Archive: July, 2009
During the era of GOP dominance, Democrats dreamed of forging a new majority and taking back the U.S. House of Representatives. They finally turned the dream into reality in the 2006 election, and broadened their majority in 2008. But as the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."
Today they have a House majority at odds with itself. Case in point, health care reform. This signature issue is exposing fundamental rifts in the ranks. Conservative Democratic "blue dogs" are worried that the proposed overhail could be too expensive and government-intrusive, thereby ticking off conservative and moderate voters in swing House districts; moreover, the blue dogs' concerns are being echoed by the two dozen Democratic House freshmen who captured seats last November in districts that normally elect Republicans.
Republican leaders have finally rebuked the paranoid loons in their midst. Kinda, sorta, and ever so timorously.
For lo these many months, the so-called "birthers" have been recycling the lie about how Barack Obama is supposedly an illegitimate president because he supposedly was not born on American soil in Hawaii. I won't bother explaining the birther "side" of this argument, because there is no argument; if you agree with the "birthers," take your tinfoil hat and leave now.
Regarding a few events that transpired in my absence:
The arrest of black Harvard academician Henry Louis Gates Jr. blew up into a national story, thanks largely to President Obama's ill-considered decision to wax loquacious on the matter. Not that you asked, but here's my take: Gates was wrong to mouth off to the cop. Not morally wrong, just tactically wrong. Given his admirable lifelong sensitivity to racial injustice, Gates arguably held the moral high ground when faced with the embarrassment of producing an ID in his own home. But, as Colin Powell rightly noted on CNN yesterday, it's generally not wise to heap verbal abuse on a cop. A cop has a gun and a badge - and, quite often, a very flexible notion of what constitutes "disorderly conduct." As Gates quickly learned, you can get arrested on that charge if you're pushing 60, walking with a cane, and yelling at a cop on your own property, without ever presenting a physical threat. That's indeed what can happen when you diss a cop and challenge his authority. Gates would have been better off cooperating in the moment...and reserving the right to sue later.
Still California dreaming. But back here tomorrow.
In the meantime, here's a Robert Frost poem about the Pacific Ocean, full of late-1930s portents. (Hat tip to my friend Peter Landry.) If you're not into poetry, no need to tarry.
Greetings from vacation. This is the latest Sunday print column, with minor tweakings and additions:
As a political junkie who got hooked in the late ‘60s, I never thought I’d see the day when people would resurrect Lyndon B. Johnson and cite him as a role model.
Back in the day, few thought well of LBJ. He got waste deep in the big muddy, and his sonorous TV demeanor made Ed Sullivan look like Elvis Presley. By the end of his tenure, he was popular only on military bases. His idea of spontaneity was to lift his shirt and show people his surgical scar. On the other hand, when it came time to get Medicare passed back in ‘65, LBJ had a great inside game. He sweet-talked some of the congressmen, and smacked the rest of them upside the head - the carrot, the stick, whatever it took.
That was LBJ at his best. Which is why some esteemed commentators are urging Barack Obama to channel the big fella in the health care debate.
The advice is understandable. Health care reform is not just an issue; it’s a political metaphor that may well determine whether Obama succeeds or fails as president.
His quest to fix the dysfunctional system is grinding through five congressional committees, and it’s still tough to tell who’s in charge. Obama has set broad goals (promote choice, cover the uninsured, control costs), but he has set no specifics on how to achieve those goals. Instead, he said the other night that he is waiting “to see what emerges from these committees” few of which seem to agree on anything. Sometimes it seems as if we’re all hostage to the whims of a Montana senator named Max Baucus, whose entire state has half a million fewer people than the city of Philadelphia.
Hence, the call for Obama to seize his “Johnson moment.” Doris Kearns Goodwin, the LBJ
scholar, wants Obama “to take charge, to draw lines, to pressure, to threaten, to cajole,” to basically herd the cats on the Hill. Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist, has declared, “It’s time for a little LBJ,” with “some serious arm-twisting for good measure.” Newsweek's Eleanor Clift writes that "it's time for Obama to get in touch with his inner LBJ." Dean Baker, who runs a liberal think tank, urges Obama to “get the list of every hardball nasty political ploy” ever used by LBJ.
These people are dreaming.
Granted, one of Obama's top aides reportedly keeps an LBJ quote on her desk (the quote: "There is but one way for a president to deal with the Congress, and that is continually, incessantly, and without interruption.") But Obama and Johnson have few traits in common.
Johnson was a creature of Capitol Hill who had logged 23 years as a lawmaker, including a productive stint as Senate Majority leader. He knew his colleagues well, he knew when to flatter or frighten. Many owed him favors; as president, he often called in his markers. Most importantly, Democratic lawmakers feared him. The current crop of Democrats do not fear Obama. He worked among them in the Senate for only four years and never gained any leverage, LBJ-style.
Lacking LBJ’s inside moves, Obama has gone with his outside game. His grassroots political arm, Organizing for America, has run TV ads targeting red-state Democratic senators – such as Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana – urging them to support sweeping health care reform. These Democrats aren’t exactly quaking in their boots. Conrad says, “It’s fine with me.” Landrieu says, “It really doesn’t matter to me literally one way or the other.”
Maybe LBJ could have knocked their heads together, and ordered them not to worry about deepening the deficit. But I wonder about that. In Obama’s defense, LBJ never had to deal with the kind of fiscal headaches that persist today. When Johnson was twisting arms for his Great Society agenda, the economy was booming, General Motors and other corporate behemoths were alive and well, and banks were banks. His budget issues weren’t nearly as dire as those currently afflicting Obama.
Johnson also had far stronger prevailing winds at his back; he had won a landslide election in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, and he enjoyed two-thirds majorities in both congressional chambers. And while playing his inside game – most commonly known as “the Johnson treatment,” he had a weapon that Obama dare not employ.
That’s a dirty word today; so is its synonym, the “earmark.” But back in LBJ’s heyday, that was a staple of doing business. That’s how he was able to cajole and threaten the lawmakers. When someone was dragging his feet on the Medicare bill, Johnson would promise to put a pork project in the congressman’s district; if someone crossed LBJ, he’d punish the person by canceling some pork.
The historian Robert Dallek tells a great story about the time that Democratic Sen. Frank Church voted against one of Johnson’s bills. The Idaho senator told the president that he had been swayed by Walter Lippmann, an influential columnist who had attacked the bill in print. LBJ’s reply: “Frank, next time you want a dam in Idaho, you call Walter Lippmann and let him put it through.”
People seem to want Obama to act like LBJ, but Obama would be fried in the press if he tried anything like that. Pork is a symptom of the old Washington that Obama has vowed to change – which is fine, but let’s not forget that the tribal rituals of old Washington helped make Johnson the manipulative wheeler dealer that he was.
With respect to the health care reform, perhaps the current congressional sausage-making would be more coherent, and perhaps the public would be more reassured, if Obama was drawing lines in the sand. Perhaps he’s being too passive and relying too much on his outside game. But even LBJ at his best would have a tough time corralling the grassroots liberals, the doctors, the hospitals, the insurers, the lobbyists, the Blue Dogs, the bloggers, the Tweeters, the Republicans who seem more fixated on killing Obama politically than solving the health care mess...all the disputatious paraphernalia of contemporary politics.
The bottom line, often overlooked, is that health care reform is now farther in the pipeline than ever before. Obama deserves some credit for that, even though he lacks LBJ’s inside game. And he knows that his window of opportunity won’t stay open for long, that the “aura and the halo” will inevitably “disappear.”
That was Lyndon Johnson, talking about himself in 1965. For any president, some of the basic political rhythms stay the same.
I have two choices on my ballot today:
1. Write something.
At the risk of making you nod off, let us revisit President Obama's eight (?!)-minute response to the first question that was asked last night at his less than scintillating news conference on health care.
Q: "Congress, as you alluded to, is trying to figure out how to pay for all of this reform. Have you told House and Senate leaders which of their ideas are acceptable to you? If so, are you willing to share that stand of yours with the American people? And if you haven't given that kind of direction to congressional leaders, are you willing to - are you willing to explain why you're not stepping in to get a deal done, since you're the one setting a deadline?"
Republicans typically insist these days that, in order to rebuild their party, they need to reconnect with their core principles. One of those principles is limited government, the notion that states and localities know what's best for their own citizens. It's like conservative icon Barry Goldwater used to say: "I fear Washington and centralized government more than I do Moscow." It's like Ronald Reagan used to say: "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference, or less centralized authority."
And yet, in the Senate, on this very day, the Republicans are touting a gun-loving amendment that makes a mockery of their purported party principle.