Where are the Liberals?
The Atlantic is featuring three theories on why liberals haven’t been more effective under the Obama Administration, particularly given Democrats’ control of all three branches.
First up is Kevin Baker of Harper’s, who argues that liberals simply have no backbone, practicing what can only be called “learned helplessness.” Baker believes that while liberalism shows some life among our citizenry, the government / leadership class has all but forgotten its relevance. The “center-right” conventional wisdom has solidified and the mere utterance of “the L word” spells political disaster.
Second is the Center for American Progress’s Matt Yglesias, who claims that liberals fail to negotiate effectively. You can’t get the other side to budge unless they think you’ll walk away (I learned this mattress shopping), and since liberals obviously really want health reform, etc, opponents have no incentive to give any ground. If they want a deal, they should find issues that centrists care deeply about and which liberals are merely willing to along.
And third, blogger Chris Bowers suggests that liberals are too much of an easy win for Obama. He knows they’ll support him as the least-bad option no matter what, so they have no bargaining chips.
My sense is that Bowers and Baker are mostly right. And their points are connected: because liberals know they’re down and out in contemporary American politics, they’ll take whatever the Democrats give them. Why hold out for distant ideals when it could jeopardize the little gains they’ve made through a moderate Democratic majority?
Ideological birth certificates
The National Review asks: Can a true American be liberal?
At The National Review, editors Richard Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru argue, in 5,000 words, that Pres. Obama assaults “American identity” and the concept of “American exceptionalism.” Damon Linker rebukes the piece at The New Republic. Here’s the outline of their argument:
What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.
These unique American qualities began with the colonies:
America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien régime. Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, no entrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercial activity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditional post-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to John Locke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; Edmund Burke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Even before the Revolution, America was the freest country on earth.
Obama the dictator?
The use and abuse of executive power
On Friday The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration, faced with an uncooperative Congress, is looking into “a list of presidential executive orders and directives” to push its governing agenda forward. The article was, unsurprisingly, met with a barrage of criticism from the right. RedState writers suggested Obama was “dusting off his best Hugo Chavez imitation” and that his Administration had become a “DICTATORSHIP BY FIAT” (emphasis in original).
As The New York Times article notes, presidents can legally make policy without Congressional legislation “through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat.” But just because a president can doesn’t mean a president should. So should Obama use his executive powers, like executive orders and directives?
Space, the expensive frontier
The Washington Post reports that in today’s budget request, Pres. Obama has left out NASA’s “Constellation” program, which called for a return to the moon by 2020. This is another case of “the prioritization problem,” which is the difficulty we often have in justifying why one valuable aim is worth more or less than another. Though, it’s more of an “issue” than a “problem” here, as it’s pretty easy to explain why high unemployment and a rising deficit are more worthy concerns than space exploration at the given moment. More generally: When making such comparisons, how should the government value “intrinsic” goods like space exploration and, say, art, which we think are valuable apart from the tangible benefits they offer to society? While space exploration has led to a few practical benefits, and offers the possibility of fantastic gifts in the very distant future (i.e. inter-galactic space travel, colonizing other planets, etc.), it’s mostly in the science-for-science’s sake category. And, secondly, how should a government evaluate such goods in the context of a suffering economy? At what GDP level can we spend on space aggressively? What does Jean-Luc think?
-Jake
The morality of bipartisanship
Pragmatism, Legitimacy, and Fraternity
Pres. Obama promised and thus far has failed to bring bipartisanship to Washington, D.C. Today he renewed the effort by attending a gathering of House Republicans.
Few, if any leaders contest bipartisanship’s value. It is one of those “golden” concepts of American politics, which Sam–our resident political consultant–can maybe tell us more about. What values, though, does it embody or further?
