No Guarantees

Ezra Klein says sure Obama could be an extraordinarily effective advocate of progressive ideas, but then again he might not actually use is powers on behalf of ideas like that. Kevin Drum concurs. For my own part, I don't disagree. But I think the problem with this whole line of concerns is well-expressed by the fact that Kevin titles his post "Obama mindreading."

Ultimately, though, the question of whether or not deep down in his heart Obama is really the liberal Reagan or not is neither here nor there. Ezra says "Obama may tout the politics of hope, but when it comes to getting presidents to govern in the way they'd like them to, progressives should remember that hope is not a plan." I completely agree. But that some dilemma would exist for any potential candidate. The extent to which Obama or Clinton or anyone else governs as a progressive will have more to do with the objective circumstances in which he or she finds himself or herself -- the congressional balance of power, the strength of interest groups, the quality of organizing on the ground -- than it will with what lurks in the deepest recesses of his or her brain.

That's why I try not to be an Obama groupie. But still, there are two candidates in the field right now. Either one will probably only take risks if they're pushed to take them. But if Obama is pushed to take risks, I think those risks are more likely to pay off -- he more skills of persuasion and inspiration.

Comments

Persuasion, and a commitment to open government.

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 9:27 AM

Obama could push the progressive movement. And he may not. We do know the Clintons had their chance to push forward the progressive movement and what we got where lost seats in Congress, eight years of Bush, NAFTA with no labor or environmental standards, "don't ask, don't tell", and failed health care plans. Not that I think the Clinton administration was bad times, but they were effective managers, not paradigm-shifting progressive leaders.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 14, 2008 9:32 AM

I think an important question to ask is what does Obama do with all the enthusiasm he is generating, particularly among young people. Suppose he wins the election. Does he say thank you, I'll take it from here? I don't think so. If he is committed to fostering a new movement of activism, he could use the network he has created through his website to continue to push for those same people to join AmeriCorps, to volunteer in their community, etc. It's not fuzzy-headed "hope" to see that one candidate could potentially rally a large activist base to keep putting pressure on elected officials - whether through emails, letters, or even user-generated media - in order to help that candidate and the Democratic party push through their agenda. We've already seen it working. Obama already has coattails. All this hemming and hawing is just so ridiculous. Look at the polls yesterday out of Colorado - Obama beats McCain by 7 points, McCain beats Hillary by 14 points. Obama is riding a wave of enthusiastic local support that is excited about his progressive agenda - and some still wring their hands about whether or not it would actually be better if Clinton is the nominee.

Posted by Craig | February 14, 2008 9:44 AM

As a small-l libertarian, one of the reasons I vastly prefer Obama over Clinton is that I think he will be a disappoint the authoritarian left.

Obama is still a community organizer at heart. He doesn't look to jam a bunch of plans down our collective throats advocated by a small group of people who are certain that they are smarter than everyone else. He wants us all to come together, negotiate, exercise oversight, etc.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | February 14, 2008 9:54 AM

Well, if the main outcome of an Obama Presidency is a larger and more energized Clintonian AmeriCorps, I won't exactly be cheering...

Let's forget all these 18-point lists on a back-page of Obama's website. Why doesn't Obama NOW, starting today, make a full and rapid withdrawal from the disastrous Iraq Occupation the absolute centerpiece of his campaign? Given Democratic primary sentiment, it would totally nail down his nomination, and given the national polling numbers, it would lay the groundwork for an easy victory over McCain.

On the policy side, if Obama made Iraq withdrawal the center of his campaign against McCain and won, then it would be absolutely suicidal for him NOT to rapidly withdraw as promised, so he'll probably do it. But if he mostly runs on "hope" and "optimism" and AmeriCorps, with Iraq withdrawal as a minor aside, then we'll probably get AmeriCorps and end up staying in Iraq until we get thrown out.

Frankly, I don't think much of Saint Barack (Hillary either!), but if I really believed he'd get us totally out of Iraq within a year or so, I'd certainly cut him a lot of slack on lots of other issues.

Posted by RKU | February 14, 2008 10:04 AM

I think that Hilzoy has a good rejoinder to the "mindreading" argument. I don't think you can point to any evidence that Obama isn't a very substantive, hard-working progressive who would push progressive policies. I think that a lot of people are being guided here by the assumption that their fears of disappointment are more "real" than the evidence.

“I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind…

…he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this.”

Posted by SDM | February 14, 2008 10:07 AM

At this point I don't take the make-up of Congress to be exogenous to the candidate. It is not that Clinton and Obama will have to make do with whatever Congress they get. It looks like Obama will get a better congress than Clinton.

That's a factor. Obama could do more than Clinton with the same factor because he's more persuasive - but he won't get the same congress. He has longer coattails and some Senate and House races will go D with him that would go R with Clinton.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 14, 2008 10:22 AM

"...hope is not a plan..."

I'm amazed that a lot of progressives see this so differently than I do. I am convinced that Obama has a well developed plan. At its core, it is not primarily based upon detailed policy papers. Rather, the foundation of Obama's plan is to build the political will for change. With Clinton, you may see a more progressive domestic agenda than was outlined by Clinton ('96), Gore ('00) or Kerry ('04). But if she wins it will be by the skin of her teeth. She will try to push that agenda through in a highly-polarized 51-49 America. Obama, OTOH, is seeking a broad mandate for change. While he talks about bipartisanship, he does NOT talk about centrism, as the DLC'ers do. IMHO, his "plan" is to increase Democratic seats in both Houses; win with 55% of the vote or more, including some Red States; and have 70% of the American people supporting him on Jan 20, 2009. With that support behind him, he will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to align public opinion behind his agenda, making it increasingly difficult for Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to put the special interests above the public interest. Of course that is hugely ambitious. But it is still a plan. And it could change America.

Posted by Spike3905 | February 14, 2008 10:25 AM

Ezra like a lot of liberals doesn't understand our system of government. The details of legislation are determined by Congress not the President. If you want more liberal domestic policies, work to elect more liberal members of Congress. Yes it's also important to have a President who will then sign the bills Congress passes. Meanwhile there's a lot of reasons to think Obama will conduct a rational foreign policy while Clinton still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea and would like to attack Iran too.

Posted by Ron | February 14, 2008 10:29 AM

Now that Matt's doing this professionally for a magazine that takes itself seriously I'm surprised he's not been encouraged to proof read even a little. I guess they don't care if his audience doesn't (and I don't, I just think it's strange that they don't).

Posted by aleks | February 14, 2008 10:47 AM

Rather, the foundation of Obama's plan is to build the political will for change.

I think this reinforces Ezra's critique.

The political will for change is built up by publicly taking and emphasizing specific positions for change. If you do so, and people vote you into office, you've built up that will. You've got a mandate for the changes you advocated on the stump.

You don't have to go into detail, but you do have to at least name the things you're trying to build support for - especially those things that are likely to meet serious opposition.

A victorious Presidential candidate who had detailed policy papers on his website, and introduced great bills in Congress, doesn't have a mandate for those policies or bills, unless he at least mentioned them reasonably prominently in his speeches and whatnot.

For instance, if Obama's policy papers say he's going to pay for near-universal healthcare by raising taxes on the rich, but hardly anyone knows that, then he has no mandate to do so; he's still got to build up support for that after getting elected.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 14, 2008 10:57 AM

How substantial is this Kenya stuff?

Posted by M | February 14, 2008 11:03 AM

Substanceless meta-comment: Am I the only one who interpreted Kevin's title as "Ezra has read my [Kevin's] mind on Obama"?

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 14, 2008 11:11 AM

I don't think you can point to any evidence that Obama isn't a very substantive, hard-working progressive who would push progressive policies.

a) Buying into GOP talking points attacking Social Security.
b) Unwillingness to push for UHC or single payer.
c) The exhaulted placed of Austen Goolsbee in the Obama universe.

I think part of the problem for Obama is that being a community organizer in Chicago hasn't sufficiently acquainted him with what it means to be a progressive in terms of national politics.

My suspicion is that Obama just doesn't get the big picture -- not way the Hillary Clinton does deep down in her bones -- on the economy, the safety net, etc. It's Gary Hart vs. Mondale again, but this time Mondale can win.

Petey, over to you.

Posted by Jasper | February 14, 2008 11:40 AM

"I think this reinforces Ezra's critique.

