Dec
17
Where’s The Leadership?
Filed Under American Politics
Democratic activist John Aravosis has a scathing attack on the Democratic leadership (Obama right at the front) at AmericaBlog:
I’ve heard people say that it’s not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it’s not really a solid 60.
Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush’s most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible.
And look at what George Bush was able to accomplish in the Congress with fewer Senators than the Democrats have today:
- John Ashcroft nomination
- Iraq war resolution
- Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
- 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
- Patriot Act
- Alito
- John Roberts
- Medicare Part D
There are two differences between Barack Obama and George W Bush. Barack Obama was inexperienced; a part-time Senator of only four years having come from the Illinois Senate where him voting “present” demonstrated his commitment to not being committed. in other words, no executive experience at all. Bush on the other hand was a two-term Governor of one of the largest states in the union – a huge gap in respective experience. The second difference is one of partisanship. Obama and the Democratic congressional leaders (Pelosi in particular) have shown that they are more interested in getting one over on the enemy (or Republicans as most people know them), whereas Bush was comfortable reaching out to Democrats to get his legislation passed. Bush demonstrated political experience and maturity; something Obama is seriously deficient in.
It’s not about the votes, people. It’s about leadership. The current occupant of the White House doesn’t like to fight, and the leadership in Congress has never been as good at their jobs, at marshaling their own party, as the Republicans were when they were in the majority. The President is supposed to rally the country, effectively putting pressure on opposition members of Congress to sit down and shut up. And the congressional leadership is supposed to rally its members to hold the line, and get the 51 votes necessary for passing legislation in a climate where the minority is too afraid to use the filibuster. When you have a President who is constitutionally, or intellectually, unable to stand for anything, and a congressional leadership that, rather than disciplining its own members and forging ahead with its own agenda, cedes legislative authority to a president who refuses to lead, you have a recipe for exactly what happened last night. Weakness, chaos, and failure.
We lost real health care reform not because we don’t have a “real” filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We lost health care reform because we don’t have a real leader anywhere in our party. It’s not going to get better if we elect more Democrats to the Senate and it’s not going to play out any differently should we try to revisit this issue in the future.
And that’s coming from the left. Ouch! Mind you, the right are just saying “we told you so!”
Comments
5 Responses to “Where’s The Leadership?”
Leave a Reply
So, you are saying that you wanted Obama to succeed in geeting his total Health Bill through?
Ronnie
Not sure where you got that idea from.
Cabbie.
You want it both ways, not for the first time.
You oppose the Bill and then attack the administration for not being able to pass it, which is what you wanted in the first place.
Wobbly.
Ronnie
And not for the first time you are completely misinterpreting what I’m saying. And as for “wobbly”, that perfectly describes your logic here. Just because I oppose the legislation, doesn’t mean I can’t comment on (and enjoy) the failure of the Democratic leadership.
Cabbie.
I think it is a cause for celebration that an administration cannot automatically get it’s legislation pushed through. I hope, always, that lessons are learned by those in positions of executive power and that more work is done when drafting the legislation itself, and when working out what is politically possible on any and every given set of circumstances.
I believe that should be the theme of any commentary. The checks and balances actually work even when ‘parliamentary’ majorities seem strong on paper.
By all means enjoy the failure, as far as it goes, but let’s also understand the larger political issue here and calibrate our conversation accordingly. There is actually less need for Conservative hysteria over everything. An apparently strong President may not be that strong and that is a good thing going forward.