Kevin Drum raises some interesting points in musing over Barack Obama’s promises during his successful 2008 presidential campaign to seek bipartisan support for his policies:
To some extent, I think it was just the usual chicken-in-every-pot hyperbole of American presidential campaigns. American elites venerate bipartisanship, and it’s become pretty routine to assure everyone that once you’re in office you’ll change the toxic culture of Washington DC. Bush Jr. promised it. Clinton promised it. Bush Sr. promised it. Carter promised it. Even Nixon promised it.
(Reagan is the exception. Perhaps that’s why he’s still so revered by conservatives despite the fact that his actual conduct in office was considerably more pragmatic than his rhetoric.)
So when candidates say this, do they really believe it? Or does it belong in the same category as promises that you’ll restore American greatness and supercharge the economy for the middle class? In Obama’s case, it sure sounded like more than pro forma campaign blather. So maybe he really did believe it. Hell, maybe all the rest of them believed it too.
He goes on to blame everything on the Republicans.
I’m not sure how you reconcile that analysis with President-Elect Obama’s action, taken immediately on the heels of winning the election, of appointing the psychopathically partisan Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.
My hypothesis is that the president is incredibly cosseted and does not believe that principled opposition, genuine differences of opinion, or even differences in relative preferences are possible. I would also suggest that as Blue States become very deep blue and Red States become redder that sort of isolation will become increasingly common.
Your opinion about Emanuel is much different that what I have seen most others describe. Mostly seems like another guy on the bankers payroll. I would think that the extraordinary lengths they went to in an effort to obtain GOP participation in the ACA should be proof enough of intent to try to reach across the aisle, but even before that they added lots of tax cuts, a GOP idea, to the stimulus and the money they gave to the states was largely in the form of block grants, another idea usually preferred by the GOP and rarely by the Dems.
After the 2006 and 2008 elections, the safest of the red politicians retained office. As I have asked before, why would they ever cooperate with anything a Dem POTUS would want? To be clear, I think this would be true if things would have been reversed. The party with elected pols from purple states have some reason to compromise. Those from deeply red and blue areas do not.
Steve
“My hypothesis is that the president is incredibly cosseted and does not believe that principled opposition, genuine differences of opinion, or even differences in relative preferences are possible.”
That’s well stated. Unfortunately, the president’s acolytes steadfastly embrace his hard-nosed type of ideological spin and bi-partisan non-cooperation, seeing nothing wrong with it, as they increase their fervor to blame anyone but him for the problems encountered during his presidency. Even though there have been numerous non-partisan evaluations and observations positing that he has spent little time or effort cultivating more workable, cordial, open relationships with anyone in Congress, R as well as D, his diehard fans ignore such failings and continue to dump, rant and rave about the opposition party as being the sole perpetrator of DC gridlock, overseas chaos, a continuing tepid economy and unyielding dislike for his PPACA masterpiece, rising social/racial tensions and the like.
Social progressives, these days, all seem to be wearing blinders, 24/7, and seeing only what they want to see. It reminds me of the 35% or so who relentlessly never admitted the misadventures of the Bush presidency, either.
‘I would think that the extraordinary lengths they went to in an effort to obtain GOP participation in the ACA should be proof enough of intent to try to reach across the aisle, ….”
What….!!!! The GOP were virtually kept at arm’s length during all the closed door dem hierarchy meetings putting the PPACA on paper.
Only during the symbolic Blair House round table were both parties video-taped in open, honest talks with each other. And, that discussion was entirely based on a “we won, get used to it” attitude set by the president himself. Consequently, none of the republican’s concerns were ever truly addressed.
Sure, the dems tried to soften their unparalleled lack of bi-partisanship, in constructing and passing the PPACA, by eluding to have included earlier republican-endorsed ideas. But, those ideas were never subjected to any real-time republican input or changes, when the actual law was being legally hammered out. Even Jane Harmon, has admitted to one of the big flaws of the PPACA was that republicans were shut out of the process. That’s why not one republican voted for the law!