Posts Tagged ‘ Progressivism ’

History Does Not Repeat Itself — It Doesn’t Even Rhyme

Thursday, July 29th, 2010
Jeff Bloodworth



Jeff Bloodworth is an assistant professor of history at Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania.

by Jeff Bloodworth

Somehow the summer of 2010 has become the winter of liberals’ discontent. The blogosphere and MSNBC are rife with handwringing liberals wondering, “Is Barack Obama becoming a new Jimmy Carter”? Though President Obama’s sliding approval ratings and high unemployment should concern all Democrats it is, nevertheless, time for liberals to park the Volvo, put down their collective lattes, turn off NPR and repeat after me: Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter.

FOX, RedState, and the New York Post are truly worthy of this lame and totally unimaginative analogy. Recently, however, the HuffingtonPost, Guardian, and even Zbigniew Brzezinski have parroted this metaphor. Historical analogies might make someone appear knowledgeable but they are too often used as a substitute for actual thinking. Repeat after me: Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are NOT like peas & carrots.

Unlike Obama, Jimmy Carter governed at the end of a durable liberal political paradigm: the New Deal era. Since the onset of the Great Depression liberals had so ruled the political landscape that even Dwight Eisenhower accepted and even expanded upon the New Deals welfare state. Indeed, when Barry Goldwater ran upon an anti-New Deal platform in 1964, he garnered less than 40 percent of the vote.

By the late 1970s, New Deal-style solutions of deficit spending and government programs had not only grown stale, they simply no longer addressed the problems confronting the nation. Reagan was hardly right on all issues, but targeted tax cuts combined with defense spending did help spark real and lasting economic growth. Similar to the seventies, today Reagan’s pragmatic conservatism has morphed into a rigid and inflexible ideology demanding reflexive and obsequious political kowtows regardless of circumstance.

While Reagan deserves much credit and liberals sowed the seeds of their own demise, significant demographic forces enabled conservatives to oversee a political realignment. It was the offspring of New Deal Democrats who elected Reagan. In moving from the industrial Midwest and Northeast to the Sunbelt, they shaped and formed Reagan’s base. From Southern California, Arizona, and Texas to Florida, millions of Americans left regions dominated by unions and white ethnic Democratic political machines for the decidedly libertarian West and socially conservative South. Thus, when Carter assumed the presidency the nation had literally undergone a seismic demographic shift, which gave Reagan an opportunity for political realignment.

Adding to the altered political geography was the legacy of 1968. In that terrible year Americans not only witnessed the assassination of MLK & RFK, it was the time during which a generation of liberals and leftists fell out of love with America. Soured by the Vietnam War, assassinations, and a white political backlash, liberals were alienated and distrustful of Middle Americans.

Unlike the 1970s, the political zeitgeist and demography are on progressives’ side. Whether it is Hispanic population growth in the Southwest and Upper South or a generation of young Obama Democrats, 2010 America ain’t 1980, 1994, or even 1936 America.

Demography, ideas, and political metrics hardly assure victory. The Republicans could take the House and even engineer a long-shot defeat of Obama in 2012. But that political success, like Democratic victories in 1970, 1974, and 1976, are short-term hiccups delaying an inevitable political realignment.

It is time, however, for progressives to move beyond the past. Indeed, with all due respect to Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson, liberals last enjoyed real and durable presidential leadership and success when Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” was at the top of the charts, “Meet Me in St. Louis” was a box office smash, and the St. Louis Browns sent the one-armed Pete Grey to patrol centerfield.

Truman, JFK, LBJ and Clinton provided an occasional oasis and even some substantial victories but today’s liberal distress only reveals we don’t know how unfamiliar we are with success. President Obama’s passage of a stimulus package, national healthcare, Wall Street reform, and a muscular and revised Afghanistan policy are the very definition of achievement. Liberal achievement has always prompted a conservative pushback. Similar to Obama’s agenda, Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Medicare were not universally embraced upon their enactment.

Like the New Deal or any liberal era, hard work and political organization are a must if Democrats hope to safeguard and build upon their achievements. It is time for liberals, however, to stop the self-doubt and dare I say malaise (yes, I used that word—as a reverse jinx). We have an eloquent and inspiring leader in Barack Obama who heads up an extraordinarily savvy political operation. Though only Bing Crosby might recognize it liberalism is back. Repeat after me: progressives get shit done.

Photo Credit: Steve Rhodes’ Photostream

Unstable Platform

Monday, July 12th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Seyward Darby has an amusing piece at the New Republic’s site with some of the loonier provisions found in state Republican Party platform documents.

It’s all good clean fun, but does this craziness matter? No, suggests the CW; party platform committees these days, at any level, are a sandbox dominated by ideological activists, producing turgid documents that candidates feel free to ignore.

Fair enough, I guess, but what about those states where ideological activists have an unusually important role? How about, say, Iowa, whose caucuses often all but dictate one or the other party’s nominating process?

I strongly suggest a reading of the Iowa Republican Party Platform by anyone who accuses “liberals” or “the media” of exaggerating the extremism of today’s conservatives.

This 367-plank, 12,000-word document, adopted just last month at the Iowa State Republican Convention, is relentlessly kooky. Right up top, before the “statement of principles,” the platform features a long, ominous quote from Cicero about “traitors.” It’s not made clear whether said traitors are Democrats, RINOs, or Muslims, but treason sure seems to be a major preoccupation for Iowa Republicans.

Once you get to the “statement of principles,” it’s hard to miss principle number seven, which would have satisfied Ayn Rand even on one of her crankier days:

The individual works hard for what is his/hers. Therefore, the individual will determine with whom he/she will share it, not the government. No more legal plunder. Legal plunder is defined as using the law to take from one person what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong. It is plunder if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what that citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Given that principle, it’s not surprising that elsewhere the platform flatly calls for the abolition of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (along with minimum wage laws), and of the federal departments of Agriculture (!), Education and Energy. It also appears to oppose any anti-discrimination laws of any sort.

Beyond such basics, the Iowa GOP Platform is essentially a compilation of every right-wing consipracy theory-based preoccupation known to man. In a nod to Glenn Beck, the statement of principles mentions “Progressivism” along with “Collectivism, Socialism, Fascism, [and] Communism” as ideologies incompatible with the Founding Fathers’ design. There’s a birther plank. There’s a plank about the “NAFTA Superhighway.” There’s a plank about ACORN. There’s a plank about the “fairness doctrine.” There’s plank after plank after plank opposing the nefarious activities of the United Nations. There’s a plank calling for abolition of the Federal Reserve System. Needless to say, there are many, many planks spelling out total opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage in excrutiating detail, and attacking any limitation on campaign activities or use of tax dollars by religious organizations.

The very end of the platform holds that Republican candidates should be denied party funds if they don’t agree with at least 80% of the platform, as determined by questionnaires asking about every single crazy plank. This is something we should all be able to get behind; I’d love to see not only Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad, a notorious fence-straddler on many issues, but the entire 2012 GOP presidential field, have to check boxes next to solemn items like:

We oppose any effort to implement Islamic Shariah law in this country.

If all this madness is really out of the mainstream of Republican thinking, then perhaps the adults of the GOP should expend the minimum effort necessary to say so very explicitly.

Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapita.com’s Photostream

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

School Reform or Edujobs?

Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

There’s a move afoot in Congress to cut one of President Obama’s most creative and cost-effective reforms – the Education Department’s $4.3 billion Race to the Top fund. Which GOP troglodyte is behind it? Actually, it’s a prominent liberal: Rep. David Obey (D-WI).

Obey, chairman of the mighty House Appropriations Committee, introduced a bill this week to cut $500 million from the fund. He also wants to skim $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, which helps districts set up pay-for-performance systems to reward excellent teachers, and to take $100 million from a pot of money set up to help finance charter schools.

