| I'm going to spend most of this post talking about the first and third problems.
What went wrong over the last two years has been richly documented. The best explanation I have read lays it out in simple comes from FDL (empahsis added):
It's important to remember health care reform hurts Democrats not only because it was health care reform, or that they've faced lock-step Republican opposition, or because the economy is really bad. Health care reform hurts them because it was executed in a painfully slow, corrupt and incompetent manner. At almost every turn, they made horrible choices. Deciding to focus on the long-term cost curve and Congressional Budget Office score instead delivering immediate benefits was an unforgivable error in this economic climate. Wasting months trying to get ultra-conservative Mike Enzi (R-WY) on board was an act of nearly unparalleled collective stupidity. Allowing the fight to drag on as the bill became progressively less popular instead of quickly passing it with reconciliation was a very bad idea. Empowering Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman by taking reconciliation "off the table" made jackasses of the whole party as the two Senators' ridiculous demands clearly undercut popular support. The backroom corporate deals which netted no GOP votes were devastating. Lying to the base for months about the public option after having promised insurance companies it would be killed ensured the health care fight would end with incredibly bad blood between Congressional Democrats and their base. A mandate forcing people to buy a product from the highly unpopular insurance companies was an awful idea that Democrats foolishly refused to drop or modify. The mistakes are almost too many to list.
Repeat that on almost every issue. Somehow at every turn, Dems in DC demonstrated a breathtaking incompetence, collective stupidity and tactical cluelessness that doomed them. The White House flailed badly the last two years - when they should have been leading they listened, when they should have been listening, they nagged and cajoled, when they should have been cajoling they sat on their hands, when they should have been rallying the public, they were begging Republicans to play nice, when they should have been attacking Republicans, they turned on their base. It's been a clusterfuck of historic proportions. Worst of all, they failed to make meaningful reforms in the way Washington DC works; health care reform, one of the most important and pressing issues facing the country that required innovation and flexibility, became the living breathing symbol of everything that is wrong with DC.
As a loyal Democrat, watching the performance has been painful. At every turn, party leadership demonstrated astonishing, mind-boggling bad judgment - to the extent that it's been almost physically painful to watch. Faced with an opposition that was publicly telling anyone and everyone they weren't going to support any measure, Congressional leaders pissed away months and political capital pointlessly pursuing Republican votes. And when those votes didn't materialize, rather than dump the compromise measure, they kept watering it down, begging for Republican votes that were never going to materialize. As if that weren't bad enough, leadership allowed the most recalcitrant members of the caucus to hold the process hostage - forcing themselves again and again to abandon popular proposals in favor of unpopular ones. For two years, we've seen DC at its most nonsensical.
The LA Time echoed that critique:
Abandoning the "transformational" model of his presidential campaign, Obama has tried to govern as a "transactional" leader. These terms were coined by political scientist James MacGregor Burns 30 years ago. "Transformational" leadership engages followers in the risky and often exhilarating work of changing the world, work that often changes the activists themselves. Its sources are shared values that become wellsprings of the courage, creativity and hope needed to open new pathways to success. "Transactional" leadership, on the other hand, is about horse-trading, operating within the routine, and it is practiced to maintain, rather than change, the status quo.
The nation was ready for transformation, but the president gave us transaction. And, as is the case with leadership failures, much of the public's anger, disappointment and frustration has been turned on a leader who failed to lead.
That article points to three crucial mistakes:
First, he abandoned the bully pulpit of moral argument and public education. Next, he chose to lead with a politics of compromise rather than advocacy. And finally, he chose to demobilize the movement that elected him president.[snip]
Those three errors determined the course he took:
In his transactional leadership mode, the president chose compromise rather than advocacy. Instead of speaking on behalf of a deeply distressed public, articulating clear positions to lead opinion and inspire public support, Obama seemed to think that by acting as a mediator, he could translate Washington dysfunction into legislative accomplishment. Confusing bipartisanship in the electorate with bipartisanship in Congress, he lost the former by his feckless pursuit of the latter, empowering the very people most committed to bringing down his presidency.
That editorial should be taped to the desk of every person working in the White House and Congress. People want transformation - you gave them transaction.
Americans want transformation not transaction; you have to lead the way. I'd guess the administration figured that people were on board with change so they did not need to spend time articulating what that change and would be. They blew it. And November 2, lots of folks were voted out office because of it.
Another point: the Obama administration seems determined to avoid making the mistakes of the Clinton administration - almost every move has been the polar opposite of a Clinton move. The payback has been the same because at a basic level they've spent two years asking the wrong questions and solving the wrong problems. Glenn Hurowitz (in Fear and Courate in the Democratic Party), argued that Bill Clinton, one of the wiliest politicians in a generation, never managed to translate his personal popularity into a stronger Democratic party. The Obama administration has actually managed to replicate that mistake - they've followed a strategy that has resulted in a weaker party and progressive movement - the Democratic base is angry at the White House and lots of them sat out the 2010 election.
