The Folly of Obama

I should have turned my attention toward this long before, but I'd like to offer up my thoughts on Obama's strategy as it relates to passing a stimulus bill. I'd been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on some level, until I saw this presser today.

Here's the problem: when he says we need to "put politics aside", I fear he actually means that was part of his approach to passing this bill. He says there are some "philosophical differences" between he and the Republicans, and that he wishes they had a better idea of what was in the bill. Watch the video. Am I the only one that feels like there's a glimmer of deer in the headlights about him, or at least the beginning of a realization that things aren't going the way he planned?

He thought in a time of national crisis he could assemble a broad coalition and that that coalition could subsequently create an agenda. And that, respectfully, is a fool's errand. You need to set an agenda and find a way - any way - to accomplish it. You never alter exactly what you want, never make a compromise from what you believe is best, unless not doing so threatens the agenda itself. Thus good governing boils down to the quality of the agenda itself and nothing else. Bush understood that. His failure was that his agenda was reckless and foolish; a failure of ideas, not accomplishment. When Obama says he wants to leave politics aside he's making a devastating miscalculation: it's all politics. Once you set it aside, there's nothing left. Josh Marshall hits the nail on the head in this post when he writes:

I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.

In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.

What Obama inappropriately labels philosophical differences are actually political differences. And before Democrats get on their high horses about how cynical it is to play politics with policies that effect people's lives (and it is), remember that it was the Democrats that had a chance to halt funding in Iraq two years ago, but made the political decision to go ahead and fund it because they knew Republicans owned the misadventure and that it would probably continue to weigh them down come '08 (which it arguably did).

All that aside, it's almost incomprehensible that Obama believed that men the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell would meet him halfway on anything that wasn't 100% in their political interests. Obama can bring science (back) to Washington. He can bring expertise, multilateralism, deliberation, transparency, accountability, and even the rule of law if he wants to. But he cannot bring decency. He can't bring personal or political sacrifice either. Not from his ruling party, and most certainly not from the opposition.

As I said in an earlier post, politics is the art of winning and nothing more. You make the tough choices about what to put on your flag, about who and what to fight for -- not by calling time out and trying to change the rules.

Overturned

Yesterday, by executive order, President Obama ended years of legal debate between a variety of historians and the White House by sweeping away President Bush's regulations that obstructed the release of a variety of documents from all branches of government, but most particularly the Oval Office.

What a difference a day makes.

NYT story on the accomplishments of the first 24 hours.

Episode IV

I am reasonably certain that among American historians, 20 January 2009 is going to compete with 11 September, 2001 as the real beginning of the 21st century.

Some have suggested that the long national nightmare is over. With Obama already moving to dismantle Gitmo by suspending military hearings, and freezing Bush's executive orders with an eye toward reversing them, I am prepared to entertain that idea. On the other hand, Justice John Roberts managed to flub the oath of office, which was still administered with the inclusion of the (possibly illegal) line "...so help me god" not actually found in the Constitution, and the Dow fell 4% yesterday, for those paying attention to such things.

Still, yesterday rings in my head. The speech was simply masterful- a certain justice that Bush et al had to sit feet away and listen to millions of Americans cheer the repudiation of their ideological foundations. The comparisons to JFK are becoming cliche, and are in my opinion also becoming obsolete. Obama is already beginning to stand in the light of his own reputation. In the space of less than a day.

I won't join the ranks of those who call this a new beginning- that redundancy doesn't really apply to the business of government. What we have this morning is rather a new hope. I will, happily and proudly, join the ranks of those who see this as yet another step toward a more perfect realization of the American idea. I look forward with eager anticipation to watching the next few hours, days, weeks, unfold.