To my ear Roger Cohen’s latest column in the New York Times hovers between insightful and delusional. Here’s insightful:
The Obama inner circle remains a group of tough political tacticians: David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett. The White House national security team does not boast a single name of strategic stature. Anyone outside Washington would be hard pressed to name one.
The policy upshot has been predictable: cerebral, cool, and with one big exception, cautious. Obama has corrected big mistakes — abandoning the unwinnable global war on terror and pulling out of Iraq. To his immense credit he took a big gamble on killing Osama Bin Laden. But elsewhere he has been cautious to a fault, eyeing the political calendar.
He held out a hand to Iran but promptly reverted to tired old carrots and sticks; his response to the great popular uprising of 2009 was slow. He took half-steps on Israel and Palestine — criticizing Israeli settlements, saying the ore-1967 lines were the basis for a two-state peace — only to offer zero follow-through. Nothing changed.
And here’s delusional:
Then there is Hillary Clinton, a superb secretary of state. But for various reasons (her future is very much ahead of her), she has generally acquiesced to the White House being the locus of major foreign-policy decisions (salvaging things where necessary, as in Pakistan.)
I question that statement on two grounds. First, given the litany of foreign policy vacillation and brinksmanship he catalogues in what sense has Hillary Clinton been “a superb secretary of state”? Because she’s Hillary Clinton? Because of the good advice she’s offered and that has been taken? Because of the difficult treaties she’s negotiated? Bold stands taken?
Second, given that Mrs. Clinton has already rejected the idea of running for the presidency again, how is “her future very much ahead of her” other than in the sense that the future is very much ahead of all of us?
There’s a series of questions that I wonder if Obama supporters are asking themselves. First, did you like the Bush Administration? Second, what dramatic departures from the policies of the Bush Administration has the Obama Administration undertaken? The banks continued to get bailed out, the “Bush tax cuts” were extended, our troops departed Iraq on the schedule negotiated by the Bush Administration, the auto companies were bailed out, the president’s power to order assassinations (now including those of American citizens) has been re-affirmed, the list is practically interminable. The PPACA. Is the PPACA enough reason to re-elect the president? The majority of Americans don’t seem to think so.
What we need are bold departures from past policies and what we’re getting is their fruition.
Fact-checking Cohen’s column: Obama did not announce his candidacy outside the Illinois State Capitol, it was the former state capitol, retired almost 150 yrs ago from that role.
More seriously, I was surprised no mention of Libya, which by far was the least predictable foreign policy decision. I don’t see how that fits into Cohen’s narratives.
BTW/ I see Robert Zoellick is being touted as a Romney administration’s secretary of state. Does that mean much to anyone?
I’ve also heard that Romney denied that Zoellick would have any role in a prospective Romney Administration. He’s anathema to neo-cons.
Zoellick would be better than say, John Bolton, for SoS but neither would be particularly welcome. IMO the foreign policy realists teed up the shot for the mess we’re in now and the neo-cons slammed it down the fairway.
I also don’t see how you reconcile Zoellick’s views with Romney’s campaign pledge to declare China a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency. I don’t deny that China is a currency manipulator but nonetheless I don’t think that’s the right policy. The right policy is to pull the rug out from under the Chinese strategy by changing the policies of our that make their strategy possible.
I’m concerned about the policy not just because China exploits it. The policy is problematic whether it’s exploited by China, Japan, South Korea, or Vietnam.
I also don’t see how you reconcile ______ with Romney’s campaign pledge to ______ ….
Come on, it’s Romney. You won’t know what he means to do until he tries to do it. And maybe not even then.
Ice,
Hehe. Pelosi famously said of the PPACA, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” We can apply that to Romney’s foreign policy, “But we have to elect Romney so that you can find out what his policies are, away from the fog of controversy.”
PD,
Ah yes, Libya, the conflict that wasn’t a war, but a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” The President was essentially pressured to act by France and the UK, who didn’t have the ability to intervene without US support. One wonders if he got any quid pro quo for it or if it was just a matter of supporting something our allies wanted to do.
That’s my interpretation, too. That’s one of the reasons I’m puzzled about Mr. Cohen’s admiration for Ms. Clinton as SoS. I think she got rolled. That’s exactly what a SoS should be able to get you out of.
Me: we ousted Qaddafi so we could destabilize Libya and, maybe, a good chunk of West Africa (Mali, at least)
Cohen: a triumph of foreign policy!
Andy, I’m pretty sure we can apply your logic to Romney’s Etch-a-Sktech domestic policy too.
Also, Romney is now mixing it up with the Tea Party on (esoteric to non-Republican Party members) various rules for and about the convention. In other words, Romney ain’t down with the rebels, but is much more in tune with the establishment that brought us crap like Sarbanes-Oxley and Medicare Part D.
It’s all pretty inside baseball, except that it really does indicate that the Tea Partiers are about to get rolled into irrelevance.
So much for that Conservative Revolution at the Ballot Box this fall….
I am sure you are mistaken in your assumptions here Dave. Obama is the most liberal president since, well, ever. How could he be Bush III? That said, until you control 65-70 votes in the Senate, I would not expect bold.
Steve
First, a minor quibble. It may not be significant to you but it’s important to me. I don’t make assumptions or, at least, I try not to. I observe. I make hypotheses.
