Rahm Emanuel
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Since at least one commenter has asked about this specifically, here are a few thoughts about what Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff means. First, it apparently means that many Obama supporters are going to freak out over an important, but not major appointment, or they are going to find themselves very disappointed to discover that Obama is, in fact, a Chicago politician who is interested in pushing his agenda rather than being the national psychotherapist they seem interested in finding. (Just wait until he names Lugar or Hagel to his Cabinet–then we’ll see some more justified panic from the left.) From what I think I know about Emanuel, he is one of the DLC-type “centrist” hawkish Democrats who emerged during the Clinton years, he was a masterful organizer of the DCCC’s campaign in 2006 as he maximized Democratic gains in a favorable year, and he is as aggressive as Obama is calm. Rolling Stone’s 2005 profile gives you some idea of what you can expect from him:
For years, Emanuel was the political brains of Bill Clinton’s White House. Intense to the point of ferocity, he was known for taking on the most daunting tasks — the ones no one else wanted — and pulling off the seemingly impossible, from banning assault weapons to beating back the Republican-led impeachment. “Clinton loved Rahm,” recalls one staffer, “because he knew that if he asked Rahm to do something, he would move Heaven and Earth — not necessarily in that order — to get it done.”
One thing we can take away from this is that Obama’s White House is going to be run competently, and staff, appointments and policy proposals are going to be handled effectively. Obama will still be patient and deliberative before moving, but when he does move having Emanuel as his chief of staff suggests that they will move quickly and aggressively to advance their agenda. Pelosi’s loss is definitely Obama’s gain, and evidently Emanuel concluded that he could be more effective and influential as chief of staff. Of course, it will help Obama enormously to have both a veteran of a previous administration and a former member of the House leadership working at his side. For whatever it’s worth, according to the profile, Emanuel has had a good relationship with the netroots. This is obviously an important progresssive constituency that Obama has not cultivated as much as they would have liked, preferring to create his own parallel grassroots movement, so I would expect the typical Kossack reaction to this selection to be mostly positive.
Jeffrey Goldberg makes the point that this should quash all fears that Obama is not sufficiently ”pro-Israel.” For the same reason, those expecting some significant break with set policy on Israel and Palestine are going to be less than thrilled.
Steve Clemons makes some interesting observations on the potential significance of this for Obama’s foreign policy:
My greatest fear about Emanuel is that he might perpetuate a “false choice” orientation towards Israel in Middle East affairs that he’s going to have to compensate for and get under control. There are no rational alternatives in the Middle East than actually delivering on a Palestinian state and finally putting the Middle East peace business out of business.
Emanuel needs to prove his judiciousness by not preempting serious progress in Israel/Palestine affairs and not encouraging Barack Obama to make the mistake of trying to define his presidency by exploiting some national security conflict. There are downsides to the JFK comparison.
Of course, if Obama is already heading in these directions, Emanuel’s encouragement or lack of it won’t make much difference.
I also noticed this in the Emanuel profile:
His younger brother, Ari, is a Hollywood talent agent who served as the inspiration for Ari Gold, the fast-talking agent played by Jeremy Piven on HBO’s hit series Entourage.
Update: John Boehner seems intent on reminding people why he should not be minority leader:
This is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center [bold mine-DL].
I guess you have to use the spin you have, but this is weak. Of course, one reason for selecting Emanuel is that Obama is probably going to set an agenda that is much more “centrist” and incrementalist and therefore more disappointing to progressives. It is also therefore much more threatening to the Republicans, because they will have a harder time peeling away Blue Dog Democrats on major pieces of legislation.
Filed under: politics
“Emanuel has had a good relationship with the netroots. This is obviously an important progresssive constituency that Obama has not cultivated as much as they would have liked, preferring to create his own parallel grassroots movement, so I would expect the typical Kossack reaction to this selection to be mostly positive.”
It works on a few levels. At least initially, most of the negative reaction to Obama’s establishmentarian instincts is going to come from the left, from an emboldened House Democratic caucus and from an impatient netroots; Emanuel helps with all of these. A good WH Chief of Staff needs to be a mean SOB, so I will give Obama kudo’s for insisting on an efficiently run White House.
First, it apparently means that many Obama supporters are going to freak out over an important, but not major appointment, or they are going to find themselves very disappointed to discover that Obama is, in fact, a Chicago politician who is interested in pushing his agenda rather than being the national psychotherapist they seem interested in finding.
You are making a prediction here. As it stands, this prediction is too vague to be testable. Would you care to rephrase you prediction so that we can actually test it? For example, you could say “I believe that in the next week, there will be at least one front page post about this at daily kos, and more than 50% of such posts will react negatively.” Personally, I don’t think the lefty blogosphere will react the way you expect them to, but your claim is worded such that as long as one person freaks out, you can claim that “many” Obama supporters freaked out.
This is obviously an important progresssive constituency that Obama has not cultivated as much as they would have liked, preferring to create his own parallel grassroots movement, so I would expect the typical Kossack reaction to this selection to be mostly positive.