1. Pragmatism
To the extent that a proposed bill has value, it’s passage is a good thing. If one party does not have sufficient votes to enact a valuable bill without the other’s support, bipartisanship enables the bill’s passage. In this case, the value of bipartisanship is extrinsic or consequentialist, depending on the value of the law it enables, rather than inherent to the concept itself. It prevents legislative gridlock. One concern is that it requires watering down legislation to ensure it passes. But passing a decent law is better than not passing a supposedly perfect law. Bipartisanship gets the job done.
2. Legitimacy
Did the President go too far?
During his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, President Obama called out the Supreme Court for its ruling last week on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”
As the Washington Post describes, “The justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. Except for Alito. “Not true, not true,” he appeared to say (other lip readers think he said, “That’s not true”) as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.”
Both the President’s statement and Justice Alito’s response have gotten much reaction. So did the President overstep his bounds? Was it a protocol breach of separation of powers? Or was it Justice Alito’s “you lie” moment?
-Marc
More polarized than ever
This is interesting - and unfortunate. A new Gallup poll released today suggests that the American public is more politically divided than ever, at least when measured by Presidential approval ratings. The percentage gap between Democrats’ and Republicans’ average approval of Obama is a whopping 65%, topping the previous record held by Clinton of 52%. 88% of Democrats approve of the job Obama is doing while only 23% of Republicans approve.
A year ago, Barack Obama spoke of a new, post-partisan era in Washington in which our common American values and aspirations would finally overcome the petty divisiveness of politics-as-usual. Wonder what he thinks now?
-Colin
Why did Brown win?
Republican Scott Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election yesterday to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. The seat was held by Kennedy for over 40 years, and the state is one of the “bluest” - going to Obama in 2008 by 26 percentage points. How did this happen?
There are two competing story lines, both having to do with our favorites - principles and their application to practical politics. The first is a story of too-quick and too-radical change; Obama was elected as a transformational figure with no real vetting by the media or public, and his administration is moving too aggressively to change the fundamentals of our economy, social services, foreign policy, and culture. The Republicans are winning, now, because the American people (ugh I hate using the phrase “the American people,” as if we all march in lock-step) see Obama for what he is - a leftist in a center-right nation.
The second story line, promoted by liberals, is that the Dems are reaping the rewards of weakness and inaction. Obama ran on the premise of fundamental change - we can’t get better policy until we change the way Washington works. Yet after a year of big bank bailouts, little to no reform of the financial, health insurance, or pharmaceutical industries (even with bills intended to do just that), escalated wars, and hesitance on gay rights and global warming, the Obama Administration seems unwilling to deliver on its promises. The Republicans are winning because the Dems are staying home.
So, as I’ve suggested before, either Obama is an over-active radical lefty, or he’s a corporate-sellout centrist waffler. Which is it, and how is it that both stories continue to thrive?
-Colin
I promise, America
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Karl Rove argues that Pres. Obama has broken many core campaign promises, specifically, reducing the deficit and federal spending, not allowing lobbyists to work in his administration, increasing taxes only on those making more than $250,000, opposing government-run health care, and broadcasting health care negotiations on C-SPAN.
What is the moral relationship between everyday promises and campaign promises? Are they the same thing? When can one break a campaign promise legitimately? More on Friday.
-Jake
Should Harry Reid step down?
Words that matter
Remember when Washington rancor used to be directed at the vicissitudes of health care reform? Ah, those were the days. Now it’s back to politics as usual. You know what that means–attacking inappropriate conduct. A few months ago it was Joe Wilson speaking lies to power. Last week it was Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Already caught in what pundits regard as a tough reelection battle at home, Reid landed himself in trouble when it emerged that a new book on the 2008 presidential campaign quoted Reid as suggesting that then-candidate Obama could be the first black president due to his fairer complexion (”light-skinned”) and because he had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Unfortunately for Reid, the word “Negro” was left behind as politically incorrect several decades ago, as did most of the appropriate contexts for the way Reid referenced President Obama’s skin color.
Reid has already issued a public apology, and has called the President to apologize directly (which Obama has publicly accepted). Should he also step down? Read more
-
Follow us on Twitter