Let me blunt: we have a President who cannot lead. It's bizarre - how could a man who so inspired us in 2008 have turned out to be so ineffective as President?
As Robert Kuttner put it:
. . . I don't have high expectations for Obama. I cannot recall a president who generated so much excitement as a candidate but who turned out to be such a political dud as chief executive. Nor do his actions since the election inspire confidence that he will be reborn as a fighter.
Kuttner goes on to say:
[Danny] Goldberg calls for less reliance on polling and focus groups and more reliance on "inspired intuition" to restore progressivism.
The real question is how we do this without the active collaboration of a Democratic president who is fast becoming more albatross than ally.[snip]
So our task is to step into the leadership vacuum that Obama has left, and fashion a compelling narrative about who and what are destroying America. Our movement needs the passion and single mindedness of the Tea Party movement, and it helps that we have reality on our side. If we do our jobs, we can move public opinion, discredit the right, and elect progressives to office. Even Barack Obama might embrace us, if only as a last resort.
I think, for a lot us, the turning point was the thoughtless, knee-jerk way the White House tossed Shirley Sherrod under the bus. We all knew - we've all known for ages - that Breitbart is a provocateur who will twist the truth to get what he wants. We all knew he edited his videos in dishonest ways. Yet, the White House abandoned Shirley Sherrod who, thank God, is one tough cookie. She fought back and she vindicated herself. Hell, she never did anything wrong. Watching the Keystone Kops in the White House bumble what should have been a gimme was beyond painful. It was a truly shameful moment for the administration, which may have permanently damaged their credibility with the Democratic base. To put it bluntly - they got gamed on ACORN and should have known better then fell for the same thing again. Fighting and losing we can forgive, but showing up with spork to a gun fight - especially when they other guys are being incredibly up front about bringing Abrams tanks - we can't forgive.
Okay so we have a leadership deficit, how do you fix it? Obviously that's not easily answered - until we know what we expect of our leaders.
Let's be honest here, leadership, especially in a democracy, is paradoxical. We want our leaders to inspire us, but not tell us what to do. We want our leaders to stand by their principles - and want them to compromise. We want them to have good ideas but do what we tell them, we expect them to listen to the "voice of the people" when we the people speak in confusing, contradictory ways.
At its core, though, leadership in a democracy must include the ability to inspire and rally people. As we saw in 2008, Barack Obama and Democrats in general have that ability. But it seems as if once they are in office, they stop doing it - it's as if they decide okay we've done the obligatory electioneering now we can focus on governing and we can stop all that glad-handing. But, successful governing requires ongoing efforts to inspire and rally people, as well as ongoing efforts to educate the public about policy and to explain why choices are made. There's a story that after some difficult and unpopular vote, Paul Wellstone told the Senate leadership the most important thing was to now take the time to explain not only why he voted as he voted but why it was the moral choice. Wellstone's lesson is a simple one, and it's one the Obama campaign mastered - place your policies and politics in the moral context and you can work effectively. Another prime example - of transgressing this insight - comes from the health care reform. Save the mandate, the actual parts of health care reform are popular, yet the overall bill is unpopular. Had Dems made the effort, the could have communicated "Here's the actual popular parts of the bill, here's why we did what we did and here's why the mandate is necessary." People may not like it but if they understand it, they can accept it (simply "You can't tell insurance companies they have to cover everyone who applies for insurance and they can't drop people who get sick if everyone isn't in the system; it's not about making you buy something, it's about getting as many people covered as possible so we can make the other parts of the reform work").
Another part of leadership - against demonstrated in its trangression - is the ability to plan ahead. The Bush tax cuts by statute expire at the end of this year. That's how they written when they were first passed. Congressional Dems have flailed around with regard to these unaffordable, economically ineffective tax cuts. Why wasn't there a plan in place? Why didn't they pass something a year ago? Why not have a replacement plan ready to go? Instead, Democratic leadership has put off dealing with this giant clusterfuck until it was literally the last minute. Rather than planning ahead, rather than even looking ahead, they've let themselves get caught like deer in the headlights. It's a fiasco.
Finally (at least for today) I want to mention boldness. The story goes that even great leaders like Alexander III of Macedon and Napoleon Bonaparte had to learn boldness. Great leaders even in our time require boldness - though perhaps of a different sort. Democracy is messy - think of a vast ocean with waves lapping this way and that. Democratic leaders need a different kind of boldness - an ability aptly demonstrated in 2008 to cast a compelling moral vision, to persuade, to invite people to participate more broadly and more fully than before. Then to follow through. Let's be honest - the liberal policy positions will work and will make America stronger, more prosperous, and more secure. Boldness in pursuing the right policies is a good thing. Republicans don't lack for boldness in defense of bad policies. What would happen if Dems were to be bold in favor of good policies? |
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox