Obama Advisers: He's Not Moving To The Center
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne asks Obama advisers whether his appointments herald a shift to the center and is told that the answer is No:
Obama's selection of a team of highly skilled pragmatists has already been described as a move to the political center, but Obama advisers and longtime acquaintances say that this is a misreading of the incoming president and his approach. They describe it as combining a practicality about means with an overriding concern about the corrosive effects of growing economic inequalities...Washington often divides the Democratic policy world between progressives and pragmatists. With Obama, as yesterday's news conference showed, it will have to become accustomed to a president who is both.
This goes to the heart of the debate that's taking shape among liberal writers over Obama's first moves. Do Obama's appointments constitute a betrayal of liberals, as Chris Bowers argues? Or is Obama merely assembling a team of experienced hands in order to implement his own progressive vision, as Matthew Yglesias contends?
I have no problem believing what Obama's advisers are telling Dionne. Either way, I don't see why we shouldn't just wait to see what actual policies Obama implements before making any judgments one way or the other.
Exactly. Enough with the jumping to conclusions.
November 25, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too early for judgments, yes, but not too earlier for making your preferences known.
Even if change.gov is just a pacifier, it's still the first time a president-elect has established an easy, direct way for citizens to make their views known by email.
At the very least, you'll be able to say "I TOLD him so!"
November 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate when I spend my morning assembling a post only to discover that someone else has put the same notion more succinctly.
But I do think that there's an alternative to the polar choices you present - that Obama is crafting a pragmatic approach to progressive ends. Yglesias, by contrast, essentially argues that he's cloaking his progressive approach in pragmatic clothing. I think that's a fairly fundamental distinction.
November 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, my only problem with that construction is that it rests solely on his choice of personnel...so all we can conclude thus on the Yglesias end of the spectrum is that he's selected pragmatists to implement a prog vision
November 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. But I think his record in office and his proposals on the trail spell out his approach in sufficient detail to support some conclusions. I'm trying to make a distinction here between progressive goals and classic progressive solutions. So we might agree that key elements of the contemporary progressive agenda include creating true equality of opportunity, universal availability of healthcare, and a reduction in economic inequality. Classic progressive solutions intended to address these problems include expanded funding of public education across districts, a single-payer mandatory health care system, and extremely progressive taxation coupled with welfare benefits and tax credits.
Obama endorses those goals, but has been skeptical of those solutions. And where other progressives - notably Clintonian New Democrats - often advanced the case for pragmatism by arguing that progressives needed to focus on what it was possible to attain, that's not Obama's case. He's pragmatic in the sense that he's intensely focused on finding solutions that work; not in the sense that he's focused on what he can enact, instead of on what he'd ideally like to achieve. His ambitions are sweeping, but his policies are pragmatic. And that's not just a euphemistic way of saying 'unambitious'; in fact, they're more sweeping than any President has proposed in a generation.
So Obama supports expanded funding for education, but also charter schools, and is open minded on the subject of vouchers. He'd rather adapt our multiple-payer model of healthcare and use government to fill in the gaps, and doesn't want a mandate. And his economic proposals have always paired redistributive taxation with economic growth.
My point is that Yglesias seems to be conflating Obama's unequivocal embrace of progressive goals with some sort of support for progressive solutions. And even Dionne seems unsure about which kind of pragmatism he's advancing. So let's put it this way: He's pragmatic in his means, progressive in his goals, and adaptive in his solutions. How does that strike you?
November 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
that seems fair enough -- but we'll have to see what policies he implements, obviously. the stim package is a good sign, as is the fact that he appears ready to move on health care fast...
November 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can a centrist "move to" the center? File this one under "ERF!"
November 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said before, Obama can change the ways of politics in Washington but he can't change the way the press covers politics.
November 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do Obama's appointments constitute a betrayal of liberals, as Chris Bowers argues?
I think his entire candidacy is based on finding the middle ground. So I didn't expect him to deliver for the left. So I don't see how it's a betrayal.
But is it a good time to think about the left and the center? All I need him to do is try and pull us out of this shit hole.
I consider myself a liberal but again I'm not going to arm twist him right now. This just isn't good time.
More importantly- healthcare, SS, taxes, war, minimum wage- if we fight our battles on the issues a part of the left can be redefined as the center. Let's push the issues agenda.
November 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he means it as a betrayal in the sense that the left busted its but to get him elected...
November 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
But if the left busted its butt in the hope that he was going to be less centrist and more leftist as president than he'd been in his political career, then the left had its collective head up said butt.
I'm a leftist, but I'm a realist too. And as kash79 says, this is not the ideal time to be focusing on ideological differences.
November 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Anyone who believed during the campaign that Obama was hard-leftist was either not paying attention or stupid enough to believe the McCain propoganda.
November 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were half the things Republicans had called him, I know I'd have liked him even more...
November 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this sentiment. Maybe it was standing next to Hillary Clinton 1.0 early on in the campaign that made people think he such a leftist.
November 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point Greg. We witnessed the sense of betrayal during the Liebermann episode.
I'll judge him on the issues. Esp. healthcare, Iraq war and green economy. I don't think his appointments reflect any diversion from his campaign promises because much of his agenda is pretty much centrist. There will be more and more buyer's remorse from the left for sure.
I just want him to move us back on track first.
Personally, I'll be more interested in his Supreme Court appointments.
November 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I wondering what is it exactly that the left feels will be thrown by the curb by Obama and his administration. Bowers doesn't really discuss anything specific. On issues of abortion, environment, climate, energy, jobs, programs to help impoverished urban/rural areas, etc. I see Obama implementing policies that will move us toward outcomes that are desired.
November 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we busted our butts to keep Bush3 from finishing the 'destroying our country' meme that neocons have pushed. I think that the far left, even the raving lunatics, realize that to get anything accomplished we have to work for it. Which means compromise and using people that are experienced.
November 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, as is Pangaea's on MSM press corpse coverage.
November 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
More importantly- healthcare, SS, taxes, war, minimum wage- if we fight our battles on the issues a part of the left can be redefined as the center. Let's push the issues agenda.
Absolutely. Seize the moment to re-define stability, prosperity and opportunity as profoundly LIBERAL values, goals and achievements.
November 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I guess that is one way forward. To try to define things that everyone likes as distinctly "liberal," and thus rehabilitate the "liberal" brand. For my money, it seems like the easier course of action would be to use the current situation to try to redefine as "centrist" a whole host of policies and values (healthcare, SS, taxes, etc as Kash mentioned above) which are currently regarded as "liberal." I suppose that these two projects are not mutually exclusive, but I guess that I have less hope of achieving the "make 'stability' and 'prosperity' seem 'liberal'" project.
November 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem I see with the Left is that it often prefers ideological (and rhetorical) purity over effectiveness in implementing policies that will move us in the right direction (even if not all the way). And the way of the world has ever been to demand compromises to get anything done.
A review of President-Elect Obama's life shows that more than anything, he is pragmatic, he is focussed on getting things done. That I suspect results from his community-organizing days in Chicago (but it also showed in his time as chief of the Harvard Law Review). Pragmatism and bringing people together seem to be his dominant motifs even as he maintains his progressive goals.
So I suggest Chris Bowers (whom I admire) and other progressives/liberals wait and see what he actually does before they start criticizing.
November 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem I see with the Left is that it often prefers ideological (and rhetorical) purity over effectiveness in implementing policies that will move us in the right direction (even if not all the way)."
While I agree up to a point, we still have the PUMAs making things seems more dire than they really are. I find it hilarious that Hillary (excuse me?) CLINTON suddenly became the standard bearer for take-no-prisoners liberalism to so many people on the left.
I am 46 years old, and was repeatedly disappointed in Bill Clinton for his capitulation to the right wing during his presidency. That was one of the main reasons I didn't want Hillary anywhere near the White House.
At this point, I'm not convinced I'll ever see a president that is where I'm at politically. If Obama needs Kumbaya rhetoric and Larry Summers to get a little bit closer, then I'm going to be happier politically than I've been in my entire adult life.
November 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. Sometimes it's hard to keep the faith though when we (progressives) have been lied too, ignored and disappointed for far too long.
But, I'm giving it my best 'wait and see' attitude.
