Obama needs to learn to be a better loser

[Hannah Bell]

A few weeks ago Jonathan Bernstein asked liberals “As the 111th Congress winds down, what’s your biggest disappointment of the things you expected to happen?”


I expected Obama to be a better loser, specifically to be better at losing. There were a lot of items on the table, a lot of them weren’t going to happen, but it was important for the new future of liberalism that the Obama team lost them well. And that hasn’t happened.

By losing well, I mean losing in a way that builds a coalition, demonstrates to your allies that you are serious, takes a pound of flesh from your opponents and leaves them with the blame, and convinces those on the fence that it is an important issue for which you have the answers.

Lose for the long run; lose in a way that leaves liberal institutions and infrastructure stronger, able to be deployed again at a later date.

Let’s take an example of a lose: immigration. The assimilation of Hispanics into a central part of the United States is a long-term project, one that will go on beyond this Congress and any bill it may have passed. Securing Hispanic votes is central to any theory of an emerging Democratic majority. And it was going to be possible that any bill wouldn’t pass, given how difficult immigration bills were to move in the Bush years.

So this should have been something that was lost well.

Here’s my major memory of the Obama on immigration:

Whenever Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and other immigrant-rights advocates asked President Obama how a Democratic administration could preside over the greatest number of deportations in any two-year period in the nation’s history, Obama’s answer was always the same.

Deporting almost 800,000 illegal immigrants might antagonize some Democrats and Latino voters, Obama’s skeptical supporters said the president told them, but stepped-up enforcement was the only way to buy credibility with Republicans and generate bipartisan support for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

On Saturday, that strategy was in ruins after Senate Democrats could muster only 55 votes in support of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act...

This is losing poorly.

It makes major concessions without getting anything in return, conceding both pieces of flesh and the larger narrative to the other side.

This unnecessarily splits those who support the Democrats on whether or not to support these action.

It doesn’t name the opponents of the effort to figure out ways of deploying pressure to change things.

Without an obvious fight it’s not signaled that it was a priority.

And the ultimate problem is that it doesn’t leave the coalition in better shape for the next battle.

This is true of many issues, ranging from unions fighting for the ability to unionize easier to the technology groups fighting for Net Neutrality.

Why should these groups be happier with the past two years, even if they thought on day one that they wouldn’t win anything?

How are either stronger for the next battle?

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/biggest-surprise-of-last-two-years-bad-at-losing/

[TheWraith]

1. Another blogosphere heckler who thinks they know better than everyone else.

I get so tired of the internet enabling Monday morning quarterbacking on an unprecedented scale. We've just had the best two years for the left wing since the 1960s, and people are still complaining and swallowing the media narrative hook line and sinker.

[Hannah Bell]

2. lol. yeah, they've been great for the "left wing" if by that you mean the dlc.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The average American's life has gotten much worse

In the past 2 years. This is a great victory for the left?

Wow.

[Demit]

6. The media narrative HAS been that the last two years were just chockablock full of leftie victories.

That's the narrative I ain't buying.

[Champion Jack]

7. +1,000

[dawg]

8. I respectfully disagree with you, Wraith.

While we *have* had some legislative victories (DADT, Health Care - kind of), the President has ceded the frames and terms of debate to the other side.

When a Democratic president says the government needs to "tighten its belt" when there's 10% unemployment, something is majorly wrong. Obama got a needed second stimulus along with the tax cut deal, but he ceded the language to the R's. And, worst of all, he will either have to sign a further extension of the cuts in 2012 or run for re-election on the basis of *rasing* taxes. Sorry, but that's just politically stupid.

The President is a great legislator-in-chief, but he sucks as the leader of a political party.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karmadillo]

11. Seriously, if the left can't celebrate the looting of the US treasury by banksters, the continuation

of criminal wars to the tune of $1 trillion/year, the deterioration of government financing at the state and local levels, the worst stretch of unemployment since the depression without any major effort by the government to provide jobs, the transformation of the genuine possibility for health care for all into insurance industry subsidies, two more years of inaction on global warming, a continuation of Bush administration education policies except where they've been made worse, an extension of ruinously expensive tax cuts, a growing threat to social security, and god knows what else I'm forgetting, what can the left celebrate? Whiners, all of them.

[ThomCat]

15. +1

That says it well. Obama's "accomplishments" have all been right-wing victories. :(

It would be nice if he had some victories for the left, that actually benefited real people in the long term instead of Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.

The best he has been able to say is "Well, the rich guys won again with my help, but I salvaged a small enough victory for poor people to keep you all alive for a little while longer." None of this represents a left-wing victory, or even a centrist victory.

It isn't a victory at all by any stretch of the imagination unless you are fully and absolutely taken in by the right-wing framing of every issue, in which case you might as well be a republican because you're using their language, their arguments and reinforcing their victories, just like Obama has been doing.

i.e. chose a right-wing republic health care bill instead of any democratic ones. Compromise further to the right repeatedly, even going so far as to have back room deals to give the lobbyists what they want without the public knowing. Then defend it all and have "centrists" defend it by claiming that it's somehow an ideal and even liberal outcome. Yes, the most right wing deal is somehow the liberal outcome. Orwellian, isn't it?

If this is the best Obama can do? And if this is his idea of victory, then his victories are all failures, and his failures are all utter capitulations. The republicans could hardly ask for a better president than the one we have now. Obama is scoring worse than Bush in more ways as time goes on. :(

Asking Obama to lose better is not what we need. Asking him to right for the left and win better is what we need.

