Obama Approval, Progressive Politics and Democratic Unity
The President with His War Cabinet
Pundits have focused recently on President Obama’s declining public opinion polls. As the President drops to fifty percent approval ratings, the talk speculates on whether the poor economy will sink Democratic prospects in the 2010 midterm elections. The economy is important and the administration’s policies will not cure recession blues before the election, but of greater concern is the question of Democratic political unity.
Republicans have criticized the President’s leadership and policies from the get go, but with Progressives attacking the administration and fracturing the President’s base, some of the moderates who elected him are beginning to wonder. Have the progressives gone off in search of Ralph Nader?
Neither the left nor the right have a majority in national American politics. The candidate that convinces the pragmatic middle to join the ideological left or right wins both in electing candidates and in charting policy. President Bush succeeded in maintaining the right-middle coalition between 2000 and 2008. He used the power he was given to lower taxes on the wealthy, promote hands-off financial oversight, conduct aggressive foreign and military policy and tilt the delicate balance between rights and security not so delicately in favor of security.
President Obama won back moderates in 2008, promising to shift economic policy towards the middle class, embracing government regulation in finance, the environment and health care, and seeking new strategic solutions in international relations. His is not, in fact, a liberal vision, despite Republican characterizations, but it is a more moderate one than what came before, and one that aims to learn from the experiences of prior administrations.As long as his coalition continues, the President’s approach to taxes and budget, justice and rights, and foreign policy and war will prevail.
However, after nine months in office, it seems the President can no longer count on the Progressive wing for support. In the guise of influencing the President to move to the left, Progressive critics attack the President and his administration. Calls for Treasury Secretary Geithner to resign by Rep. Peter DeFazio D-Or are but the most recent example. The left is also troubled by economic decision-making and the potential increase in troops headed for Afghanistan. Of course, any coalition will contain different viewpoints. A goal of our democratic process is for hearty debate to distinguish the best ideas from all others. But Progressives fail to grasp that the President needs the full support of those that elected him in order to achieve his agenda and present a successful Democratic party to the electorate in 2010 and 2012. If the party is not unified, the President will not succeed and the power will shift back to the Republicans.
It is only because President Obama joined, at least temporarily, the moderate center of the electorate with the traditional Democratic party that he succeeded in bringing his moderate voice to the fore.
Terror Trials in New York
This week Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced that five alleged terrorists linked to the 9/11 attacks would be put on trial in New York’s federal district court. The decision to give these Guantanamo detainees U.S. criminal trials with substantial legal rights has already engendered fierce political commentary. Former New York Mayer Rudy Giuliani told Sunday morning talk shows that the trials will “give an advantage” to the terrorists, citing security risks and multi-million dollar judicial-process expenses. Other critics worried that giving the terrorists a trial in New York provided them with a forum for propaganda, and Washington Times columnist Tony Blankly said during a broadcast of KCRW’s “Left, Right & Center” that critics of the Bush administration’s policies would use the trial to bash the former administration. Progressive commentator Robert Sheer responded to Blankly in support of the public trial that the American people deserved an accounting for the acts of 9/11 in a public forum.Other supporters of the Attorney General’s decision, such as Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, said that the world would watch the United States justice system perform effectively. “We’re not afraid of these people,” he told Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that the New York law enforcement and judicial authorities could handle the trials.
The decision by Attorney General Holder raises a number of thorny questions. For example, will evidence, such as confessions obtained by torture, be excluded the way they would be in a typical criminal trial? If so, will there be enough evidence remaining to assure convictions? Also intriguing is whether the court could empanel a jury that would be open-minded about the facts in the case. There are precedents, such as the prosecution and conviction of 1993 World Trade Center bombing perpetrator, Ramsey Yusef, in a New York federal court, but the 9/11 attacks, by their scale and devastation, go beyond previous examples.
The decision is a gamble for Mr. Holder and for the Obama administration. It would have been possible to prosecute the men in a military tribunal at a military installation. While the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Bush administration’s claims of unfettered extra-judicial treatment of detainees, a full criminal trial was not the only option. If the trial is disrupted by violence or becomes a political soap-box for anti-government or anti-American rhetoric, it may do additional damage to the U.S. position and interests. On the other hand, there may be longer-range potential benefits as well.
I am reminded of a theory put forth by French philosopher Michel Foucault in his analysis of the decline in brutal public executions in early modern Europe. Foucault hypothesized that behind rituals such as drawing and quartering of those who offended the monarch was the need to demonstrate the power of the state over the disobedient. As laws and institutions of society and justice became stronger, it was no longer a contest between King and subject. Instead, right and wrong became fundamental compacts of society. In theory, the community, even the perpetrator, came to know that it was wrong to offend the law, and punishment need not be proof of the greater power of the King, but became the inevitable reckoning for one’s own wrongdoing.
In this sense, the criminal punishment of the 9/11 perpetrators becomes more than our military asserting its superior authority. The rule of law and our civil institutions are elevated to even a higher authority. It’s a pretty big gamble as the difficulty with the war in Afghanistan and other acts of terrorism illustrate that our worldview is not so dominant as be universal or unopposed, but these domestic efforts to handle terrorists as mere criminals could be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate the dominance of our way of life. Whether this will go smoothly remains to be seen, and disruption of the process could also, by implication, be a symbol of a challenge to our civilization’s supreme authority.
Drafting New Health Care Legislation
Legislation will be needed for most of the health care plans currently being talked about in the United States. Insurers, doctors groups, and medical organizations have come together to propose voluntary cost-savings measures. However, this has not stopped President Barack Obama or legislators from moving forward on proposals that would substantially change the health care marketplace. (Full Story)
President Obama’s Second Press Conference
Converting the Campaign Platform into an Economic Agenda
President Obama’s 2nd press conference on March 24, focused on his vision of long-term renewal. The President united his major priorities — a commitment to education, health care cost reform and long-range government direction of energy planning — with his current economic agenda. This essentially is the heart of the new President’s political agenda. This is Barack Obama. (Full story)
Earmarks: Checks and Balances, Moratorium or Reform?
During the last two years presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain both campaigned for a change in the rampant use of earmarks, which steer tax dollars to congressional pet projects.
A fundamental question is whether all earmarks are bad earmarks. It’s tempting to say “yes,” given the outrageous number and lack of standards for allocation of funds in the past. However, earmarks have their purpose. They give to elected representatives, rather than an unelected administrative body, the power to direct public spending. (Full Story)
Food Shortages Across the Globe
A series of food shortages whose initial stages were reported in 2008 have continued into the new year, raising concerns about political instability, malnourishment, and economic challenges. Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a statement last week confirming that “volatile food prices and market uncertainties have become major concerns as they threaten not only food security but also social and political stability.” (Full story)
President Obama’s First 50 days
The first 50 days of the Obama Presidency have seen a flurry of major legislative activity, historic signing ceremonies, substantial policy speeches and high-stakes politics. In fact, “hit the ground running” doesn’t do it justice, as the President began giving press conferences about his economic plans — sensing the markets were collapsing into the vacuum — in the days leading up to his inauguration. (Full story)
Swiss Banks, Tax Shelters and You’re Crying Foul Over Earmarks?
You may have more power than you think.
I have been called naïve recently for my positive take on our government’s response to the economic crisis – stimulus bill, earmarked budget and financial bailout included.
You see corruption; I see reform. I see problem solving; you see problem government.
And yet here I go again.
News this week that Swiss banks have been forced to comply with international banking standards that require release of information to stop tax evasion on the two trillion dollars of foreign assets located in Swiss banks. (Full story)