Second, a statement of fact. Blaming the Senate minority is a handy dodge but that’s what it is: a dodge. A simple majority could abolish what you’re complaining about. Read up on “the nuclear option”.
Why doesn’t the Senate majority do so? Another hypothesis, drawn from, literally, generations of closehand observation of politicians. Being able to take a rhetorical stance, implement your preferences, and blame it on the minority is extremely handy for a U. S. Senator.
My read on Obama’s ideological position is that he’s center-left with a generous dollop of machine politics. Center-left is about as far as it goes in the U. S. Senate. Even the most progressive/liberal state, e.g. California, Massachusetts, Illinois, tends to elect center-left senators. Since most Americans are non-ideological, it’s a practical necessity.
Once you’ve acknowledged that the Senate could do what the majority want if the majority acted in concert and that center-left is about where that majority is, I think the Senate’s actions become a lot clearer. They didn’t pass a more expansive PPACA because they couldn’t get a majority of Democratic senators to vote for one. They extended the “Bush tax cuts” because that’s what the majority of Democratic senators really wanted to do or, at least, they wanted to escape the blame if things went pear-shaped which is operationally the same thing.
I think that most of what’s happened, from bailing out the banks and GM to the ARRA to the PPACA to the Afghanistan surge to leaving Iraq on time (rather than earlier) to extending tax cuts to crony capitalism to pretty much you name it, reflect the president’s policy preferences.
WRT the economy I think that the president sees his role as presiding over a gradual but inevitable decline rather than digging in to produce the Next Big Thing to expand the economy. I haven’t been able to put my hands on it but IIRC he’s said as much in his remarks about technology and unemployment.
I was just being facetious, referring to the constant complaints from the right about how Obama is the most liberal president in our history. That aside, I think you are wrong about the Senate. Senator number 51 is much different than number 60. #51 likely comes from a toss up district, but one that does not have real strong leanings. Any particular vote is not likely to lose you the next election. Senator number 60 comes from an area that tilts pretty heavily towards his opposition. He won because the other party has screwed up royally. He knows if he votes for anything remotely like extreme legislation from his own party, he loses the next election.
That is your dynamic. #60 is not going to vote for anything other than incremental legislation, something not too much different than what the other party has offered, unless he has the votes of 61-66 as cover or, he gets cover in a bipartisan vote.
Absent the filibuster, the ARRA is bigger, the PPACA has a public option and a stronger IPAB. I agree that we get the surge and pull out of Iraq at the same time.
Steve
steve, I think you overfocus on the filibuster procedure; these types of problems occur in legislatures without filibusters. Every term in Illinois, the majority (commanding as much as >2/3rds of the seats) will announce that certain legislative initiatives will not occur absent “some” minority support (sometimes a number is specified). These are bills that are either unpopular or otherwise pose some risk to majority control. The underlying dynamic is that a good legislative leader protects his majority. If he/she doesn’t, then the other side will come to power and start undoing your work.
The base problem was the law was unpopular. Unpopular legislation has a lot of problems getting passed with or without a filibuster. Advocates needed to change the dynamic or take the risk.
steve,
I’m not sure why you’re talking about senators and “toss up” districts in the same sentence.
The problem with that is Pelosi didn’t have the votes to pass the public option in the House. Also, the President got the size of stimulus he asked for. There’s no indication that I’ve seen that there was support for a larger bill at that time, much less that a larger bill was prevented by the filibuster.
PD beat me to the punch with his point. The dynamics that steve is describing is just the normal dynamics of legislative logrolling. That pertains to simple majorities as well as it does to supermajorities.
Except states cant really run deficits the way the federal government can. That makes for a much different dynamic. Also, while PD can cite instances of state majorities wanting political cover, there is also no shortage of legislation passing by the barest majority and/or completely on party lines. The Wisconsin change to laws about unions is a recent and famous case o fsuch.
@Andy- The rumors are that Romer wanted a much bigger stimulus. The politicos said the biggest they could expect to pass was in the $800 billion number as it was far enough away from $1 trillion to be acceptable. You may be correct about the House, I am not sure. I think Pelosi let everyone from borderline areas vote against the ACA since she still had enough votes to pass it. If the Senate sent a bill with the public option, I dont know what the outcome would have been.
Steve
@steve, the teacher’s union isn’t popular in Wisconsin, they violated local tenants of social responsibility (which is not necessarily supportive of Republican ideology, they just intersected in this instance).
@PD- They went after more than the teacher’s unions IIRC. The vote was strictly on party lines. I seem to recall weeks of protests.
Steve
steve,
I think that’s all true and that sort of calculation is probably why the President set a similar target for the ACA. But none of that has anything to do with the filibuster.
That’s probably true for the ACA, but is irrelevant for the public option. Pelosi had to drop the public option long before the actual ACA vote because she didn’t have the votes.
And, importantly, it’s no excuse for not advocating for what he believed to be necessary. Show me the advocacy. If, indeed, he believed that more was necessary. We don’t elect a president to lie back and accept the inevitable. That’s a cop out. If he doesn’t have the guts to advocate for what he believes, he doesn’t have the guts to be president and he should get the heck out of the way.