Can you think of any constituency that thinks Obama has catered to them as much as they would like? Indeed, can you think of any constituency that thinks any politician caters to them as much as they would like? I can’t. Also, I’m not sure how you can compare the ground organization Obama created with the netroots. These are radically different things; comparing them seems as helpful as comparing a flock of seagulls with a tractor trailer. Since these are not comparable things, the fact that Obama didn’t “use” the netroots in this way doesn’t really tell us anything at all about his relations with them.
For the same reason, those expecting some significant break with set policy on Israel and Palestine are going to be less than thrilled.
Do such people exist, and do they have significant numbers or influence for us to care? If so, can you point them out?
Also, is there any reason to believe that this Chief of Staff would work to set policy rather than implement policy set by the boss? Or am I missing something?
I am citing Steve Clemons, who says that “many in the movement left are having a heart attack…” Maybe a heart attack is different than freaking out–I don’t know. I also cite David Corn, who reports that Obama voters who actually believed in the “change the way Washington does business” business are now concerned that this may be a sign that it didn’t mean very much. I include links for a reason.
I should have rephrased the netroots bit. He largely ignored them and sidelined them. They would have liked to be paid more attention, which in this case means more than a little.
“Do such people exist, and do they have significant numbers or influence for us to care? If so, can you point them out?”
Yes, they exist, and in fairly sizeable numbers. They support J Street, make up a nontrivial part of the Democratic Party and think that being “pro-Israel” does not entail maximal hawkishness. Selecting Emanuel is one signal of many Obama has already sent that they are not going to get much of what they want from an Obama administration.
Of course the CoS doesn’t set policy. The significance of Emanuel’s appointment is that it sends a signal about what kinds of policies we can expect from an Obama White House, and I think it tends to confirm that Obama is going to be a far more “centrist” President than a great many of his supporters would like.
One thing we can take away from this is that Obama’s White House is going to be run competently, and staff, appointments and policy proposals are going to be handled effectively. Obama will still be patient and deliberative before moving, but when he does move having Emanuel as his chief of staff suggests that they will move quickly and aggressively to advance their agenda.
The above could be one of the biggest challenges to a GOP comeback. They have not thus far shown any interest in (in fact have derided) competent government. In addition, they will find it quite difficult to attack an Obama administration as aggressively as they did the former Clinton gang. Competence and seriousness without the personal foibles of Pres. Clinton may be an effective way to govern.
That’s quite the broad brush. FWIW, I am from the left and hope he does add both Hagel and Lugar to his cabinet. I don’t know how representative I am of “the left”, but that pair happens to be a very specific part of my own personal flavor of expectation for Obama. I expect him to have a broad ear. I’d like to see him to bring in conservatives and academics. It is any whiff of (Bush-like) insularity that panics me, regardless of ideology. Emanuel serves a purpose, but hopefully is not a data point in a larger trend..
“FWIW, I am from the left and hope he does add both Hagel and Lugar to his cabinet.”
Well, all right, perhaps I should have specified by identifying this as partisan-minded Democratic left. Certainly progressive realists would have few problems with Hagel as Defense Secretary or Lugar at State, but I think there is a strong feeling among many progressives that part of getting out of the “defensive crouch” on foreign policy and national security is to stop ceding these issues as Republican issues, which appointing Hagel and Lugar would do once again.
I am citing Steve Clemons, who says that “many in the movement left are having a heart attack…†Maybe a heart attack is different than freaking out–I don’t know.
If Steve Clemons wrote “many in the left are having a heart attack about Obama’s Stalinist tendencies” I’d question that as well. Bizarre assessments don’t become more credible when Steve Clemons makes them. If there really are “many in the movement left” who really are so freaked out that it is fair to describe them as “having heart attacks”, then you (or Clemons) should be able to point to some sort of evidence. Like, maybe things that these freaking out leftists have written. If the only reason you have to believe that there are many leftists freaking out is that Steve Clemons said so, then just say that. Say “Clemons is all I’ve got evidence wise” and be done with it.
I also cite David Corn, who reports that Obama voters who actually believed in the “change the way Washington does business†business are now concerned that this may be a sign that it didn’t mean very much. I include links for a reason.
No, this is not true at all. Corn says that some voters (old white guys) he spoke with at one rally wanted an Obama presidency to do bipartisan/postpartisan things. Corn then goes off and decides that in order to make these people happy, Obama HAS to appoint someone with better bi/post-partisan cred FAST. Corn’s conclusion here is absurd. He starts with a tiny sample size and then applies a general desire to one very particular circumstance in a way that makes no sense. The vast majority of Obama voters neither know nor care about who his CoS is or what the CoS does. Those desperately seeking bi/post-partisanship don’t care about executive appointments that don’t set policy and if they do, they certainly don’t demand particular appointments as the very first thing the transition team does. This is just nutty. Corn has issues with Emanuel but instead of offering his own opinion, he tries to launder it through a handful of people he spoke with at a rally.
