by Robert Schlesinger

Hold the president accountable on Health Reform and Afghanistan, but give him a chance to do his job

The weekend after President Obama's December 1 speech laying out his Afghanistan strategy brought politics junkies a veritable news smorgasbord. Not one but three major news dailies offered behind the scenes "ticktocks" tracing how the policy came together.

These sorts of richly detailed stories can be a real boon for a White House, helping to reinforce the image the administration wants to send about its chief. During the George W. Bush administration, for example, such stories featured the steel-jawed president being decisive and leaderly. Obama, New York Times readers were told, "peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents."

The message behind this PR offensive seems clear. As Politico put it in a ticktock of the ticktocks, administration officials hoped to convey that "this was not just a Potemkin debate over a foregone conclusion. Unlike President George W. Bush, [they] took a long hard look at the options and alternatives." The key audience for this message seems obvious--disaffected liberals who are now grousing that the Obama Afghan strategy looks an awful lot like one Bush would have produced.

Indeed, on issues like Afghanistan and healthcare, progressives are becoming increasingly restive as they discover that the spoils of victory are far less satisfying than victory itself.

Some seem to forget that Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being a necessary conflict that had to be won. He vowed to move the focus back from Iraq to Afghanistan, and he has. Perhaps some in his base thought he was saying what he had to in order to win and that his inner dove would flutter out once he was elected.

Of course, facts on the ground have changed since he took office. Obama could very plausibly have stood at West Point and said: After the Afghan elections, it is clear that that country remains tragically riddled with corruption. I will not commit our blood and treasure to building a nation whose foundation is so corroded.

I'm not unsympathetic to that view. But the question is how to react now that Obama has made his decision. Some activists are mobilizing for battle against the war. "Democrats in Washington cannot take the base for granted," a MoveOn.org official told Politico. Another activist group, Blue America, is aiming to raise a half-million dollars for antiwar candidates. And the war is quickly becoming a flash point in Democratic primary races in states like Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio.

I certainly don't advocate giving any president the kind of free rein that Bush had. But I also recall an argument frequently deployed in favor of candidate Obama, especially in regard to foreign policy: He may not have a great deal of experience, but he has shown good judgment. It seems to me that less than a full year into his term, Obama's supporters still owe him some maneuvering room to demonstrate that good judgment, even if at first blush we're not wild about the policy. As liberal radio talk show host Stephanie Miller said earlier this month, "This is another enormous mess that the Bush administration has left for President Obama, and I say we give him the benefit of the doubt."

Miller was speaking on MSNBC's The Ed Show, whose host, progressive talker Ed Schultz, has been banging the drum for retribution against healthcare apostates. He has repeatedly targeted centrist and conservative Democrats like Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson who have displayed an obstinate discomfort with, for example, a government-run public option. "It's better to hold the line on the public option, wait one more year for the midterms," Schultz argued last month, and "get rid of people like Ben Nelson and [Arkansas Sen.] Blanche Lincoln and [Louisiana Sen.] Mary Landrieu, who can't line up with the progressive caucus."

And groups like MoveOn immediately rallied last week against the healthcare compromise Democratic senators produced, blaming "conservative senators" like Nelson for protecting "Big Insurance," even though Obama has endorsed the deal. (Their nemesis, Joe Lieberman, ended up scuttling it anyway.) Nelson won't face re-election until 2012. But even if he were up next year, you'll find the strong progressive who can win that seat right next to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Obama's Kenyan birth certificate: in the land of make-believe. I'm no Nelson fan--his abortion inflexibility could well sink the healthcare bill--but Nebraskans are conservative. They voted for John McCain by 57 percent last year, and a Daily Kos poll over the summer found only 39 percent of Cornhuskers favor a public option, while 47 percent oppose it. If they elect a Democrat, it will be a conservative Democrat.

Liberal ire is drawing closer to Obama himself.

MoveOn held a rally outside the White House yesterday protesting any move to appease Lieberman. And a group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee started running ads in the Chicago area ripping White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The urge to target people who won't "line up" with the party base can be a strong one. Winning, as I said, is often sweeter than governing. But the urge to set off in search of more wins is a dangerous one. Progressives should avoid the kind of trickle-down-economics-style politics that conservatives and Republicans seem intent on pursuing. Conservatives, having long argued that slashing taxes results in increased tax revenue, now think that cutting the scope of the party will result in more votes. But if you want to be a majority party, you need ideological breadth. And being a majority means setting the agenda and getting most of the healthcare loaf, for example, rather than the handful of crumbs that would come with a larger Senate GOP contingent.

Liberals and Democrats will have chances down the line to judge their leaders, but those pols still deserve some latitude to get things done. A revolt now would limit what can still be achieved. All I am saying is: Give Barack a chance.

 

Receive our political analysis by email by subscribing here



Liberals Should Keep Quiet About Obama | Robert Schlesinger

© Tribune Media Services