The Indignation of a Liberal

Paul Krugman, who never fails to be introduced on talk-shows as 'the Nobel prize-winning economist', wrote in his blog for the New York Times on Wednesday about Obama's warning to the House not to force through the Senate's health care bill and went on to express his exasperation with Obama's leadership:

'I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.'

Now I'm usually a big Paul Krugman fan. He's got decent Liberal credentials, he's a very clever fellow, and undoubtedly a brilliant economist, and his reading of the causes and solutions of the recent global financial panic are largely the same as mine. But what the hell is he doing, thinking of 'giving up' on Obama after his first year in office?

Clearly he's disillusioned, as many progressives are, with Obama's perceived failure to deliver the kind of sweeping reforms they thought he campaigned on. They expected him to have Gitmo closed by now, to have the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, to have smashed the banks, and solved the unemployment and foreclosure crisis. But there are several reasons why this is totally unreasonable.

Firstly, Obama never promised many of these things. He did promise to close Gitmo, and, yes, he hasn't managed that yet. The problem of releasing detainees has proved more difficult than he anticipated. But he has already had a review conducted, with recommendations to transfer most detainees to the United States, there to await trial or release, and only to keep 47 still in Cuba. Of course, this is still disappointing, but remember that some of these people, whether we like it or not, are very dangerous, and releasing them would be very hazardous. Some cannot be tried because evidence gathered against them was gained through coercion or espionage. Obama opposed their detention and the war which caused them to be detained, but now we are where we are and he can't just turn them loose with impunity.

On health reform, a political goal that has eluded presidents for over 60 years, he has faced some of the most implacable partisan opposition ever encountered in the House and Senate, and even huge splits within his own party. Conservative Democrats have made the inclusion of a Public Option impossible, and what Obama understands and his detractors don't is that no amount of bullying by the White House could have improved its chances. Quite the opposite. Lyndon Johnson's approach to getting Medicare through Congress is often cited as an example Obama should have followed, but whereas Johnson faced internal dissent from Southern Democrats, it was easier for him to generate bi-partisan consensus around the core parts of a bill. We cannot underestimate the partisan hostility that the current Republican caucus has towards all things Obama. Just look at the blanket hold one senator has taken out over Obama's nominees to federal offices to see how implacable and spiteful this resistance is.

The depth of conservative hatred for Obama specifically, not just for progressive reform, has made it essentially impossible to create bi-partisan support for even the most modest proposals, despite Obama's best efforts to allow room for compromise. Liberals now attack him for having been naive enough to believe that the Republicans would ever support a bill. But what sort of criticism is that? What's their alternative? Use Reconciliation and force the Public Option through? At the risk of destroying the party in the mid-terms, destroying the prospects for any Republican support of his future legislative agenda, and opening the way for Republican presidents to use the same tactics for tax breaks for the rich? Not really compelling, or original, is it?

The current Senate rule, which allows a filibuster to be used with just 40 votes, giving the minority veto power, is ridiculous and needs to be changed. A simple majority in the Senate should be able to pass most legislation, unless the bill affects the running/constitution of the chamber itself.

Obama is pragmatic. He's not an idealist, and this should be clear from his vote on the warrantless wiretapping bill introduced by President Bush shortly before he left office. Where he believes that vital national security interests are at risk, he will support measures that most Liberals, myself included, find unpalatable. But we should not, therefore, have unrealistic expectations of him. Nor should we believe that we are ever likely to see a President who can deliver, even if he wanted to, such a progressive agenda. Jeb Bartlett is an absurd studio fantasy. America would never elect him, and if they did, by some miracle, he would get so clobbered in the polls and in Congress that his term would be effectively pointless. He wouldn't be able to get anything done. Quite apart from the fact that he would only represent, ideologically, a minority of the population. The MSNBC-watching slice. It may be fair to campaign with those supporters in mind, but you cannot govern solely on behalf of those who voted for you.

Obama's approach to the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is further proof of this careful pragmatism. Of course he wants to bring the troops home as soon as possible, and in fact he never wanted them to go to Iraq in the first place, but he is not so rash as to withdraw them before the local government and armed forces can manage their own security, a policy that would be disastrous for those countries and the regions, if not for the United States itself.

He has been stung, apparently, by his low approval ratings, into attacking the banks, everyone's favourite hate figures. And they do make a very presentable target, but even these new regulations will have to get approval from Congress and could be radically watered down by the time they are implemented.

The point is, if liberals want Obama to get anything done, they need to have more realistic expectations of him and get behind his programme. Democrats need to have political discipline if they are ever to overcome Republican resistance. It is too easy for the GOP at the moment, and I bet they can't believe how quickly their fortunes have turned around since last January. Dems need to make it a lot harder for them to obstruct the President, conduct their bargaining in camera, and show a united front wherever possible, not grandstand for their own local advantage or for the sake of their inflated egos.

Obama is prepared, it seems, to sacrifice a second term for the sake of real reform. The question is, are his colleagues in the party as selfless, and as determined? Krugman et.al, you need to cut the man some slack or before you know it Mike Huckabee will be in the White House abolishing Civil Rights, making gun ownership mandatory and firing nuclear missiles at Iran.