Yesterday, I outlined six reasons for progressive activists to approaching the Obama administration mainly with an attitude of "distrust and pressure," aka "make him do it." Today, I am happy to present the counter-argument to that post, "The Case for Trust and Support," aka "give him a chance."
To my surprise, I think the trust and support argument is actually very strong. It focuses on five main reasons:
President Obama's progressive background
President Obama's voting record in the Senate
Democratic trifectas are rare
A major shift toward the public sector has occurred in just the first few weeks of President Obama's administration.
The Senate is the real problem anyway.
In writing the argument, I found it very persuasive. I think you might, too. Of course, given that our checks and balances system of government was founded on distrust of power, that might remain the best, default attitude for citizens to take.
You can read it in its entirety in the extended entry.
Five good reasons to trust and support President Obama more than distrusting and pressuring him:
Because of his background: There are some very progressive aspects to President Obama's background. Two that always stick out in my mind are that he spent time after college as a community organizer and found religion through a church that preached liberation theology. Experiences such as these can only come from a person who is open to left-wing ideas. Obama simply must view progressivism as something to take seriously, rather than as the caricatured fashion it is often portrayed in our national political discourse. There have been times in his life where he has sided with some very, very left-wing ideas.
Further, while President Obama often uses anti-partisan and anti-ideological language that many center-right pundits and Democrats have often used to mean "let's capitulate to Republicans and conservatives on everything," his background as a person of mixed-ethnicity suggests a very different possibility. President Obama has long been required to navigate between apparently dichotomous worlds, and the fact that he was able to become the first African-American President of the United States indicates that he is very good at this navigation. As such, there has always been good reason to believe that his usage of anti-partisan and anti-ideological language comes from a different place than, say, Evan Bayh, and has a very different meaning.
Because he voted reasonably well in the Senate:During the campaign, National Journal was widely mocked for once again, miraculously naming the Democratic Presidential nominee the "most liberal Senator," even though no other vote ranking system outside of the RNC showed a similar result. However, while Obama is not the most liberal Senator, the National Journal rankings do show that he had a relatively strong voting record in the Senate. According to the rigorous DW-nominate scores, Obama was the 11th most liberal Senator in the 109th Congress, and 13th in the 110th. Progressive Punch places Obama's lifetime vote ranking a bit lower, at around 20th, but still above average for the Democratic Senate caucus.
All three of these extensive, in-depth vote measurements placed the former Senator Obama as more progressive than the average Democratic Senator. While some may justifiably counter that being progressive relative to the Senate doesn't necessarily make someone very progressive, given available data it still seems safe to say that President Obama is in the top quintile of progressivism among federally and statewide elected officials. That is a solid record that cannot be dismissed.
Because these opportunities are rare: Who among us doesn't regret the failure in the 1994 health care reform fight? I'm sure everyone wishes the Clinton administration had emerged victorious on that one. At the time, there were certainly many progressives who did not believe the Clinton plan for health care reform went far enough. Further, there were probably quite a few progressives upset with Clinton over NAFTA, which had passed a few months earlier. Perhaps these frustrations resulted in less than full-support for the Clinton plan, even though the plan might have succeeded with more effective, more coordinated support from the left.
During the past fifteen years, I have often looked back on that fight with regret. No matter my frustrations with President Clinton, and no matter the inadequacies of the plan, I wish there was another chance to push as hard as possible for less expensive, more widely available health care. After all, these opportunities don't come around very often. Over the past fifty years, Democratic trifectas have been few and far between. After the 1961-1969 period, there has only been 1977-1981, and 1993-1995. In the years immediately following 1994, the enormity of the opportunity that had been lost gradually began to sink in. Progressives were in the wilderness, and there wasn't much left but regret and slender hope.
Such feelings might be important to remember during the current fights in which the Obama administration is engaging. Given how rare these opportunities for big change actually are, we need to make the most of them while we have them. Back in 1993, it certainly felt like Democrats and liberals were on the ascendancy, but it ended up not working out that way. No matter the strength of the demographic trends for Democrats and progressives, politics does not follow a fixed path, and the same thing could happen this time (not likely, but not impossible). We should fight all of these opportunities as though they are the last ones we will have for another decade or two, because history suggests another decade or two is how long we have to wait for another, similar opportunity.
Because there has been a major public-private shift: We are less than three months into President Obama's first term, and a major, progressive shift in spending can already be identified. As I discussed earlier in the week, from 1976-2007, public spending as a percentage of GDP had consistently remained in the 32%-37% range. However, due to the stimulus package and the proposed budget, public spending as a percentage of GDP will move above 40%, even without the bailouts, for the first time in American history outside of World War Two.
This is the biggest progressive economic victory in over thirty years. It is a tangible step toward the Canadian and Western European mixed economic model, the first one we have taken in a few decades. And it happened in less than three months. If, in only three months, someone has achieved the biggest progressive victory in thirty years, and the first real step toward an equitable economic model in a similar amount of time, that should probably earn that person a bit of trust and support from the American left.
Because the Senate is the real problem: It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Senate, rather than the Obama administration, is the biggest obstacle to progressive governance right now. If we were dealing with only the House and the Obama administration, there would be a noticeably more progressive government in America. From health care reconciliation, to 100% auction cap and trade, to a larger stimulus package, to bailout reform, to bankruptcy "cramdown" reform, and even to executive compensation, the Senate has moved to the right of both the House and the Obama administration. As such, it is the Senate, and not the Obama administration, against whom we should be directing more of our distrust and pressure.
Just imagine what we would have accomplished in terms of legislation without the Senate over the past few months. The stimulus would have had a hundred billion more in spending, 100% auctions would be on their way, hundreds of billions for new health care would be on its way, bankruptcy "cramdown" would be law, EFCA would be law, executive compensation limits would be far more severe, and on and on and on. However, if we had the Senate but there was no President, the legislative accomplishments would have been pretty much the same.
While there have been moments where the Obama administration has been checked by Congress on the business tax or executive compensation, overall the filibuster-based Senate, and Evan Bayh's conservodems, are the real problem.
What did I miss? Also, which argument, "trust and support," or "distrust and pressure," did you find more persuasive? I'd love to hear your comments.
