Seeking a certain kind of emotional fulfillment from the political process can be a very dangerous thing.
I have always believed that, while enthusiasm for politics is commendable, there are fewer things more dangerous than enthusiasm in politics.
I think this lies at the root of progressive and left-wing disappointment with Barack Obama and health-care reform. There was much to welcome in candidate Obama's approach - all that hopey-changey stuff. When he praised Ronald Reagan during the campaign (getting all sorts of flak from liberal bloggers in the process) he was doing nothing more than noting that Reagan showed, by example, what it takes to win a national election, and keep the public's attention. Clinton, too, did the same thing, which in my view is why he managed to win two elections; the American electorate appreciates appeals to the better angels of their nature. Reagan, Clinton, Obama all did this. While the warnings of various dire consequences in following certain policies offered by Reagan's, H. W.'s, and W.'s opponents were certainly warranted, even on target, in the main Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry lost not because they were right or wrong on the merits, but because they came off (correctly or not) as far too negative. Clinton and Obama married an enthusiasm for policy detail with a rhetorical flourish that showed they knew, as the cliche goes, America's best days are in front of us still.
Young Americans in particular responded to Obama's message with a vengeance; ignoring the humdrum reality that he was not exactly a flaming liberal. Obama is far more interested in the nitty-gritty of governance, knows the price it is sometimes necessary to pay to do something, and that, as a country both geographically large and humanly diverse, compromise even with those we would rather ignore is sometimes necessary. Many treat our elections like those in a parliamentary democracy. In Britain, for example, parties are elected on specific programmatic platforms, and when they reach the majority, are offered the opportunity to enact those policies. Should they fail, the voters turn them out.
Our system is a bit more unwieldy, yet far preferable (to my mind) for all that, precisely because it takes the diversity of the country in to account.
When ideologues of any stripe criticize our politics as unresponsive to popular opinion, I usually hear underneath these complaints the position that politics should be cleansed of its diversity and nastiness. The pursuit of certain social goods through the political process, however, always entails not just compromise, but the understanding that one will never, ever, get all that one wants. The best negotiators manage to get far more than the worst - which is why Clinton managed to mitigate much conservative harm from a right-wing Congress during the last six years of his Presidency - yet we should always remember that even those pieces of legislation we consider landmarks bit of law are the product of negotiation, debate, compromise, and (usually at the time) devastating complaints from partisans who wished the laws did more than they seemed to suggest as passed.
Neither law nor politics will make our country better in the end. We the people, in our homely, everyday existence must do that. Politics is a nasty business, amoral to the core, even when pursuing desirable ends (civil rights for minorities, regulation of dangerous business practices). Those who claim to have voted for a candidate based on matters related to his or her personal character, or because of that candidate has claimed to detest "politics as usual" (as if there were any other kind of politics) are always disappointed. Some of our best politicians are morally compromised individuals; those who have a far more exemplary character are, usually, poor politicians, or at the very least equivocal in their leadership skills. A certain amount of amorality, even ruthlessness, is necessary.
Understanding this is the first step toward appreciating the political skills of a Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. While all these men have their limitations, they also are among the most skilled political operatives to serve as President. Much liberal hand-wringing over all three men lies, in part I believe, in the desire for all three to be far more ethically pure (which usually coincides with a desire for ideological purity) in their approach to politics.