I’m sorry, but your use of Corn’s comments here is non-sensical. I ignored the Corn link because I was trying to be polite, but if you want to focus attention on it, well, OK. Saying that Corn’s rally-goers are concerned about the appointment is dishonest and deceptive: he spoke with them at a rally before anyone was talking about the CoS. He could not have asked them about Emanuel’s appointment and they could not have expressed concern about it unless he had a time machine. Do you see why this statement is deceptive?
Yes, they exist, and in fairly sizeable numbers. They support J Street, make up a nontrivial part of the Democratic Party and think that being “pro-Israel†does not entail maximal hawkishness.
I’m sure that Democrats who support J street and think that being pro-Israel does not entail maximal hawkishness exist. I’m also sure that they broke for Obama over McCain by wide margins. But that doesn’t mean that they expect Obama to run a middle east policy radically different from what he has indicated publicly so far. I mean, his speech in front of AIPAC wasn’t exactly a secret, what with all the press coverage. You haven’t really provided any evidence to suggest that J-Street supporting Dems have unsupported expectations for Obama’s middle east policy.
The significance of Emanuel’s appointment is that it sends a signal about what kinds of policies we can expect from an Obama White House
I don’t understand. You just wrote that the CoS doesn’t set policy. I agree. So how exactly does Emanuel’s appoint signal what kinds of policies Obama will execute? I mean, if it were the case that Emanuel was widely regarded as an inexperienced incompetent who had nothing to recommend him besides his ideological purity on middle east issues, I could see a case, but it seems that you and I agree that Emanuel is well suited for this job given his executive skills and connections.
I think there is a strong feeling among many progressives that part of getting out of the “defensive crouch†on foreign policy and national security is to stop ceding these issues as Republican issues, which appointing Hagel and Lugar would do once again.
I agree that there is a strong feeling, but I don’t think people who feel that way are reflexively against any Republican appointments. They’re just against appointments that reinforce existing frames of Democratic incompetence in the national security arena. As a result, they’d be against appointing Lugar SecDef, but they’d be fine with giving him UN ambassadorship or some sort of loose nukes portfolio at the NSC.
This is a rather different take on the Democratic netroots than mine. Perhaps we’re defining that differently, but the Kossaks at least have always been very much behind Obama. This caused some ruffled feathers earlier in 2008 when a number of pro-Hillary Clinton (Hillary Clinton that is) diarists stormed out, complaining about being marginalized. I’m not very close to the Move On folks (major difference over the Iraq Wars, for example), so I’m not sure how they fell on this, but given Obama’s stance on the Second Iraq War, I’d expect them to be more in his camp. It’s true that the Kossaks aren’t generally associated with what you might call the DLC wing, but they’re also a lot more pragmatic on economic issues than the Right-wing stereotype of them would have you believe. There seems to be genuine tension there over Rahm, and the traditional anti-trade Democrats who are skeptical of a former (Bill) Clinton official are not so pleased with the selection, though they seem to be in the minority. Same with a handful of other commentators there who are variously pro-Palestinian, think that Emanual doesn’t sufficiently represent Change, just think he’s a typical asshole politician, etc.
Do you think the grumbling from the likes of Boehner and the RNC (quoted by Marc Ambinder), though notably not Lindsey Graham, is because they worry that they might actually get rolled by an Obama White House whereas they were hoping to have a repeat of the more supine Carter and 1992-4 Clinton administrations?
The general tone I get from this post and others like it is a general lack of trust in Obama’s personal leadership style. They assume that he is going to be controlled by his advisers in the same way GWB was basically a pliant poppet of the right.
I think the “weak, effete liberal” caricature just runs too deeply to shake this. Rahm’s selection shows that he’s not going to let Pelosi and Reid drive the agenda.
Obama has remade the party from the bottom up. He has controlled the message throughout his campaign with military-style discipline. He surrounds himself with good people who are realists, not ideologues. He is going to run a competent government, not a bunch of keystone cops. Obama is the one in control, and he took decisive control of the party with the nomination, and ran a disciplined, near-flawless campaign. No one on the conservative side really gives that enough credit. They still think of him as a pliant newbie.
I must not be expressing myself very clearly today. I don’t think Obama is going to be run by his advisors, and I don’t think he is a “pliant newbie.” I think he chose Emanuel because he is much more in agreement with Emanuel than not (and because he knows him, trusts him, has the Chicago connection with him, etc.), which confirms my reading of Obama as someone who accommodates himself to the establishment. This is not a claim that he is going to be molded and shaped by others; he decides to govern more as an establishment “centrist” and makes his appointments accordingly. That is why Emanuel matters, to the extent that he matters.
I’m inclined to agree Indya. Like the Biden selection, the more I think about it, the more this pick makes me think that Obama is serious about governance. Contrast this with McCain’s selection of Palin, and I think it pretty well encapsulates choice that was presented to non-ideological voters this election.
Daniel, if Obama selected an appointments secretary that was from the extreme Likudnik wing of the Democratic party, would you say that that selection tells us anything about what kind of middle east policy Obama plans on running? If not, what is it about the CoS job that would change that assessment and cause CoS selection to give us insight into Obama’s preferred policies?
Just a note on the Lugar/Hagel thing: Lugar has ruled out a post in an Obama administration. Hagel is reportedly open to the idea, however.
Daniel, I don’t think you know “the left” very well. Perhaps you are thinking of the left as it was a long time ago, when it was more doctrinaire, pc, and idealistic. The left that I know now, the Kos people, the progressives, etc., are almost all very practical minded people these days who know that necessary compromises have to be made to get things done and begin moving the agenda to the left. They have no interest in undermining Obama by making demands for far leftist positions and agendas. They recognize that they are in this for the long haul, and that means taking one step at a time, not getting ahead of themselves. Most leftists I know are quite happy with Rahm, not because he’s their purest ideological ideal, but because he’s an awfully effective guy, and the best way to advance the left’s cause is to have highly effective people getting things done. David Corn is an old coot from the aging generation of leftists, and he means next to nothing in the progressive movement of Obama’s generation and younger. We all know why they never got anything done, and we have no interest in following in their footsteps. So the idea that there are a few people out there having “heart attacks” is just about irrelevant to the overall progressive movement’s support for Obama. It may be true in some specific cases, but it by no means suggests that progressives are going to be quickly “disillusioned” with Obama, and that he will prove to be a “disappointment generating machine” This is a very bad misreading of the left, and of Obama’s relationship to them.
The left already knew that Obama was a strong Chicago pol, and that’s why they placed their hopes in him in the first place: he’s a realist, not a crazy ideological idealist. He knows how to get things done, how to put a plan in place and follow through. Remember that the same “netroots” originally chose Howard Dean as their candidate, and he too was actually a centrist in most of his policies, aside from opposing the war. The left is very happy to have a responsible center-left President, not George McGovern in blackface (and anything other than George Bush-style Republicanism is hugely gratifying). The intention is to advance things further to the left than the Clinton administration, but not radically so. The left has learned something the right once had – patience. Some will of course like things to move faster than Obama will allow, but we’ve come to understand that slow and steady wins the race.
Well, if Steve Clemons and David Corn aren’t at all representative of the modern left, I will confess that I don’t entirely understand what concerns them. Perhaps I am going astray here because I think Clemons and Corn are fairly sensible representatives of the left, so maybe I take their views more seriously than I should. If Emanuel and whatever he represents don’t bother progressives and Obama supporters, fine by me.
I am pretty sure that I have never claimed that the netroots, especially the Kossacks, were interested in anything other than Democratic success. Pragmatism has been the Kossacks’ byword since the beginning.
Also, regarding the Israeli matter, I think Rahm’s selection will actually have the opposite effect than his being suggested, of allowing Obama to take a harder line with Israel because Rahm has such strong credentials there that he offers Obama some protection. He knows where the bs is, and where the real compromises can be made. So I think this is actually a good sign for any future Arab-Israeli negotiations.
I also cite David Corn, who reports that Obama voters who actually believed in the “change the way Washington does business†business are now concerned that this may be a sign that it didn’t mean very much.
Daniel, I’m still trying to figure out if you think the above sentence is truthful. I’ve explained why it is not only wrong but how it cannot possibly be correct.
I misstated what Corn reported. He said:
“There was a pattern in the replies: the older white guys all said they wanted Obama to move beyond partisan confrontations and remake the political culture of Washington. That is, they really were moved by his campaign trail vow to bring a new kind of politics to the nation’s capital. So Obama ought to take steps that meet that rhetoric darn fast.
Appointing Emanuel obviously doesn’t fall into such a category.”
So that was Corn’s assessment of how these voters would probably receive the news that he had appointed Emanuel, because appointing Emanuel seems to contradict what they want from Obama. That assessment made sense to me. I should not have said that these voters *were* reacting to this appointment, but that they would probably react to it unfavorably. This is Corn’s guess, but it seems to me to be an informed guess. However, I am being told that Corn is irrelevant, so apparently it doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t say.
I should not have said that these voters *were* reacting to this appointment, but that they would probably react to it unfavorably.
There is simply no reason to believe that these voters would react to it unfavorably. Almost no one has any idea who Emanuel is, let alone what making him CoS might mean for Obama’s bipartisan agenda. Furthermore, even if these voters do think Emanuel is too hyper-partisan, there is simply no reason to believe that the CoS dictates policy to a degree where Emauel’s hyper-partisaness matters. Finally, even if lots of Obama’s supporters are interested in bipartisan stuff, it does not follow that all Obama’s decisions must be bipartisan or even that all of his early decisions must be bipartisan. That notion is just absurd, and you’re more than smart enough to understand that even if Corn isn’t.
However, I am being told that Corn is irrelevant, so apparently it doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t say.
Huh? I certainly never told you that. What I told you is that your explanation of what Corn said was absurd because it violated the laws of physics. I also told you that Corn is trying to launder his opinions of Emanuel through a bunch of rally goers that never said anything about Emanuel and likely don’t know anything about him.