These raids on signature Obama school improvement initiatives are intended to raise $10 billion to help fund the Keep Our Educators Working Act, otherwise known as the “edujobs” bill. It would send federal dollars to the states to prevent teacher layoffs. Pitting jobs against efforts to improve America’s lowest-performing schools is a profoundly bad idea.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has used the Race to the Top Fund brilliantly to leverage overdue changes in state laws that inhibit innovation in underperforming school districts. To compete for federal grants, states must remove arbitrary caps on charter schools, track students’ educational growth year by year, and include that information in teacher evaluation. The other funds operate on the same principle that the federal government should play a strategic role in education, using small investments to stimulate state and local innovations in teacher compensation and public school choice.

No one wants to see teachers lose their jobs in today’s dicey economy. But no one wants to see firefighters or police or, for that matter, construction workers, sales reps or bank tellers lose their jobs either. With unemployment stuck near 10 percent, Congress has a clear moral responsibility to extend unemployment and transitional health care benefits. But what’s the rationale for singling out teachers for a special measure of job protection?

What’s more, Obey and his liberal allies have not tied the extra money to changes in the way school districts conduct reductions in force. Most districts use the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method, in which teachers with the least seniority and lowest salaries are dismissed first. LIFO thus reinforces a tenure system that ties compensation to years on the job irrespective of job performance, and that deters more talented people from becoming teachers. It also means that the cost of overall spending on teacher salaries will rise faster than if reductions in force had been made across the experience spectrum.

If edujobs is bad policy, it’s worse politics. It practically begs conservatives to charge that Democrats put the interests of the adults in public education over the interests of the kids.

It happens, however, that that’s not true. Obey’s proposal has sparked strenuous objections both from the Education Department and from progressive school reformers in Congress. “If we are to meet the President’s goal of becoming global leaders in college graduates by 2020, we must rethink and reinvent our approach to education by moving forward with bold reforms,” Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) wrote in a letter to his colleagues. “Unfortunately, the proposed cuts represent a major step backward.”

Obey is a liberal lion who is retiring after a long career in Congress at the end of this term. Polis is only a freshman, but he’s right, and progressives ought to rally behind the president’s efforts to fix America’s broken schools.

Photo credit: House Committee on Education and Labor’s Photostream

National Journal: Labor’s Uphill Climb This Year

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

PPI President Will Marshall tells the National Journal’s Eliza Newlin Carney that labor’s aggressive fight to unseat incumbent Democrats has been destructive and a losing strategy for Democrats to maintain a congressional majority:

The unions’ Arkansas challenge angered Democrats, from the White House on down. Some argue that the tens of millions of dollars that labor threw into the race was a waste, especially given that Arkansas is not union-friendly. Demanding loyalty to base voters, as tea party activists have set out to do in several GOP primaries, is a losing strategy for Democrats, said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

“Trying to enforce litmus tests and punish Democrats for ideological heresy [is] divisive and does not reflect the reality that Democrats are inevitably a coalition party,” Marshall said. He called the labor movement’s anti-Lincoln campaign “extraordinarily destructive.”

“The sad truth is that labor has not found a way to arrest its decline in the private economy,” Marshall added. “And this year, for the first time, we see more labor union members in the public sector than in the private sector.”

Read the entire article.

Cutting the Tether Webcast

Monday, June 7th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

Cutting the Tether: Enhancing the U.S. Military’s Energy Performance

Event Webcast – May 13, 2010

Featured Speakers:

Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Ret.
Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA)

Panelists:

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, Ret., CEO, RemoteReality
Colonoel Paul E. Roege, Army Capabilities Integration Center
Richard Goffi, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton
Chris Myers, Vice President of Government and Energy Programs, Lockheed Martin

Moderator:

James Morin, Esq., author, “Cutting the Tether”

Tuesday’s Primary Showdown

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Today is a major primary day, with Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas holding Senate primaries, and Oregon a gubernatorial primary.  I’ll deal with these by poll closing times: Kentucky at 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. EDT; Pennsylvania at 8 p.m. EDT; Arkansas at 8:30 p.m. EDT; and Oregon at 10 p.m. EDT.

