The point is that there are real policy disagreements between the "left" and "centrist" wings of the Democratic Party. These disagreements are not confined to a couple of lunatic blogs, as the Senate Democratic caucus itself regularly splits down the middle on important pieces of legislation. Further, these disagreements are not confined to narrow areas of policy, as the examples Matt and I have provided include Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, trade, telecommunications, judicial and cabinet appointments, civil liberties, LGBT rights, tort reform, bankruptcy protection, defense spending, plus both personal and corporate welfare. Finally, virtually none of the examples we have given can justifiably be classified as pragmatic incrementalism versus an "all or nothing" idealism. This is because virtually all of the examples we have given actually moved public policy to the right of where it stood before the passage of the law or appointment in question. As such, it wasn't slower progressivism versus faster progressivism: it was less progressivism versus not-less progressivism.
It is worth nothing that while these disagreements pretty much run the gamut of policy areas, there is a the lack of similar examples on green issues. Labor and environmental groups are the most powerful progressive organizations around, and it shows not only in the more progressive appointments like Hilda Solis and Steven Chu, but also in Democratic unity on votes such as the Employee Free Choice Act and most green issues. Power matters, and progressives have it more in labor and green issues than they have it anywhere else.
As far as Obama's policies, his voting record indicates that he is, overall, slightly to the left of the Democratic congressional median. This, really, is the minimum to be expected of a Senator who spent one and a half of his four years in the Senate running for the Democratic nomination. As far as his major cabinet and staff appointments went, I was personally hoping for about one in three (roughly the percentage of self-identified progressive caucus members in the Democratic caucus in the House) to represent the left-wing of the Democratic Party as exemplified by the more than twenty public policy examples Matt and I have provided over the last day. Further, I was hoping that at least two senior staff, advisors or cabinet secretaries would represent the left-wing of the party in every major policy debate that will take place during the Obama White House.
I had no illusions about the left-wing of the party dominating during the Obama administration, but I was HOPE-ing for significant representation in every single major legislative and administration discussion that will take place. To my disappointment, his major staff and cabinet appointments, at least those with congressional voting records, are noticeably to the right of the Democratic Congress. Also, the left-wing of the party seems to compose about one in seven of the major appointments, nowhere near one in three. Further, I fear there are entire areas of policy, most notably national security and foreign policy, where there are no representatives from the left-wing of the party at all.
I don't feel betrayed by any of this. Obama's voting record put him pretty much in the center of the party, rather than in its left or right wings. Further, he spent two years running against "partisanship" and in favor of "pragmatism," which is pretty obvious code for saying he will govern to the center. Also, in June, just after he locked up the nomination, he immediately emphasized his centrism on a range of issues, and even flipped his position on telecom immunity. I felt betrayed by Obama on the FISA re-write, since he actually flipped his position in that case, but otherwise he is doing pretty much what I expected. I HOPEd for more, and I was disappointed when those HOPEs failed to materialized. For anyone to feel betrayed, however, strikes me as strange, since Obama is making appointments quite in line with his campaign rhetoric.
My goal with this post is that the meme about left-wing criticism of incoming Obama personnel has no policy basis dies the same death as previous nonsensical claims about governmental personnel not mattering, and about the need to escape ideology in general. Personnel has a major impact on policy, everyone has an ideology, and there are wide-ranging, substantive policy disputes between the left and centrist wings of the Democratic Party. How all of this will manifest itself within the Obama administration remains to be seen. During the legislative and administrative process, policy inevitably both changes and becomes far more detailed than when it appears in campaign proposal form. The major players involved in these changes are the President, the congressional leadership, relevant congressional committees, White House senior staff, cabinet Secretaries and senior cabinet deputy secretaries.
It feels strange that I even had to point out that there are actual, wide-ranging policy differences between the left and centrist wings of the Democratic Party, but that really is the degree to which the left is trivialized in our national political discourse. There is a zombie narrative that the left doesn't actually disagree with centrist Democrats and DLC-types, but simply:
- Cares too much about messaging and personality;
- And / or doesn't understand policy;
- And / or doesn't understand the differences between making incremental gains and no gains at all.
I would feel frustrated by having to fight against memes like these, but after struggling through arguments about personnel not mattering, or the need to abandon ideology in general, I am getting kind of used to it. |