November 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's policies, not personnel. Give him a chance. I'm sick of the doubting and handwringing...the same people have been doing this crap from the very beginning, and he has proven them wrong every time. Give it up liberals, you have a good president for once, enjoy it, stop this negative nancy shit.
And no, that isn't to say don't be critical, I'm just saying give him a chance and quit throwing up your hands and declaring him something he isn't, even before the cards are dealt.
Personally I don't care about any of this, all I can about is who he is going to appoint to take care of this piracy problem:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/11/avast-ye-scallywags.html
November 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's give the guy a chance and see what he accomplishes. This handwringing over appointments at this point is way premature and frankly absurd.
Other than the clintons as secretaries of state of course. That was a mistake, but I don't believe that it evidences a problem with his goals or what he wants to accomplish. The clintons were a whole other issue.
November 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the way I look at it. The Clinton's are adored around the world. People from all nations know and respect them. She'll start from day one a respected dignitary. That's half the battle there. She will be able to hit the ground running and be able to negotiate Obama's will from day one.
The negative of the Clinton appointment is now the right wing has their person to rally around. Nothing gets the right more riled up than the Clinton's. Fortunately, Obama won't be taking the bait and get suckered into a bickering match with the right. And hopefully the Clinton's will be on the road too much and won't have much chance to interact with the press.
As long as Billy boy can keep his pants on and not distract everyone and Hillary doesn't push back on negotiating with countries, I think she'll be a formidable ally as Secretary of State.
November 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to come around to the clintons' appointment. I'm just worried about all the negative aspects of it.
As a side note:
1. I hope obama camps mr. bill out in kashmir to knock heads and resolve the conflict. That would be a huge boon to resolving the south asia terrorism problem.
2. Also, he camps out baker in the middle east to resolve the syria and palestinian problem.
He better get people to start knocking heads to resolve these problems and start to resolve the terrorism problem.
November 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see.
International Issues
Foreign Policy - Center Right
Homeland Security - Center
War & Peace - Center Right
Free Trade - Center Left
Immigration - Left
Energy & Oil - Left
Domestic Issues
Gun Control - Left
Crime - Center
Drugs - Center Left
Civil Rights - Center Left
Jobs - Left
Environment - Left
Economic Issues
Budget & Economy - Center Left
Government Reform - Who knows yet
Tax Reform - Center Right
Social Security - Left
Welfare & Poverty - Left
Technology - Center
Social Issues
Education - Center Left
Health Care - Left
Abortion - Left
Families & Children - Center Right
Corporations - Left
Priciples & Values - Center Left
At least that's my take.
November 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree with you a bit. I think much of your spread relies on conventional wisdom. Thanks to Bush fiasco and the Obama agenda, issues like Universal Healthcare, immigration, etc have moved to the center.
It's important we start talking them as "center" issues.
November 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama on Corporations is way, WAY "right," as in wrong.
No administration will even approach "left" on corporations until it rejects Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, which gave corporations the same rights as persons.
When union membership is above 50 percent of employment and no executive earns more than 10 times the salary of the lowest-paid employee, then it'll be time to discuss whether the administration's position on corporations has moved from "right" toward the center.
November 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say his push to ensure companies provide health care or fine them would be considered left. Closing corporate loopholes in tax code might be considered left (yeah its the right thing to do but). Windfall profits tax might be considered left. Making corporations responsible for worker pensions and conditions would be siding with labor and considered left.
November 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Well said.
November 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice summary. And basically nothing he didn't say on the campaign trail. If people thought he was promising a full steam to the far left on all issues weren't listening and reading what Obama was putting forth.
November 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"To the left, to the left, to the right, to the right
To the front, to the front, to the back, to the back
Now slide just slide baby slide just slide
Just dip, cotton candy free to go
Let me see the Tootsee Roll"
Is Obama doing the Tootsee Roll? Who the heck came up with these meaningless and divisive labels?
November 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is redefining the center. We've seen strong indications that among his first policy initiatives will be health care, critical infrastructure (through government spending/jobs programs), and green energy. These are major liberal/progressive initiatives that have become widely accepted in the mainstream. Enacted by this team, economic progressivism (at least in these areas) will be seen as centrist.
