Fire in the Belly

Kevin Drum wonders what Barack Obama's really passionate about:

If, for example, Obama successfully withdraws from Iraq, passes a climate plan that looks something like his campaign proposal, and implements his healthcare plan, that would constitute a stunningly successful first term even if you think he's too much of a milquetoast in every one of these areas. But are these the three things he's most likely to fight hardest for? I don't know. He's consistently solid in almost everything, but that very consistency makes it hard to figure out what he's really passionate about. Now that the primary is over, maybe we'll start to find out.

I kind of wonder, too. Still, I've also felt throughout the primary process that an undue amount of attention was being paid to this kind of question. In general, I think there's a tendency to overrate presidential character attributes and skill in determining what happens. Over the years, for example, I've read dozens of accounts of what the Clinton administration "did wrong" in trying to get their health care bill through. And Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as having been an "ineffective" president even by those who don't buy the History's Greatest Monster view of his administration. But in both 1993-94 and 1977-80 a big part of the problem was just the congressional Democrats.

If Obama wins the election, marginal Democratic members of congress will face a basic choice. They can decide that their political interests will be served by making the Obama administration a "success" and agree to pass stuff that resembles what he's proposed. Or they can decide that their interests will be served by distancing themselves from every controversial administration initiative. If they choose the former, marginal Republicans will feel pressure to get on board. If they choose the latter, marginal Republicans will stand firm. What will happen? I'm not sure. The ideological distance within the party is much narrower than in 1977 and 1993, but I worry that the incentives are still bad and encourage defection rather than discipline. Either way, though, I think the key decision-makers will be in congress rather than in the White House.

Comments

I think even a modicum of journalistic research would reveal that those three items are precisely what Obama has indicated would be his priority. C'mon guys. It's really not that hard.

"The Google" is your friend.

Posted by Jake | June 12, 2008 10:35 AM

I think Drum has missed the single biggest strength of Obama; he isn't ruled by his "passions". Let's look at the record of passion in past presidents:

- Reagan was passionate about tax cuts, but had to double back and hike taxes (much of it through Soc Sec) because he overreached. He skyrocketed the country's deficit.

- GHW Bush wasn't all that passionate about anything, as near as I can tell, and he was a pretty even keeled president. He hung onto Reagan's budget busting policies and that killed him, but I can't recall any major new f***-ups. Just look at his judgment on Iraq versus his son's.

- The Clintons were passionate about healthcare and they failed due to overreach. It wasn't until a bit later, after learning a hard lesson, that Bill got his passions under control and had a successful presidency.

- Bush II has multiple passions (Iraq being the biggest) and has been a complete and total f***-up on nearly everything he's touched.

Flash forward to today. McCain is passionate about "winning" in Iraq, without really defining exactly what that means. He will refuse to withdraw except under his own terms, and our troops will pay for his stubbornness.

So I'm voting for the guy who is not ruled by his passions but, rather, can keep his cool, look at things from a pragmatic perspective, and change his views and actions as facts change on the ground.

Posted by LFC | June 12, 2008 10:46 AM

I think Obama's modus operandi is to convince the moderate Republicans first.

Posted by stm177 | June 12, 2008 10:47 AM

Add to that his open government initiative, I think.

Posted by Karmakin | June 12, 2008 10:48 AM

Regarding Democratic Congressional support for a President Obama's policies, this is where strong Congressional leadership is required. In the House there is little doubt that Pelosi can get the job done. In the Senate? I have mixed feelings about Reid but doesn't your analysis constitute another reason that Hillary should not be made majority leader? I think it does. You can't risk having a fractured leadership and Hillary's motivations are always going to be suspect.

Posted by Steve Balboni | June 12, 2008 10:52 AM

Prediction: Erin Callan will not be a key decision maker.

Posted by John Starks | June 12, 2008 10:53 AM

I think also Obama's help on down-ticket races (part of the whole 50 state strategy) will pay off in a much greater willingness to hew to his plans rather than voice opposition. If he can keep close ties with Hillary, then her more centrist wing of the party can be brought into the fold along with the more left wing plans.

Posted by The Critic | June 12, 2008 10:58 AM

On the "success" bit, I think you have it right. It is unlikely that an Obama administration would have the tight rapport with congressional Democrats that the Bush administration had with congressional Republicans. Even some Republican no-nos, such as the prescription drug benefit, were passed albeit with considerable arm twisting. Will Obama have a Tom Delay to push his legislative agenda? I doubt it. Then, in 2010 after the Dems lose the midterms after being labeled a do-nothing fractious mess, we will have more postmortems. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but ...

Posted by Emrys | June 12, 2008 11:02 AM

The question is misconceived, because he's going to be ambitious in his agenda, meaning he will work to make meaningful progress in lots of areas, as opposed to choosing just a couple signature areas. Its part of his overall political philosophy: first build a working political coalition, then get to work.

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 11:04 AM

"The ideological distance within the party is much narrower than in 1977 and 1993, but I worry that the incentives are still bad and encourage defection rather than discipline."

Yeah, but party discipline (particularly in the house, thanks to Pelosi) is a lot better than in the 1990s. And as DTM said above, he's looking to build a broader coalition than your Rovian 50%+1.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | June 12, 2008 11:13 AM

Jeeze, I thought I was inured to dropping my jaw at ridiculous Obamabot statements; there's no straw they can't spin into gold. But LFC had my jaw hitting the desk--he celebrates Obama's passionlessness! His litany of passionate wingnuts is a logically ridiculous argument. To freely paraphrase Ernest Borgnine in The Wild Bunch: "It's not whether or not you're passionate, it's what you're passionate about." FDR was passionate. So was Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Hunphrey, and Paul Wellstone. Would we had a few Democrats like them today. Instead we have Mr. Kumbaya, who is passionate about nothing but his airy, vague rhetoric, who belittles the battles fought by some of those passionate Democrats, and who cooly praises Republicann "ideas." As noted by Paul Krugman yesterday (who earned his "I told you so"), some Obamabots are starting to wake up and smell the centrism. Sure, its a no-brainer for me to vote for Obama, if just to reverse the corrupt wingnut control of govenment. But I expect nothing from him other than carefully vetted, barely incremental, High Broderist proposals.

Posted by Marlowe | June 12, 2008 11:19 AM

I thought 1994 purged the Democrats of their worst congresspersons. And look where our 2006 pickups were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2006_House_elections.svg

Anyway, given that Obama's favorite TV show is The Wire, I expect some savvy changes on drug policy.

Posted by Chris | June 12, 2008 11:22 AM

I think that his real passion will be to break down some of the entrenched, partisan politics that are currently keeping things from getting done in Washington. I think this, more than any particular policy agenda, will define his first term. And the things that he does get done may well look very different from his campaign proposals, which I don't think will bother Obama that much.

Posted by Glen T | June 12, 2008 11:22 AM

Isn't one of the purposes of the grass roots organization team Obama is building to incentivize members of Congress to line up with Obama rather than against him? That's the whole point of the change-from-the-bottom-up meme. The success or failure of that approach can fairly be attributed at least partially to Obama's political skill (or, in the case of failure, the lack thereof). I hate to quote Petey, but politics does matter.

Posted by Led | June 12, 2008 11:25 AM

"But in both 1993-94 and 1977-80 a big part of the problem was just the congressional Democrats."

These basic historical facts that are essentially ignored by the media. The reason Jimmy Carter was bad was because he was the first candidate/president not chosen by the democratic establishment and could not work with congress in any meaningful manner due to Tip. The house worked more closely with Regan than it did with Carter.

Posted by mickslam | June 12, 2008 11:32 AM

But LFC had my jaw hitting the desk--he celebrates Obama's passionlessness!

Marlowe, I did not say Obama was passionless. I said he "is not ruled by his passions". Twice.

Please read for comprehension before commenting.

Of course, you may conflate the two. If you think being ruled by your passions is a good thing, then I'm certainly glad your finger isn't on the button.

Posted by LFC | June 12, 2008 11:33 AM

A point that most pundits seem to miss about the 'Obama Revolution' in politics, is that he has assembled a massive grass roots organization in all 50 states which will remain in place after the election. He will accomplish his very ambitious agenda through the power of his organization. To not go along with the Obama agenda will mean that members of Congress, will have to stand up to enormous pressure from their own constituents. The Dems will have to face the possibility of a very well-funded primary opponent who can draw on the vast resources of the Obamabots and Move-On. A moderate Republican will face a similar challenge in the general election with the added threat of lots of campaigning for their opponent by the popular and charismatic President. I think that Obama can accomplish more than any President since LBJ.

Posted by Oil Guy | June 12, 2008 11:34 AM

You guys need to broaden your reading material . . . The Right Wing blogs provide all sorts of stuff . . . Reparations; Mandatory midnight basketball; Reinstate Welfare - with increased payments and bonuses for more than five children (must be by different fathers).

Seriously, Obama will - since he does not have to reward lobbyists or fat cat donors - make decisions and support legislation that is actually good for America! . . . I know, sounds too dreamy to be true - but it is true. . . Just relax and be ready to blindly support it!

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | June 12, 2008 11:41 AM

Apparently you guys are not paying attention. It's more than obvious his passions lie with Iraq, health care, and energy issues. The criticisms of Obama get more and more bizarre by the day.

Posted by evie | June 12, 2008 11:45 AM

I will be happy if he appoints a Truth And NO Reconciliation Commission whose charter should be to hold those responsible for the last eight years of rape of American values accountable for their despicable and loathsome actions.

Posted by gregor | June 12, 2008 11:50 AM

I swear in the last 2 weeks I read that Obama was directly asked in a voter Q&A thing what his number one priority would be in his first 100 days and he, of course, made a proforma statement on Iraq then went into a long thing about healthcare. Politically it seems to me that without question he needs to push healthcare first and if he is sucessful he would almost have to try to f-up the rest of his term to not be sucessful and if not, well it will be a long 4 years.

Posted by Napoleon | June 12, 2008 11:55 AM

I say this as someone who supports Obama, but I agree we don't know what he really wants policy wise. We know what he says is important to him, which coincidentally tie in with the 3 highest Democratic priorities. But there aren't many policies that he's been pursuing his whole career even when it wasn't a big issue.

I think in a vague way he feels passionate about liberal international policy, reform of governing institutions, and helping the lower class. (So do I.) But I have no idea what he thinks the best national policies to affect those realms are.

"Fortunately" in the last few decades, the presidency has become more about an unbridled executive running every detail, than about needing specific legislation.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 12, 2008 12:10 PM

I say this as someone who supports Obama, but I agree we don't know what he really wants policy wise. We know what he says is important to him, which coincidentally tie in with the 3 highest Democratic priorities. But there aren't many policies that he's been pursuing his whole career even when it wasn't a big issue.

I think in a vague way he feels passionate about liberal international policy, reform of governing institutions, and helping the lower class. (So do I.) But I have no idea what he thinks the best national policies to affect those realms are.

"Fortunately" in the last few decades, the presidency has become more about an unbridled executive running every detail, than about needing specific legislation.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 12, 2008 12:10 PM

I am with Marlowe of this. I find it amusing that no one can answer what should be an easy question. Remember, it is extremely rare for a sitting Senator to be elected POTUS. In fact Obama's advantage in the primary was his lack of a record, which usually drags a Senator down. (see Clinton, Hillary et.al.). He never had to stand up and be counted on Iraq until the country turned against the war. At the end of the day he was a blank slate onto which idealists painted whatever they needed in a candidate. Now his strongest supporters can't even define what he is passionate about because he has never fought passionately for anything in the Senate. He has worked very hard to keep the slate clean.

Posted by phg | June 12, 2008 12:42 PM

That's the thing with Obama: issues don't move him, process reform and the overall tenor of government move him. And that's why I supported Clinton.

Posted by Rich | June 12, 2008 12:53 PM

I think he wants good government. Government that works, is accountable, is transparent, balances competing needs and demands, recognizes that as citizens we have both rights and responsibilities, etc. Which sounds almost Gorian in its mundaneness, so good thing he's got a bit of oratorical talent. Frustration at things not getting done is not new, but it has this year reached a critical level. (I suggest googling Molly Ivins Hillary Clinton for Molly's great piece in which, while presciently unendorsing Hillary, she also discussed the growing consensus about addressing a host of national problems, which somehow kept getting pissed away into partisan bickering before a solution emerged.)

That comes out in a lot of policy prescriptions along the lines of "it's about time we got serious about providing health care/figuring out a solid energy policy/making kickbacks clear/undoing Bush's disastrous foreign policy". I'm a boring person, and thus find this more intriguing than "health care HIllary" or "middle east McCain" or "I'm a religious conservative too Romney."

Posted by Deborah | June 12, 2008 12:56 PM

Re my own point, that also connects to his support among Republicans and religious conservatives, such as it is, in that government functioning well and being transparent are hardly radical left-wing views.

Re Rich's point, and that's why I support Obama. I'll add a link to excellent piece on Obama's quiet work on a lot of important issues, like conventional arms control, things that don't get noticed until there's a crisis and everyone says "hey, why wasn't someone paying attention to this?" And if I could search Kos more effectively there was an excellent diary there by someone who went through all the major candidates' legislative records and went to Obama when he kept showing up on those less-visible but important-to-her issues, and with positions that had some risk but actually achieved something.

Re Marlowe's point: He has a lot of independent support and some crossover Republican; doesn't that normally spell centrist? The "aah, ahh, he's a liberal, lattes will overrun the world!!!!" schtick is from the Republicans, after all.

Re phg's point: But in the very early "Obama run" articles, which someone kindly gathered, one of the key points was to run when you don't have much record hanging around your neck; most presidents had gained major elective office within maybe 12 years of running. Look at Bush, and Clinton. Just imagine how either would have looked with a 30-year record, on the wrong side of too many issues.
Re Rich's point.

Posted by Deborah | June 12, 2008 1:09 PM

evie:

"Apparently you guys are not paying attention. It's more than obvious his passions lie with Iraq, health care, and energy issues. The criticisms of Obama get more and more bizarre by the day."

Remember, Kevin Drum was upset when Hillary lost Iowa b/c it supposedly meant the fevered rightwing swamp had won. I think Obama is the American rightwing's worst nightmare.

Drum, Krugman, and John Judis are all smart guys, so I figure there must be some unusual, hard-to-fathom reasons for their Obama commentary.

The other day I heard someone ask Obama about the Lakers-Celtics contest. He talked about the series and said he didn't have a dog in that race, but was passionate about the Chicago Bulls. I was lucky enough to be living in Chicago during the Bulls' glory days and got to witness Michael Jordan at the height of his powers. We should be excited about the possibility of the dawn of some new glory days instead of berating idealistic Obama supporters for whatever reason.

Also, I liked Deborah's comments.

Posted by Peter K. | June 12, 2008 2:45 PM

With all due respect, this notion that Obama has not shown a fire in the belly about specific issues appears to miss the real point of his candidacy as does the idea that he will have to hope that congressional Democrats help him out with his legislative agenda.

Obama has shown a fire in the belly for process issues like transparency and tone. The MSM and the blogosphere appear to hold a bias for content issues instead of process issues even though process issues are the ones that most get in the way of decent policy getting passed. It's not like there aren't good ideas on both sides of the aisle. The problem is that the oppositional nature of the legislative culture seems to block out the best ideas and magnify all the stupid ideas, thereby wasting taxpayer money on ineffective policies.

Failures like Carter's and Clinton's you mentioned are the result of a culture of politics as war or politics as conflict. I think that the country's chief executive certainly has a unique position to shift the tone if he truly embodies the principle he preaches (which Obama appears to). Carter, Clinton, and Bush came to Washington riding the white horse of outsider values. The problem with each of those campaigns, in my view, is that they got to power using the exact opposite approach. Their own characters and the characters of their campaigns got in the way of the message and it only got worse once they got to Washington.

The question upon which Obama's success as president hinges is, does a respectful and transparent approach deliver better policies more consistently than a politics as war culture? Or, more to the point, can a president committed to a politics as cooperative enterprise approach actually engender cooperation?

I, for one, think that a shifting of the process is of far greater importance than any particular policy because a process that is transparent and respectful is more likely to bring out the best ideas on all sides than one built on adversarialism.

Posted by Steven Hall | June 12, 2008 3:11 PM

With all due respect, this notion that Obama has not shown a fire in the belly about specific issues appears to miss the real point of his candidacy as does the idea that he will have to hope that congressional Democrats help him out with his legislative agenda.

Obama has shown a fire in the belly for process issues like transparency and tone. The MSM and the blogosphere appear to hold a bias for content issues instead of process issues even though process issues are the ones that most get in the way of decent policy getting passed. It's not like there aren't good ideas on both sides of the aisle. The problem is that the oppositional nature of the legislative culture seems to block out the best ideas and magnify all the stupid ideas, thereby wasting taxpayer money on ineffective policies.

Failures like Carter's and Clinton's you mentioned are the result of a culture of politics as war or politics as conflict. I think that the country's chief executive certainly has a unique position to shift the tone if he truly embodies the principle he preaches (which Obama appears to). Carter, Clinton, and Bush came to Washington riding the white horse of outsider values. The problem with each of those campaigns, in my view, is that they got to power using the exact opposite approach. Their own characters and the characters of their campaigns got in the way of the message and it only got worse once they got to Washington.

The question upon which Obama's success as president hinges is, does a respectful and transparent approach deliver better policies more consistently than a politics as war culture? Or, more to the point, can a president committed to a politics as cooperative enterprise approach actually engender cooperation?

I, for one, think that a shifting of the process is of far greater importance than any particular policy because a process that is transparent and respectful is more likely to bring out the best ideas on all sides than one built on adversarialism.

Posted by Steven Hall | June 12, 2008 3:13 PM

It's pretty funny to be having this discussion _now_.

The obvious answer is that Obama is passionate about Obama.

Obama sees being elected President as a way to fill the father-shaped hole in his soul left by his dad's abandonment of him as an infant. Becoming President is therapy. Lots of politicians are like this -- Churchill had similar daddy issues.

Is he passionate on, say, the issue of individual mandates in health care financing? Yeah, right ... That's just the trivia of the game. Obama cares about that only to the extent that he wants to show he can play the game better than anybody else, which he very likely can.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 12, 2008 8:38 PM

By the way, I think it is useful to remember that not only is Obama a former community organizer, but he was also a lecturer on the U.S. Constitution. He knows quite well that the Constitution is designed to favor the status quo and to thwart transient majorities. So, the fact that he is often most passionate about issues relating to structuring the government to make change possible, as opposed to specific changes he wants to make, is really an outgrowth of his understanding of what the Constitution requires.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 12:01 AM

It's been said before but being an insurgency candidate will help Obama whip recalcitrant Congressmen into line. His independent organisation can choose to undermine whomever they do not like in local caucuses and elections.

Also, Obama has a fair amount of charm and ability to win people over.

I read his book "Dreams from my Father" and get the impression he is a people person. He sees things not in an abstract way but as enablers for people to go their own way. I expect him to be pragmatic and flexible, not domineering and arrogant as the Clintons were.

Posted by toby | June 13, 2008 7:48 AM

I'm with Jake and evie. The three items listed -- Iraq (with broader implications for our foreign policy), health care and climate control/energy policy -- are obviously Obama's priorities. And from my perspective, if he achieved outcomes that are close to his current proposals, I would consider that wildly successful. I'm not sure why any progressive would not, even if they thought we may need to do more down the road on the latter two. Those are three criticial issues.

With regard to Congress, I don't anticipate the type of unity that Bush achieved with Delay, but I do think that there will be broad Dem support for his initiatives, which should be enough after this election.

Posted by Chunche | June 13, 2008 9:50 AM