Achieving Change in Washington Posted by Michael Cohen

Greetings from Peterborough, New Hampshire! Today, I had the unique privilege of seeing my first actual Gravel supporter. It was a heady moment - I'll tell you, the things you see when you leave the big city! Actually I stumbled upon a John McCain rally that appeared to be pretty well attended; at the very least he seemed to attract a good number of Paul supporters, whose signs are everywhere. Based on signage alone you'd think that guy was winning up here.

So I've been thinking a bit about the reluctance among many progressives to get on board the Obama bandwagon. One of the arguments you hear is that Obama's hope message won’t be able to overcome entrenched GOP and corporate opposition to progressive policies. But the fact is, the greatest impediment to progressive reform is not corporate greed, it’s partisan gridlock.

The more Americans look to Washington and see nothing getting accomplished, the more it weakens their confidence in progressive government. People throw up their hands and say “Washington can’t do anything” and so the next progressive politician who calls for a government solution to a pressing national issue gets tuned out.

This is a lesson that Republicans understand all too well; and it’s a tactic they used to brilliant effect in 1993 and 1994 and continue to utilize today. For the GOP and in particular small government conservatives, obstructionism is smart politics. But to be effective they need a bogeyman; someone to demonize; someone who makes activist government seem like a threat. Indeed when Clinton won 43% in the 1992, it was much easier for the GOP to oppose everything (which they did). And the resulting bloodbath in November 1994 was as much as response to anger at Washington as it was a rejection of activist government. Unfortunately, for Dems revulsion over the former generally leads to opposition toward the former.

But after Clinton won re-election in 1996 and the GOP had taken a serious hit because of the government shutdown, it became far more difficult for the GOP to be a knee jerk opposition party.  Indeed, progressives may hate to admit it, but Clinton’s victory in 1996 and his subsequent approach to governing may have made the most effective case for activist government (albeit not on the scale of the New Deal or Great Society) in two generations. It’s small wonder the George Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of compassionate conservatism that actually criticized Congressional Republicans for knee jerk opposition to government spending.

This brings us to the present. If Hillary is elected; or even if a populist like Edwards wins, it’s not hard to see the GOP making that case to their base (as well as disenchanted voters) that they must oppose everything he or she does, particularly if it is a nasty election.  Indeed, an Edwards us vs. them victory would seem to be a virtual recipe for more gridlock in Washington. Whether we like it or not, providing the GOP with fodder to oppose Democrats is a recipe for disaster for Dems.

But if Obama wins, that’s going to be a much harder to case to make. Indeed, if he were to win on a message of political unity and change; the GOP would take a very real risk of antagonizing independent voters.  This would rebrand the party as a national scold, opposing anything that smacks of activist government. Indeed, as was the case in the 40s and 50s, the party would likely see a tactical need to find some areas of compromise with Democrats. It's going to be very difficult for the GOP to engage in obstructionism if Obama were to win on a mandate for change.

Such a shifting of the political winds could potentially provide a unique opportunity for a new spirit of activist government. Again, I don’t think we’re ever going to see an activist call on par with the 1930s or 1960s (which were fairly unique moments in American history), but we could see a new burst of energy for say dealing with health care, a new more conservation-led approach to the nation’s energy needs and certainly a more conciliatory and progressive approach to foreign policy. These would be significant accomplishments and if even on a small level it increased confidence in government it would a go long way toward changing people’s perspectives on progressive government.

Us vs. them political messages – even if aimed at familiar progressive bogeyman – will actually do more damage to progressive politics over the long run. National unity and post-partisan politics may seem like a cliché, but it’s also the best hope for activist government.

Comments

[Martin]

Cohen's is a brilliant analysis. This article on Acropolis Review reinforces his conclusions concerning the hope factor:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/ron-paul-obama-and-hope-in-presidential.html

[Mike M.]

Obama has campaigned as being somebody beyond partisan politics, yes.

But... is he?

Far as I can tell, he's as down and dirty as the rest when it comes to getting elected. This is the supposed progressive who teamed up with an antigay bigot gospel singer, after all.

But, worse than that... imagine him as president, leading us all to a new kind of politics, with Oprah at his side... the only result would be devastating compromises with conservatives. And... the truth is... conservative ideas are wrong, but are at least rooted in principles. The halfway between a liberal and conservative idea is also wrong and sometimes worse.