In Kentucky, it looks like Rand Paul is very likely to win the GOP Senate nomination, beating Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the fair-hair child of the Bluegrass Republican establishment, and particularly of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Paul has been leading Grayson steadily in every recent poll, and the latest, from Magellan Strategies, shows Paul pulling away with a 55/30 lead.  Another recent poll, from PPP, shows that fully one-third of Kentucky Republicans think their party is “too liberal,” and it’s these voters who are fueling Paul’s surge.  Even though this is a closed primary and Paul is in many respects a conventional if extreme conservative, as indicated by the endorsements he received from Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and James Dobson, expect to hear a lot of “Tea Party Insurgency!” hype when the results come in tonight.  Hype aside, Paul’s non-interventionist views on foreign policy, which are similar to his father’s, are unusual for a Republican politician, and it’s quite interesting that Grayson’s attacks on them didn’t gain much traction.

The Democratic Senate primary will likely provide the only real drama in Kentucky tonight, with polls indicating a close race between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway.  Though Conway has been endorsed by MoveOn.org, the contest hasn’t been particularly ideological; both candidates oppose cap-and-trade legislation, and while Mongiardo has said he would have voted against health reform in the Senate, it’s because the bill “didn’t go far enough.”  Conway has had a significant financial edge, and seems to have some late momentum, but the geographical turnout patterns —Mongiardo is from Eastern Kentucky, while Conway is from Louisville — will probably determine the result.  Both candidates trail Paul in general election polls by a considerable margin.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary is a genuine barn-burner, with party-switching incumbent Arlen Specter trying to hold off a late surge by Rep. Joe Sestak.  Every poll in the last week has shown Specter losing his relatively large lead over Sestak, as the challenger benefits both from the support of progressives who dislike Specter’s partisan background and from moderate-to-conservative Democrats who don’t like his social liberalism or his current pattern of staunch support for the Obama administration.  It is universally conceded that the race will all come down to turnout, with Specter—who is being backed not only by the Obama administration, the DSCC, and Gov. Ed Rendell’s organization, but also by most major unions—counting on a large turnout from Philadelphia, where he has a huge lead among African-Americans.  Both candidates have trailed Republican Pat Toomey in most polls, though Sestak’s general election numbers have been significantly improving recently.

The other Pennsylvania race drawing national attention has been the special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha.  It’s the classic Western PA white-working-class district: it’s been represented by Democrats since the New Deal, and was carried by both Al Gore and John Kerry, but not by Barack Obama.  Unsurprisingly, the most recent public polling, by PPP, showed a dead heat between Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns.  A Democratic hold in this seat, widely expected to go Republican when Murtha died, would provide a real boost to Democratic morale.

In Arkansas, the marquee contest matches Lt. Gov. Bill Halter against Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but the race has almost been overshadowed by national interests.  Halter has strong backing from a variety of unions who are enraged by Lincoln’s flip-flop on the Employee Free Choice Act, while the incumbent, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, has received massive backing from the agribusiness and financial industries. Millions are being spent on both sides on “independent” ads attacking one candidate or the other.  Lincoln is also being supported by the president and by former president Clinton.

Polls have consistently shown Lincoln leading Halter, but with less than 50 percent of the vote. If Lincoln or Halter is unable to win a majority of the votes, they will faceoff in a runoff election as required in Arkansas. There is a sizable undecided vote among African-Americans, who lean towards Halter, and Lincoln’s campaign has been running Obama and Clinton radio ads aimed at African-Americans.  Regional turnout will also be a big factor, with Lincoln expected to do well in the Delta region she used to represent in the House, and Halter expected to do well in Little Rock.  The contest could well serve as a lab experiment on the ancient proposition that undecided voters invariably turn against incumbents; if Lincoln gets a decent share of the undecided vote, she should win.