Conrad makes an excellent point about the pragmatism of the left today in America, and here’s an example: a day or two before the election, Kos went out of his way to mock those on “his” side who claimed that the election in 2004 was stolen in Ohio or Florida.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote, and probably should have been put in the White House, but in 2004, Kerry did not. Kos said so, unambiguously, and mocked those who continued to push some form of conspiracy theory.
The Left today is vastly different than “the movement” of the 1960’s. Those on the right who can’t wake up to that fact may find themselves behind the curve of the electorate.
Fine, Emanuel doesn’t matter at all. He’ll only be one of the most important advisors to the President, but it’s all unimportant. Appointments mean nothing, and Obama’s voters don’t expect him to live up to his promises, because they pay no attention to anything that he does. Message received.
I realize that I had not met truly absolute cynics until I started talking with Obama supporters.
Fine, Emanuel doesn’t matter at all. He’ll only be one of the most important advisors to the President, but it’s all unimportant. Appointments mean nothing
Um, I don’t know why you’re saying this since I never said anything like that and I certainly don’t believe that.
Daniel, I’ve asked you twice and now I’m asking you a third time: why exactly do you think Emanuel will shape policy from his position as CoS. Do you think the position of CoS is one of policy development? I mean, if Emanuel had been appointed to a policy development job, I’d agree with you that his appointment told us something about what policies Obama wanted to pursue. But my understanding of the CoS job is that is largely policy agnostic and is focused on implementing the boss’s chosen policies rather than shaping them. If you think otherwise, I’d love to hear your explanation, but I’ve asked three times now and have yet to get a serious answer. I’m especially confused since you yourself said “Of course the CoS doesn’t set policy.”
Obama’s voters don’t expect him to live up to his promises, because they pay no attention to anything that he does.
Oh, I think they do expect him to live up to his promises. I disagree with you because I think they’re far more concerned about what policies Obama implements (and how skilfully he implements them) than about the ideological traits of people he appoints to executive jobs that don’t set policy.
I realize that I had not met truly absolute cynics until I started talking with Obama supporters.
I thought cynacism involved more than simply asking to see evidence for unusual claims.
Yes, Corn is a has-been. Clemons is not, but I think his concerns about Rahm’s influence on Israel issues is misplaced, and in any case does not represent some kind of widespread fear about the palestinians getting short-shrifted. The modern left, unlike the older generations, doesn’t have a lot of commitment to the palestinian cause.
Now, guys like Clemons will of course always be pushing for Obama to be more leftist than he actually is. His recent article criticizing in advance the idea of appointing Summers to Treasury is part of that push (I happen to love Summers, so I’m not too sympathetic). And that sort of pushing is simply to be expected. The idea of Obama being a “third Clinton term” is hardly something that most Democrats, or the country as a whole, would find to be a bad thing, considering the prosperity ushered in during that time. Gee, creating a big boom, ending the deficit, creating a budget surplus, etc, are not exactly things we want to avoid. But then again, admittedly there are indeed some leftists out there who would remain unsatisfied, and Clemons may be one of them. It’s not exactly going to keep most of us up late at night trying to satisfy every last socialist out there.
“Fine, Emanuel doesn’t matter at all. He’ll only be one of the most important advisors to the President, but it’s all unimportant. Appointments mean nothing, and Obama’s voters don’t expect him to live up to his promises, because they pay no attention to anything that he does. Message received.”
Okay, Daniel, I understand you’re in deep depression ever since Baldwin failed to garner enough electoral votes on Mars to win, so I’ll let this pass. Of course Emanuel matters. The question is, does appointing him represent a betrayal of his pledge to change the tone in Washington? No, it doesn’t. CoS is an insider position, it doesn’t “set the tone” in Washington. And Rahm is not some hugely polarizing ideological figure in any case. His ideology is very centrist, if anything. He’s simply a tough character who gets things done. He doesn’t play the divides and use ideological ammunition to polarize things. He just plays strong politics to get things accomplished, which is quite a different thing.
You seem to have the false impression that Obama has somehow pledged to be an ineffectual elitist staring at rainbos who is more concerned about making sure everyone plays nice than he is in making sure something gets accomplished. Not so. He just doesn’t want to perpetuate ideological divides that stop things from getting accomplished. The whole point is “getting things accomplished”, so he wants to eliminate the kind of fighting that prevents that, and is willing to put up with the ordinary politics of opposing interests and rough and tumble that actually does end up accomplishing things. You seem to equate Obama’s “change the tone” with some sort of paradaisical utopia because it suits your interests, and allows you to condemn him every time he actually acknowledges the ordinary human nature of our politics. We will leave it to you conservatives to engage in useless ideological infighting and partisan put-downs that gets you further and further away from the real world of politics and power where stuff gets done.
[...] Larison: [...]
