In
"The Book of Obama" I argue that Obama is America's
Mikhael Gorbachev. Like Gorby, The One (Oprah's phrase) is the most
progressive, decent and intelligent leader his system is willing and
able to allow to rise to power; like the reformist of perestroika,
Obama's fundamental not-so-badness—coupled with his…
ineffectiveness? cluelessness? conservatism?
exposes the fact that the system is the problem. That voting for a
better/less evil leader can't bring about the changes we need, because
what the 99% view as problems—unemployment, underemployment, the growing
gap between rich and poor—are things that the system views as not
merely desirable, but necessary. Its raison d'être.
Among progressives it's a given that Obama has been a disappointment.
At my signings people keep asking me: Why? Why hasn't the president
lived up to the hopes and dreams we invested in him? Sure, the
Republicans have blocked him at every turn. But he doesn't seem to try.
Why not? Is he a wimp? Or were liberals wrong about him—was Obama an establishment conservative from the start?
I don't know what's in Obama's heart. Frankly, I don't care. It's all
about policies: either you're for good policies, or you're not. If you
are, you fight for them with everything you've got. If not…
Like most pundits, I tend to focus on the negative. So this week
let's look at Obama's signature accomplishments, the things he actually
did get done: healthcare reform, his statement support for gay marriage,
and last week's Dream Act Lite, his order that Department of Homeland
Security stop pursuing the approximately 800,000 young people who were
brought to the US illegally.
It took three years for this President to do something that brought a
smile to my face. So I owe him this: Nicely done, Mr. President. (Sure,
it's just a political ploy, a play for the Hispanic vote. But other
things Obama should do, but won't—unlimited unemployment benefits,
assistance for foreclosure victims, a new WPA—would be popular too.
Pandering to the people is called democracy.)
Millions of people—the lucky 800,000, their families and
friends—finally have their foot in the door. Early signals from GOP
bosses indicate reluctance, even if they win this fall, to revert to the
bad old days of rounding up kids and deporting them to "homes" they
don't know, whose languages they don't speak.
Yet, like so many of his more positive acts, it came later than it should. And it should have been built to last.
The Dream Act failed in December 2010, just after the Republican
sweep in the Congressional midterms. It would have passed if not for the
craven, bigoted "nay" votes of five Democratic senators spooked by the
election results.
I keep thinking back to 2009. Democrats had both houses of Congress. A
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Obama enjoyed a worshipful
media. Sky-high public opinion polls. Why didn't the president propose
the Dream Act then, when it would probably have passed, sparing 800,000
kids terrible uncertainty—not to mention those who got swept up during
the last three years? (While we're at it: what's the point of letting
kids stay in the U.S. and deporting their parents?)
Back in 2009, was Team Obama guilty of political ineptitude?
Obsessive focus on healthcare? We don't know. The result of their
neglect of young immigrants amounted to political malpractice at least,
bigotry at worst. (There were, after all, more deportations of
undocumented immigrants under Obama than under Bush.)
Worse than too little and/or too late, Obama's announcement in
support of gay marriage came so late that it might as well not have
happened at all; by the time he spoke out, gay marriage had become a
historical inevitability. Talk about political malpractice! What is more
ineffectual than irrelevance? Like the Homeland Security directive on
immigration, it came as big, good news to millions of people. But it
could have been handled earlier, proactively, and—not
incidentally—paying bigger dividends to the president's reelection
effort.
Less clear but with broader implications was healthcare reform. "Have
you had enough of Obamacare?" Tim Pawlenty asked a crowd at a pro-Mitt
Romney rally. "Yes!" they shouted. But there is no Obamacare. Not yet.
Even if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the Administration's biggest
achievement, it doesn't go into effect until 2014. After, perhaps,
President Romney takes office. What was Obama thinking? If nothing else,
wasn't he worried about his historical legacy?
My guess is that he cares less about his legacy, or changing things,
than the political horse race. He likes winning as an individual more
than he cares about changing the world.
Obama has a few chances left to prove me wrong. He could still close
Gitmo by executive order. He could also propose a federal law codifying a
women's right to an abortion, forcing the GOP to counter the 77 percent
of Americans who told the most recent Gallup poll that they're
pro-choice. It would be a bold move, one that would resolve the
decades-long legal limbo that has left abortion rights in the hands of
the Supreme Court. Is Obama incapable of bravery? Of vision? Or is he
using the threat of a Romney SCOTUS to threaten women into voting for
him?
No one knows.
All we can do is consider the president's actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment