Obama Again Ceding the Rhetoric

So Obama threatened to make recess appointments and instantly the Republicans cave, confirming 29 Obama nominees last night. But Klein points out how only Democrats could save defeat from the jaws of victory:

In describing recess appointments as "a rare but not unprecedented step," Obama made it harder to actually make any, because he's defined the procedure -- which, unlike the hold, is a defined constitutional power of the president rather than a courtesy observed in the Senate -- as an extraordinary last-resort. He also promised, later in the statement, that he wouldn't make any appointments this recess.

Why do Democrats keep doing ceding the rhetorical battlefront to the Republicans? Why would Obama not learn the obvious lesson--if you press you foot down on the Republicans' necks, they'll back off. Why would he promise to not make any recess appointments? Why would he just give that power up?

What's so frustrating is that the entire country seems to understand this except for Democrats in Washington. The Republicans understand it and laugh at Democratic incompetence. The Democratic base definitely gets it. But when you are more concerned with David Broder than effective governance, I guess this is what results.

The New Grover Cleveland, The New Gilded Age

Lots of great commentary out there on Obama embracing Hooverite policies to deal with the recession, particularly Noon decrying Obama following the advice of Hans Morganthau. But I really want to focus on Eric's comparison of Obama to Grover Cleveland, a comparison I also made in my long post on Brown's election last Tuesday night.

Eric uses this image and also quotes Richard Hofstadter on Cleveland, who wrote

a taxpayer’s dream, the ideal bourgeois statesman for his time: out of heartfelt conviction he gave to the interests what many a lesser politician might have sold them for a price. He was the flower of American political culture in the Gilded Age.

Maybe Obama is the next Grover Cleveland. I increasingly believe it. Like in the 1880s, we have a Democratic party that has totally bought into Republican rhetoric and a president who is increasingly facilitating whatever corporations want. It's pretty bad when the person you thought might be the next Lyndon Johnson turns out to be the next Grover Cleveland.

During the Democratic primary, I was a mild Obama supporter (after Edwards fell away) and once told my students when they asked who I voted for that I went for Obama because I was ready to be disappointed by someone new. Indeed, that disappointment is setting in, particularly in the last week. At this point, I'm beginning to wish Hillary had won. If the Democrats are going to sell out, at least Hillary would be going about it competently.

In a related post, Steve asks whether the new 2 party system is the old Republican Party (now called the Democrats) and the Tea Party Party. I wonder. While the nation's political tendencies aren't really moving to the right (and the preferences of young people for libertarian social policies suggests a long-term shift to the left), both political parties continue their 35 year long move to the right. How long can this be sustainable? Progressives thought we had put a stop to this when we elected Obama, but we were clearly too optimistic. I'm not quite as pessimistic as Steve however, because you have a large and increasingly active base of the Democratic Party very angry about all of this. A continued Democratic rightward lean isn't tenable because they won't win elections this way.

Under different circumstances, with active labor unions able to provide the votes to make this happen, I almost wonder if now might have been a good time to do what England did when the Labor Party outflanked the Liberals as the 2nd major party in that country. Eventually, it seems the Democrats will move so far to the right that most of their members won't be willing to go with them. Of course, the long historical failure of 3rd party movements in this country make it very difficult to see any alternative except for dropping out of the system entirely.

Stupidity: Now That's Filibuster Proof!

Centrist Democratic senators are fleeing to join their Republican colleagues in climate-change denying and cutting environmental agencies off at the knees. Since Tuesday, at least 3 Democrats have gone this route--Landrieu, Lincoln, and now, Ben Nelson. Maybe this explains why:

Smart Talk about Yesterday's Failure

Everyone's chiming in on Coakley's failure, what it means for health care, whether or not Obama is at fault, and the future. Here's a few good pieces:

Tim Fernholz blames Democrats' failure at framing the issues. I totally agree; they've bickered amongst themselves, allowed blowhards like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman to create an image of health care as a problem, and dickered away the opportunity to pass meaningful reform. Rather than fold to every Republican desire, as Bayh evidently intends, it's far more useful, both politically and on the merits, to reframe Democratic programs as the way to help the American people.

