Posts Tagged ‘ Progressivism ’

National Journal: Labor’s Uphill Climb This Year

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

PPI President Will Marshall tells the National Journal‘s Eliza Newlin Carney that labor’s aggressive fight to unseat incumbent Democrats has been destructive and a losing strategy for Democrats to maintain a congressional majority:

The unions’ Arkansas challenge angered Democrats, from the White House on down. Some argue that the tens of millions of dollars that labor threw into the race was a waste, especially given that Arkansas is not union-friendly. Demanding loyalty to base voters, as tea party activists have set out to do in several GOP primaries, is a losing strategy for Democrats, said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

“Trying to enforce litmus tests and punish Democrats for ideological heresy [is] divisive and does not reflect the reality that Democrats are inevitably a coalition party,” Marshall said. He called the labor movement’s anti-Lincoln campaign “extraordinarily destructive.”

“The sad truth is that labor has not found a way to arrest its decline in the private economy,” Marshall added. “And this year, for the first time, we see more labor union members in the public sector than in the private sector.”

Read the entire article.

Cutting the Tether Webcast

Monday, June 7th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

Cutting the Tether: Enhancing the U.S. Military’s Energy Performance

Event Webcast – May 13, 2010

Featured Speakers:

Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Ret.
Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA)

Panelists:

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, Ret., CEO, RemoteReality
Colonoel Paul E. Roege, Army Capabilities Integration Center
Richard Goffi, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton
Chris Myers, Vice President of Government and Energy Programs, Lockheed Martin

Moderator:

James Morin, Esq., author, “Cutting the Tether”

Tuesday’s Primary Showdown

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Today is a major primary day, with Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas holding Senate primaries, and Oregon a gubernatorial primary.  I’ll deal with these by poll closing times: Kentucky at 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. EDT; Pennsylvania at 8 p.m. EDT; Arkansas at 8:30 p.m. EDT; and Oregon at 10 p.m. EDT.

In Kentucky, it looks like Rand Paul is very likely to win the GOP Senate nomination, beating Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the fair-hair child of the Bluegrass Republican establishment, and particularly of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Paul has been leading Grayson steadily in every recent poll, and the latest, from Magellan Strategies, shows Paul pulling away with a 55/30 lead.  Another recent poll, from PPP, shows that fully one-third of Kentucky Republicans think their party is “too liberal,” and it’s these voters who are fueling Paul’s surge.  Even though this is a closed primary and Paul is in many respects a conventional if extreme conservative, as indicated by the endorsements he received from Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and James Dobson, expect to hear a lot of “Tea Party Insurgency!” hype when the results come in tonight.  Hype aside, Paul’s non-interventionist views on foreign policy, which are similar to his father’s, are unusual for a Republican politician, and it’s quite interesting that Grayson’s attacks on them didn’t gain much traction.

The Democratic Senate primary will likely provide the only real drama in Kentucky tonight, with polls indicating a close race between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway.  Though Conway has been endorsed by MoveOn.org, the contest hasn’t been particularly ideological; both candidates oppose cap-and-trade legislation, and while Mongiardo has said he would have voted against health reform in the Senate, it’s because the bill “didn’t go far enough.”  Conway has had a significant financial edge, and seems to have some late momentum, but the geographical turnout patterns —Mongiardo is from Eastern Kentucky, while Conway is from Louisville — will probably determine the result.  Both candidates trail Paul in general election polls by a considerable margin.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary is a genuine barn-burner, with party-switching incumbent Arlen Specter trying to hold off a late surge by Rep. Joe Sestak.  Every poll in the last week has shown Specter losing his relatively large lead over Sestak, as the challenger benefits both from the support of progressives who dislike Specter’s partisan background and from moderate-to-conservative Democrats who don’t like his social liberalism or his current pattern of staunch support for the Obama administration.  It is universally conceded that the race will all come down to turnout, with Specter—who is being backed not only by the Obama administration, the DSCC, and Gov. Ed Rendell’s organization, but also by most major unions—counting on a large turnout from Philadelphia, where he has a huge lead among African-Americans.  Both candidates have trailed Republican Pat Toomey in most polls, though Sestak’s general election numbers have been significantly improving recently.

The other Pennsylvania race drawing national attention has been the special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha.  It’s the classic Western PA white-working-class district: it’s been represented by Democrats since the New Deal, and was carried by both Al Gore and John Kerry, but not by Barack Obama.  Unsurprisingly, the most recent public polling, by PPP, showed a dead heat between Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns.  A Democratic hold in this seat, widely expected to go Republican when Murtha died, would provide a real boost to Democratic morale.

In Arkansas, the marquee contest matches Lt. Gov. Bill Halter against Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but the race has almost been overshadowed by national interests.  Halter has strong backing from a variety of unions who are enraged by Lincoln’s flip-flop on the Employee Free Choice Act, while the incumbent, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, has received massive backing from the agribusiness and financial industries. Millions are being spent on both sides on “independent” ads attacking one candidate or the other.  Lincoln is also being supported by the president and by former president Clinton.

Polls have consistently shown Lincoln leading Halter, but with less than 50 percent of the vote. If Lincoln or Halter is unable to win a majority of the votes, they will faceoff in a runoff election as required in Arkansas. There is a sizable undecided vote among African-Americans, who lean towards Halter, and Lincoln’s campaign has been running Obama and Clinton radio ads aimed at African-Americans.  Regional turnout will also be a big factor, with Lincoln expected to do well in the Delta region she used to represent in the House, and Halter expected to do well in Little Rock.  The contest could well serve as a lab experiment on the ancient proposition that undecided voters invariably turn against incumbents; if Lincoln gets a decent share of the undecided vote, she should win.

The Republican Senate primary is a low-profile affair with eight candidates, and it’s been generally assumed that Rep. John Boozman will win, probably without a runoff.  Boozman will be helped by geography: he represents northwest Arkansas, a heavily Republican area where turnout will be boosted by a highly competitive primary to choose his replacement in the House.  But two other candidates in the field, state senator Gilbert Baker, who is from central Arkansas, and former statewide candidate Jim Holt, a fiery Tea Party-style conservative who shares Boozman’s geographical base, could get enough support to force him into a runoff, particularly if voters respond to attacks on Boozman for supporting TARP.

Every poll taken this cycle has shown both Lincoln and Halter trailing every named Republican in general election trial heats.  The big question is whether Arkansas’ strong tradition of voting Democratic downballot even when support for the national party is weak is finally expiring as it has in other parts of the Deep South.

In Oregon, limited polling predicts that former Gov. John Kitzhaber will easily win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination over former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.  His Republican opponent is expected to be former Portland Trail Blazer Chris Dudley, but don’t be surprised if conservative Allen Alley pulls an upset, as one late poll suggests is possible.

Finally, in non-primary political news, a major brouhaha has broken out in Connecticut, where Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who was the heavy favorite to hold onto Chris Dodd’s Senate seat in November, was the subject of a big New York Times story (fed by one of his Republican rivals) revealing that he has on at least one occasion referred to himself as a veteran of the Vietnam War. It turns out that he’s not; he served in the Marine Reserves during that war, but never deployed.  At the moment, the DSCC is standing by Blumenthal, but Connecticut Democrats do have the option of choosing another candidate in their state convention, which will be held this weekend.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Taking Liberties

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The following is an excerpt from Will Marshall’s essay in today’s Democratic Strategist. The piece is part of a Democratic Strategist/Demos online forum on “Progressive Politics and the Meaning of American Freedom.”

Freedom, says John Schwarz, is too important to be left to conservatives. No argument there. For too long, liberals have been flummoxed by conservatives’ success in posing as defenders of liberty against government encroachment. This stance has given the conservative cause a simple, reductive logic and ideological coherence that liberals lack – and often envy. It has enabled the right to tap the deep strain of anti-statism that really does make American politics exceptional.

Modern liberals have chafed at the constraint that this classically liberal understanding of freedom imposes on their social vision. For decades, they’ve struggled to articulate a countervailing principle that can trump the power of what Louis Hartz called America’s underlying “Lockian” consensus.

Arriving in Washington just after Ronald Reagan’s election, I’d often ask shell-shocked liberals to define their first principle. The invariable, deflating answer: “affirming a positive role for government.” This trope reflected a confusion of means with ends – and it goes a long way toward explaining why only about a fifth of Americans have been willing to call themselves liberals since the early 1970s.

The story of how liberalism came to be linked with social engineering and redistribution, with tax and spend, and with rights and entitlements to favored groups is too familiar to need rehashing here. Suffice it to say that liberal efforts to expand government’s role to advance worthy social goals have often crossed lines that are important to many if not most voters. These lines mark the boundaries between individual and collective responsibility, and between government’s legitimate efforts to assure equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes.

So Schwarz’s diagnoses is right: the public’s abiding suspicion that expansive government means contracting freedom tends to stack the political deck in conservatives’ favor and keep liberals on the defensive. His ideas for reversing the presumption in liberals’ favor, however, fall short.

When it comes to freedom, liberals face an inescapable dilemma. They can never be as simple-minded as conservatives. They can’t simply counter conservatives’ classic-liberal conception of freedom with a social liberalism that aspires to greater equality and social justice. Mid-century liberals succeeded by keeping these often antagonist approaches in equipoise. Modern liberals have lost the balance, and with it, the ability to persuade a majority of Americans to their point of view.

Read the rest at The Democratic Strategist.

Obama’s Nuclear Policy — An Opportunity for Bipartisanship

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

The following is an excerpt from Jim Arkedis’s op-ed published today in AolNews.com:

In today’s polarized political debate — with congressional Republicans refusing to cooperate on much of anything and their Democratic counterparts not terribly inclined to include them anyway — finding common ground on any issue has been nearly impossible. But this coming week might highlight one issue that could galvanize long-overdue bipartisanship: nuclear security.

On Tuesday, the administration released its Nuclear Posture Review, which charts a new course on the use of nuclear weapons. On Thursday, President Barack Obama travels to Prague, where he’ll sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. And early next week, the United States will play host to more than 40 world leaders at a nuclear security summit.

These events all aim to work toward the long-held promise of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal the president outlined a year ago this week in the Czech Republic.

After that speech, some conservatives jumped at the opportunity to cast the new president as green on weighty foreign policy issues. But Obama wasn’t driven by some fanciful naivety, as he was crystal clear that as long as others possessed the weapons, so would America. And it was a necessary reorientation—the work of ridding the world of nuclear weapons needed to be taken up anew after being sidetracked under Obama’s predecessor.

Read the full column at AolNews.com.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/macandliz/ / CC BY 2.0

It’s All About Democratic Unity

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Politico

Forget about reconciliation and other parliamentary maneuvers. Forget, too, about Cadillac plans and the Cornhusker Kickback. On health care, we’re down to the heart of the matter: Can Democrats act like a disciplined, cohesive political party?

For decades, they’ve fought for the principle of universal and affordable health coverage. If they don’t pass health reform now, with medical costs mounting, with a president willing to go for broke and with sizable — and perishable — majorities in Congress, you have to wonder if they ever will.

There will be no shortage of excuses if they fail: a populist backlash against bailouts and joblessness; GOP obstructionism and rising public antipathy for Washington and Big Government in general.

But let’s face it: If health care reform crashes and burns, it will be because Democrats couldn’t summon the courage and internal coherence to deliver on a key progressive commitment.

Labor unions, Blue Dogs, single-payer stalwarts, favor-extorting moderates, Latinos, anti-abortion Roman Catholics — it’s no use singling out one culprit, because all the party’s tribes will have contributed to the debacle.

By holding firm for comprehensive reform, President Barack Obama has put his party, especially House Democrats, on the spot. He’s asking doubters to put their party’s collective interest above their personal interests and views.

That’s a tough ask, especially for those from marginal districts who could lose their seats by voting for the Senate bill. It’s easy for self-righteous lefties to brand them as trimmers or cowards, but swing-district Democrats can argue plausibly that a “no” vote would more accurately reflect majority sentiment among their constituents. Liberals from overwhelmingly Democratic districts have no such excuse.

Still, Congress is a national legislature, and its members have a responsibility to act in the national interest. For most Democrats, that surely means ending the injustice of leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to financial ruin or death due to illness or injury. It also means beginning to get a handle on the runaway growth of health care costs that bedevils U.S. workers and businesses.

While party unity isn’t the highest political value, being a member of a party does carry some obligation to its fundamental principles. Tactically, it makes sense for party leaders to give Democrats in tough districts a pass on tough votes — as long as there are votes to spare.

That’s not the case on health care reform. Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs every vote she can get.

Not one Republican will vote for the Senate bill. About a dozen or so anti-abortion Democrats say they won’t either. Pelosi can afford to lose only 37 of the party’s 253 members to get to the magic number of 216. That probably means persuading some of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House plan to support the more centrist Senate blueprint.

Moderate Democrats, including those in the 49 districts that Sen. John McCain won in 2008, face political risks. Voting to support a major health reform bill on a party-line vote could, conceivably, cost them their seats. But if Democrats again stumble on health care, it could also trigger a “wave” election, like 1994, which would engulf marginal seats.

Some party pollsters claim that Democrats already have lost the debate and can only make things worse by passing reform anyway. But a careful reading of polls shows that many skeptical voters don’t think the bills go far enough, and most favor key provisions such as banning insurers from cherry-picking healthy patients and setting up insurance exchanges.

Reasons for this ambivalence are complicated, but it’s probably not because voters have pored over the details of the Senate health bill or the “fixes” Democrats aim to pass on reconciliation. In any case, who thinks Democrats will gain public respect by giving up on their top priority?

Obama was elected on a promise to tackle the nation’s biggest challenges — with health reform as Exhibit A. Independent voters have drifted away from his winning 2008 coalition during the past year, in part because they are losing confidence in the Democrats’ ability to govern.

The party may thus have more to fear from wasting a year to produce nothing than from passing a controversial bill. Failure won’t just make Democrats look bad; it will also vindicate the Republicans’ hyperpartisan campaign to torpedo comprehensive reform.

Sometimes, parties gain even when they lose — especially when they stand on principle. The odds facing Obama and Pelosi and company are daunting.

But the task is doable — as long as enough Democrats recognize that their careers won’t amount to much if their party can’t deliver on its core commitments.

Read the column at Politico.

Obama’s Donations Reflect His National Security and Foreign Policy Priorities

Friday, March 12th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

President Obama gave away his $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize award yesterday, and where national security is concerned, he literally put his money where his mouth is.

The largest donation—$250,000—was given to Fisher House, an organization that builds “comfort homes” on the grounds of major U.S. military installations that allow service members’ families “to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times—during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury.”  It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that President Obama would choose a charity like Fisher House, given the First Lady’s focus on the cause since the beginning of her husband’s presidency.  And with America’s military facing unprecedented strains, every drop in the bucket helps.

The president also gave $100,000 to AfriCare, which promotes health, food security, and access to water in Africa.  This donation mirrors Obama’s long-standing efforts to alleviate poverty in Africa, which dates back to his days in the Senate when he offered the 2007 Global Poverty Act that aims to cut the number of people living on a dollar a day in half by 2015.

Finally, Obama dropped 100 large on the Central Asia Institute, whose story is chronicled in the book “Three Cups of Tea.”  I wasn’t a huge fan of the book’s style, per se, but the CAI’s work is remarkable in and of itself, and it certainly deserves every penny for carrying out such an important mission of educating girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The donations are very embodiment of the notion that American national security policy is about more than the blunt instrument of military force (an idea most recently forwarded by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen).  When force is used, it should be done in a careful and judicious manner that accounts for the extended effects on our fighting men and women.

Is Obama Too Thoughtful?

Monday, February 15th, 2010
Mike Signer



Mike Signer is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Mike Signer

The following is an excerpt from Mike Signer’s column published this weekend in the Daily Beast:

“[W]e need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.” That’s what Sarah Palin told Tea Partiers in Nashville last weekend, triggering uproarious cheers. A few weeks earlier, she had dismissed Obama’s State of the Union as “quite a bit of lecturing, not leading.” Meanwhile, John McCain just borrowed the “lecturer” line to attack Obama in the Financial Times.

Palin and her partners seem intent on turning one of Obama’s strengths—his thoughtfulness—into a liability. Such broadsides threaten to dominate political and policy debates not just in November’s mid-term elections, but the 2012 presidential election as well. The administration should take note and pivot quickly. The fact is that voters often need a bolder narrative, one whose plot turns on actions and victories, not just the calls to civil discourse and contemplation that have come to mark Obama’s presidency.

The intellectual has always held a hallowed, fraught place in American politics. In Saul Bellow’s novel Humboldt’s Gift, set in the 1950s, Bellow’s slightly ridiculous poet-hero Von Humboldt Fleisher showers praise on Adlai Stevenson, the “great souled” intellectual Democratic nominee for a president whose “chief of staff would know Thucydides.” “Intellectuals are coming up in this country,” Humboldt says. “Democracy is finally about to begin creating a civilization in the USA.”

The mirage of a “great-souled man” who can help “create a civilization in the USA” still promises water in the desert, particularly to progressives. It played a significant role in Obama’s stunningly inspiring 2008 campaign. But this vision also rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Since our nation’s beginning, many Americans have viewed overt intellectuals with suspicion and disdain, as memorably documented by the historian Richard Hofstadter in his 1963 volume, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

We all know that Obama was a law professor. He deeply believes the lawyer’s idea that a thesis, brought into conflict with antithesis, will result in synthesis: truth. As president, Obama has demonstrated unheralded courage in his repeated attempts to use politics to help lead toward truth, rather than just a win. You might call this the “philosophical model” of the presidency, and it dominated his State of the Union address.

One example was a passage meant to make people reflect on their own responsibility to counter pessimism with a sort of voluntary optimism. Obama said, “As one woman wrote me, ‘We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.’ … It is because of this spirit—this great decency and great strength—that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. . . . And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.” Note that he says, “I’d like to talk about.” It’s as if Obama is inviting us to reason together. This is what Palin attacks as a “lecture.”

Read the full column at the Daily Beast.

State of the Union: The Philosophical President

Friday, January 29th, 2010
Mike Signer



Mike Signer is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Mike Signer

“There was quite a bit of lecturing, not leading.”

This is what Sarah Palin said about Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech. Yes, I laughed, too — but it’s worth listening to Palin’s response (if not taking it too seriously). I found the president’s speech serious to the point of contemplative. We all know that Obama was a law professor. He deeply believes that thesis, brought into conflict with antithesis, will result in synthesis — truth.

One of Obama’s greatest unheralded risks is his repeated attempt to use politics to help lead toward truth, rather than just a win. You might call this the “philosophical model” of the presidency. Whether or not using the presidency not just to educate but to help collectively drive toward greater understanding works for people when more material needs are on their minds is a critical question for Obama. It’s a new experiment, one that is unfolding as we speak.

In several conversations I’ve had since the speech, the topic of Obama’s silences has come up. Often you could hear a pin drop, as the president introduced big themes, complicated them, let a heavy idea drop on the shoulders of his audience. He delivered some lines literally to make people ponder, rather than rise from our chairs cheering.

Here’s one example — a leading passage meant to make people reflect on their own responsibility to counter pessimism with a sort of voluntary optimism:

As one woman wrote me, “We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.” . . . It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

Note that he says, “I’d like to talk about…” It’s as if Obama is inviting us to reason together. This is what Palin heard as a “lecture.”

Then there was the passage where he slowly, methodically, almost quietly mocked the “noise” that surrounds politics today:

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight.

Here, he linked “doing big things and making big changes” with an opposition to “noisy and messy and complicated.” He quietly suggested those who are “noisy and messy and complicated” are not on the right path; reason, paired up with policy ambitions, will instead lead the way.

The only problem is it hasn’t worked out that way so far. Obama’s greatest rhetorical successes have also been his most reflective — e.g. the campaign’s “race speech” about Jeremiah Wright, or Obama’s Oslo speech reconciling the Nobel Peace Prize with his deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But both of these speeches were also retrospective — about events in the past, rather than policies in the future. The question is whether this approach can sustain the presidency itself, especially against the Republicans’ scorched-earth tactics. Can Hegelian dialectic be the rule, rather than the exception?

The answer, I suppose, will lie in the eating of the pudding. If the president’s injunction to be more thoughtful about our problems and more capacious in our understanding ends up eliciting more participation in solutions, then he’s right. If, on the other hand, during all those long silences last night, Republican operatives were only scheming about how to kill every single one of his proposals — and they do it — then it will have been an exhibit of a beautiful mind.

That’s what Palin was after with her attack on Obama’s “lecture.” After all, inanity has never been inconsistent with extremists’ strategy; indeed, in dark times, it is sometimes their best playbook.

State of the Union: Obama Still Missing a Master Narrative

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

President Obama’s first State of the Union address was a surprisingly prosaic affair for a man of his oratorical gifts. It was practical, concrete, and workmanlike, long on common sense and short on inspiration.

Still, the speech probably advanced several of Obama’s key goals, and it gave the country a chance to see how well he stands up to political adversity. By turns humorous, passionate and resolute, Obama gave the impression of a more seasoned leader who has not been knocked off stride by recent reverses, and who is rededicating himself to changing the way Washington works.

On the positive side, Obama conveyed empathy with working Americans who have lost jobs, houses and retirement savings, and reassured them that he will put jobs and economic recovery first in 2010. He identified with their anger over government’s rescue of the financial sector – “we all hated the bank bailout” — and reeled off a list of small-bore initiatives to boost small businesses and help middle-class families pay for childcare, retirement and college.

Although his major reforms — health care, financial regulation, the climate and energy bill – seem stalled, the President vowed to stay the course. In fact, he deftly parried conservative depictions of these as big government or archliberal initiatives, defining them instead as integral to the mission he was elected to accomplish: changing Washington’s dysfunctional political culture.

Crucially, Obama sought to resurrect his image as an outsider and insurgent bent of tackling America’s polarized and broken politics. He spoke of the “deficit of trust” in government and vowed to reduce the power of lobbyists and special interests, though was uncharacteristically vague on how he’d do that.

The president also seems to have recognized that, to win back disaffected independents, he will have to confront the forces of inertia in his own party as well as his political opponents. He issued a pointed challenge to liberals not to resist his efforts to impose fiscal discipline on the federal government, endorsed a deficit-reduction commission and threatened to veto profligate spending measures. And he bluntly called out Republicans for their blind obstructionism, adding that their ability to block legislation carries with it the responsibility to help solve the nation’s problems.

The most disappointing part of Obama’s address was on international affairs, a subject he finally turned to about an hour into his speech. The president duly noted that he is waging the fight against al Qaeda aggressively and sending more troops to Afghanistan. But he had little to say about the nature of the struggle that America is waging, at great sacrifice, against Islamist extremism. He seemed more passionate in affirming his pledge to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq, but said little about what they have achieved there, or whether our country has any interest in what happens there after we leave.

All in all, the president seemed to treat consequential matters of war, terrorism and foreign relations generally as an afterthought. This may suit the public’s present mood, but it didn’t reveal much about how this president connects America’s purposes abroad to what he wants to achieve at home.

And this underscores what was perhaps most striking about the speech. There was very little by way of an overarching vision or governing philosophy to link together the president’s many initiatives and commitments. There was no striking image like Reagan’s “shining city on the hill,” or thematic scaffolding like Bill Clinton’s “opportunity, responsibility and community” to invest Obama’s tenure with a deeper logic than serial problem-solving. Yes, Obama in his peroration repeatedly invoked “American values,” in an almost generic way. What’s still missing after a year in office is the master narrative of the Obama presidency, a story that is less about him and more about the next stage in America’s democratic experiment.

On Budget, Obama Must Walk a Fine Line

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

As President Obama prepares to deliver his first State of the Union Address tonight, he is being tugged in conflicting directions. His dilemma is simple, and familiar: independent voters want different things than liberals.

Independents and moderate Democrats worry about big government and deficits. Liberals want more government spending and regulation, and they think fiscal discipline is the death of progressive reform.

These tensions were on display yesterday as the Senate squelched a bipartisan proposal, endorsed by President Obama, to set up a special commission to tackle the nation’s growing fiscal crisis. Offered as an amendment to legislation increasing the debt ceiling, the proposal by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-NH) attracted a bipartisan majority of 53 votes. But under the Senate’s tyranny of the supermajority, it needed 60 to pass.

To the independents who have been defecting from Obama’s winning 2008 coalition, it looked like yet another victory for the status quo in Washington. The defeat sets up a confrontation with Senate moderates, who have threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling unless Congress empowers a commission to rein in the nation’s runaway deficits and debt. It may also prompt President Obama to revive his idea for setting up the commission under executive order. House Blue Dogs yesterday endorsed a commission as part of their plan for fiscal reform.

On the other side of the fiscal divide, many liberals have recoiled from Obama’s call for a three-year “freeze” on non-security discretionary spending, seeing it as a cave-in to budget hawks that will crimp progressive ambitions and possibly forestall economic recovery. Since the bill envisions only modest cuts in spending ($250 billion over the next decade) — none of which go into effect until 2011 when it won’t hinder the recovery — such fears seem overwrought. And Obama cushioned the blow by unveiling a new package of middle-class tax cuts.

Nonetheless, the president has a fine line to walk tonight. He must convince the country that he is taking decisive action to control government spending and deficits. And he must convince his party that big progressive reforms can advance within a framework that restores long-term fiscal stability.

Even as the commission went down, the Congressional Budget Office yesterday released new budget forecasts that underscore why Congress must begin laying the groundwork for a return to fiscal discipline in Washington. CBO projects this year’s deficit at $1.3 trillion. At 9.2 percent of GDP, that is slightly less than last year’s whopping 9.9 percent shortfall, which was the biggest in U.S. peacetime history. But while these short-term deficits are enormous, the more fundamental problem is the nation’s cascading national debt. CBO sees the debt nearly tripling from $5.9 trillion to $15 billion by the end of the decade, or from 53 to 67 percent of GDP, and that estimate is based on very conservative assumptions.

America piled up a similar load of debt after World War II, but at least we owed the money to ourselves. Unchecked, today’s borrowing binge means more dependence on Chinese and other foreign lenders to keep our economy afloat, more tax dollars siphoned off to service our debts, and a growing squeeze on public investment as automatic spending on the elderly crowds out everything else.

Given the magnitude of the problem, Obama’s proposed freeze is exceedingly modest. What’s more, it’s a flexible freeze, not an indiscriminate swipe of the budgetary ax. Congress can boost vital public investments – say in technological innovation and clean energy, as long as it is willing to pass offsetting program cuts. As Ed Kilgore has pointed out, the proposal would basically restore the budget “caps” that effectively restrained spending during the Clinton years.

The deficit commission is a bigger deal because it aims at the core of America’s long-term fiscal challenge: the automatic and unsustainable growth of spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Society Security. Congress, polarized along lines of party and ideology, and intimidated by pressure groups, has repeatedly shown itself incapable of slowing entitlement cost growth. Hence the Conrad-Gregg proposal for a bipartisan commission to develop a package of tax and spending changes, and present them to Congress for an up or down vote.

The president tonight should challenge both anti-tax conservatives and pro-spending liberals to get serious about entitlement reform. And he should use the occasion to spell out for skeptical independents why health care reform is indispensible to controlling public spending. Coupled with a strong message on jobs, a forceful presidential commitment to restoring fiscal discipline in Washington will boost economic confidence and help to bring independents back into the progressive fold.

To Fix Our Country, We Need to Fix Our Politics First

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

It’s the start of a brand new decade, but declinism hangs heavy in the air. And that, says writer Jim Fallows, is a good thing.

Having returned from three years in China, Fallows finds America in a funk. Bled by war and terrorism, beset by a lingering financial crisis and stubbornly high unemployment, facing stagnant wages and growing inequality, saddled with obsolete infrastructure and massive public debt, the United States today seems far removed from the confident “hyperpower” of a decade ago. Among the global commentariat, the “post-American world” is the cliché du jour.

But Fallows comes to challenge, not embrace, this glum narrative. In a lengthy Atlantic essay, he notes that premonitions of American decline have recurred frequently in U.S. history – and have just as often been proved wrong. He admits to having contributed himself to the “Rising Sun” hype in the 1980s, when many observers worried that Japan would soon overtake the U.S. thanks to its superior production techniques and state-guided economic strategies.

Instead, Japan sank into a long period of stagnation. But if the “jeremiad tradition” is a poor predictor of the future, says Fallows, it has the salutary effect of spurring Americans to rise to new challenges and prove the doomsayers wrong.

He attributes American resilience and adaptiveness to our inventive, entrepreneurial culture, a welcoming immigration policy and first-rate system of higher education. What’s holding us back, however, is a hopelessly dysfunctional political system that has lost the capacity to deal effectively with big national problems.

“This is the American tragedy of the early 21st century: a vital and self-renewing culture that attracts the world’s talent, and a governing system that increasingly looks like a joke,” he says. So far, so persuasive. But Fallows’ congenital optimism seems to fail him when the discussion turns to solutions. He’s no doubt realistic in dismissing great structural transformations, like a Constitutional convention to reorder our governing system, a parliamentary system or new rules that favor third parties. But concluding that “our only sane choice is to muddle through” under present arrangements ignores political reforms that are both powerful and attainable.

We could, for example, launch a frontal attack on Washington’s transactional culture and diminish the power of special interests by changing the way we finance Congressional elections. And rather than accept the inevitability of “rotten boroughs,” we could counter the worst abuses of gerrymandering by insisting that political districts be drawn by nonpartisan commissions charged with increasing rather than decreasing the number of competitive seats. We could also think seriously about addressing the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate, something that has sparked a great deal of commentary from progressives of late.

Such reforms would make it easier to overcome obstacles to the substantive changes that progressives favor, from affordable health coverage for all, to big investments in modern infrastructure and a new, low-carbon energy system. And where policy changes often expose philosophical cleavages and well as clashing interests within the Democratic coalition, fixing our broken political system is a cause that has the potential to unite all progressives.

Fallows has highlighted the right problem. But progressives should give high priority to fixing our broken politics as the prerequisite for renewing America.