I’m not thrilled with the stimulus bill; I’m not sure it’s large enough to get us out of our economic hole, and it could have done a lot more to build up infrastructure and help the states. John Judas argues that a weak and compliant left is part of the problem:
A member of one liberal group, Campaign for America’s Future, pronounced the stimulus bill “a darn good first step.” MoveOn–as far as I can tell–has attacked conservative Republicans for opposing the bill, while lamely urging Democrats to back it. Of course, all these groups may have thought the stimulus bill and the bailout were ideal, but I doubt it. I bet they had the same criticisms of these measures that Krugman or The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein or my own colleagues had, but they made the mistake that political groups often make: subordinating their concern about issues to their support for the party and its leading politician.
What, you might ask, would have been the result if these groups had gone after Obama and Reid–and in the case of the so-called Americans United for Change–the self-appointed centrists? They would have certainly incurred the wrath of the Obama administration. I know this myself. One Obama press person recently asked a mutual acquaintance, “Why does John Judis hate us?”
But they would have also moved the political debate to the left, so that the center no longer resided somewhere in Susan Collins or Ben Nelson’s heads, but considerably to their left. Suddenly, a $900 billion bill without the AMT and with expanded health insurance for the unemployed would have looked like a compromise. These angry leftists would have actually done the Obama administration an enormous favor.
What’s the basis for my saying this? Look at the last two periods in Americans history where dramatic reforms were adopted–the 1930s and the 1960s (up to 1972). These were periods when the presence of a popular left moved the center away from the laissez-faire, pro-big business right. The experience of the 1930s is particularly relevant now. […]
What really made a difference was the Second New Deal of 1935-36 that included massive public works, Social Security, and the Wagner Act. And that Second New Deal was made possible by the growth of a popular left.
In 1934, there was a wave of strikes. Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth movement began. In a year, it had organized 27,000 clubs across the country. Francis Townsend organized a movement for old age pensions. As a result, the center of politics shifted dramatically to the left and made it possible for the liberals in Congress and in the administration to pass legislation that under different circumstances Roosevelt would have deemed too radical.
Prioritizing political allegiance to their leader was exactly the mistake the Right made for the first several years of the Bush presidency. Even Bill Kristol admitted in The New York Times: “Bush was the movement and the cause.” An entire creepy cottage industry arose on the Right devoted to venerating George W. Bush. And it wasn’t until well into his second term, when his popularity had already collapsed, that they began opposing him in a few isolated cases when he deviated from their beliefs — on immigration reform, the Harriet Miers nomination, Dubai ports, the TARP bailout and the like. But, by then, it was too late: Bush became synonymous with “conservatism” because the latter wasn’t really about anything other than supporting the President no matter what he did. The ideological movement and their political leader had merged, and it was destructive for both of them. […]
Criticizing Obama from the Left (as, say, Paul Krugman has been doing in the stimulus debate) expands the scope of the debate in a very important way that can only advance the Left’s political goals and, incidentally, enable/force Obama to avoid the Center and Right.
Unfortunately, it’s not easy for the U.S. left to oppose Obama, post-Bush. We’ve spent so many years fighting opposing Bush and the Republicans, many of us have forgotten that we how to stand for anything more than that.
Another good reason: the lives and livelihood of citizens are more important than the political fates of politicians and parties. If the Dems or Reps stand in the way of achieving a democratic, socially just and egalitarian society – then eff ’em.
That said, I think a lot of liberals are in a wait-and-see mode. In the first month the ObamAdmin tried bipartisanship and discovered that the other side was in no mood to play nice. Obama himself indicated that he learned a valuable lesson and would play better politics the next time. And there are strong indications that Dems are fed up with Rep obstructionism and will actually start acting as if they have political strength. In an ideal world, we’d all act like adults and seek common interest. But there are no adults left on the Republican side in Congress; and there are quite a few frightened children among the Democrats. So time comes when the political leadership has to play hardball.
If the Dems and Obama continue to sell out the needs of the working poor and the middle class to placate McCain’s tantrums, we’ll see a stronger hand from activist liberal orgs. Personally, I agree with you, Barry: why wait? But ya know – realpolitik and all that shite.
And this may come as a deep, deep shock to you, but David Broder totally disagrees with you. Or really, people like you. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021802697.html