It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day and I am thinking about the Obama Presidency. I reject the simpleminded criticisms of Obama in the name of King, such as those presented by Cornell West. I think we have to look closely at the political challenges the President has faced. In an earlier post, I assessed Obama’s political performance on the political economy working with a Democratic Congress. Today I consider his work with Republicans. I think it is noteworthy that he kept focus on long-term goals, even as he experienced ups and downs in the day-to-day partisan struggles. I believe he kept his “eyes on the prize.” Although King’s project is incomplete, Obama is, albeit imperfectly, working to keep hope alive. This is more apparent as Obama is now working against the Republicans, pushed by the winds of Occupy Wall Street, the topic for another day. It is noteworthy, though, that it was even the case during the less than inspiring events of the past year.
Responding to the Republican victories in the 2010 elections, the President had to face a fundamental fact: elections do indeed have consequences. While his election provided the necessary mandate for his economic policies and for healthcare reform, the Republican subsequent gains in the House and Senate, leading to a smaller majority for the Democrats in the Senate and the loss of the House, empowered the Republican calls for change in policies. And, even though divided government became a reality and gridlock was the basic condition, action was imperative. The sluggish economy, long-term budget deficits and the debt ceiling defined the agenda after the bi-election. The approaches of the Republicans and the Democrats could not have been more different.
Obama had a choice, to fight the Republicans head on, or to try to accommodate the new political situation and seek compromise. He chose compromise. It wasn’t pretty, nor was it particularly successful as a political tactic.
The Republicans made clear that their first priority was to turn Obama into a one-term president, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell infamously put it. With this opposition, Obama faced a dilemma between the demands of an ethics of responsibility and the demands of the ethics of ultimate ends, as Max Weber would have put it. Trying to be responsible, led to mixed results. The Bush tax cuts were extended, as were unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. And while there was no government default, as Tea Party Republicans seemed to seek, as they held the government hostage to an increase in the debt ceiling, they did successfully veto a grand compromise on the deficit that Speaker Boehner and Obama negotiated.
The President appeared ineffective and weak. He seemed to negotiate poorly, giving more to his opposition than they gave to him. He seemed to lack core principles: accepting Republican and Tea Party deficit and debt priorities. The substance and theatrics of his performance disappointed his supporters, left and center, confirmed the convictions of his opponents on the right.
Most of my academic friends, and, I imagine, most of the readers of Deliberately Considered, have been disappointed, convinced that on one issue after another Obama followed rather than led. The Republicans pushed him around. As he pursued, in the eyes of many on the left, Bush-lite policies in foreign affairs in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, and on human rights and national security (I promise more on that in a future post), he seemed to be at best a moderate Republican on the political economy.
Centrists also saw a problem. For them, form was more important than content. He seemed weak, as he was trying to move to the center and appeal to moderates. I remember a brief conversation I had with a neighbor. He proudly explained to me that he was a person who voted for the man, not the Party. He had voted for Obama in 2008, for Kerry in 2004, Bush in 2000, and now he was against Obama. Obama is ineffective, doesn’t lead, and doesn’t deserve another term, in my neighbor’s opinion. We need someone who gets things done during these hard times, a leader, not an amateur who is in over his head.
My neighbor knew where I stood. We were chatting across from my car, which already had a re-election sticker on it. He, on that summer day, didn’t know who he was for, but knew who he was against. This meeting was before the primary season. I assume that my neighbor is now a less than enthusiastic supporter of Governor Romney, hoping that the Governor doesn’t mean some of the things that he is now saying, mirroring die-hard conservative distrust of the Massachusetts moderate.
As I have already indicated here, I think my friends on the left don’t understand the nature of Obama’s political stance, a principled centrist trying to move the center left, in terms of today’s holiday, mainstreaming King’s dream of social justice. I also think that they, along with centrist skeptics, don’t appreciate the President’s continued commitment to civility in public life.
There is an unrecognized tactical dilemma. The moderates want him to reach out to left, right and center and address pressing problems, but when he does, they think he is weak, following, not leading. He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
Although this was, to a large extent, a no win situation, presenting impossible tactical difficulties, I do recognize that Obama didn’t handle the situation very well. As a supporter, I often want him to be more cunning in his negotiations with the Republicans. I feel that he should be tougher in negotiations, clearer in expressing his core convictions. Nonetheless, I think it is also important to understand what the long-term challenges were and recognize how tactical performance ultimately was less important than the pursuit of long-term strategy and goals. It is notable that Obama’s commitment to his ultimate ends, King’s dream of justice, in the political economy has been quite steady. And as far as tactics, I am not sure that a tougher stance toward the Republicans would have a achieved better results, though I know it would have felt better for many, including me.
The President’s long-term view and commitments were on clear view, appropriately in his last State of the Union Address, as I pointed out at the time.
The President offered a balanced approach. He recognized that Republican concerns about deficits were serious and accepted the proposition that cutting spending had to be a part of the long-term goal of reducing deficits, but he underscored that in doing so “…let’s make sure that we’re not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.”
He engaged a political debate with Republicans on their terms, accepting the problem of the deficit as a priority, but he emphasized the continued need for public investments in education, alternative energy sources and public infrastructure, in transportation and communications. He supported tax reform, including the lowering of corporate taxes, and he spoke about free trade, but he emphasized what he asserted were the accomplishments of his first two years in office, specifically health care reform. He proposed cutting dramatically discretionary spending, but he also called for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The speech included calls for investment and reduced deficits, intelligently focused, clear moves to recognize the interests of his opposition, but without giving up on his fundamental commitments.