Reg at Beautiful Horizons notes:

My own hope is that it serves as a wake-up call to Democrats for 2010. And a "wake-up" call doesn't mean a signal to retreat more and take on the country's problems less. It means more clarity, more consistency, more fight, more principled proposals that ordinary people can see as serving their interests. It means organizing and energizing the base to organize and energize Democrats and independents in the fall elections. It means fielding effective, attractive candidates who can reach out and speak to traditional Democrats and independents. It means pushing forward on health care, not evading or watering-down the issue.

Couldn't say it better myself.

And Sadly, No hits it on the head:

Here’s the rub — even if Obama does this and manages to convince the House to pass Liebercare and then fix it through reconciliation, is there any evidence that the Dems will try to do this? The key to successful health care reform is that people have to like the reform. That means it must have something for them in it. People will like a Medicare buy-in, for instance (because Medicare apparently isn’t government, y’know) and they would have liked cheap prescription drugs.

If Liebercare becomes law without significant changes, people will hate it and it will wreck the Democratic brand basically forever. So if you can be sure that Congress will fix it right’n'good during reconciliation, then I say go for it. Otherwise, well, we’ll let the health care situation get even worse and try again in another 15 years.

Yep. New Deal programs made sure people received benefits almost immediately, that the programs were popular, and that the people knew which party provided these benefits. The popularity of these programs covered for a huge expansion in the federal government, a need for more tax revenue, and other changes Americans have traditionally been uncomfortable with. If the Democrats don't understand that people have to want the changes being made, then they are finished.

There's Lots Of Blame To Go Around, But Obama Deserves Plenty

I am one angry Democrat tonight.

As I said in the post title, there's plenty of blame to go around for Martha Coakley's loss. Let's start with Coakley herself. She ran one of the most pathetic campaigns in recent times. Starting out with an overconfidence Ted Kennedy never would have allowed himself, Coakley did virtually no campaigning after the primary. Assuming the primary was a coronation, she never let the voters know her. And when Scott Brown came out of nowhere to challenge her, she proved utterly tone deaf to Massachusetts voters, calling Red Sox legend Curt Schilling a YANKEE fan of all things. She may be a good public servant but is utterly uninspiring. Almost any Democrat could have won this race and she totally blew it.

And then there's Harry Reid. His incompetent Senate leadership made this election matter far more than it should. If the Democrats needed a simple majority to pass legislation, the loss of one vote is dispiriting, but hardly nightmarish. But since he lacks the skill to challenge Republican stalling tactics that are bringing the government to a standstill, tactics which I believe to be the most serious threat to democracy the country has faced in generations, Democrats need sixty votes to pass anything. In addition, his unwillingness to impose even a modicum of party discipline means moderates like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman control the party caucus, threatening to veto any legislation by withholding their 60th vote. Reid is operating under difficult conditions with the decline of the Senate as a functional organization, but he has also proven one of the most ineffectual Majority Leaders in American history.

But let's go to someone who deserves an awful lot of blame--Barack Obama. Now, I am not one of those progressives who has turned on Obama and sees him as an enemy because the health care bill isn't as comprehensive as I'd like or because he didn't come down as harshly on the Honduran coup as I'd like. I think his heart is in the right place. But Obama has consistently chosen weak tactics in dealing with Congress, the media, and the public at large. I will deal with all three aspects of this problem.