The Republican Senate primary is a low-profile affair with eight candidates, and it’s been generally assumed that Rep. John Boozman will win, probably without a runoff.  Boozman will be helped by geography: he represents northwest Arkansas, a heavily Republican area where turnout will be boosted by a highly competitive primary to choose his replacement in the House.  But two other candidates in the field, state senator Gilbert Baker, who is from central Arkansas, and former statewide candidate Jim Holt, a fiery Tea Party-style conservative who shares Boozman’s geographical base, could get enough support to force him into a runoff, particularly if voters respond to attacks on Boozman for supporting TARP.

Every poll taken this cycle has shown both Lincoln and Halter trailing every named Republican in general election trial heats.  The big question is whether Arkansas’ strong tradition of voting Democratic downballot even when support for the national party is weak is finally expiring as it has in other parts of the Deep South.

In Oregon, limited polling predicts that former Gov. John Kitzhaber will easily win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination over former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.  His Republican opponent is expected to be former Portland Trail Blazer Chris Dudley, but don’t be surprised if conservative Allen Alley pulls an upset, as one late poll suggests is possible.

Finally, in non-primary political news, a major brouhaha has broken out in Connecticut, where Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who was the heavy favorite to hold onto Chris Dodd’s Senate seat in November, was the subject of a big New York Times story (fed by one of his Republican rivals) revealing that he has on at least one occasion referred to himself as a veteran of the Vietnam War. It turns out that he’s not; he served in the Marine Reserves during that war, but never deployed.  At the moment, the DSCC is standing by Blumenthal, but Connecticut Democrats do have the option of choosing another candidate in their state convention, which will be held this weekend.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Taking Liberties

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The following is an excerpt from Will Marshall’s essay in today’s Democratic Strategist. The piece is part of a Democratic Strategist/Demos online forum on “Progressive Politics and the Meaning of American Freedom.”

Freedom, says John Schwarz, is too important to be left to conservatives. No argument there. For too long, liberals have been flummoxed by conservatives’ success in posing as defenders of liberty against government encroachment. This stance has given the conservative cause a simple, reductive logic and ideological coherence that liberals lack – and often envy. It has enabled the right to tap the deep strain of anti-statism that really does make American politics exceptional.

Modern liberals have chafed at the constraint that this classically liberal understanding of freedom imposes on their social vision. For decades, they’ve struggled to articulate a countervailing principle that can trump the power of what Louis Hartz called America’s underlying “Lockian” consensus.

Arriving in Washington just after Ronald Reagan’s election, I’d often ask shell-shocked liberals to define their first principle. The invariable, deflating answer: “affirming a positive role for government.” This trope reflected a confusion of means with ends – and it goes a long way toward explaining why only about a fifth of Americans have been willing to call themselves liberals since the early 1970s.

The story of how liberalism came to be linked with social engineering and redistribution, with tax and spend, and with rights and entitlements to favored groups is too familiar to need rehashing here. Suffice it to say that liberal efforts to expand government’s role to advance worthy social goals have often crossed lines that are important to many if not most voters. These lines mark the boundaries between individual and collective responsibility, and between government’s legitimate efforts to assure equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes.

So Schwarz’s diagnoses is right: the public’s abiding suspicion that expansive government means contracting freedom tends to stack the political deck in conservatives’ favor and keep liberals on the defensive. His ideas for reversing the presumption in liberals’ favor, however, fall short.

When it comes to freedom, liberals face an inescapable dilemma. They can never be as simple-minded as conservatives. They can’t simply counter conservatives’ classic-liberal conception of freedom with a social liberalism that aspires to greater equality and social justice. Mid-century liberals succeeded by keeping these often antagonist approaches in equipoise. Modern liberals have lost the balance, and with it, the ability to persuade a majority of Americans to their point of view.

Read the rest at The Democratic Strategist.

Obama’s Nuclear Policy — An Opportunity for Bipartisanship

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

The following is an excerpt from Jim Arkedis’s op-ed published today in AolNews.com:

In today’s polarized political debate — with congressional Republicans refusing to cooperate on much of anything and their Democratic counterparts not terribly inclined to include them anyway — finding common ground on any issue has been nearly impossible. But this coming week might highlight one issue that could galvanize long-overdue bipartisanship: nuclear security.

On Tuesday, the administration released its Nuclear Posture Review, which charts a new course on the use of nuclear weapons. On Thursday, President Barack Obama travels to Prague, where he’ll sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. And early next week, the United States will play host to more than 40 world leaders at a nuclear security summit.

These events all aim to work toward the long-held promise of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal the president outlined a year ago this week in the Czech Republic.

After that speech, some conservatives jumped at the opportunity to cast the new president as green on weighty foreign policy issues. But Obama wasn’t driven by some fanciful naivety, as he was crystal clear that as long as others possessed the weapons, so would America. And it was a necessary reorientation—the work of ridding the world of nuclear weapons needed to be taken up anew after being sidetracked under Obama’s predecessor.

Read the full column at AolNews.com.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/macandliz/ / CC BY 2.0

It’s All About Democratic Unity

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Politico

Forget about reconciliation and other parliamentary maneuvers. Forget, too, about Cadillac plans and the Cornhusker Kickback. On health care, we’re down to the heart of the matter: Can Democrats act like a disciplined, cohesive political party?

For decades, they’ve fought for the principle of universal and affordable health coverage. If they don’t pass health reform now, with medical costs mounting, with a president willing to go for broke and with sizable — and perishable — majorities in Congress, you have to wonder if they ever will.

There will be no shortage of excuses if they fail: a populist backlash against bailouts and joblessness; GOP obstructionism and rising public antipathy for Washington and Big Government in general.

But let’s face it: If health care reform crashes and burns, it will be because Democrats couldn’t summon the courage and internal coherence to deliver on a key progressive commitment.

Labor unions, Blue Dogs, single-payer stalwarts, favor-extorting moderates, Latinos, anti-abortion Roman Catholics — it’s no use singling out one culprit, because all the party’s tribes will have contributed to the debacle.

By holding firm for comprehensive reform, President Barack Obama has put his party, especially House Democrats, on the spot. He’s asking doubters to put their party’s collective interest above their personal interests and views.

That’s a tough ask, especially for those from marginal districts who could lose their seats by voting for the Senate bill. It’s easy for self-righteous lefties to brand them as trimmers or cowards, but swing-district Democrats can argue plausibly that a “no” vote would more accurately reflect majority sentiment among their constituents. Liberals from overwhelmingly Democratic districts have no such excuse.

Still, Congress is a national legislature, and its members have a responsibility to act in the national interest. For most Democrats, that surely means ending the injustice of leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to financial ruin or death due to illness or injury. It also means beginning to get a handle on the runaway growth of health care costs that bedevils U.S. workers and businesses.

While party unity isn’t the highest political value, being a member of a party does carry some obligation to its fundamental principles. Tactically, it makes sense for party leaders to give Democrats in tough districts a pass on tough votes — as long as there are votes to spare.

That’s not the case on health care reform. Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs every vote she can get.

Not one Republican will vote for the Senate bill. About a dozen or so anti-abortion Democrats say they won’t either. Pelosi can afford to lose only 37 of the party’s 253 members to get to the magic number of 216. That probably means persuading some of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House plan to support the more centrist Senate blueprint.

Moderate Democrats, including those in the 49 districts that Sen. John McCain won in 2008, face political risks. Voting to support a major health reform bill on a party-line vote could, conceivably, cost them their seats. But if Democrats again stumble on health care, it could also trigger a “wave” election, like 1994, which would engulf marginal seats.