I think it is striking how last year’s State of the Union address summarizes the course Obama has followed through the year. This includes both the attempt to find common ground with Republicans, which led to great tension and minimal accomplishment, avoiding the worse, but not much more, and also his move to a more confrontational approach, specifically as it has to do with jobs and caring for the least fortunate. He has held a steady position, and now has the initiative – I think importantly with the help of Occupy Wall Street.
The economy improved a bit this year, but many still suffer. Obama presented a balanced approach, strikingly different from what the Republicans offer and he has been able to pursue this approach despite sustained opposition empowered by a major social movement, The Tea Party. But as that movement seems to be weakening and with the presence of another social movement, OWS, pushing the issues of social justice and inequality onto the public agenda, Obama is moving forward.
When I look at his tactical moves, in the day to day attempt to govern with the Republicans, I worry, sharing concern with his critics on the left that he has not been the real deal and his moderate critics that he has not been an effective leader, but over all in the long run, it seems to me that people have rushed to their negative judgments. Obama achieved a great deal in his first two years and has managed to minimize the damage of the last year, and is now poised to move forward. More on that in my next post.
Jeff, with due respect, I think you are wrong as to the implications of these capitulations. The first time, sure, it made sense to understand compromise as a principled stance. But the behavior is repeated to the point of pathology, and the objections proffered by the Republicans are increasingly outlandish. One can only infer that they have noticed that this administration will articulate a firm, principled stance for no policy position!
I, too, have a 2012 sticker on my car and plan on voting for him, not only as the lesser of two evils but because I genuinely respect him. His accomplishments are many, but they are fewer and smaller than they could have been because he has mis-estimated the power of the presidency. He took the role of the president as essentially constrained by the rules of a game, the rules themselves being exogenous. But the president is one of the few offices to which game-changing is part of the job, and by refusing to seek to change the game he surrenders one of the most important tools he has.
Andrew, If we agree that the accomplishments are real, we together recognize that most of these happened at a time that Obama had to work against a completely united Republican opposition and a Democratic Party that included many so called Democratic moderates. Nonetheless, Obama achieved healthcare reform and put together a significant (if not completely adequate) stimulus package and saved the auto industry. I am not sure what else could have been accomplished. Here on the domestic issues and the economy. Let’s wait to discuss foreign policy and issues of security and human rights, about which I am much more critical.
The past year, which I focus on here, was less consequential.But could have been accomplished? One big blunder was putting off raising the debt ceiling. I think Obama’s critics don’t take into account the opposition he has faced in Washington and also in the country at large in the form of the Tea Party.
Now with a new social movement pushing, I think the game is changing and suspect Obama is too. Obama will try to use the Presidency in the way you imagine had been possible. A post on Wednesday by David Howe will illustrate this.
Could Obama have been tactically more astute, as you suggest? Yes. Would it have led to different consequences? I am not as sure as you and many of his critics claim. Do I hope he will be more forceful and resolute? Yes.
Jeff, you have made me see Obama in a new light consistently— you always push us to think about Obama again and not write him off as (basically) weak. I think we see a stronger politician now and as a friend pointed out tonight, let’s not forget where he started, how fast he went from being basically a community organizer to the leader of the world. He is not Bush lite on foreign policy— he is a hard core realist. He has handled a lot of situations with savvy and real political, diplomatic and military might. I agree that comparing him to MLK is just silly—- these are two totally different positions or sites in the discourse. MLK was never going to be president— he was a revolutionary, a charismatic leader. We know that revolutionaries really don’t make (usually) good presidents and vice versa. He is the least of 5 evils.
What else could have been accomplished domestically?
– A public option, at a minimum, could have been a part of the ACA, likely if Obama had begun negotiations calling for single-payer.
– The ARRA could have been larger.
– A systematic rollback of unitary-executive claims made by the Bush Administration (this would have required NO congressional approval)
– The Bush tax cuts could have been retired, either as a quid-pro-quo for the debt ceiling or on their own.
I’m sure there are more. And, as you suggest, the record on torture and foreign policy is particularly problematic. But the fact that he has accomplished some important feats even in the face of enormous economic and political hurdles–which is certainly true–does not excuse what could have been.
A recent article in the New Yorker entertains an analogy between 1968 and 2012. While this analogy might be a strain, the author quotes Jesse Jackson, who noted the significance the the Civil Rights movement had in influencing Lydon B. Johnson: “Civil Rights Act of 1964—LBJ. The Voting Rights Act of 1965—LBJ. Medicare—LBJ. Medicaid—LBJ. Child Nutrition Act—LBJ. Jobs Corps—LBJ.” While the climate of the country at the time was much more favorable towards progressive legislation, I believe much of what was accomplished by LBJ may not have been had their not been a social movement pushing for such progressive leglislation. And the point Jackson was to suggest what might be possible if OWS applies pressure to Obama directly rather than trying to appear “apolitical” (as if that’s somehow even possible). The same thing might be said about FDR: activists had a significant impact on shaping New Deal legislation (more so for what was termed “the second New Deal”).
We could be heading towards a period where Obama does in fact put his money where his mouth is (as opposed to Goldman Sachs putting their money there). So I’m inclined at this point to focus more on the possibilities rather than Obama’s shortcomings (although the latter are certainly evidence for the neccessity of pushing Obama to become a better president). If the criticism if constructive, yet firm, I think he’ll respond, especially if he wins re-election, and the pressure continues well after that.