Obama’s Progressive Street Cred

The selection of Rick Warren for the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration is troubling, to say the least. Many progressives are rightly outraged at the selection of a man who is virulently anti-choice and homophobic. Yet, this is only the latest in a series of Obama decisions that has left many progressives wondering who it was, exactly, they voted for. Apparently, “change” looks a lot like the Clinton administration. Rahm Emanuel is back. So is Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General. Most conspicuous of all, Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. A bevy of liberal-but-not-quite-progressive apologists have tried to explain away all of Obama’s decisions. Here is a list of some of their justifications:

• Obama is pursuing Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” approach. Authors of this justification also cite Lyndon Johnson’s phrase: it’s better to keep one’s enemies “on the inside, pissing out” rather than “on the outside, pissing in.” By keeping his enemies in the White House, those enemies are not in Congress or on K Street trying to defeat his plans.
• Remember how we all said for six months that Obama’s qualifications don’t matter? Not so much. As such, he’s surrounding himself with a group of people who have experience working in a presidential administration, and the last Democratic presidency was Bill Clinton’s, so it only makes sense that he would choose people from there.
• Obama is sneakier than he seems (think I, Claudius, I suppose). He’s putting a lot of center-left (and, in some cases, center-right) Washington establishment politicians in key positions to pay lip service to that establishment. Don’t worry, it’s only a front. The real reforms are going to happen, but from behind a veil of mainstream non-reform. That’s the only way he can get things done down there.
• Obama does not want to continue the divisive politics of George W. Bush. Even though it might anger those on the hard left, Obama would rather heal and reconcile than punish.  Turn that cheek!

Some of these justifications are disturbing. The last one, that Obama should be conciliatory instead of punitive, is put forth by people who believe that the crimes of the George W. Bush administration should not be investigated. The country needs to heal, they say. It’s time to get on with the business of the United States, where “business” is defined so as to exclude investigations of the previous administration. Of course, this logic ignores the fact that the law has been broken. As Glenn Greenwald has observed, politicians are more than ready to throw the full force of the law at marijuana dealers, but when it comes to prosecuting their own, politicians are equally ready to be lenient, even though the marijuana dealer harmed no one and the politician may have, oh, I don’t know, been responsible for torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping at the least. When crimes are committed, they should be investigated and prosecuted – not just for poor people, but for everyone, including politicians. For Barack Obama to suggest that Bush administration criminals should go free is to suggest that politicians live in a special class above the reach of the law. It also encourages more illegal activity in the future, once it is known that the government won’t prosecute those activities.

Furthermore, it’s not even up to Barack Obama to decide what is or is not investigated. The cult of personality surrounding him is great (in fact, it contributed to getting him elected), but even though we like him we must not forget that, as the president, he has constitutional limitations. It was irresponsible for the media to even ask what Barack Obama thought about Joe Lieberman being kicked out of the Democratic caucus. On November 5, Obama’s life as a senator ended, even though he didn’t officially resign the position until three weeks later. The president has absolutely no say – none! – in the operation of Congress. It would be different if Obama were acting in his capacity as a senator, but after winning the presidential election, especially in a nation eager for a new leader, any notion of Obama acting solely in his capacity as a senator would be extremely naïve. Obama must repudiate the unconstitutional powers that George W. Bush has claimed for himself, either through complete fabrication or malicious misreading of constitutional law.

Given his opinion of things like same-sex marriage (he tactfully says that same-sex couples should not be allowed to “marry” as such, but then says that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples), NAFTA/CAFTA, and Israel, no one could confuse him for a true progressive. Obama’s apologists rationalize his decisions by pointing out that Obama never claimed to be a progressive at all!

Or could they? George W. Bush’s method of saying-without-saying is well-documented. While he never explicitly said that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks, there is definitely a reason why, in 2001, virtually no Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible, but in 2003, one third of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible.

Could it be that Barack Obama, whose campaign P.R. was spectacular, performed the same saying-but-not-saying function? Yes, it is entirely possible that Obama clothed himself in the cloak of progressivism while still wearing the mainstream Democrat’s clothes underneath. He has suggested massive new spending on entitlement programs, but he wants to increase the size of the military. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but he voted in favor of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted the administration in warrantless wiretapping. His foreign policy goals consist of using real diplomacy instead of threats, but he voted in favor of NAFTA. He wants to provide government health care for people who have no health care, but he stops short of suggesting a universal-payer system like Canada’s or Great Britain’s. Obama’s positions are a wash: for every progressive-sounding idea, there is another conservative-sounding one to balance it out.

Or, on the other hand, it could be that Obama never suggested anything, but that he was forthcoming about his non-progressive credentials. It could be that we, the progressive Americans, were so thirsty for a change that we latched onto the only candidate (outside of Dennis Kucinich) who even brought up the issue of health care reform (at those early Republican primary debates, not a single candidate brought up the issue of health care), social reform, and getting out of Iraq (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards failed on at least one of these). We projected onto him the candidate we wanted him to be, ignoring the fact that he was not that candidate. Did we set ourselves up for disappointment? Yes, that is possible, too.

