…This time from Ken Silverstein’s 2006 Harper‘s piece on Obama. “Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine”:
“My experience in the state legislature is instructive. The first seven years I was there I was in the minority, and I think that I passed maybe ten bills; maybe five of them were substantive. Most of the bills that I did pass were in partnership with Republicans, because that was the only way I could get them passed. The first year we were in the majority party I passed twenty-six bills in one year.†While Washington “moves more slowly than the state legislature,†Obama said he had no doubt that if the Democrats controlled Congress, it would be possible to move forward on important progressive legislation.
The alternative, until then, is to be opportunistic and look for areas where he can get enough Republican support to actually get a bill passed. That, he said, “means that most of the legislation I’ve proposed will be more modest in its goals than it would be if I were in the majority party.â€Â
[…]
Obama said that the “blogger community,†which by now is shorthand for liberal Democrats, gets frustrated with him because they think he’s too willing to compromise with Republicans. “My argument,†he says, “is that a polarized electorate plays to the advantage of those who want to dismantle government. Karl Rove can afford to win with 51 percent of the vote. They’re not trying to reform health care. They are content with an electorate that is cynical about government. Progressives have a harder job. They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals.â€Â
Seems Obama’s pragmatism will cease the moment it becomes unnecessary. Because with a filibuster proof Congress, Obama no longer will need to appeal to the moderates whom he has gulled in order to take power.
They were merely necessary stepping stones on the way to the promised land of “progressive control,” under which he promises to undertake “real” reform.
Sound moderate?
Well, maybe if, like “conservative” Andrew Sullivan, you have a dick in your ear. To those of us who haven’t gone batshit crazy, however, Obama is about as “moderate” as Chris Buckley or Peggy Noonan are worthy of any further political consideration.
****
h/t neo-neocon, who writes:
Obama may soon have his wish. If he’s elected President and both houses of Congress go strongly Democratic, he will finally have that “big enough majorityâ€Ââ€â€and then some.
Oh, happy days!
— But look on the bright side: free muffins and biscotti are yours for the taking.
Relish it, people!
Free muffins and biscotti are yours for the taking.
After you’ve cut your quota of sugar cane, comrade.
I, for one, welcome our new Progressive overlords. I’d like to remind them, as a sometimes blog commentor, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground money caves.
It’s bad. Thunderbirds are so not go. It’s just really, really bad.
Off Topic Shameless Promotion:
My little brother’s latest article is up at Small Wars Journal.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/124-orris.pdf
Relish on biscotte?!
Are you MAD?!
Because with a filibuster proof Congress, Obama no longer will need to appeal to the moderates whom he has gulled in order to take power.
Nah, that was done by the advance team — the gulling. Here’s to all the Republicans who voted to shovel money to ACORN, because, well, otherwise they were racists. Here’s to all those who shut up — on housing, subprime lending, education, etc., ad nauseum — at the slightest whiff of the “r” word. Here’s to the PC, diverse universe of socialism through cowardice.
“Progressive” Union goons, “windfall” profits tax and tax hikes. Where’s the progress? I’ve seen this crap before under Carter.
Wear a sweater people!
Sounds like lots of fun for opposing blogs!
Until you get shut down, or something like that.
The next four years – no matter who wins – will be interesting times politically.
I wonder what will happen to Sen. Obama’s grand coalition if he wins and finds out that even with the legislature and the executive the machine is slow and unwieldy (by design), and some are bound to be disappointed when they can’t get what they believed was there on his ‘blank slate’?
Ours is not a Parliamentary system, each representative and senator is elected in seperate races, as is the executive. It is not strong on party loyalty within branches, and it is not strong on loyalty between each house of Congress or the Executive. Reality – political, economic, foreign, and military is going to intrude. Sen. Obama’s words speak of a confidence that has not historically panned-out. The first Roosevelt administration is a poor choice for him to look at for inspiration because the economics are different – national and international – and the foreign scene was much different. In the early 1930’s the US wasn’t the lead military keeping order, other nations had that role; today it is much different.