The political will for change is built up by publicly taking and emphasizing specific positions for change. If you do so, and people vote you into office, you've built up that will. You've got a mandate for the changes you advocated on the stump."

Maybe. When sound bites on TV are now less than 5 seconds (down from 40+ seconds back in 1960), it is rare that anything beyond "I'm pro-choice" or "I want to ban abortion" can get through to voters. Even that didn't get through to voters in 2000, when more voters thought Bush was more pro-abortion than Gore.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 11:42 AM

"a) Buying into GOP talking points attacking Social Security."

He used the phrase "Social Security crisis" once in a speech. If this is the best that HRC's supporters can come up with after her voting for the war, that is just sad.

"b) Unwillingness to push for UHC or single payer."

Oh great, the mandates question again. Considering that white working class Democrats, who Clinton counts as her core supporters, are anti-mandate, she seems to just be pulling a fast one on them. Besides, getting the person who failed most spectacularly and publicly to get UHC in the US is not a winning plan.

"c) The exhaulted placed of Austen Goolsbee in the Obama universe."

You have to love some blog commenters obsession with this one guy. The fact that Obama has a rather solidly progressive foreign policy team doesn't count while Clinton has Holbrooke, Albright, O'Hanlon and Pollack.

To quote from hilzoy:

"But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side...

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this. Specifics below the fold...

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton teamed up to introduce legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors. (They describe it in this NEJM article.)"

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 11:50 AM

Also, I'm not sure that someone like Clinton who does not understand the effect of interest rates on inflation or what the effect of freezing interest rates for five years (at the same time we are depending on the Chinese to buy up dollars to help float our economy out of what otherwise would be a horrible recession) actually gets it.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 11:53 AM

"The extent to which Obama or Clinton or anyone else governs as a progressive will have more to do with the objective circumstances in which he or she finds himself or herself -- the congressional balance of power, the strength of interest groups, the quality of organizing on the ground -- than it will with what lurks in the deepest recesses of his or her brain."

Don't you means "governs as a liberal"?

Posted by Robert | February 14, 2008 12:09 PM

My suspicion is that Obama just doesn't get the big picture -- not way the Hillary Clinton does deep down in her bones -- on the economy, the safety net, etc.

Obama gets the big picture, and favors a different approach from you and Clinton. He has big dreams, but he's also pragmatic, and his understanding of how markets work is informed by right-wing critiques of old-school liberalism.

Take their proposals for dealing with the mortgage crisis. Clinton's solution is a foreclosure moratorium and an interest rate freeze, i.e. price controls. Obama's plan is a fund which helps homeowners on the brink bridge the gap. It's a bailout, but it's intentionally small enough that it won't create a moral hazard where borrowers have perverse incentives to repeat these mistakes in the future.

As Megan McArdle put it:

He's slightly to the left of Hillary on goals, but he's well to the right of her on process.

That might make you queasy. It makes me smile.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | February 14, 2008 12:21 PM

I jumped down to the comments and found that RKU had said exactly what I was going to say, so cheers for that.

I would only add that "I will have magic coattails" is also not a plan, or at least not a very good one, particularly if your agenda looks just like your presumably non-coattail opponent's. It'd be nice if there was some plan B that didn't involve a net gain of 10 seats in the Senate.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 14, 2008 12:23 PM

Uh. This is exactly the discussion Edwards' supporters were having when Edwards was in the race. Edwards is out. Hillary's got too much baggage and lobbying money weighing her down. So, Obama, it is then. No brainer.

Posted by slag | February 14, 2008 12:30 PM

Matt:

Ezra Klein says sure Obama could be an extraordinarily effective advocate of progressive ideas, but then again he might not actually use is(sic) powers on behalf of ideas like that. Kevin Drum concurs.

Klein and Drum are just not convincing at all. Hasn't he used his powers in the past on behalf of progressive ideas?

The choice is between Hillary and Obama, and I believe Obama will be a more effective advocate of progressive ideas. As he has pointed out, there is no shortage of policy ideas and gameplans. The problem is getting them encated. You need a movement, liberal politicians taking conservative Congressional seats etc. You need the terms of the debate changed.

This meme certain people keep hammering away at, that you need politicians to write down what they will do if elected in blood, and cross their heart and hope to die if they don't follow throw is kind of stupid and sort of naive.