Turbulence, to be fair, even though CoS is not a specifically policy-shaping job, it’s certainly true that being there means that Rahm is going to have some influence on which policies get adopted, at least from a tactical standpoint. Rahm is not exactly the kind of guy who respects boundaries, and he will certainly try to use his position to influence what policies get implemented and when. However, his take on those things is not really ideological or even partisan. He’s more practical minded, like Obama himself. What is likely to be different in his approach from the Clinton years is that Clinton basically played small ball, while Obama wants to shoot for the big seats. That’s what Rahm would like to do anyway, so I don’t think there’s going to be much conflict on the policy agenda, it’s just a matter of sizing up the town and figuring out how best to get there. It’s Axelrod who’s going to be the primary domestic policy advisor. So if you compare the situation to Obama’s campaign, Rahm is basically replacing Ploufe, who was the guy who executed the strategies that Axelrod and Obama created. Ploufe certainly had some influence in the shaping of those strategies, but he was basically the man of action and organization. Rahm will do that kind of work. It will be interesting to see if Ploufe himself will take some kind of role in the administration, perhaps overseeing the grassroots network that was built up during the campaign, which Obama has repeatedly said he wants to take advantage of in governing and organizing support. So ploufe and Emanuel may work together, Ploufe directing the grassroots efforts, Emanual directing the insider efforts to get stuff done. It could be a very powerful combination.
It’s pretty exciting. I’m actually pretty pleased with Rahm’s selection, and your point, conrad, about Plouffe is probably correct. Rahm is the muscle to deal with the legislators and Plouffe manages the movement – Plouffe is probably the guy behind change.gov. I think Rahm is there more to keep the Democratic factions in line and to hammer out the straightest way forward to passable legislation.
One thing that struck me about the Emanuel pick today is simply this:
Now, when Joe Lieberman gets bent 90 degrees backward and has his head shoved up his tailpipe…no one can raise charges of anti-Semitism.
Well played indeed.
conradg and turbulence hardly speak for the contingent of awe-struck progs. who give every public indication that they’ve fallen for the Obama hype. Is anyone really arguing that a whole lot of liberals won’t eventually be disappointed with Obama? Well, that can only happen if their expectations of him were inaccurate i.e. too high. Why would that be? Maybe due to the rhetoric, the tone of which creates the impression that Obama won’t be a conventional pol.–a sell-job that the Emmanuel pick seems to contradict, which is the basis of Daniel’s criticism, if I’m reading him correctly.
Other than that, conradg is right to say that there are several political reasons why this is a smart choice for the Obama administration, having to do with the nitty-gritty of Washington. However, I disagree with him that the so called incremental approach will be more effective than the shock doctrine. Why are certain hot button issues so resistant to compromise by either side? Because those issues are zero-sum propositions and anything other than a stalemate creates momentum in one direction down a slippery slope to the logical end of one side or another, a likelihood that horrifies the opposite side.
Conradg, you will not encounter decreased resistance to a progressive agenda persued incrementally, because your opposition is horrified by your ULTIMATE goals, and the last thing they want to do is validate your positions by voluntarily ceding ground. It doesn’t help that progressivism doesn’t appear to draw any reliable line in the sand for how much statism is appropriate is a self-proclaimed free society. The general impression is that progressivism (discounting the personal preferences of individual progressives) will always find something new that the state should be doing, or subsidizing, or prohibiting and will never be satisfied until the last vestiges of free will are quashed and “everything not mandatory is forbidden, everything not forbidden is mandatory”. I’d ask you to disabuse me of this fear, but nothing you can say would do it, because everybody knows it’s largely true given the diversity of interest groups that would like to capture state power for their own devices under the progressive mantle. That said, I wish the resistance to democratic socialism was one based on the nobility of classical liberal principle, instead of the mercantilist interests of big business.
Speaking of politics though, If you have the capacity to bring overwhelming political pressure to bear on your opponents and crush their objections, why settle for small changes when you can get big ones, provided you’re confident that they will lead to a sustainable improvement in circumstances, reducing the chances of a huge backlash that nullifies all your gains? Don’t you think Obama would rather be the second coming of FDR than a Clinton redux, or heaven forbid, Carter 2.0?
JB,
Liberal disappointment presumes liberals have huge expectations, which they do not. They certainly love Obama, but they don’t really expect utopia to break out. On a practical level, they are a cheap date, as long as a little romance is offered.
As for Obama’s aims, he does aim big, but not the kind of big you are thinking, some sort of Scandinavian style social-democracy. He simply wants to get genuine health care, energy, economic stimulus, etc. passed. That’s pretty big, relatively speaking. On the other hand, you are right that every kind of progressive movement heads in the direction of a wider safety net for the welfare state, and will be opposed by most conservatives. But you ignore the fact that even most Republicans actually want a wider safety net, as long as it isn’t a drag on the economy. That’s why Bush spent so much money, and created huge new entitlements (for the enrichment of drug companies, of course). The gradual approach that doesn’t backrupt the country or stall economic growth is what the electorate wants, and they want Democrats to lead the way, for the most part, because they actually want to do this, and are dedicated to doing it in a responsible way. That of course is the hitch. If Democrats “progress” towards these goals irresponsibly, as they have been wont to do in the past, the electorate will vote in Republicans, or split power. But the general thrust of history is heading in one direction only, and that’s not a “conservative” direction in the sense that you want.