First, while Obama has presented big ideas to the public, he has shown little leadership in shaping their agenda or forcing Congress to do his bidding. In this, Obama has demonstrated party leadership so incompetent, you have to go back to Grover Cleveland to find a Democratic president worse at it. Obama and his advisers thought the lesson of Clinton's failed health care bill was to let Congress take the lead on shaping legislation and then step in and see the bill through in the end. They were partially wrong. While Clinton clearly erred in not consulting Congressional leaders in 1993, taking a 180 degree turn in congressional dealings has worked no better. Obama failed to recognize the very different makeup of Congress in 2009, not noting the regional shifts that contributed to the 1994 disaster, nor that he commanded a massive majority.

Even before he took office, Washington insiders like David Broder and David Brooks were recycling tired old Republican narratives that Democrats can't govern. But rather than promote his agenda with a consistent media blitz, Obama and Congress proved conventional wisdom true. Democratic infighting helped undermine Obama's agenda right away. Obama addressed the nation a couple of times, but this good idea wasn't followed by any consistent narrative. Obama could have used his own media to make this happen--sympathetic reporters, the blogosphere, and the same new media that helped elect him president. He failed to openly attack Republicans in the media, relying on ineffectual notions of bipartisanship that Republicans obviously did not share rather than tainting them with the failures of the previous eight years. When bipartisanship failed, Obama found himself unable to recapture momentum in the media, leaving him increasingly frustrated.

Finally, Obama's lack of leadership and inability to control the media narrative has undermined the public's confidence in him. Obama's was elected by a popular electoral movement not seen in this country since the 1930s. Millions of Americans were ready to die for him. But upon taking the Oval Office, Obama disbanded his organization in order to govern from the center. This mystifying decision will permanently haunt him. Had Obama asked for public health care rallies, thousands would have attended in cities throughout the nation. It would have been the first step in implementing a popularly approved progressive agenda. Or at least, it would have shown the media and the Republicans that health care had massive support. Instead, Obama allowed his public support to slip through his fingers. Instead, the tiny astroturf movement known as the Tea Parties became the most public popular expression of political beliefs in the country. Voters like leadership. Obama showed it during the campaign. But by the summer of 2009, only the tea parties and their allies in corporate media provided the leadership the public demands. And it caught Obama, his advisers, and Democratic leadership completely unawares. Republicans now control the political momentum, the media narrative, and the popular impression of standing for change, despite the fact that they plunged the country into this mess barely over a year ago.

Overall, Obama does not seem to understand the lessons of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. These great Democratic leaders knew that an effective presidency required strong leadership of the party from the Oval Office, forcefully pushing their agenda, and engaging the public and media in an aggressive manner to gain their support. Obama has some nice looking New Deal style posters promoting the stimulus package and that's about it. He must learn to take commanding control over his party and his agenda. Otherwise, he will endure a failed presidency and a blown rare opportunity in this nation for progressive causes.

What's especially galling is that Republicans have learned these lessons. They've learned them well. They engage in iron party discipline. They control the Senate for their purposes whether in the majority or minority. They have fantastic propaganda agencies, beginning with FOX News. They sell their agenda to the public. Their presidents dominate the agenda. It doesn't always work, but that's the nature of politics. Even when things don't go their way, Republicans recognize the soundness of the strategy and stick to the game plan. While I'm not suggesting the Democrats mimic the intellectual dishonesty and cynicism of the Republican Party, I am suggesting they apply the rules of effective governance their own ancestors created.

In the end, Scott Brown is not long for the Senate. I would be shocked if he ever wins election to a full term. He is far out of touch with Massachusetts voters, which they will quickly find out when he votes against everything they believe in. Once the economy turns around, people will think more positively about the Democrats. Despite early polls suggesting the public would give Obama time to fix the economy, there's no evidence in American history that voters ever have done this, except for Roosevelt and the New Deal. The Roosevelt exception happened because he implemented far reaching programs that immediately put people to work and tainted Republicans for a decade with economic greed and incompetence. Obama has failed to do this and now pays the price.

How Obama leads from this, the lowest point of his presidency, will determine his success in office. He could be Lyndon Johnson or he could be Jimmy Carter. To no small extent, the choice is his.