Posted on Mon May 25, 2009 at 04:04:22 PM EST
www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/25/17422/2990
In January 2008, after writing for many months about Barack Obama's Clinton/Third Way campaign, I found agreement from E.J. Dionne:
Obama's not particularly original insight was a central premise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. . . . In many ways, Obama is running the 2008 version of the 1992 Clinton campaign. You have the feeling that if Bill Clinton did not have another candidate in this contest, he'd be advising Obama and cheering him on.
Of course the problem here is it is 2008, not 1992. As I have written, I believe Bill Clinton would NOT be running his 1992 campaign today. . . The politics of today demand a politics of contrast from Fighting Democrats. . . . It is ironic that it is Barack Obama who is reliving 1992.
Today, Dionne argues that Obama is succeeding in creating a Third Way:
Bill Clinton tried to create a Third Way. President Obama is doing it. This is exciting, but also disconcerting.
Exciting? Welll. Disconcerting? On some issues. What it should not be is surprising. It always surprised me that vehement Clinton haters could so easily embrace Obama. One of the leading Clinton haters was Booman. His reaction to Dionne's column is interesting:
I like E.J. Dionne. I think he's on to something in his latest column. He's basically saying that President Obama is creating a center-left liberal establishment in Washington that is reminiscent of what we saw in the glory days between 1933-1968. Here's where I think Dionne is wrong. It's not really Obama who is creating this.
I think that is right. Obama did not create this political moment. George Bush did. Booman continues:
[George W.] Bush was (s)elected without winning the popular vote or the Electoral College. He initially had narrow majorities in Congress. Yet, he governed as if he had won a giant mandate. He pushed as hard as he could to make as much change as he could and he pushed a hard-right agenda. This polarized the country and ultimately led to failure in every major field of endeavor.
This is inaccurate. Bush's pushing for his policies did not lead to political failure. It was the POLICIES that did that. They were terrible policies. In other words, Bush's political style is not what did Republicans in -- it was Bush's governance that did Republicans in.
In my view, stated many times before, Obama and Democrats will have continued political success based on the efficacy of Democratic governance, not based on Obama's political style. Booman writes:
What is the point of power, after all, if you don't use it when you have it? That's one side of the argument. The other side is that the Democrats can do more good in the long-run by building a ruling coalition. In beating the Republicans down to a tiny rump party, the Democrats ensure that we won't be faced with periodic Republican resurgencies that cause serious and lasting damage to the Republic.
Obama didn't create the center-left Establishment, but he is doing everything he can to protect and consolidate it. Whether his efforts bear fruit depends in large part on two factors. He must create a national health care system that fundamentally changes the contours of debate in this country by moving it far to the left. And he must avoid letting Afghanistan become this generation's Vietnam.
(Emphasis supplied.) Even Booman recognizes that building long term political success for Obama and the Democrats requires governing success. He focuses on health care and Afghanistan as the key issues. Others will focus on other issues. The point though is that it will be governing success that builds a long term Democrat governing majority, not political style.
The Barack Obama Presidency was possible, in part, because Bill Clinton governed successfully. It become inevitable when George Bush governed as badly as any President in history.
Whether another Democrat will follow Obama and whether there will be Democratic congresses for the near future depends on how well President Obama governs.
No comments:
Post a Comment