As for your fears of totalitarianism, this sort of thing could turn out many different ways, and not all of them are purely good or bad. Measuring “freedom” is not an easy thing to do. People in Denmark are probably a lot “freer” than in much of the U.S., if freedom means happiness. If it means being at the mercy of large corporations and their needs, and the beliefs of religious fundamentalists, which is what “freedom” means to the GOP, then perhaps freedom-loving people everwhere will vote Republican.
As for the nobility of the classical liberal principle, it’s only real salvation in the real world, I think, is progressive politics, which, once it takes care of the basic needs of the people, can allow for a much greater deal of personal freedom than any other system. This depends, of course, on continuing innovation and technological efficiency in the economy, which is the only thing which can make such a progressive state possible without crushing the very economic engine which drives it. Which is why, I think, the U.S. will get there eventually, and maybe even create a better progressive society than that found in Europe, because we have the greater capacity for economic innovation, investment, and technological invention. Obama’s long-term goal, I think, is in that direction, but he sees the need to use government in the short term to stimulate scientific and technological development, such as in energy tech, to drive us in the direction which will make a greater safety net possible. In the meantime, his safety net measures will be more modest than he would ultimately like. It won’t all happen in his two terms. It will take a few more decades, at least. But the rate of technological growth is going to continue to accelerate, and produce even more wealth than we currently have, and that will bring about a stronger social state while leaving innovation in place. A large safety net government does not have to become a totalitarian state as you fear, any more than having a large electric utility means that what you do with your power is constricted by that utility. Quite the opposite. A large safety net state can become almost invisible in its efficiencies because it simply supplies the basics that we all need at an affordable price. If done right.
Re: “according to the profile, Emanuel has had a good relationship with the netroots.”
The liberal netroots does not, in general, like Rahm.
The political netroots were largely forged in the fires of the Dean campaign, and endorsed a “50-state strategy” that Obama ultimately pursued with success. Rahm Emmanuel opposed that strategy, and the netroots has never wholly forgiven him. He’s also seen as a Clinonite– which is to say a tepid incrementalist. His selection sent the left-net (dkos in particular) into some minor spasms of concern.
However, the netroots adores Obama, and is on an absolute high this week, so I think the verdict appears to be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Conradg,
“If done right”…If the aggregate benefits of welfarism for prosperity, innovation and freedom were so evident, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You make fair points, resting on a weak assumption that discounts the main premise of conservative/libertarian fears of centralized economic control. The U.S. is not Sweden. We do not have a homogeneous culture that shares basic common values from which a consensus on the role the state plays in our lives can be extrapolated from the wishes of a vast majority. Our government is not a blurred extension of collective society. In fact, contrary to this whole cheesy national “unity” trip that’s currently in vogue, America is essentially multiple countries with wildly divergent value sets, constantly fighting over a single federal power apparatus.
This institution (yes the American State is an institution) has the ability to grant wishes unattainable and illegal if pursued privately, as well as fatally threaten certain cherished traditions and ways of life. No wonder we don’t seem to make “progress”, except through the practice of cold civil war in which political winners are determined by the legal/legislative conquest of one worldview over another.
I’m all for social experimentation…by volition. This allows new things to be attempted with less barriers to initiative, encourages the corrective function of trial and error, and steers people into making serious, grounded choices, if they are held personally accountable for their decisions, and are are committing various resources at a personal tradeoff proportional to the benefit they expect to derive from the expenditure. You are very cavalier in betting the collective farm on the belief that an expanded state, without the prerequisite fiscal and legal restraints we’d both support, will not be of a more unaccountable, authoritarian bent that will ultimately kill the goose that lays the eggs as we both fear; others of us are not willing to take that risk, which is the crux of our disagreement.
If “marketâ€, democratic socialism came as advertised, who could credibly oppose it? Ludwig V. Mises and others took up the task of dismantling the sales pitch from a strictly technical standpoint over 75 years ago. You can disagree with their conclusions but while it’s true that through the coercive and often fraudulent powers of taxation and monetarism, the state can undertake certain economic functions that the private sector seemingly cannot, it is only because it has the special (and in my view abhorrent) ability to forcibly socialize the risk/cost of its operating expenditures. (Yes, this applies to our current state capitalism as well and why it’s so dysfunctional). Forced patronage is a business model that one might assume couldn’t possibly fail, and yet the state and its privileged private adjuncts manage to foul it up time and again…
Even supposedly public goods which the economics profession argues cannot be provided sufficient to meet demand by private industry, are supplied in ways that are grossly suboptimal to what could be possible if the monopolizing state were subject to pressures resembling a marketplace.
Statists of all parties have always maintained that their own particular twist on central planning would work beautifully if “done rightâ€, if the “right people†were in power. Aside from being unviable on its own terms, according to the Austrians, this essential criteria of “right†stuff is rarely met, which unravels the models by which planners project sustainable success. After all this time and experience, there is still no accounting for this variable factor in the formulation of their intricate policies, as doing so would illustrate the vulnerability of the premise insofar as it rests on the (low) probability of the prerequisite criteria (“done rightâ€, “right peopleâ€) being satisfied, and maintained, which the planners cannot anticipate.
