The critique of OpenLeft isn't that they are negative, but that they are using the wrong analytical frameworks and, thus, are coming to the wrong conclusions. It's hard to generalize about a blog that has several different front-pagers with different worldviews, but if there is a commonality to OpenLeft it is a tendency to focus like a laser on the spoken or written word. I don't want to characterize or reduce their analysis to liberal orthodoxy, but that is the lens thru which almost all OpenLeft's analysis is done. Articles and transcripts are parsed, and wherever something is found that clashes with liberal orthodoxy, the result is an angry, concerned, or panicky post that seeks to explain why the deviation is a major threat or huge warning sign.
This is the wrong analytical framework for the times, although that might seem counterintuitive considering Barack Obama's unique oratorical skills. But Obama's unique genius is precisely his ability to use language to inspire a generation of supporters and disarm would-be opponents.
Now, let me act like a U.S. Senator for a moment, and say that I really like BooMan, and consider him a good friend. For crying out loud, he introduced me to my fiancé.
Still, this is another variation of a widespread defense of President Obama's frequent exhortations on the need for bi-partisanship. By graciously reaching out to the other side in both words and deeds, Obama puts Republican and conservative opposition in a bind by forcing them to either be good faith actors who actually want to work with him and / or have actual principle, or be exposed as bad faith actors who simply want to oppose Obama and progress for the sake of opposing Obama and progress.
But is that really how it works? Are President Obama's opponents really disarmed by his calls for increasing bi-partisanship? Early indications are that by constantly harping on bi-partisanship, Obama will actually be attacked, and then opposed, by Republicans for not giving them an equal role in governance.
Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of "petty grievances," President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.
Republicans accused Democrats of abandoning the new president's pledge, ignoring his call for bipartisan comity and shutting them out of the process by writing the $850 billion legislation. The first drafts of the plan would result in more spending on favored Democratic agenda items, such as federal funding of the arts, they said, but would do little to stimulate the ailing economy.
This shows one of the fundamental flaws in the various "Obama disarms the opposition" theories. Rather than talk of bi-partisanship forcing Republicans to either become good faith actors or be exposed as bad faith actors and then brushed aside, President Obama's constant talk of bi-partisanship has forced him to bow to Republican demands, lest he appear to be a bad faith actor when it comes to his calls for bi-partisanship and finding common ground.
There are good reasons to argue that Obama's call for "bi-partisanship" has actually armed Republicans during a moment when they otherwise would have no say over legislation whatsoever. The smaller than needed size of the stimulus is an example of this. The business tax cut proposal in the stimulus is an example of this. Obama's opposition to placing bankruptcy reform legislation in the stimulus is an example of this.
Because Obama is forced to get Republican support or appear to be just blowing smoke in terms of bi-partisanship, Republicans are thrown a lifeline to influence legislation. Obama can't simply echo Speaker Pelosi's response to Republican whining about the lack of bi-partisanship. Instead, he has to keep negotiating with Republicans over adding more tax cuts:
"Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters yesterday, saying Republicans were not being realistic in their expectations.
Hoping to recapture the bipartisan spirit, Obama will host nine congressional leaders at the White House today for talks about the economic recovery package, which he has asked to be on his desk by Feb. 16, Presidents' Day. He also agreed to talk with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and other GOP lawmakers next week about their proposals for more tax cuts.
Now, you tell me, which language is more disarming to Republicans? Is it Pelosi's, who says that elections have consequences, and she will pass whatever Democrats want without asking Republicans for permission? Or, is it Obama's talk of bi-partisanship, which forces him to keep negotiating tax cuts with Republicans?
The answer is obvious. Obama's bi-partisan talk has not disarmed Republicans. Rather, so far it appears to have thrown them a lifeline during a time when they otherwise would have no power to influence legislation at all. At this point, he would do well to follow the Pelosi path, and start talking about how elections have consequences. It is not too late, and I hope he changes his tune.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
