcing his entire platform to Congress, much to the detriment of what is meant to be an historic progressive moment. Unless the administration forgoes the willful ignorance or cynical cognizance that is allowing its agenda to be sandbagged by the same old usual suspects, these recent warnings will have been in vain.

*UPDATE: The unveiling of Senator Kennedy's health care bill today after this writing--which includes a public option and will cost just over $600--bodes well, and certainly far better than what we've seen in the banking and carbon emission sectors.

Follow Stuart Whatley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuwhat84

Comments

[noneIn2008]

Talk of hope, change and lots of speeches. Also lots of exceptions. But, where are the results?

[Edmonsky]

Passed legislation is not set in concrete. On healthcare, Americans wants healthcare but are interested how it is going to be paid. If healthcare that is very expensive is passed without the sanction of the majority support, the outcome will be felt in the mid-term election. It is going to make reversing the passed legislation a faith accompli. If that were to pass, that would not only destroy Obama’s presidency but will damage liberal and progressive ideologies. Ask yourself why Democrats are considered weak in national security even though atomic bomb, Korean war, execution of Vietnam war etc all took place under Democratic administrations. It came about by anti Vietnam war demonstration. It is not demonstrating against war was at issue but celebrating losing such war.

[Edmonsky]

Stuart Whatley writes very well. His argument is robust, lucid and convincing. But they are what they are, which is, academic entertainment for wild-eyed liberals and progressives. It is analogous to beating drums, singing and dancing to it. Think for it for one second; what would happen if whitehouse were to craft legislature and have it sent to Congress only to be soundly deafeted. That will be the end of Obama’s presidency. A lion without springs in her legs is just another lamb. A President cannot guarantee re-election of any member of the Congress. That is the political calculus that matters in passing legislations. Proposing single-payer’s healthcare would have made universal healthcare system a toxic issue in heartland America. How much the right-wing radio talk-show would have made mince-meat of such proposal.

President Obama is very ingenous in his approach. On healthcare, he has brought stake-holders with disparate interests together and reduced all out campaign war against it by the opposition. Today, nobody is opposing universal healthcare but the argument is how to achieve it and that is a huge success.

[LiberalDemIda]

Well, I'm not a "wild-eyed" Liberal, but I am a Liberal. Common sense is key to my way of thinking. Ideology is the spark, not the end result. Change starts in the hearts and minds first and foremost and some take longer in getting there than others.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.

Americans are slow learners. Most, apparently, loathe any type of change. For most people, change (outside the young people) is regarded with suspicion. I believe it's shows the genius in President Obama how he's working towards this change by allowing Americans the time to get used to the concept first.

It's clear it's working because who would've thought six months ago that the majority of Americans would embrace the idea of a public option (government offered) in our healthcare system? Now, it seems, we're ready for it and support it, and suddenly Kennedy comes out with his plan that's even less costly than the WH's?

The classic "bait n' switch", but this time for the good of the people, not the corporations.

[bbbear]

Of course, why didn't I think of that? In the meantime Obama continues with Dubya's policies, including detaining people who were jailed on hearsay and protecting a CIA's who continues to contract out cruelly inane torture in secret foreign prisoners... Oh, and least I forget, all the while protecting Dick and Dubya's political a$$es...

[MacQ]

Oh when he said he was going to get rid of lobbyists, he didn't mean HIS lobbyists.
This is consistent with all his other "rules". For someone else. Exceptions for him.

[William1950]

it is sad but you are so right.... I am very dissapointed in the team Obama has chosen to run the economy... I am dissapointed that a single payer health plan is not considered... I am dissapointed that the Bankers and wall street continue to go about their business as usual.. I really don't think I will ever vote again... I will drop out of the system. It doesn't matter who we elect it seems.

[MrJoyboy]

Obama is just happy to be President of the United States and doesn't want to make waves that will rock his boat. He still can hardly believe he was elected. BTW, he loves the perks.

[lebensfroh99]

Sorry, I just found the info on HuffPo that WashPo is cancelling the "salon meetings" charging Lobbyists. And here I thought the HuffPo is like the All Barack Channel. I once again jumped to conclusions.

[marthamothra]

By your picture, you are young -- yet over the past year, I have been impressed by your insight. Thank you for stating what I knew, yet had not made the connections -- Obama may not be employing lobbyists, but their influence in the Congress impacts the same. Haven't stated it exactly as I perceive it, but I get what you're saying -- and thanks for stating in an understandable way, the problem.

[bbbear]

From this very left liberal's perspective, Obama has long been the worst of hypocrites. That view isn't likely to change. Still, if the spineless, bought and paid for democrats actually do the right thing, sign on to Bernie Sander's no filibuster vote and pass a strong public option, then I'll once again vote for Obama in 2012 and probably even again give money to his campaign... You know, again voting for the best of a bad lot.... However, unless my two bought and paid for WA Senators, Cantwell and Murray, also vote for the public option, they not only will not get my vote or another cent from me, but I'll work hard and spend money to replace them with true liberals.

[Samalabear]

How do you get the Obamabots to read articles like yours and start to think critically again regarding their grand leader? Voting is a precious right, but as with all rights come responsibilities. In voting the responsibility is to remain vigilant and demand accountability.

[signwitch]

"first...k*ll all the lawyers..." so spake henry VI according to wm shakespeare. let's update it for present times, shall we? "first...k*ll all the lobbyists" not literally of course, i'd never shoot anyone that wasn't shooting at me first! but metaphorically speaking, how much better off we'd ALL be if they were prohibited from plying their 'wares' to greedy politicians! perhaps if a life-long political career were NOT so lucrative we'd attract more who serve their term for the sake of service and then go back to private life and be productive.

why was this censored? i advocate NO violence to anyone - it's a well known quote from a fictional piece written over a century ago - updated for 21st century dilemmas!

[RomeoMD25]

Back in the early '00's it was that the Democrats didn't have a majority in Congress.
We gave them a majority in 2006. Their next excuse was that they didn't have the White House.
We gave them the White House in '08. Their next excuse was that they didn't have sixty votes for cloture. They now have their sixty votes.

So what's going to be their next excuse for achieving little if anything? Having to work around Blue Dogs?
Having to deal with independents?

This has gotten to be a sad, sad pattern. The Democrats claim that because of X they can't be effective,
we the people throw money and votes their way in order to achieve X and the Democrats simply come up with another excuse for their ineffectiveness.
Now that they have all possible bases covered, now that we have empowered them as never before,
you know that they're going to come up with another excuse, because God knows, they're not actually going to go out and achieve things.

This is simply another smoke screen for the fact that the Democratic party is but one arm of the two party/same corporate master system of government.
We need to face the fact that Democrats aren't there to do the will of the people,
but rather the will of their corporate masters.

[talkitreal]

It is the role of Congress to write legislation -- that is what they are employed to do. Congress is also supposed to keep lobbyists out! They are supposed to be honest brokers who are lookinf out for the best interests ot the American people. It is for the citizens of this country to make sure that Congress is listening to our voices, and not the lobbyists -- president Obama has made it very clear that he hates lobbyists, and the Congress members have heard him loud and clear.
Congress needs to grow up, stop thinking about there campaigns, and just get down to work on legislation that works for the majority of citizens of this country!

[sosi]

In the end everybody works for Goldman Sachs, one way or another, even the mighty.

The Great American Bubble Machine: Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine#

[JDM73]

Thanks for the article, Stuart. I'm glad that people are beginning to acknowledge Obama's glaring inconsistencies.