The first draft of my diary, "Obama's 'Mandate' To Slash Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security" was written through the prism of a column by E.J. Dionne this past Thursday, "Audacity Without Ideology". Regardless of whether or not my fears expressed in that earlier diary prove well-founded, I believe that Dionne's article can help us unpack some of the misgivings I have about Obama's approach that I think many others share as well, albeit to varying degress.
In his column Dionne cited "at least three keys to understanding Obama's approach to (and avoidance of) ideology." First, "his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies." Second, "Right now, being empirical is in the progressive interest," since rightwing policies since Reagan "have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests." But third, Obama believes in a non-ideological approach. that a "pragmatic" "non-ideological" path--a "grand bargain" with conservatives involving "sacrifice" for all will result in political "sustainability"--a solution that Republicans won't want to undo, when they return to power someday.
This last point was particularly salient in putting me deeply on guard about cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Indeed, I had an early draft done before I even saw the short notice in the Post that I eventually used instead of Dionne's piece. This is why I found it faintly humorous that several commentators jumped on my interpretation of the replacement piece from The Fix that I used instead. Whether or not my fears prove justified, Dionne's interpretation of what Obama is up to does reflect a widely perceived reality. And in politics, perceived realities all too often trump actual realities. So it's best to take them very seriously, no matter how silly they seem, or for that matter, no matter how silly you seem by doing so.
I parse my way through Dionne's "three keys" on the flip.
Yesterday, I wrote three diaries about different high-level Obama nominees--Admiral Dennis Blair for Director of National Intelligence, Sanjay Gupta Surgeon General , and Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education. In all three cases, one could have raised objections about their positions or policies they had backed, but such arguments have long been deflected with any number of handy tropes. Instead, by one means or another, I questioned the basic rationale that Obama, his apologists and applauders have raised again and again--the rationale of competence. Is Admiral Blair really competent if he disobeyed orders and continued encouraging the Indonesian military in its last-stand massacres in East Timor in 1999? Is Sanjay Gupta really competent for the post of Surgeon General, if he mangles facts and outright lies in attacking Michael Moore's Sicko, doesn't have a public health background, and has questionable conflicts of interest? Is Arne Duncan competent for the post of Sevretary of Education if he has no background at all as a classroom educator, and only a so-so record as a city-level "education reformer"?
In short, Obama's rationale of making appointments based on "competence" not ideology falls apart when examined carefully. This is not to claim that all his appointments are incompetent for the posts they are selected for. It is only to claim that the rationale does not hold across the board. Something else must be going on, and the obvious candidate for that is, rather obviously, insider politics-as-usual. Where competence is compatible with insider-politics-as-usual, we get competence as a special bonus. Where it is not, we get bupkis.
STATE BLOGS