I think Sen. Obama’s grand plans will work in that theoretical world where randomness doesn’t occur and other independent actors don’t have a real role. Recall Rodney Dangerfield’s interaction with the professor in ‘Back to School’ when they were discussing building a factory and Rodney brought up a bunch of factors not in the hypothetical and sugested the factory be built in Fantasyland.
The factories are where the workers work.
Not in O-Land. There’s a crew of elves that comes in at night and does all the work.
The factories are where the workers work.
It’s all about Rodney Dangerfield, and some country in Fantasyland that’s not strong on party loyalty. Pelosi should be told about this.
I think you meant The Very Wind of God. Which means we’re talking entire levels of paradigm change here, Jeff, levels.
Party loyalty amongst elected officials is not strong in the US, not compared to what other representative democracies have. Elected officials are not dependant on one another to hold office – each has their own electoral race; the national parties are weak and are more correctly described as seperate state parties.
The structure the US Constitution erected implicity encourages two centrist parties nationally, but explicity makes them weak.
BTW – before posting comment #9 I should have read Thomas Sowell’s article. I could have just quoted it instead of writing on my own.
Party loyalty amongst elected officials is not strong in the US
Yes. If Obama wins, he’s going to find out that Nancy Pelosi is a jealous god.
“Seems Obama’s pragmatism will cease the moment it becomes unnecessary. Because with a filibuster proof Congress, Obama no longer will need to appeal to the moderates whom he has gulled in order to take power.”
Seems quite pragmatic to pass the legislation he can pass.
#16 SBP:
Every governor, every senator,every representative has a vision of him or her sitting in the oval office, and none of them are going to do one thing to jeopardize that if they can help it, party de damned. This is not a parliamentary system where parties have to stick together, and members have to work within the party first to get into office and then get the party enough seats so that the leader of the party can beome PM.
In a parliamentary system Sen. Obama would be sitting in some back-bench still and not having the nomination over more senior party members. And certainly no provincial governor would be considered the leader of the national party – a governor quite simply could not do that because the executive – in parliamentary system – comes from the national legislature – and only those in the national legislature can become national executive.
By design the American system is not a strong party system, and as elections in the US house of representatives are every two years, then a ‘coattails’ effect is very brief as the representative has to return and run in a local election within a short span of time.
The system, by design, is very dynamic electorally, but very slow legislatively (hence earmarks – legislative bribes to get votes). Even changing the senators from state legislative appointments to direct election has served to dilute the strength of parties because previously state party loyalty was a necessity to be a senator, now less so. It is now individual races for all, and perhaps we will see with Rep. Murtha what happens when even a long time representative screws with the locals too much. Certainly he seems worried.
Thomas ‘Tip’ O’Neill put his finger on it years ago.
Well, he can pass whatever he’d like. But it will all be of a certain ideological strain. Without opposition, the motivation for pragmatism disappears.
The pragmatism of the next house election being in 2010 isn’t removed and cannot be removed short of constitutional amendment. And another third of the senate are up then. Highly unsuccessful legislation can affect that, and after the partys are done, Congress is still looking at that. Even if you can gerrymander a house seat, you cannot gerrymander a senate seat.
This is not post-Wilhelmite Germany or post-Romanov Russia. Willing it so does not make it so.
“Stroke of the pen, law of the land! Neat!”
I would actually be very surprised if Obama manages to get much done, even if both houses of Congress end up with bigger Democrat majorities.
The House may go along at first, but every member needs to seek re-election in 2010 and there isn’t a single one of them that’s willing to sacrifice his political future for O!’s socialist
wetpipe dreams once people wake up and realize what’s going on.The Senate? Fuhgeddaboutit. As bad as the Republicans have been in that body, the Democrats are no better. Each one privately thinks he is the next Greatest President That Ever Lived, and ferdamsure not one of them is going to be willing to plant very many kisses on O!’s backside just because he happened to win the last election.
If he does win tomorrow, a year from now President Jesus will be wishing he’d lost.
Get it while you can; I’m off for my ex-wife’s favoUrite:
A double decaf “dry” decaf latte… for freakin’ $5.75, plus guilt-ridden tip.