In any other context, any venture with such a glaring flaw would be dismissed as unviable—a bad investment, considering the risk involved. Statist planners bypass this natural hurdle by employing the power of government to launch the program first, locking it in, then proceeding to distribute the risk, and cost on unwilling “investors†thereafter. The tail wags the dog. This is the exact opposite of how successful private commerce operates, and yet we wonder why, despite all its unfair and immoral advantages, this dictatorial approach has a long track-record of failure. Furthermore, regardless of its success or failure on its own terms, in all cases encroachment of the state increasingly diminishes personal liberty; over time, an incalculable cost, with terrible consequences.
At any given time, the American state is not an extension of a monolithic “society†which is somehow organically accountable to the people, as is more the case in the homogenous, insular cultures like Japan or the Nordic nations, but rather a thuggish enterprise that validates the imposition of its agents’ agenda on a largely unwilling populace, like some self-assured violator convinced “she was asking for it”. The role of predator and victim interchanges periodically in the perverse process we venerate as our modern political democratic discourse.
Nevertheless, I wish Obama the best of luck, as I’m not really concerned that his policies will be successful to the extent that he creates a real ideological realignment ex. the New Deal. I’d actually prefer a Scandinavian-style welfare state to the kelptocratic plutocracy we suffer under presently, and I’d join you in the advocacy of such a system if I really believed that the only other alternative was the current corrupt mess. But I don’t believe that.
The U.S. will not have the sustainable good governance you seek as long as we remain this intractably divided country, truly, about as divided a western nation can be without crossing a threshold of civil unrest, with all sides and disparate interests trying to seize the reins of power in a perpetual struggle to plunder each other, under the rationale made possible only by the overpowered state, that one must “conquer or be conquered†to progress in America.
I agree that the US is a hetergenous population of competing interests rather than a monoculture such as in scandinavian nations, which accounts for our slower movement along the lines of social-democratic development. However, we are indeed moving in that direction, and have been ever since FDR. Opposition to this movement has clearly existed, predominantly in what are called “conservative” quarters, but this opposition has only slowed the movement, not reversed it, and in many instances, such as the administrations of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, have even expanded it. Yes, Reagan, who of course quadrupled the deficit and never carried through on his campaign promises to pursue a policy “small government”.
The problem here is that whatever party gains control of the government wants to expand its role in their own favorite directions, rather than shrink it. No one actually rejects an expanded role for government power, they simply like to spout such ideas because it sounds good. And the electorate doesn’t want the government to shrink either, they just want it to function more efficiently and less intrusively. Your characterization of the government as a “thug” is certainly true in some instances, but it is not the general American experience of their own government. We are not some third-world dictatorship, we are still a civil society. If we were, the elections would reflect that divide. But it does not, and those who see our government that way are confined to tiny third parties with no following within the mainstream. Instead, we see a continuing demand for more and better government, run by smarter and more capable people. That’s essentially the mandate Obama has been given, and it’s essentially the same mandate that’s been given over and over again since FDR. It isn’t going to be change in the forseeable future.
As you say, the issue is one of success and failure. The country has seen plenty of both, but people still have considerable faith in the ability of a well-run government to provide basic, essential services. Social security, for example, is highly efficient and enjoys tremendous popular support.
Now, the issue that I think is pertinent to paleo-conservatism is how to preserve local communities and cultures in the face of this large government centralization of power. I think that is the challenge that has to be met, because I don’t see any practical way of reversing that centralization of political power. However, I also don’t see why the centralization of political power has to result in totalitarianism. I use the example of the local power utilities, which enjoy near-complete authority over a centralized grid. They do not use this power, however, to actually control people’s lives, but are prevented from extending that power by specific regulations which reduce their role to a purely practical one. In the same way, it’s certainly possible for government to simply provide the kinds of basic services and support which are something like a “public utility” that cannot use that power in an authoritarian, abusive fashion. It requires an active citizenry that demands limitations on the abuse of power, without actually destroying the “grid” that makes efficient services, like an electricity grid, available to everyone at reasonable cost (taxes). That requires a political solution that emerges from the process of creating such a state, with of course many mistakes along the way, as we have already seen. But if the will of enough people is strong enough, there is no theoretical barrier to the creation of a human social-welfare government that takes a hands off approach to basic cultural values, the same way my electiric company can’t tell me what I can use the electricity it sells me for. Some people will always choose to live “off the grid” to some degree, but in most cases that isn’t necessary in order to be free of the kinds of government impositions which you seem to fear.
Furthermore, the greater threat to small scale cultures is not the federal government, but large scale capitalism itself, which ruthlessly destroys everything in its path and converts it into forms of social order that benefit its own appetites, rather than the human needs of those who are at its mercy. The best check on that power is government oversight, in the form of regulators who act like refs in a sporting competition, who make sure that everyone plays by the rules, rather than being free to abuse their power without restraint. It is “conservatives” who have been the champions of the very market forces which have all but destroyed any hope of keeping alive the intimate human cultures which paleocons seem to value. If there is to be any hope for such cultures, it is by pitting the two against one another.