The New Yorker's Liberal Illusions about Barack Obama
All of this is not only pure speculation, much of it unfounded, but rests on the assumption that Obama is what he has proved to most people he is not: a moderate centrist who seeks to unify the nation around reasonable principles most Americans would support. Not a statist who has tried to move the nation further to the left than it ever has been, and hence has aroused an electorate angry with his measures that produced the Tea Party on the right and OWS on the hard left.
What Lizza leaves out of his account is Obama’s record: his fiscal irresponsibility, his decision to ignore the Bowles-Simpson Commission’s recommendations, his decision to move first for radical health care instead of a jobs program. Lizza is right when he says that “at some point this year the debate will focus on the looming fiscal crash.” What he does not show is that Obama has never done anything of a serious nature to even acknowledge the problem, nevermind offer new bold measures to address it.
Instead, Lizza compares Obama to Bill Clinton, who in his second term abandoned bold domestic programs and replaced them with a noticeable shift to the center. With Republican support (and some Democratic opposition) he passed NAFTA and introduced serious welfare reform, a conservative idea introduced first by Republicans. Dick Morris, then his advisor, called it “triangulation.” It worked, and in moving in this direction Clinton had the support of moderate Democrats in the then-important Democratic Leadership Council, of which Clinton himself had earlier been a leading member.
Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton.
While Clinton was a DLC Democrat, Obama came into office with a background as an anti-business community organizer, a supporter of radical black nationalists in his Chicago ward, and an associate of radicals, socialists, and Communists who all worked together for his election. That is the significance of Stanley Kurtz’s recent revelation that Obama had been a member of the social-democratic New Party in Chicago in 1996. As Kurtz writes:
Obama’s joining this leftist party was no reluctant concession to a marginal group just to secure elective office. Obama had been working with the New Party’s leaders for years, and their larger strategic vision was a prime example of what drew him into politics in the first place. The New Party issue is no fluke. On the contrary, it’s a reflection of Obama’s consistent and continuous life plan.
To assume that Barack Obama will move in the direction Lizza says he will is to believe that all of the signals about his belief system do not count, and that he is capable of pulling a Clinton in a second term. Clinton, to put it bluntly, was a real pragmatist and a master politician, and never was a man of the ideological left wing. As someone might say in a debate with Obama: “I know Bill Clinton, and you’re no Bill Clinton.”
Lizza’s hope that a second Obama term would begin “with major deficit reduction and serious reform of taxes and entitlements” is nothing but a pipe dream, meant to assure those drifting away from the Obama camp that the president is really a sensible moderate just waiting for the chance to screw his base. Or, you can take the word of Obama advisor David Plouffe, who assures Lizza that Democrats would of course accept entitlement reform because in a divided Congress they would have to.
There is more chance that a deal could be made if Mitt Romney wins, which is something that Lizza never addresses. He only sees movement if Obama wins and convinces Republicans -- who of course he holds responsible for all failures -- that they must give up “obstructionism.” Instead, Lizza serves up a new term in which, for the first time, bipartisan legislation will take place, and Republicans and Democrats together will agree on “immigration, climate change, and campaign finance.”
Note Lizza’s claim in this sentence:
If President Obama can indeed guide the parties toward an agreement that puts the federal government on a sustainable fiscal path, it would be a substantial achievement and would vindicate his early promise as a bipartisan leader. After that, he might have just one more chance to achieve a major domestic accomplishment before the next round of elections, in 2014.
The problem, of course, is the word at the beginning: “If.” That is one very large if, which is based on no evidence but the author’s wishful thinking. It assumes the man who has been the divider-in-chief and a partisan fighter would suddenly change colors and become a pragmatist in the Clinton mold.
What Ryan Lizza has given his readers, therefore, is nothing but an article taking the point of view of David Axelrod and David Plouffe and the Obama spinmeisters who desperately want Obama to be seen in this way and not as the man and president he actually is. He acknowledges that presently Obama “is emphasizing the ideological divide,” but wants us to ignore this, and to look at what the president supposedly wants. Lizza is an Obama man who believes, contrary to much evidence, that “Obama seems to be learning how to be a forceful president.” He thinks his foreign policy is one that has been successful, and he wants readers to conclude: “Whether he’ll be remembered as a great [President] depends on his reelection.” Lizza’s article is meant to be intellectual ammunition to convince wavering Democrats to forcefully support Obama's reelection so he can have the chance to achieve greatness.
Speaking for myself, I don’t think I’ll vote to give Barack Obama that chance. The stakes are simply too high. Mr. Lizza, you haven’t convinced me, and frankly, I don’t suspect you will convince most of your readers.