The current anger and deep disappointment toward Obama from some on the Left comes from a misperception of what has been accomplished, and wishful thinking about what was possible. Obama has enacted more of his party’s agenda in two years than either of the preceding Presidents did for their party in eight. And he got as much out of the centrist Democrats like Ben Nelson as anyone could have expected.
Let’s begin with the Stimulus. It basically amounts to spending a boatload of money on worthy liberal projects, including national parks, special education programs, Pell grants, the VA, clean energy programs, stem cell research, and many others. If Clinton had passed any one of those parts – increasing the acreage of national park land by 2 million acres, for example, or providing major research funding for renewable energy – it would have been regarded as a substantial legislative victory in its own right. Yet some lefties are disappointed or angry because they wanted it to be even bigger.
As with the Stimulus, several parts of health care reform are individually as significant as anything passed by Clinton or Bush II. It bans insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, makes health insurance affordable for 30 million more Americans, covers people up to age 26 on their parents insurance, helps cover the gap in coverage for Medicare participants paying for prescription drugs (the so-called donut hole), expands Medicaid to 133% of poverty level, and provides $11 billion to fund community health center which provide essential access to medical care to the poorest Americans, among dozens of other reforms. Democrats have been fighting for access to quality health care for all Americans for a century, and Obama took a huge leap forward. But some liberals are upset about the lack of a government-run insurance option, which might have saved some people (and the government) more money.
Then the Democrats reformed the financial regulatory laws. Again, some parts of this reform would individually have been significant legislation – including creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, the power to seize and shut down companies that threaten the economy, regulation of derivatives, closing off-shore tax havens, and increased shareholder rights. But some lefties are upset that they didn’t get a stronger Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
While passing these three large reform packages, Obama also helped pass a series of new anti-discrimination laws, including the Fair Pay Act and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Prevention Act; signed the Serve America Act, which quadrupled AmeriCorps, among other things; saved the jobs of thousands of blue collar auto workers; appointed two liberal Supreme Court Justices; and increased fuel efficiency standards by 25%. And in his spare time, Obama also shepherded through the CARD Act, which is the most sweeping consumer protection law in 40 years. But some Democrats wanted even more liberal Supreme Court justices, and…a unicorn. A real arm-twister like LBJ (or, in some even more preposterous narratives, Hillary Clinton) could have gotten all this and more, they say.
But what evidence is there that a more aggressive President could have convinced Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and the other centrist Democrats to vote for more liberal policies? None. It’s a myth that LBJ, or any President, got legislation passed by force of will or by strong-arm tactics. LBJ had comfortable supermajorities in both chambers, in a time when the filibuster was far less common, at time of far less established party discipline. Passing legislation in the 111th Congress, by contrast, required every single Democrat to be on board. It is much harder to get one Congressman who knows he holds the key vote to change his mind than to convince one of ten who might be the key vote. Believing that Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln (much less the GOP) would have voted against their interests if Obama yelled at them more, or asked for more liberal policies, is a fairy tale. Legislators don’t vote based on how aggressive the President is, especially when they know they’re the critical vote. They vote based on their constituencies at home, lobbyist money, and what they believe in.
Obama’s record is that he has passed more of his party’s legislation in two years than any president since LBJ. Nevertheless, I understand how some on the Left are mildly disappointed in Obama. Expectations were very high, and maybe you think an energy bill was more important than health care reform, for example. Or you’re upset that Obama couldn’t win approval from Congress to move Gitmo prisoners to the U.S. But anger? Plans to not to vote in 2012? That stuff is absurd. Those of you feeling that way need to reflect on everything Obama has accomplished in two years. The narrative of ineffectiveness is as far from reality as the Far Right’s view of the President as Stalin incarnate.
Because Bush and Obama are SO alike! Do you even think about what you are writing before you let fly?