Some party pollsters claim that Democrats already have lost the debate and can only make things worse by passing reform anyway. But a careful reading of polls shows that many skeptical voters don’t think the bills go far enough, and most favor key provisions such as banning insurers from cherry-picking healthy patients and setting up insurance exchanges.

Reasons for this ambivalence are complicated, but it’s probably not because voters have pored over the details of the Senate health bill or the “fixes” Democrats aim to pass on reconciliation. In any case, who thinks Democrats will gain public respect by giving up on their top priority?

Obama was elected on a promise to tackle the nation’s biggest challenges — with health reform as Exhibit A. Independent voters have drifted away from his winning 2008 coalition during the past year, in part because they are losing confidence in the Democrats’ ability to govern.

The party may thus have more to fear from wasting a year to produce nothing than from passing a controversial bill. Failure won’t just make Democrats look bad; it will also vindicate the Republicans’ hyperpartisan campaign to torpedo comprehensive reform.

Sometimes, parties gain even when they lose — especially when they stand on principle. The odds facing Obama and Pelosi and company are daunting.

But the task is doable — as long as enough Democrats recognize that their careers won’t amount to much if their party can’t deliver on its core commitments.

Read the column at Politico.

Obama’s Donations Reflect His National Security and Foreign Policy Priorities

Friday, March 12th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

President Obama gave away his $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize award yesterday, and where national security is concerned, he literally put his money where his mouth is.

The largest donation—$250,000—was given to Fisher House, an organization that builds “comfort homes” on the grounds of major U.S. military installations that allow service members’ families “to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times—during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury.”  It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that President Obama would choose a charity like Fisher House, given the First Lady’s focus on the cause since the beginning of her husband’s presidency.  And with America’s military facing unprecedented strains, every drop in the bucket helps.

The president also gave $100,000 to AfriCare, which promotes health, food security, and access to water in Africa.  This donation mirrors Obama’s long-standing efforts to alleviate poverty in Africa, which dates back to his days in the Senate when he offered the 2007 Global Poverty Act that aims to cut the number of people living on a dollar a day in half by 2015.

Finally, Obama dropped 100 large on the Central Asia Institute, whose story is chronicled in the book “Three Cups of Tea.”  I wasn’t a huge fan of the book’s style, per se, but the CAI’s work is remarkable in and of itself, and it certainly deserves every penny for carrying out such an important mission of educating girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The donations are very embodiment of the notion that American national security policy is about more than the blunt instrument of military force (an idea most recently forwarded by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen).  When force is used, it should be done in a careful and judicious manner that accounts for the extended effects on our fighting men and women.

Is Obama Too Thoughtful?

Monday, February 15th, 2010
Mike Signer



Mike Signer is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Mike Signer

The following is an excerpt from Mike Signer’s column published this weekend in the Daily Beast:

“[W]e need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.” That’s what Sarah Palin told Tea Partiers in Nashville last weekend, triggering uproarious cheers. A few weeks earlier, she had dismissed Obama’s State of the Union as “quite a bit of lecturing, not leading.” Meanwhile, John McCain just borrowed the “lecturer” line to attack Obama in the Financial Times.

Palin and her partners seem intent on turning one of Obama’s strengths—his thoughtfulness—into a liability. Such broadsides threaten to dominate political and policy debates not just in November’s mid-term elections, but the 2012 presidential election as well. The administration should take note and pivot quickly. The fact is that voters often need a bolder narrative, one whose plot turns on actions and victories, not just the calls to civil discourse and contemplation that have come to mark Obama’s presidency.

The intellectual has always held a hallowed, fraught place in American politics. In Saul Bellow’s novel Humboldt’s Gift, set in the 1950s, Bellow’s slightly ridiculous poet-hero Von Humboldt Fleisher showers praise on Adlai Stevenson, the “great souled” intellectual Democratic nominee for a president whose “chief of staff would know Thucydides.” “Intellectuals are coming up in this country,” Humboldt says. “Democracy is finally about to begin creating a civilization in the USA.”

