If Barack Obama wants to forge a new liberal consensus in mainstream America,
would it be better for him to hire only Democrats for his
administration? Or would it be better for him to do what he tells us he
is inclined to do: appoint some Republicans to enact liberal policies?
If high-profile Republicans (say, Arnold Schwarzenegger) are in
charge of large liberal initiatives (say, a public works project to
rebuild infrastructure across America), that might create the
impression that not only are Obama's progressive views mainstream, but
that Republicans have tacitly conceded the economic debate altogether.
Some Democrats are wary of Obama's professed bipartisanship. But
there's been no evidence that his views are torn between the left and
the right; he is clearly putting forth a progressive, or liberal, agenda. So, rather
than a Democrat bringing in a bunch of Republicans to govern by
splitting the baby between the two sides, it appears that we have a
case of a Democrat bringing in Republicans to put a bipartisan face on
progressive policy, shades of, say, George Bush bringing in Ted Kennedy to put a bipartisan face on "compassionate conservatism."
During the last period of liberal consensus (from the 1930s through
the early 1960s), Republicans like Eisenhower may not have been as
liberal as Democrats like Adlai Stevenson, but they accepted the new
political realities and worked to strengthen and extend Roosevelt's
ideas (it was Eisenhower, after all, who built the enormous
infrastructure project known as the interstate highway system, and who
railed against those conservatives seeking to dismantle Social
Security).
The economic crisis presents a huge opportunity for Obama, and it's
going to be difficult for Republicans to oppose his initiatives,
especially if they are aimed at bandaging our collective economic
wounds. That will probably be the reality even if Obama governs with
Democrats only. But if he taps some of the most well-known Republicans
in America to serve in his administration, it will be tougher for conservative Republicans who are
opposed in principle to Obama's agenda. Even the Republicans are
Democrats these days, is what the impression would be. In other words,
liberal consensus.
The catch here is, the initiatives must be seen as successful.
Quite a few self-described Democrats became Bush supporters after 9/11,
and had Bush's foreign policy been successful, the Republicans would be
in a much stronger position than they are today, even admidst tough
economic times.
But again, if Obama can make his liberal ideas appear nonpartisan, the public is
likely to support them that much more, even if they are not immediately
successful. He seems to want to mainstream Democratic philosophies and
the Democratic worldview, rather than focusing on pure party-building
(though he's certainly built up the party as well). It's a long-term
strategy, and a far more ambitious one than people seem to realize.
« McCain Likes Napolitano As Homeland Security Czar | Main | Tales From The NSA: The Official Word On The Liberty Incident » Obama And A New Liberal Consensus20 Nov 2008 01:21 pm Comments (12)
Seth: No Child Left Behind. Kennedy was the key Democrat who lined up behind it & helped push it through. It was SUPPOSED to make the country better, but that's what happens when you leave the money behind... 
Quite a few self-described Democrats became Bush supporters after 9/11
Marc, please can you tell your fellow "journalists" to shut their pie hole- If I hear Why is it taking so long for Clinton to say yes, are they fighting, well one informed source says this or someone close to another damn democratic official says- I remember your earlier post about the only issue now is the media's obsessive obsession with anything clinton. It is driving me bat-sh@&> I mean can Obama want her for SoS because she might actually,gasp, do a good job.
[T]here's been no evidence that [Obama's] views are torn between the left and the right What about Obama's vote on the FISA amendment bill? He voted for the bill including retroactive amnesty for the telcos.
Try for a new liberal consensus? Sure--let's debate the idea next election with a press made up of libs and conservatives equally, so that all sides are treated equally. Other than that... ...I wouldn't. It would seem to be a dangerous game, more dangerous than some realize.
Many Democrats don't remember what winning looks like, so they're afraid of it when it arrives. If a party has the power to implement its agenda with or without the opposition party, it can use that power to divide and characterize the opposition. The process is simple--solicit the more moderate members of the opposition in exchange for trivial concessions, then demonize the remainder for their "shrillness" and failure to join the bipartisan consensus. Bush did this to Democrats again and again over again. I would be disappointed of Obama didn't return the favor.
Correction: I would be disappointed *if* Obama didn't return the favor.
You're just noticing this?
Sounds like somebody has a code.
Question is whether Obama believes the electorate favors (picking one example among many) (1) moving forward with some sort of phased, comprehensive energy program that, among other things, lessens dependence on foreign oil in the short run and on all fossil fuels in the long run or (2) enacting an Al Gore/Sierra Club approach and nothing but that approach. Presumably Republicans will participate in implementing a genuine compromise plan that includes some offshore drilling, nuclear power and utilization of venture capitalism to develop new technologies but will decline to help implement a plan that ignores offshore drilling and nuclear power and allocates immense amounts of seed capital and tax incentives to alternative energy projects by the decision of politicians acting on porkbarrel lines rather than technological or financial merit -- you know, the folks who solved our energy problems by giving us ethanol. And you'd think the Democrats would want to have solid support among Republican legislators on any sort of meaningful carbon tax, cap and trade system or other means of making fossil fuels diseconomic. But you'll never see the Republicans sticking their necks out for such a proposal unless it's part of a genuinely bipartisan program. If by "liberal ideas" one means unthinking but infinitely shrill and sanctimonious advocacy of ethanol, protectionism, the Detroit bailout, no secret ballot to protect workers from intimidation, Barney Frank's egging on Fannie and Freddie over the years, no nuclear power plants (notwithstanding their success in France) and (my favorite) NO WIND TURBINES WHERE TED KENNEDY LIKES TO SAIL HIS YACHT, there's clearly no emerging majority for nonsense like that and Obama won't be a successful president, much less a great one, if he tries to cram that stuff down the public's throat rather than meld the best ideas from left and right alike.
Post election we look for actions that might provide a glimpse into the potential of “change” arriving with an Obama Presidency. The first “Tell” - - - http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-first-tell.html
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Did Bush ever bring in Kennedy to put a bipartisan face on "compassionate conservatism"? If he didn't, then it's kind of a bad comparison because I doubt it would have worked. If he did include Kennedy on some initiative, did it work? I hardly think anyone has ever thought, "Ah, that Bush! Working across the aisle to make this country better!"
Posted by Seth | November 20, 2008 1:49 PM