November 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have to agree. Many ideas that begin left, green energy, slowly turn into center as the population shifts. I'd say slowly, the U.S. will be full force green. Of course you'll still have the crowd that takes pride in being ignorant but they are diminishing.
November 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bowers, et al are being manipulated by the right who want to create fault lines in the Obama coalition. Everything Obama does, the right labels it as "Clinton III" and says "you fools who voted for Obama must feel stupid."
I'm not concerned about Obama'a appointments. He has to have good people to get anything done. If, after January 20, he starts saying global warming is a hoax, he's not going to bring troops home, healthcare is not a priority, torture is OK and he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, then I'll be worried. Until then, I'm satisfid to see a competent president-elect in action.
November 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that’s the worst-case scenario, I can live with that. Clinton III would be infinitely superior to Bush I, Bush II, Bush III, or Bush IV (McCain).
I like the comment about Obama redefining the center. If he can move the center far enough left, people can still say that the U.S. is a “center-right” country, but it would be something that we could live with.
November 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, except bush I's foreign policy. You have to give credit where credit is due and bush I had the best foreign policy over the last 50 years or more. He had a great team and scowcroft is advising obama. What does that tell you? I hope obama uses some of bush I's playbook, unlike the king.
November 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is no centrist just look at his record. He's a leftist like me, but he's always a pragmatist like me. We progressives need to see the big picture sometimes.
November 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Left being up in arms helps sell Obama's plans to the right, and that he's being pragmatic and centrist. If they weren't raising stink, then the story would be Obama is too left because even the far left is happy with him.
November 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberals crticizing Obama for being too Centrist, and wringing their hands over Clintonite appointments?
That's not news.
I would prefer we wait until the guy has been President for at least 5 seconds before freaking out.
November 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack is Obama and Bowers isn't
STFU
November 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh heck, why not just say he's progressive pramatist centrist conservative. Then he has the plausable deniability for everything that he's shooting for.
What are ya gonna believe, what he says or your eyes.
The most devoted are the ones who've been scammed. Total denial.
The Potemkin President Elect.
November 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, seriously, what's your deal and why have you come here, of all places, to make these inflammatory declarative statements unsupported by any evidence? PUMA? Republican? Bored overweight thirteen year old boy entertaining himself by trolling?
November 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, let's seee. Chris Bowers uses his amazing psychic ability to devine Obama's future actions from minimal actual present data. His divination tells him that Obama is not ideologically pure and is going to basely sell out the rightous leftists who elected him to the evil center-rightists. He angrily tells us how reprehensible and insulting this is to those on the left who are solely responsible for his election. Oh yeah, that's an entirely new phenomonon that's totally worthy of serious discussion.
Why Bowers is considered a serious voice by anyone is a continuing mystery to me.
November 25, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me to no end that people like Bowers, Sirota, etc are given any credibility at all.
Their "analysis" is always inexorably tied to their own self-interests as self-promoting bloggers.
Really, a guy like Bowers should not be cited. It's not just that I disagree with him (and happy to agree with Yglesias), it's that, unlike Yglesias, he's just not very good.
November 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are Liberals, Progressives, Centrists and Conservatives are trying to "claim" Obama as their own, even though he has never claimed to be either? What is going on here? I watched his press conference today, on FOX 5 (ABC cut it short so I had to change to another channel). Obama repeated his call for a major stimulus, but also mentioned his plans to cut wasteful spending. When it was over, the news anchor called Obama a fiscal conservative. Right after the election, some Republicans were saying that he won because he ran a Center-Right campaign. As Obama announces his cabinet, some are calling him a Centrist while Liberals and Progressives are saying they were betrayed. Whatever is going on here, whether it's delusion, projection, denial or wishful thinking, I recommend you guys read this article. Carefully!! Notice the words Ruthless pragmatism?
November 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, in regards to Obama, all these labels are silly. They are helpful when your decisions are based on an ideological playbook. You look at the cover on the playbook, study it and voila, you have the answer to everything.
Obama OTOH, looks like he will pull ideas from all parts of the political spectrum and use them where appropriate. That's pragmatic and serves the public interest, and is something our partisan discourse has denied us over the last few decades.
November 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink