oleeb's picture

    Yes, some compromise will be necessary but Obama should not compromise on his priorities/agenda

    Discussion in the media is now beginning to focus on the transition, how much they will tackle initially, and which issues will take precdence.  Clearly, the most successful modern Presidencies focus on just a handful of major items and stick to them in the early months after taking office.  In contrast, FDR and LBJ had sweeping, multiple initiatives that were put through at the outset but they did this as a result of significant party discipline and overwhelming numbers in the Congress.

    If Obama is confident the Congressional leadership can and will deliver the swift and unified backing of Congressional Democrats then Obama can take the FDR/LBJ approach.  If Reid and Pelosi cannot guarantee (and I suspect that is the case) that sort of cooperation and swift passage, then Obama would be foolish to proceed on more than 4 major priorities in the first six months of his aministration.

    As is their wont (like a dog that's been kicked one too many times) their is a stampede among many liberal/Democratic leaning pundits and commentators in the blogosphere to urge Obama to compromise, lower expectations and otherwise "prepare" the electorate for less change than they had hoped for mainly because of the massive addition to the deficit as a result of the $850 Billion Wall Street Welfare Bill (oops, I mean "rescue" bill).  Whether or not the bailout bill was passed, compromise on many details of individual inititatives would be required of any new administration.  However, it is important for the new administration not to compromise on the big picture which is the broad agenda and priorities Obama has established which are health care, climate change, getting out of Iraq, and energy independence (which really is a subset of climate change).

    If Obama focuses on those four items, he ought to be able to succeed on each of them in the coming 6 months.  If he does so, that will set the tone for his entire first term.  If, instead, he allows his staff and Congressional Democrats to leave the reservation and break up the focus on a million different pet projects, group interests, etc... such as what we're seeing in all the talking to the press right now about executive orders and such, it will be much like the beginning of Jimmy Carter's term or the first Pres. Bush when he took office.  The momentum will be lost and the honeymoon will be short.

    Obama/Emanuel needs to maintain tight control and discipline over who talks to the media and what they talk about.  Democrats always bring problems upon themselves by talking way to much to the media.  Historically it seems Democrats apparently cannot resist trying to be in the limelight and instantly suffer from diarrhea of the mouth the moment they gain power.  Obama must find a cure for this.  The entire focus should be strictly limited to the handful of priorities Obama sets right now.  There should be no compromise, however, on what Obama's prirorities or agenda will be. 

    He must deliver to the people on the broad issues he discussed consistently for the past two years.  He may not be able to do everything he promised right away, but if he capitulates in advance and tells the people we have to put one or more of the big issues he talked about during the campaign on the back burner that would be a very bad sign for the coming four years.  Whether or not that occurs is clearly a choice and not a fait accomplis either way.  I hope Obama's vision of what he wants to achieve is not clouded by the crisis of the moment or by the consistently bad advice that passes for wisdom among DC oriented Demcorats.

    Comments

    Totally agree with this sentiment.

    Barack should pursue his priorities as outlined during the campaign and force moderates of both parties by hook and crook to support him. I think he understands that the main way to do that will be through mobilizing the American voter.

    I don't think he needs to compromise on any of his four main priorities as they are all interconnected and are important to "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. I believe he will get it done by continuing to take his case to the grassroots. That is where all the momentum exists right now and can force Congress to act as well.

    The "center" will be Barack's biggest asset as long as we don't go back to sleep.


    "...stampede among many liberal/Democratic leaning pundits and commentators in the blogosphere to urge Obama to compromise, lower expectations and otherwise "prepare" the electorate for less change..."

    Great post, Oleeb. I sincerely hope Obama does everything in his power to ensure that nobody dumbs down the unprecedented potential of his presidency.

    This overused pattern of media and various spokespersons raising the expectations of Americans to get something through, then immediately try to lower those expectations once they've got what they want, is getting old. Your quote above strikes me as a similar dynamic to the one we just witnessed with respect to the bailout. The pundits and anchors first were all on the same page, busy warning Americans that if the bailout to "save main street" didn't pass, they would not get their paychecks and the banks wouldn't make loans to your average Joe. Immediately after bailout passed, the pundits then began saying that it would take time and maybe more would be needed. No big surprise, but last I heard, the banks weren't lending to many and we've had many more job losses despite the bailout.

    It is especially ironic that the bailout is now being held up as the reason people should lower their expectations as if there is only one way to do everything. Here's hoping the Obama administration finds creative ways to make great strides on the most pressing issues and to bring along the Democrats and some Republicans with him. After all, that's why they were elected.

    If more funding is needed, an Obama administration could start by hiring a few hundred IRS workers to collect the estimated hundreds of billions in taxes owed by Americans who hide their money in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying their share of the taxes. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas they could consider as well.


    He'll do anything he thinks he has to to keep unemployment and bankruptcy type situations down, sell out any promises, anything. That will temper all his decisions. Anything else would be political suicide. He's only got 2 1/2 years or so before he has to run for re-election on his results and "it's the economy stupid." Long-term good will have to be sold out for short term gain. He starts running for re-election in two years, and the global financial collapse is the new 9/11.

    Examples: I notice few in the blogosphere give much of a damn about what's going on in Iraq anymore, and I think if you could prove that it would benefit the current economy to stay there, the majority public would change their opinion about getting out pronto. Oh and that getting bin Laden thing, not if it costs too much money. The new enemies will be those countries who won't play along with Obama's Treasury Secretary. If a health care reform measure happens to involve temporary employment pain in that sector (i.e., temporary pain for eventual gain), the selling of it won't be started until the economy is healthier....


    P.S. In posting, I just saw your title again, and it makes me want to add to my reply by saying "it's not his agenda anymore." And, matter of fact, Obama is a big believer in serving the majority's agenda, if he's ideological about anything, it's that.


    Not to mention simply spending the $4 trillion we already unload each year more effectively. Don't tell me we can't find enough money in our existing budget to accomplish all of our much-needed investment in this country.


    "Don't tell me we can't find enough money in our existing budget to accomplish all of our much-needed investment in this country."

    I won't! And no "yes we can" believers will tell you that, either. Who ever accomplished anything with an "oh, we hit a challenge, so we can't do that now" attitude?

    I'm sure all critical thinking Americans will confront the "lower your expectations" nonsense that is peddled by media pundits and others with a "yes we can," "who says we can't?" and "how else might we accomplish that?"

    I'm sure when we were on our way to the moon, a million excuses could have been made for why we could not do it. Bill Gates was told nobody would ever want a computer in their home, too.

    People can always find excuses not to meet challenges if that's what they are looking for, but the people of this country spoke loudly and clearly when they chose a leader who says "yes we can."



    If Reid and Pelosi cannot guarantee (and I suspect that is the case)...

    Or WON'T guarantee it. I find it particularly telling that Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY got out front on the health care issue, and tried to sabotage and subvert Obama's agenda by pushing for a far less comprehensive and far more limited plan. I hate her worthless, feckless guts. And I'm convinced that the primary reason Obama picked Rahm Emanuel is because he knew Pelosi was going to be a constant source of trouble and division within the party.


    It was more a metaphorical "you" as I find your arguments quite persuasive on most fronts. I was a Yes We Can before I joined the party of No We Won't.


    Latest Comments