I look at the perceptions of President Obama and his "accomplishments" in terms of upward and downward counterfactuals, in addition to, as Paul says, "what do you get in the end?"
Upward counterfactuals look at "how much better it would have been if..."-these reduce satisfaction with reality but help individuals prepare for better performance in the future. The "sanctimonious purists" with whom the President parts company are engaging in upward counterfactuals-and rightly so.
Downward counterfactuals look at "how much worse it would have been if..."-and engender a sense of complacency and satisfaction; to me, they can be rationalizations for "settling" or, worse, defeatist.
The entire line from the Obama administration and its most ardent supporters has been, among other things, one long exercise in downward counterfactualism-"it would have been even worse if we had not gotten x," x being a mere fraction of or some inferior alternative to what was sought (as occurred in health care "reform," extension of unemployment benefits), not even what might be considered "ideal," or something no one could have or should have opposed (as in the START treaty, food safety, health care for 9/11 responders). These downward counterfactuals act as rationalizations for, on the one hand, as Paul says, the slow motion dismantling of the New Deal (as well as the wholesale undermining of liberal programs and philosophy, generally) and, on the other, as justifications for corporate-driven policy.
One thing that struck me about this comment is how it cut to the heart of what I think is wrong with the Obama presidency and how it contradicts his campaign. It's a problem even deeper than ideology, because it goes to where the differences in ideology come from. Put simply, Obama's campaign was one long exercise in upward counterfactual "thinking"--if, indeed, one could even call it "thinking". It was more like imagining: imagine that things will be dramatically better, because we all know that they can. And each of you can help by imagining that in your own way, and then pitching in....
There were limits to this, clearly. And I pointed them out at the time. There wasn't really a whole lot of content. But there was, at least, this upward counterfactual logic which just by its form embodied a promise.
But Obama's entire presidency has been entirely the reverse. It's been about downward counterfactuals. It's been about settling. "Well, this isn't exactly what you want, but imagine how much worse it will be if we don't at least do this." That has been the logic of virtually everything the Obama Administration has done. And not just the finished legislation, but of all the pre-compromising, of the exclusion of idealistic voices--or even just long-suffering, hard-working, scientifically informed and/or militant ones.
Now, I'm very much a wonkish sort who's into how things work. And it's simply a fact that neo-liberalism is not how things work. So I tend to look at what Obama does and say, "Well, that's just more screwed up neo-liberal BS." And that's true. But it's also true that neo-liberalism means settling. It is, at it's very essence, a philosophy of settling. "Well, yes, you want X, Y and Z," the neo-liberal says. "And so do we. So does everyone. But you can't just go ahead and DO it the way you want to. You have to adapt. You have to use more conservative means. But don't worry, it's still for progressive ends." And this argument, by its very essential logic is a form of downward counterfactual thinking: If you don't do this.... It's Tony Blair accepting Margaret Thatcher's most famous dictum: "There is no alternative." Only he says, you can still make it work for progressive ends. But then it doesn't actually work out, and the process of downward adjustment continues, grows deeper, based on the argument, "Well, if not, imagine how much worse...."
And throughout all of this what is always being lost, piece by piece, bit by bit is the wild-eyed exuberance of limitless hope and aspiration. What's being lost is vision. What's being lost is the mindset of upward counterfactuals.
That's the bottom-line difference between how Obama campaigned and how he has governed.
Rather than writing just another blog post today, I am feeling the need to write an open letter to the President.
Dear Mr. President,
I think I speak for a lot of folks in writing this letter, although I readily admit that some of my progressive friends have given up on you and are talking about a primary challenge, and others still support you strongly no matter what. But there are a lot of us who find ourselves genuinely conflicted about your Presidency and your relationship with the progressive community.
Like millions of other Democrats, I went all out for you in the campaign, giving money, knocking on doors, making phone calls, being involved in groups who were helping you, helping out in every other way I could think of to help. Like hundreds of thousands of other progressive activists, I have spent many hours and given much money over the last two years working on behalf of your stimulus package, your health care reform bill, and your financial reform bill. Having lived through the Jimmy Carter years, when Carter governed as a moderate and was challenged in many different ways by progressives yet was still successfully labeled a liberal by Republicans, I have written time and time and again that progressives' fate is inextricably linked to your fate whether either of us wants it to be, and that progressives should do whatever we can to make you a successful President. And I still believe that. No one wants you to succeed more than I do.
