Nate Silver
writes:
There is, to say the least, a lot of jumping to conclusions about just which type of President Barack Obama is liable to be, by which I mean whether he'll govern from the left or the center. This speculation has been principally based on his cabinet appointments, a subject that people may be reading too much into.
.....
1. In the realm of domestic policy, there are a surprising number of proposals -- mostly buried within the fine print of Obama's website -- that are more or less unapologetically progressive/liberal. These include things such as doubling public spending on science and after-school programs, banning racial profiling, expanding the use of non-traditional courts and detainment facilities for non-violent drug offenders, several different block grant programs targeted at inner cities, expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, and a large array of protections for workers and consumers. While Obama also has a number of programs that have broader, centrist appeal -- such as reforming No Child Left Behind or allowing the importation of prescription drugs from abroad -- very few are incompatible with the progressive agenda, with just a couple of exceptions like Obama's advocacy for clean coal and charter schools. Obama's domestic program is, by and large, progressive and ambitious (probably overambitious).
2. In the realm of economic policy, there are also some explicitly progressive items, such as raising the minimum wage, investing $1 billion in anti-poverty jobs programs, and of course, reversing the Bush tax cut. There is also a heavy overlap, however, with what might be called libertarian paternalism: "smart" policies which incent good behavior through tax credits or choice architecture (a classic example is Obama's plan to enroll all employees in pension programs by default, until they elect to opt out). Obama's health care program, given its lack of a mandate, is also arguably an example of libertarian paternalism (although its incentives need to be better designed than in their current conception). A libertarian paternalist framework supplemented with a number of smaller-scale, piecemeal programs that tend more classically toward social welfare (such as heating assistance for lower-income families) would hardly be the worst place for progressives to end up, even if a bit less ideologically pure than the New Deal or the Great Society. One notable exception is free trade, where Obama is not really pretending to be anything other than centrist.
3. Lastly, in the realm of foreign policy, Obama is fairly circumspect, but where he shows his hand, tends fairly explicitly in the direction of the political center. The withdraw of troops from Iraq has been carefully hedged (at least it is now, if it wasn't during the primaries). Obama advocates national missile defense; he advocates increasing defense spending. Perhaps just as revealing are the things that Obama doesn't promise -- there is no mention, for instance, of amending FISA. It would seem that when national security goals conflict with other ones in the Obama administration, national security goals will usually win.
Still, this can hardly be described as a centrist agenda (even though much of it should have significant appeal to moderates). The appropriate critique, rather, is that not very much of it may be realized, because portions of it would be rather expensive to enact. It seems to me that to implement a material portion of his domestic policy agenda, Obama needs TWO of the following three things to happen:
a. He needs to follow through with his promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and/or,
b. He needs to decrease rather than increase Pentagon spending, and/or,
c. He needs the economy to recover more quickly and more robustly than generally anticipated.
The fight over the Bush tax cuts, it seems to me, could be the fight of Obama's first year in office; there may be a massive intraparty fight at first (should the tax hikes be brought to the table?), followed potentially by an interparty fight. This is one place where partisans on all sides could have a lot of influence.
But in the longer term, the fight over the defense budget, which will probably trade off more or less explicitly with Obama's domestic policy prerogatives, could be the key flash point between progressives and the administration. In certain ways, an increase in defense spending seems incompatible with Obama's notion of a smarter, more aerodynamic government, particularly one that is able to restore American soft power in lieu of military spending, and/or is (eventually) able to end the conflict in Iraq. If progressives are looking for strategic rather than tactical (or ideological) fights, that may be the place to start.
The Bush war mongering has destroyed our economy and our world standing.
I've often thought that we cannot mount a full and unfettered restoration of our economy unless we stop the bleeding of the budget through massive, unnecessary defense spending. With the return to diplomacy and working with other countries for common goals, there is no justification for maintaining the obscene Pentagon spending. It is what has kept Bush and his cronies very wealthy, and the rest of us very, very poor, in pocketbook, national security and in hope.
I agree with Mr. Silver in that we need to exert massive citizen-pressure effort into decreasing
spending by the Department of Defense, coupled with rollback of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Only then can we properly begin restoring our economy.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
