With too few exceptions, Obama very much not among them, the Democrats have shown neither the willingness nor the ability to foment populist politics from the left. The right comes to own a monopoly on an emotion in ever more plentiful supply: anger. They have, of course, no solutions. But when it only takes 40 senators to filibuster—and “filibuster” means merely signing a petition—legislators representing only the 20 least populated states in the union, and about 9 percent of American citizens, can at the very least stop Obama from claiming credit for solutions. And then the mainstream media—tada!—reports that Obama’s a failure. How’s his performance been? I just wish that question mattered more. On the big questions, it’s almost moot. Though fortunately the government has been and will be far, far better administered in the meantime.
Me here on this blog:
[President Obama] doesn't operate on the nightly news schedule. He gives speeches, to be sure, and does appearances - most recently at a green factory in Iowa - but he isn't focused on whether or not he gets a good story on the three networks, or a good spin during the on-going 24-hour news stations. Recognizing the artificiality of the pressure-cooker created by 24-hour news channels, Obama has opted, for whatever his reasons may be, to govern as an adult. He understands the depth of the challenges he faces, not the least of them being an establishment that is geared to doubt the effectiveness of any attempt he may make at correcting the situation.
--snip--
[M]any liberals are upset that Obama has not simply moved with lightning speed, for example, to take legal action against those who authorized the use of torture during the Bush Administration. I think that he will no more be pushed to act by his natural constituency than by his opponents. Part of the reason for this, I think, is a sense of propriety; one of the things Obama is asserting is the inherent limitations of the Office of the President, and simultaneously the independence of the Department of Justice. He has also refused to insist that Congress do anything - in regard to the torture memos or anything else - precisely because it is an equal branch of government to the Executive.
In other words, we are looking at a patient, fairly deliberate man using that patience and deliberation for the long-term benefit of the country.
Where I believe my own view differs from Perlstein's (and isn't that pretty humble of me . . .) is I am not sure what else the President could do, or should do, that he hasn't already done, for example, on pushing Congress on health care reform legislation. Many liberals and left-wing advocates are frustrated that he seems to be wishy-washy on the question of a public option; yet he has made clear that "reform" is his desire. If that includes a public option, and it is done in a workable form, that's great. If universal or near-universal health care access is achieved without it, then that's fine by him (and I'm not sure why this point isn't emphasized more, except that too many liberals are far too vested in those two magic words to understand what the President is trying to do).
With the glaring exception of a troop draw-down in Iraq, and raising the specter of a greater commitment to Afghanistan, the President has actually achieved, one year after being elected, quite a bit of his agenda. He has also signaled his willingness to address DADT in the military (which he cannot simply ignore or set aside since it's a statutory, not executive or administrative, policy), which he did not address at all during the campaign. He has signed historic hate crimes legislation that will, I believe, be as important in the long run as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
On the glaring exceptions - the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan - I can only wonder whether there are structural impediments to Obama moving forward with troop withdrawal. Add to that his penchant for caution when acting, and perhaps taking seriously any criticism he may face as a Commander-in-Chief who has never served in the military, and there is a recipe for lethargy that frustrates many (myself included).
I stand by my early assertions that the President is governing in the only way he sees he can govern; the criticism Perlstein levels at the President (that what he does seems to matter very little) ignores the reality that the trouble isn't the Executive Branch, or even the lower House of Congress. As Perlstein rightly states, the brakes are being applied by just a few members of the United States Senate. What can the President possibly do to address this? Indeed, what can any of us do that hasn't already been done?
These are issues to be addressed by the House and Senate Democratic majorities, who as a group seem determined to act as if they are still the minority, and were not elected with majorities great enough to determine the agenda. The best the President can do is a combination of cajolery and admonition to Congressional leadership; if they refuse to step up and act like a party that can govern, is that the President's fault?
While I think "mixed" is a good way to describe Pres. Obama's overall success - he certainly hasn't faced any major defeats; he just hasn't secured a victory on health care reform yet - my guess is much of the left-wing whining about his performance is a desire to have elected a different man, with a different set of governing principles, in office. I do believe that Obama's performance matters, and I think it is better, in many ways, than any Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson (well, there have been only two since then . . .). The structural and ideological impediments to enacting any kind of progressive or left-wing populist agenda are far greater now than forty-five years ago, and Congressional Democrats and the President have done pretty well so far. Once health care reform passes, my guess is the Democratic leadership in the House will beg off other big legislative items - a new stimulus, financial regulatory overhaul, cap-and-trade legislation - and then we will see the President push them a little bit more.