So here I am, along with so many others, out here fighting- really fighting- for everything you say you believe in. On health care, you said you were for a public option, for negotiating drug prices on Medicare, against taxing workers' health care benefits, and that is what I and so many others who are your supporters fought for. On taxes, you said you were against the wealthiest of Americans having their Bush tax cuts extended, and that is what your supporters fought against. On these and so many other issues, we have fought by your side for what you said you were for.
Let me switch from "we" to "I" for a minute, because I am an old Washington insider who knows that compromise on some issues is inevitable, and that even the best of Presidents have to make deals. FDR made compromises, so did his cousin Teddy, so did Lincoln on slavery and LBJ on civil rights and Medicare. I supported your stimulus plan even though I thought it was way too small. I supported health care reform even though it didn't have a public option. I supported financial reform even though it didn't break up the Too Big To Fail banks. But I was disappointed about all the compromises that had to made and I did fight against them- because that is the job of the progressive movement. As an old community organizer, I am saddened that you don't seem to understand that basic notion. Frederick Douglass and Charles Sumner supported the emancipation proclamation, but still demanded that slaves be freed in every state, not just the Confederate states. John L Lewis supported Social Security but immediately began fighting for it to be extended. Martin Luther King, Jr supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but complained bitterly that it didn't include voting rights and kept fighting for that to happen. It is our job as progressives to fight for more, and our job to complain when we didn't get it. That doesn't make us- or King or Lewis or Douglass- sanctimonious. They, and we, are just doing what we are supposed to do. And Mr. President, you of all people should understand that.
I will say again: no one wants you to succeed more than I. But I fear that you are on the verge of destroying your Presidency by not showing your supporters that you are fighting just as hard as they are for your principles, and in fact attacking us when we do. Washington establishment wisdom says that you can blow off your supporters, because where are they going to go after all? And this much is true: people like me will support you in the general election against Sarah Palin or whatever far right extremist the Republicans put up against you. But it is no accident that the last 4 Presidents to not get re-elected to a second term (George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, Jerry Ford, LBJ) all had a bad relationship with their party's base. Because it is your base activists who fight your battles. It is your activists who defend you when the other side attacks. It is your activists who fight for your legislative agenda. It is your activists who fuel your field operation and grassroots enthusiasm. It is your activists who register voters and drag marginal voters to the polls so you win the close states.
Mr. President, there are plenty of us out here who understand the need to compromise sometimes. What we don't understand is this sense that you have thrown in the towel before the battle has begun. And we don't understand being attacked by you when what we are fighting for is your agenda. If you are dismissive of the need to rally your own troops, if you are disdainful of the very people who have fought the hardest on your behalf, you will destroy your Presidency. For your sake, for your party's sake, for your country's sake, we can't afford for that to happen. Mr. President, those of us who have been on your side need to know that you are on our side, too.
Like most DC political people, I read the recent flurry of articles/posts about the palace intrigue at the White House with interest. These kinds of pieces about a struggling President are as predictable as the sun coming up in the east and the Washington area being shut down by a snowstorm. But at the end of the day, who's up and down at the White House is not what matters. Only two things matter in terms of the success of Barack Obama's Presidency:
Will the economy create enough jobs so that American workers feel that real progress is being made economically?
Will the American people feel that Obama has had a decent measure of success in changing Washington's track record at failure on the big challenges facing us and failure to curb the power of the big special interests?
Obama's sagging numbers, and the twin electoral cancers that brought down Democratic statewide candidates in VA, NJ and MA - working-class voters turning against us and base voting Democrats not turning out to vote - are both tied directly to the lack of progress on these two things. It was no surprise at all that Democracy Corps found in its research about the State of the Union speech that the only big place the President lost people was when he tried to take credit for an economy turning around - they just aren't feeling it yet. And the polling of base voters who didn't turn out shows that they are disappointed (a) with the economy and (b) that the special interests still seem to be running Washington.
Like all Democratic Presidents in my lifetime, President Obama has done some things well, and been disappointing in others. I continue to credit him for taking on big challenges like health care, financial reform, and climate change. But for me, the most troubling thing about Obama has been that even as he has tried to take on big issues, he hasn't seemed to have grasped the need to go beyond the conventional wisdom of the Washington establishment in terms of how to get them done. He pushed through a good stimulus bill, but accepted in advance the advice of those who said it didn't need to be bigger. He listened to the establishment economists who said we just shore up the big banks first and blithely counseled him that jobs were a lagging indicator, and he accepted it. He listened to advisers who told him that the only way to get legislation passed was to cut deals with industry lobbyists. He listened to political advisers who consistently counseled him that the base could be ignored while he courted the "middle" (which in DC is not defined as actual (mostly working class) swing voters but as powerful corporate lobbyists). He allowed administration progressives like Van Jones and Greg Craig to be thrown to the wolves.
It doesn't matter who is top in the administration inner circle if Obama's core governing style is to accept what traditional neo-classical economists and conventional wisdom advisers say. What Obama has to do is to embrace the change he promised to represent, to break out of the prison of the CW establishment and special interest lobbyists. He does it sometimes - like taking on the banks regarding student loans and embracing bolder financial regulations in recent weeks, or pushing back against conservative Democrats who wanted to give up on health care reform when Scott Brown won. But he has to embrace the bigger, bolder change in everything if he's going to fix our broken economy and broken government.
Does that mean shaking up his White House staff, replacing Rahm as Chief of Staff? I don't know, maybe. Rahm has become a dominant COS for an inexperienced President, and he certainly is a creature of CW Washington. While Bill Clinton, whose lack of discipline and disdain for orderly flow chart type of operations meant that he talked and listened to everybody under the sun and took ideas from all over, Obama's sense of order and discipline has meant that Rahm dominates the decision-making process in a way that none of Clinton's Chiefs of Staff did. Maybe that process needs to be broken up. But if Obama brings in someone with the same mindset as Rahm, and keeps to the same top down closed circle, listens only to a few perspectives all of the same inside-DC worldview, replacing Rahm doesn't change anything.
President Obama needs to be the change he ran on. I don't really care who is up or down on his staff as long as he understands that he needs to break out of the DC conventional wisdom that says it's okay for jobs to be a lagging indicator, and it's okay to accept special interests rather than challenge them. When he challenges the establishment, he is at his best. When he pushes back boldly against the usual Washington BS, he wins the hearts of both swing and base voters. Let's hope that he chooses to do it more, not less.
There are some progressive policy changes that are fairly simple, easy to achieve with electoral success. All it took, for example, to get a minimum wage increase was to elect a Democratic Congress. All it took to start investigating executive branch malfeasance was to give Henry Waxman a gavel. Having the EPA and OSHA issue better regulations requires only a President who will appoint better people to run those agencies. Lots of other things are harder, requiring the combination of both electing a more progressive President and making our progressive movement stronger. To get a dramatically improved trade policy will take not only an Obama Presidency but a powerful movement demanding that Obama do the right thing on trade. But even so, that kind of change, as big and important as it is, is not terribly complicated to actually pull off- it just requires a President willing to do it.
There are, however, some issues that are big, complicated messes to try to make real change in. Really shrinking the power of our military-industrial complex so that there won't be a constant political pressure for more military adventurism fits in that category. So does fundamentally charging our carbon fuel based economy so that we can truly solve the climate crisis. And restructuring 1/6 of our economy, health care, is going to be incredibly tough as well.
I think we are likely going to have to wait to do much regarding the first of these, the military-industrial complex issues, because while Obama will at least start to move us out of Iraq, he probably won't look to make major change in general on national security policy. The other two issues, though, we have a shot at- Obama says he wants to make them a priority.
Given that, I want to go back to discussion that has graced the pages of OpenLeft from time to time, which is about theories of how you can create change, in this case specifically the kind of big change desperately needed regarding health care and climate change. I want to compare the big theories of change that one hears most often, and start a discussion on how the progressive community should focus its energies.
STATE BLOGS