The mirage of a “great-souled man” who can help “create a civilization in the USA” still promises water in the desert, particularly to progressives. It played a significant role in Obama’s stunningly inspiring 2008 campaign. But this vision also rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Since our nation’s beginning, many Americans have viewed overt intellectuals with suspicion and disdain, as memorably documented by the historian Richard Hofstadter in his 1963 volume, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

We all know that Obama was a law professor. He deeply believes the lawyer’s idea that a thesis, brought into conflict with antithesis, will result in synthesis: truth. As president, Obama has demonstrated unheralded courage in his repeated attempts to use politics to help lead toward truth, rather than just a win. You might call this the “philosophical model” of the presidency, and it dominated his State of the Union address.

One example was a passage meant to make people reflect on their own responsibility to counter pessimism with a sort of voluntary optimism. Obama said, “As one woman wrote me, ‘We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.’ … It is because of this spirit—this great decency and great strength—that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. . . . And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.” Note that he says, “I’d like to talk about.” It’s as if Obama is inviting us to reason together. This is what Palin attacks as a “lecture.”

Read the full column at the Daily Beast.

State of the Union: The Philosophical President

Friday, January 29th, 2010
Mike Signer



Mike Signer is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Mike Signer

“There was quite a bit of lecturing, not leading.”

This is what Sarah Palin said about Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech. Yes, I laughed, too — but it’s worth listening to Palin’s response (if not taking it too seriously). I found the president’s speech serious to the point of contemplative. We all know that Obama was a law professor. He deeply believes that thesis, brought into conflict with antithesis, will result in synthesis — truth.

One of Obama’s greatest unheralded risks is his repeated attempt to use politics to help lead toward truth, rather than just a win. You might call this the “philosophical model” of the presidency. Whether or not using the presidency not just to educate but to help collectively drive toward greater understanding works for people when more material needs are on their minds is a critical question for Obama. It’s a new experiment, one that is unfolding as we speak.

In several conversations I’ve had since the speech, the topic of Obama’s silences has come up. Often you could hear a pin drop, as the president introduced big themes, complicated them, let a heavy idea drop on the shoulders of his audience. He delivered some lines literally to make people ponder, rather than rise from our chairs cheering.

Here’s one example — a leading passage meant to make people reflect on their own responsibility to counter pessimism with a sort of voluntary optimism:

As one woman wrote me, “We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.” . . . It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

Note that he says, “I’d like to talk about…” It’s as if Obama is inviting us to reason together. This is what Palin heard as a “lecture.”

Then there was the passage where he slowly, methodically, almost quietly mocked the “noise” that surrounds politics today:

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight.

Here, he linked “doing big things and making big changes” with an opposition to “noisy and messy and complicated.” He quietly suggested those who are “noisy and messy and complicated” are not on the right path; reason, paired up with policy ambitions, will instead lead the way.

The only problem is it hasn’t worked out that way so far. Obama’s greatest rhetorical successes have also been his most reflective — e.g. the campaign’s “race speech” about Jeremiah Wright, or Obama’s Oslo speech reconciling the Nobel Peace Prize with his deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But both of these speeches were also retrospective — about events in the past, rather than policies in the future. The question is whether this approach can sustain the presidency itself, especially against the Republicans’ scorched-earth tactics. Can Hegelian dialectic be the rule, rather than the exception?

The answer, I suppose, will lie in the eating of the pudding. If the president’s injunction to be more thoughtful about our problems and more capacious in our understanding ends up eliciting more participation in solutions, then he’s right. If, on the other hand, during all those long silences last night, Republican operatives were only scheming about how to kill every single one of his proposals — and they do it — then it will have been an exhibit of a beautiful mind.

That’s what Palin was after with her attack on Obama’s “lecture.” After all, inanity has never been inconsistent with extremists’ strategy; indeed, in dark times, it is sometimes their best playbook.