Obama is the only serious presidential candidate who I've been enthusiatic about in my lifetime. I never liked Bill Clinton although he did do some progressive things.

He campaigned to the Right of Bush I on Israel and Cuba. Total pandering. Obama is very good on these two.

All of Bill Clinton's 1992 specific campaign promises about progressive government spending programs immediately went out the window, sacrificied on the alter of "fiscal and budget responsibility." There are other examples.

You need a movement to keep politicians honest and under pressure. Obama recognizes this whereas the junior Senator from New York is more of wheeler-dealer who hasn't accomplished much.

Posted by Peter K. | February 14, 2008 1:15 PM

Also, look at the two campaigns. Obama's has been very effective, beating expectations by large margins. Clinton's has been relatively dysfunctional, blowing through campaign funds, having yes-men and women installed at high level advisory positions a la George Bush. Clinton's negative "hardball" tactics have backfired also. They totally underestimated Obama and were convinced they'd beat him easily right off the bat - figured blacks won't back him - then Plan B they'd crush him on Super Tuesday.

For Drum and Klein, these hard facts are superfluous for some reason. They just echo Clinton talking-points. What the hell?

Posted by Peter K. | February 14, 2008 1:24 PM

I'm baffled by the notion that Obama is persuasive. Yes, he is inspiring, but mostly about gauzy abstractions like hope and change and unity, with a few jokes and barbs salting his standard stump speech. (And yes, though soaring, it is standard, in the sense that it's basically the same speech he's been giving for months and months now. I can recite word-for-word lines about his "cousin Dick Cheney" and critics who wanted him to wait to run until "all the hope is boiled and stewed out of me.")

He makes the case for these things, and I guess you could say he's been persuasive, because he's filling arenas and garnering votes on this platform. But as for persuasiveness on policy issues, especially controversial ones, I'd say it's non-existent. True, he's hefted-up his speeches of late with more policy prescriptions, but more in the traditional laundry-list fashion any Democrat can spiel off on "Hardball". But I haven't seen him take the time to make a case, to fashion an argument, to prove a point, and bring people on board, all things that would be necessary to enact certain liberal ideas.

His style reminded me of what I preferred about Bill Clinton, who, of course, has been known as a great communicator too. His talent wasn't necessarily poetic, but more lawyerly and professorial -- he would lay out the facts, tell you what he planned to do and why it was so important, and basically educate you till you saw things his way. You felt inspired, but more by a feeling of clarity -- understanding an issue in a way you never had -- and acknowledgent -- someone understood your problem, and knew what to do about it.

In contrast, Obama tells us what we already know and want, albeit in inspiring tones, instead of teaching us something new. I'm not sure Obama would fill rock stadiums with this approach -- after all, how many people come to hear his policies, or even know what they are?

One other difference: I know it's a late-night joke, but Clinton really did feel your pain, in a way I'm not sure Obama does. For all Obama's charisma, there's a certain coolness about him; I don't detect great warmth and compassion, and a personal connection with people.

Of course, Clinton didn't always use his powers to great advantage, otherwise we'd already have health-care. So, there is a cautionary note to be sounded here, as Ezra, Matt and Kevin have said: Obama may yet have the hope stewed out of him -- and us.

Still, for people like me, inspiring the intellect is just as important an appeal to the heart.

Posted by suzyqueue | February 14, 2008 3:12 PM

"Still, for people like me, inspiring the intellect is just as important an appeal to the heart.

Posted by suzyqueue | February 14, 2008 3:12 PM"

I agree with you. However, when Democrats treat electoral politics like a college seminar, like we did with Dukakis, Stevenson and Mondale, we get pegged as elites who can't relate to the average American and think that we're better than them and lose. The best that we got out of this approach was Gore in 2000 where he only was able to squeak by in the popular vote against an imbecile and lost in enough states he should have been competitive in, not just losing the Supreme Court case over Florida. A lot of the persuading in American politics takes place once a president has already been elected and then uses the bully pulpit to push through legislation, not during an election campaign.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 3:55 PM

...and his understanding of how markets work is informed by right-wing critiques of old-school liberalism...

Yes, on this we much we agree, Creamy.

Posted by Jasper | February 14, 2008 4:50 PM