Asking him to stand up for ideals as if he really means it is what we need.

Asking him to stop giving over power to corporations hand over fist, and make regulation just-for-show, is what we need.

Asking him to fight as if his constituents aren't all millionaires, but are mostly making under $30,000 per year and struggling, is what we need.

[JamesA1102]

12. Well said

Too bad it is going over some others' heads because it doesn't fit their ideology.

[bvar22]

14. You're right. I'm an Old Style FDR/LBJ Working Class "Democrat",

...and what is being done by my Party Leaders in Washington does NOT fit MY "ideology".

You see, THIS is the "Democratic Party" I joined 44 years ago:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

1) The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

2) The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

3) The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

4) The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

5) The right of every family to a decent home;

6) The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

7) The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

8) The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

So you ARE correct.
The ideology of the current "New Democrat Party" increasingly does NOT fit my Old Tyme Democratic Party ideology.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for
working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."
---Paul Wellstone

[JamesA1102]

17. They still do.

There is nothing on your list that is inconsistant with the current Democratic party. You're just buying into a lot BS from bloggers.

[bvar22]

18. All I can say is LOL.

Will you please provide a cite where the Democratic Party Leadership says anything close to the statements that Americans have these are RIGHTS:

"1) The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

2) The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

3) The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

4) The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

5) The right of every family to a decent home;

6) The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

7) The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

8) The right to a good education."

I'm not "buying" anything, especially what YOU are trying to sell.
I LIVED through the New Deal and the Great Society.
I can SEE the difference.

[JamesA1102]

31. Not selling anything.

But I think is says more about you that you're mischaracterizing it that way.

[bluestate10]

22. Careful. You are going to be called a libertarian, or worse. nt.

[JamesA1102]

32. I've been called far worse. LOL nt

[dflprincess]

30. It might be consistent with much of the party platform but the problem is

very few elected Democrats, including Obama, appear to have even read the document. The other problem is that the party doesn't seem to think it's necessary for those who claim to be Democrats to adhere to any parts of the platform that was put together and voted on by rank and file Democrats.

[JamesA1102]

33. You mean they don't draw ideological lines in the stand

And are willing to make incremental progress instead.

[dflprincess]

35. I mean the Democratic party no longer feels it or the candidates it endorses should stand for

anything. Including those issues the members of the party feel are important enough that they have been included in the party platform.

Check my sig line.

[JamesA1102]

37. I don't agree

I'm sorry but you're continuing to talk about drawing ideological lines in the sand. I rather make incremental progress than none at all in order to stand on ideological principle. That may make those who like to sit on a high horse feel that they are in some way superior but in the end it doesn't help real people.

[bluestate10]

21. Hail!

Could it be that just maybe, those people are the right in disguise on DU? How can ANY of us prove our credentials as progressives or moderates on the blogosphere?

[JamesA1102]

34. What I find interesting

Is that some of the President's harshest critics from the "left" are former conservative republicans like Arianna Huffington and Cenk Uyger.

[leeroysphitz]

36. Well you know where the power button on your PC is...

Or you could just try and accept the fact that not everyone is going to be satisfied with mediocrity.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. You don't think that 18 years of 'compromise'

Has made America a better place?

[xchrom]

5. strong recommend!!! -- nt.

[rhett o rick]

10. A rec to counter the DLC unrec's. Good post. nm

[bluestate10]

23. I disagree, but do not unrec or set to ignore, not my style. nt.

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. "...to buy credibility with Republicans and generate bipartisan support..."

So, how's that "bipartisan support" thingy workin' for ya?

[blindpig]

16. What nonsense

He is doing exactly what he wants to do, is the pattern not clear?

[DCKit]

19. And all this time I thought Harry Reid was Senate leader, not our President.

On a basic level, this does resonate, but can't we please leave it to the (R)s to blame EVERYTHING on President Obama?

The House and Senate need to share responsibility for our decline.

[bluestate10]

27. Some on DU want Obama to march the military down Pennsylvania Avenue

and take over the government. That is the only way that Obama can get the policies that he wants without compromising, or having Congress shape what it wants. But then the right will yell "I told you Obama was a dictator in wait". There is just something that is so irritating about checks and balances and Congress having constitutional responsibility for making laws to the left and the right, to use a term seen here on DU last week from another poster, their views are crazily unrealistic.

[tallahasseedem]

20. And so do you...

Obama won, get the fuck over it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. He is, however, getting a lot of practice claiming losses to be victories. K&R

[Zax2me]

25. Looking forward to 2011.

And how he handles the new congress.
I have my hopes up, honestly.

[bluestate10]

28. Obama is using regulations to increasingly bypass Congress.

This method was a GW Bush tactic. Obama can install sensible regulations like end of life counseling without that being bastardized by Congress. The method passed constitutional muster, so challenges likely will go no where.

[dionysus]

26. bless your heart for trying so hard.

[unkachuck]

29. "This unnecessarily splits those who support the Democrats..."

....maybe that's the corporate intention....and to the average suffering American, this all looks like a big bag of shit....

....take universal healthcare...most people realize if they performed at work like the Democrats performed providing universal healthcare, they would be disciplined or terminated....

....many people now understand that if we want necessary progressive social programs in the future like universal healthcare, we can not give that job to the Democrats and expect positive results.