Battered Liberal Syndrome
Robert Shrum
Perhaps there is something in the soul of Democrats, scarred by the stolen election of 2000 and a close loss in 2004, that anticipates setback. Call it Battered Liberal Syndrome. This time, it’s not electoral defeat Democrats fear, but a devaluation of last November’s victory, a scenario in which progressive policy is undermined and Democratic dreams are once again deferred.
A number of liberal bloggers and columnists, most notably the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, worry, hint or state outright that Obama appears to be selling his mandate short. Their indictment of the stimulus—or recovery plan, as Obama prefers to call it—is that the plan is both less efficient and less fair because it includes tax cuts. Then there’s Obama’s reluctance to pledge to investigate and prosecute a wide array of misconduct in the Bush administration. Obama is reproved for his resolve to focus on the future, not the past. At the least, dissenters on the left insist, he should establish a truth finding panel, with subpoena power, to rake through the Bush detritus and expose it to the world.
I decline to join these pessimistic premonitions, this wallowing in disappointment before Obama’s presidency has even begun. Obama will read and respect criticism coming from progressive precincts; after all, he promptly invited Krugman to offer ideas on the stimulus. But he’ll continue to reach out to the other side too, from dinner at George Will’s house to conferences with Congressional Republicans.
I’m convinced Obama’s right to pursue the politics of change in his own remarkable fashion. Americans are fearful, but they yearn to be hopeful; that’s why they voted for Obama. They want solutions, not ideological battle. His stratospheric approval rating as transition yields to inauguration suggests how far he has moved beyond his Election Day majority and how effectively he has harnessed the public will. This could be a powerful force for advancing his agenda—and he’s not going to jeopardize it by letting his presidency be cast in partisan terms.
That doesn’t mean he’s not progressive; he clearly is. But like FDR and JFK, he’s also pragmatic. He knows that an inquisition into Bush & Co.’s alleged crimes would divide the public square, suck up political oxygen and constrict his potential base of support in Congress. If there’s a specific allegation that must be pursued, so be it. But better to close Guantanamo, ban torture, and reinvigorate Constitutional guarantees—and yes, move on—than to engage in psychic satisfaction at the price of America’s future.
That’s why Obama includes tax cuts in the stimulus: He wants a victory that crosses party lines, not a reprise of Bill Clinton’s 1993 economic plan, which passed the Congress without a single Republican vote. Obama views his recovery plan as the start of his legislative success, not the end. Krugman and others have a fair point about the greater efficiency of spending versus tax cuts; but it’s a classic case of the perfect as enemy of the good. Obama wants the best stimulus he can muster. But he won’t put it through the eye of an ideological needle.
That same pragmatism will guide each successive stage of what will prove to be a bold agenda. Obama will not duplicate Clinton’s mistake of delaying health care. He will move to enact it before the summer is out. He will listen to business as well as progressives, Republicans as well as Democrats; his transition team and Ted Kennedy’s staff have been doing so for months now.
The final product may not be everybody’s ideal; but this President is less interested in making a point than in taking the historic step of establishing health care as a right rather than a privilege. Of course, not every Republican—or Democrat—will vote for the legislation; but it will pass precisely because Obama is casting beyond his own party for support.
Listening has its limits. When it comes to energy and global warming, for example, there’s not much to be learned from climate change deniers like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. So Obama will advance legislation without the faintest Inhofe imprint.
Everyone assumes that partisanship ultimately will reassert itself—in a year or two, or certainly four. Differences will remain and debating them will always be the essence of democracy; the sense of a new dawn may fade. Yet maybe there is a chance we’ll see change here, too—that the political clashes of the future will be more respectful, less angry, more open to finding common ground. For the moment, the incoming president has marginalized fevered agitators like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Today, Obama speaks for America in part because he respects and responds to voices across the American spectrum. At times, this may discomfort progressives. The end result, however, may be a cure for Battered Liberal Syndrome. It may also usher in a new, if imperfect, progressive era.
Show: Oldest | Newest
580 Comments
Posted by Bob, Monday, January 19, 2009, 7:59 pm C'mon, you can do better than this. If you think anything has changed, you're naive. WIth half the Democrat party wanting a hanging nothing has changed. At least most Republicans are willing to give Obama a chance, something no Dems did for Bush.
Posted by Chris0721, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:01 pm Stolen 2000 election? After the 2000 election there were numerous media led investigations that clearly showed that Bush legitimately won the 2000 Election.
Posted by Mike, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:05 pm This guy helped Gore to try to steal the election.
Posted by wtm, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:05 pm If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news. At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?" I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right. The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels. Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980. In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties. Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing? This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true? Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age. Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over. Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it. It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky. To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.
Posted by Chris0721, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:07 pm 100 days. I give it 100 days before partisanship comes back in full force after Obama is sworn in and the honeymoon period has ended. I give it 100 days before America truly starts to see just how much of an extreme socialist/tax and spend liberal Obama truly is.
Posted by Collin, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:17 pm If they try to prosecute George Bush, they should be prepared for an armed revolution.
Posted by Alexa, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:17 pm Wow. With garbage like that, it's no wonder the newspapers are having going out of business sales. When they close Gitmo, I hope they let those guys go and give them public housing and payment for their time served.....in your neighborhood. Maybe you can all sing Kum By Ya while you all hold hands around the rusty newspaper printers.
Posted by Mike, Monday, January 19, 2009, 8:39 pm How silly, still trying to sell the global warming hoax by calling Sen. Inhofe a "denier" (an epithet previously reserved for Holocaust deniers.) Sorry Bob, the cat is out of the bag, that act has had its day but has now fallen flat and a significant majority of the public does not believe what you are saying. Time for YOU to move on to a new game. If your interest is in revisiting last year's political fads, maybe you can resurrect Cindy Sheehan or throw some dirt on Sarah Palin or something.
Post a Comment