We Need a More Progressive Leader in the White House
"Change" is needed from President Obama not only in government, but also his approach to leadership in his second term. Source: thewhizzer.blogspot.com, creative commons licence
When in high school I was given an assignment for which I wrote a paper about then president-elect Barack Obama and the potential of his presidency to transform America and usher in a new era of politics (this is apparent in the paper’s title: The Potential of a Transformative Presidency: The Birth of a Liberal America) and while I would be the first to admit that my paper was skewed by the hopefulness shared by many Americans after Obama’s election there are still many general points and statements that I agree with. The title of the paper being chief among them. You can find the paper I wrote here.
In retrospect I see that within my paper I expected quite a bit from President Obama’s first term, but then again so did the majority of America. This was partly because of the situation we were in economically, politically etc. and due to the Obama campaign’s deliberate playing up of the pseudo-messianic feel that Obama and his candidacy had. As a result of the hype it would require an extraordinary presidency to live up to these expectations. While there are great arguments that contend Obama has done well with his first term, he has failed in one great respect: he has not transformed the nation.
This was the implied mission statement of the Obama candidacy that backed up the election buzzword that was “change.” As many critics alleged the word was too vague and did not bode well for a nation that need concrete answers to specific failing institutions. I believe that Obama has changed many things about American government, and the country at large. However, the kind of change that I was looking forward to was the seizing of America by a leader gifted with great oratorical skills who could push us as a nation into uncharted territory. A leader who would not only propose progressive, liberal solutions to the problems that we faced domestically and beyond our borders, but could explain to the public why these solutions were the right answer. A leader who could change the debate and subsequently the playing field. Obama did none of this. Not because he was unable to, but rather, it seemed, because he did not want to.
Many pundits talk about the differences between “Campaign Obama” and “President Obama” as if there are not thousands of lawmakers who make that transition after taking the oath of office. I cannot fault the president for that. What I do fault him for is not introducing these ‘two Obama’s’ to each other. It would be a dynamic duo so to speak and this above all else is what I would like to see in his second term. Obama can test drive this marriage in the 2012 presidential election thanks to two things. First, the knowledge that he can sleep peacefully that he tried to be bipartisan in earnest throughout his first term, and second that the Republicans seem intent on not picking the best general election candidate as their nominee for president (a point that I will come back to later). The marriage of ‘Campaign Obama’ and ‘President Obama’ is the best way to describe my hopes for the president’s future style of governance. This marriage can give birth to a more liberal America and set the stage for a political re-centering that begins to reflect the change our society has undergone since the days of Reagan. In short, Obama has the chance to prove that American style conservatism no longer reflects the values and ideas of American society and force conservatism to either update itself or become extinct.
Source: wiredbike on flickr.com
The source of my optimism for Obama’s second term stems from my anticipation of a rough general election campaign for him. Although I am an ardent supporter of both his domestic and international policies I do wish that he was a bit more progressive concerning social and economic issues. This, in conjunction with his utter lack of an attempt to convince the American people that his agenda is the best path for America’s future interests, has left Obama in an interesting predicament; namely, that he is more popular than his policies – or congress for that matter. What this means is that Obama has effectively sold himself to the American people. They trust him, but what they are suspicious of is the agenda that he brings with him. Obama could usher in a new era of progressive, left-of-center politics partly because of his ability as a leader (especially his oratorical skills) and partly because I believe America’s politics needs to catch up to its culture.
Such a transformation must be handled with care, but must also be done swiftly because just like anything else too much deliberation can lead to inaction. We have started to go down that course already and this is what I believe will make the general election competitive enough for Obama to retool his method of governance. American conservatism on the other hand has been mostly reactionary with respect to Obama’s presidency and as such is currently soul searching while trying to decide who will be their nominee in 2012. This is evidenced by the fact that every candidate except, quite notably Jon Huntsman, has enjoyed the spotlight and/or front-runner status at some point in the race for the Republican 2012 nomination. This position of the Republican party leaves Obama with the opportunity to convince the American people that he has a plan for the future of the country while Republicans do not seem to be able to determine the future of their own party.
Mitt Romney. Source: Gage Skidmore on flickr.com
In my opinion, American conservatism is quite possibly going through it’s death throes. Not forever, but the ideology as we know it. We see signs of this in the utter lack of support President Obama has received from Republicans in Congress, especially in the House of Representatives. This has led to Republicans simply being the party of “no” rather than offering much in the way of solutions.
Another point to consider is the current race for the Republican nomination in which former Gov. Mitt Romney has won the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire; however, this does not paint an accurate picture of the race so far. Nearly every candidate who has been in the race or still is has enjoyed the media spotlight and their fair share of momentum. It seemed like every week there was a new candidate who would shoot up the polls and be labeled Romney’s competitor since he has long been considered the pseudo-frontrunner. This indecisiveness on behalf of the Republican electorate points to their instability at the moment. The different demographics such as the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, evangelicals and the Tea Partiers are pulling the soul of the party in different directions (albeit with some of these groups trying to unite against Romney, a more moderate conservative). Looking at the Republican race it seems apparent to me that they are not focused on electability as far as the nation. There is so much squabbling being done that actual electability does not seem to high on the priority list. No doubt that there are some in the RNC that are focused or at least concerned with electability, but there is a significant grassroots conservative movement that is demanding ideological purity (and therefore consistency) from the candidates, pushing them further and further to the right in the process.
Huntsman vs. Obama - the Republicans best matchup in 2012. Source: thegatewaypundit.com
If they were really concerned with electability against President Obama, Republicans would coalesce around former Governor and US Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. Huntsman seemed to be a more personable and at ease version of Mitt Romney. True, a major obstacle for him in the primary was his lack of ‘name recognition’ so to speak and that he is running against his former boss, President Obama, a fact that his competitors referenced from time to time. However, in a general election scenario this could have posed a real challenge to Obama because Huntsman could have conceivably made a strong play for the independent section of the electorate that has and will continue to decide presidential elections. Huntsman’s dropping out of the race indicates that many Republicans do not seem to feel the same way that I do or that they simply value other qualities more, qualities that he evidently lacked. What seems to be in the cards is something akin to the 2008 Republican race where a generally moderate Republican will coast to the nomination while a more conservative, evangelical Republican will still compete if only for the ‘principles.’
All in all Obama should take advantage of all of this as well as of the lesson I believe that he will learn from the upcoming general election: we need a more activist, progressive leader in the White House come January 2013.
Having been a student of American politics for the past four years I am sorry to say that I believe this article shows a complete misreading of the situation, both in terms of Obama's track record and the current state of the Republican Party. In terms of Obama's first term can I please refer you to Andrew Sullivan's excellent article at the Daily Beast linked to here, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/… .
Your analysis of American conservatism is utterly misjudged, American conservatism (and I speak primarily here of its more vocal elements) knows exactly what it is (even if it refuses to acknowledge its inherent contradictions) and has no desire to move away from its entrenched positions. To be truly conservative (as the word is coming increasingly to mean in the USA i.e. seriously inflected with religious ideas) is to know that you are right and therefore all other opinions are wrong, knowing this means you do not seek a moderate candidate for he disagrees with you and is therefore wrong, and you certainly don't engage in a dialogue with a Democrat. American conservatism might become increasingly irrelevant thanks to immigration (although if the Republicans began to support minority rights they would find many naturally conservative ethnic groups on their side) but the strength of its belief is unlikely to fade, certainly not based on current patterns.
If Obama does get re-elected, which I sincerely hope he does, him being truly progressive could alienate as many people as Rick Santorum might with all his homophobic and misogynistic legislation. Furthermore whilst you always need 60 votes to avoid filibuster, doing anything which is ideological and not pragmatic is essentially ensuring gridlock. Obama has been a far better President than many have given him credit for and he should continue to strive to reconcile two increasingly divergent political belief systems to each other, as thankless and impossible a task as that may be.
Hey Dan,
First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to write such a well-thought out reply. I sincerely appreciate anyone taking the time to read something that I have written, even if they disagree with me. However, with that having been said, I unfortunately would still have to disagree with many of the assertions in your comment.
I also read that article by Andrew Sullivan and believe that his opinion of Obama's strategic long game is a sentiment that I also share. I did not explicitly say this in the article but I did say the following: "[A]lthough I am an ardent supporter of both his domestic and international policies I do wish that he was a bit more progressive concerning social and economic issues." One of the points that Mr. Sullivan made in his article that I really agree with is the criticism of those on the left regarding a whole range of issues in which Obama has been seen as too tame, but I am not one of those people and I hope that is not the impression that I gave you. My main issue with Obama is that I wish he would have connected with the people in a more direct manner, in a manner much like he did during his campaign. I do recognize that there is a certain amount of stoicism that comes with being the POTUS, but sometimes I feel as if Obama's maneuvers have been too deft, too subtle for the average American.
For example, Obama has cut taxes for the middle class. Now take a voting bloc out of that demographic, let's say working middle class white men for example. This is one of main constituencies of a party that refuses to give Obama credit for a laundry list of things for various reasons. I want him to cut through the bullshit, so to speak, and demonstrate to the people that the economy's current rebound is a direct result of his policies, that health coverage has been extended to the benefit of many post-college students (including myself in about two years) as well as the aforementioned cutting of the taxes (also a wonderful site that lists what Obama has done so far is http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/). I want Obama to not only walk the walk but to also talk the talk. Obama seems to prefer to let the Republican Party implode and divide itself. I would rather him force their hand or show them for what they are which is a bunch of big-business coddlers whose base is ironically made of many that are exploited the most by their policies. That is the number one reason why I am so excited that Obama is bringing attention to income inequality after OWS brought it into political discourse along with the terms 99 and 1% (much to Mitt Romney's chagrin). This is what I meant when I said we need a more progressive leader in the White House in 2013 because I believe Obama can and will be that leader.
Hi Andrew
On your points about Obama, I fully agree with your comments, he has done a great job and he should very much take credit for all that he has done, the professorial tone he has taken during his first term has distanced him from the people, especially those he is doing his utmost to help (including white working class men). His issue, I think, is not that he needs to become more progressive, but to become a better salesman of his achievements. I hope that we see this when he returns to the campaign trail.
The problem with talking about American conservatism in such broad terms is that it encompasses so many different groups, as you rightly observe. The same temperament in the complete belief of the rightness of one's actions does however pervaded all the different versions of conservatism, which only makes internal conflicts worse. If American conservatism is in its death throes, as you suggest, this is not the death of the conservative spirit/mindset, but a mass schism that is occurring in the far too broad tent of American conservatism, to be honest this tent was an unnatural alliance from the start crafted by skilled Republican operatives.
Your comments were far better explained than your article and I find myself agreeing with everything you rebutted. It is often the case that one cannot fully explain what one mean's in an article and thus objections are raised, I've had similarly critical reactions because I didn't have the space to fully articulate my meaning in an article. I look forward to reading your future contributions.
[...] think there is. It says more about the parents and family of the adorable 5 year old girl than American society as a whole. Her recognition of brands is localised, she is only aware of the things that she passes [...]