And then there’s the argument that all this complaining is pointless, that Obama isn’t even the president yet, and we should all just wait and see what happens on Jan. 20. Well, Rick Warren will happen Jan. 20, and that gives me even less optimism that, at noon on that day, Obama will suddenly throw aside his centrist mask and shout, “You fools! You thought I was just like Bill Clinton! But you were wrong! Free health care for everybody!” Agreeing to take part in Warren’s Saddleback (which sounds dangerously like “bareback”) debate with John McCain, Obama could conceivably have been seen as paying lip service to evangelical Protestantism, just like every president since Nixon has had to do. But putting Warren on the bill for Inauguration Day? Imagine if George W. Bush had hired Hillary Clinton to give a speech at his second inauguration. Yeah, it’s like.

Most troubling in my opinion, though, is Obama’s own insistence, ever since March of 2007, when he announced his candidacy, that he is not an ordinary politician. His grassroots, fifty-state strategy was unparalleled in its success. His speech about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was intelligent and it treated the American people as though they, too, could understand long speeches that contained nuanced thoughts, as opposed to the Manichean sound bites of George W. Bush. His political maturity happened after the Vietnam War era, and, as Andrew Sullivan has suggested, the very core of his being is not instilled with a reflexive fear of Republicans and conservatism.

Conservatism demands the acknowledgment of a false dualism in every aspect of life, with the promise that conservatism will lead people to the correct side of this duality. Democrats buy into this framework and then try to argue the opposite side. The true progressive would never let the Republicans frame the debate and then proceed to work within their ill-conceived framework. To the progressive, there is no debate about whether or not health care should be free, or if there should be a premium for minimum services, or if the government should control it. The answer is: the current system of privatized health care doesn’t work and it should not be repaired, it must be rebuilt from the ground up. Obama appeared unafraid to work outside the existing framework and create a new framework that works in the interests of everyone. “Should it be a public solution or a private solution?” is not the correct question. “What solution is best for the country?” Now that’s the right question. It’s a question that Obama appeared to be asking during the campaign, but one that is being substituted by justifications for increasingly conservative behavior.

Whither Reaganomics?

Author’s note: Today’s is the first post in the Blue Economist column on the subject of “Blue-State Economics: Viewing Our Most Important Policy Debate Through Progressive Eyes”

On one level, there’s little shock value to be derived from the near total absence of Republican mischief making in the current, lame-duck session of Congress: They did, after all, just get their watches wound in the national election. However, taking a slightly longer view, it’s not clear that this same measure of electoral defeat has stopped them before. Past democratic transitions have been marred by a bull-headed intransigence on the part of the defeated. This has been born of equal parts denial, ideological certitude, and base whipping. Just ask Bill Clinton.

If all is quiet on the right flank in Washington these days, it may just be that the Republican agenda makers, especially on the domestic side of the ledger, have awakened to the bankruptcy of their ideas. However, it is a far more likely scenario is that the right is lying in wait for the sort of substantive policy shifts that Barack Obama has already promised and was assailed for during the campaign. Once this assault has whipped their own base into a frenzy of disdain, Republicans can renew their time-tested formula of overwhelming the national agenda with catch phrases and vitriol. This will inevitably cast the Democrats in a weak light, despite their power.

It is worth considering how things got this way.

The modern discipline of economics is surprisingly neutral on questions of political discourse: Progressive income taxes may be defended on the principal of “diminishing marginal utility,” by which a dollar taken from a wealthy person and given to a poor person has a net-beneficial effect on all of society’s collective happiness, to pick one random but unusually topical example. Another example is where environmental regulations may be defended on the principal of “internalizing social costs,” wherein the non-monetary repercussions of a firm’s activities are converted into monetary ones through fines and regulations. In addition, minimum wage laws may be defended as having negligible effects on the employment of unskilled labor, since the unskilled labor in question is already being used in its smallest possible quantities by the firms employing them.

However, as adaptable as such progressive claims would seem to be to the underlying principles of modern economic thought, the academy is at the same time populated by individuals so ubiquitously and inflexibly conservative as to render them the frequent butt of both merriment and derision at the hands of their would-be colleagues in the other social sciences. “An economist engages someone else’s ideas about the way the world works,” wrote one columnist in a recent edition of The New Yorker, “the way a bulldozer engages a picket fence.”

This phenomenon is largely attributable to the coincidental (and misguided) desire on the part of professional economists to be regarded as objective, physical or “hard” scientists–more like chemists and biologists–and less like their messy-headed brethren down the hall in Psychology and Poly-Sci. If the practitioner has to be clean, then the practice has to be clean too. This in turn means that the rich (progressive) texture of policy debates must melt on contact with the paradigm to prevent it from looking unresolved. The anguish of jobs lost to technological change, the qualitative detriment of polluted air, the elusive tabulation of the spoils of a war on poverty–all of these are matters dismissed with a smug wink and the back of a hand.

As the paradigm has polarized itself to the right, so too has the rhetoric from conservative think tanks been tailored to a world where the cleanliness and simplicity of an answer is its highest virtue. This exists in a perfect synergy with the rank-and-file’s inability to regard any complex idea as anything but a threat. Surely the good people at Americans for Tax Reform don’t really intend for their government to be “drowned in the bathtub”–surely Grover Norquist has been to enough school to know that bridges in the host city of the Republican National Convention will, absent a government that’s just been drowned in someone’s bathtub, fall unceremoniously down. However, with a simple paradigm to claim as their own, the Norquists of the world have all the excuse they need to reduce a messy world to painfully simplistic causes that play perfectly with the low-information voters in swing districts.

It would be tempting to presume a January 20th expiration date on such laments, to believe that some sort of corner has been turned. But the bitter reality of the matter is that Mr. Obama’s performance was at its shakiest when he found himself confronted by a self-appointed Ohio foot soldier so perfect for the slick-sided provincialism of the modern conservative economics that he was drafted by the McCain campaign as its chief spokesman before the sun had set. It won’t get any easier from there.

The Democrats will not win an economics argument in this country on the basis of raw numbers alone; they never do. Now that the electoral battle has been won, the Democrats must take a big-picture approach to winning the larger war. Selling complex, messy ideas like progressive income taxes (to say nothing of the restoration of a modicum of governmental oversight) will require a fresh infusion of street-smart packaging to match such hate-button phrases as “death tax.” To do so will be to fight fire with fire. If the Obama administration dismisses such efforts as quotidian (or, worse, elitist), or if it presumes victory before the fact on the strength of its mandate, they could surely suffer the same fate as wide-eyed Democratic administrations in years past. The good news is that they’re already winning this P.R. battle with cool-headed, pragmatic appointments and centrist views. In other words, they’re winning it the same way they won the election.

Cabinet Rundown: AG, DHS, and HHS

With the exception of the Hillary-Clinton-for-Secretary-of-State flirt tease, the rest of President-elect Obama’s cabinet is starting to take shape. Here’s a look at three of those who have been tapped so far (some pending a background check):

Attorney General–Eric Holder, 57, New York

Eric Holder will become the first African American Attorney General in United States history. He was a deputy attorney general and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia during the Clinton administration and teamed with Caroline Kennedy as the lead vetter of Obama’s potential vice presidential selections. Holder seems to be a solid, non-controversial choice. He will certainly have a tough job ahead of him as the various abuses of the past eight years come to light. Hopefully, Mr. Holder can restore some credibility to the job of  top law enforcer. The funny thing about the attorney general position is that this was John Edward’s job for the taking if he would have kept his zipper up. Ah well, he can take solace with Bill I suppose.

Grade: B

Secretary of Homeland Security–Janet Napolitano, 50, Arizona

Governor Napolitano is immensely popular in Arizona and will become only the third secretary in the brief history of the department of Homeland Security. Before serving as governor of Arizona (she is now in her second term), she was a United States District Attorney for Arizona and was Arizona Secretary of State.  Napolitano is Obama’s first high-profile female selection (Hillary is not official yet). It is likely that both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security will be women.  The one downside to this move for Democrats is that Governor Napolitano was polling strongly in a potential Senate matchup with Senator McCain in 2010. McCain has given initial indication that he plans to run for reelection.

Grade: B+

Secretary of Health and Human Services–Tom Daschle, 60, South Dakota

Tom Daschle is a great selection for this post. I wrote a lot about this selection yesterday.

Grade: A

Treasury Secretary Candidates

As President-Elect Obama begins to piece together his administration, the most prominent post will likely be his choice for Treasury Secretary. Given the importance of the Secretary in shaping the course of the Economic Stabilization Act funds ($450 billion left if you are counting), we wanted to run down the most likely candidates:

Larry Summers

A leading Harvard economist, Summer won the John Bates Clark Medal for his research and served as Bill Clinton’s Secretary as well as heading up Harvard during a five year tenure. As a close Obama advisor well respected in academia and the financial sector, Summers is a strong candidate. Drawbacks include the “gender science” controversy that led him to resign from his administrative post at Harvard, as well as his close ties to hedge fund DE Shaw.

Timothy Geithner

Header of the New York Fed as well as Vice Chair of the Federal Open Market Committee which sets interest rates, Geitner has a background in international affairs, earning a graduate degree from SAIS and serving in a variety of positions from Under Secretary at the State Department to the Council of Foreign Relations and the IMF, as well as playing a crucial role in helping to orchestrate recent financial market interventions.

Paul Volker

Part of the “old guard”, Volker is seen as a stable pick who served as Federal Reserve Chairman in the 1980s under Presidents Carter and Reagan, where he helped “tame” inflation and earned respect on both sides of the aisle.

Robert Rubin

Currently a Director at Citigroup, Rubin served as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration and is credited with helping shape “Rubinomics” policies that fostered economic growth and balanced deregulation.

Laura Tyson

A Berkeley economist, Tyson served as Chair of Bill Clinton’s Council of Academic Advisers as well as Dean of the London Business School and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Jon Corzine

Currently serving as Governor of New Jersey, Corzine has a deep background in financial markets stemming from his work as a partner at Goldman Sachs.