Pure partisanship

I find it hard to believe that, in this day and age, anyone is really making an issue of Obama's purported ability to transcend partisanship. Whether it's Paul Krugman lamenting that he just doesn't have the steely will to really stick it to the right, or fawning fans gushing that Barack's transcendant appeal will finally unite us all into one big pulsating mass of Obamamaniacs, I have the same reaction: didn't I already graduate from high school? More to the point, didn't they?

Neoadolescence is the only explanation I can devise for the fact that none of these Very Serious People seem to recall that eight years ago, George Bush was making this claim at least equally convincingly. And am I really the only one who remembers that every single campaign of my adult life has sported lavish feature stories on the crossover appeal of the media's favorite candidate? Forget 1992--in 2004 I could have papered a largish condo with all the stories those angry Republicans who were crossing party lines for the first time in order to cast their lot for Kerry.

It is easy transcend partisanship when you are not, yourself, a polarizing figure. As the anodyne governor of a conservative state, George Bush had little difficulty reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats whose politics would put them on the rightish side of the Republican party in New York. Similarly, a first term Senator whose party holds an uneasy majority seldom has either the need, nor the opportunity, to become the standard-bearer for partisan purity.

And though you really wouldn't know it from the gushing political columns, it is not exactly a stunning surprise to find Democrats voting Republican, or Republicans voting Democrat. We live in a dynamic world. People change. They grow. Liberals get mugged, and conservatives get sacked. None of this means that we've suddenly got A New Sort of Candidate. Barack Obama is a lovely chap, but five gets you ten that in a couple of years conservatives will be complaining about him just as bitterly as they did about Clinton.

Comments

It is amazing how much appetite even Ivy-educated admirers of Obama have for his pabulum, however expertly he serves it. Obama is a great orator, and has a talent for looking contemplative in repose, his policy prescriptions -- the extent that he has been explicit about them -- are those of a partisan liberal Democrat.

Posted by Fred | January 7, 2008 4:01 PM

I bet in a couple of years conservatives will allege that Obama went to a 'madrassa', is a Muslim or has Muslim sympathies. Some may even go as far to ask him, "How do I know you are on our side?"

My point is, unless the future President says he will crush the islamofascistnazis or solve the equation (Gitmo) x 2 = y, the far right will smear him/her.

Posted by Rickm | January 7, 2008 4:31 PM

I don't know whether people would consider me a "conservative," but I detest the Clintons because they're corrupt. And they lie all the time. As David Geffen, a former Clinton supporter observed,

"They do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Obama has a lot of very bad ideas, but I doubt very much that he would elicit quite the disdain that the Clintons have, with their Buddhist Temples, their missing files, their travel office scandals, etc...

Posted by rwe | January 7, 2008 4:53 PM

in a couple of years conservatives will be complaining about him just as bitterly

You're behind the curve! The right wing blogosphere is already all abuzz, trying to inoculate their less stalwart Republican fellow travelers against the temptation that is Obama.
Anyway, I'm not sure whether you're claiming that Obama's ability to cross party lines is entirely a fake construction of the media, but polling in New Hampshire at least makes it look real. Obama and McCain are the only two candidates that have a majority positive rating from voters of the opposing party.

Posted by bbartlog | January 7, 2008 5:11 PM

Based on how he governed, both in Texas and even before 9/11, Bush was very plausible as a bipartisan sort of guy. (I could list all the stuff he did that moved in the Democrats' direction, but why bother, no one believes it anymore.)

Obama, based on his his statements and his record, is not plausibly bipartisan. It doesn't matter though. He safely runs as the candidate of "change" (whatever that means) and his charm offensive allows people to invest in him whatever they want.

Posted by Larry | January 7, 2008 5:15 PM

According to Roger Ailes, Bill Cunningham "who is reportedly broadcast on 300 stations, refer[ed] to Senator Obama as Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama. Three times. In less than two minutes. In connection with a reference to Islamic terrorism."

They already started.

Posted by Rickm | January 7, 2008 5:15 PM

"Based on how he governed, both in Texas and even before 9/11, Bush was very plausible as a bipartisan sort of guy."

Not just based on that, but based on some of his signature initiatives as president. For example, his No Child Left Behind Act was a product of his collaboration with Ted Kennedy. Bush's failed 'comprehensive' immigration reform, also had Kennedy's fingerprints on it (as well as McCain's). Bush also embraced Democrat Bob Pozen's concept of progressive indexing as part of his DOA Social Security reform proposal, and Bush of course bucked the right wing of his party to add the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the Johnson Administration, Medicare Part D.

Bush also sought and received bipartisan Congressional backing for the wars he launched in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"According to Roger Ailes, Bill Cunningham "who is reportedly broadcast on 300 stations, refer[ed] to Senator Obama as Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama."

I know "Hussein" is Obama's middle name (Ann Coulter has called him "B. Hussein Obama" for months, btw), but is "Mohammed" really part of his name?

If I had to guess, I'd bet Obama is an agnostic or largely secular in outlook, though smart and ambitious enough to realize that he would need a certain level of Christian religiosity to run for president. I don't think accusations of him being a Muslim are going to be a problem though. Two other issues may come up instead. From his middle name, it seems that Obama was raised a Muslim early on ("Hussein" is as Muslim a name as "Christopher" is Christian). Since Obama is now a Christian, some have suggested that hardcore Muslims may view him negatively as an apostate. The other issue is more likely to come up: Obama's church is run by a somewhat militant black separatist. Probably not too long until the Clinton campaign starts bringing this up.

Posted by Fred | January 7, 2008 5:46 PM

With bipartisanship, the devil is in the details.
I'd like Mr. Obama to give one example - on a serious issue - of how he would be willing to compromise his liberal principles with the GOP conservatives? A little privatization of social security? A little roll back of the DOE? A high ceiling on the estate tax? I'm tired of one-way bipartisanship that ends up surrendering only a little less liberty than the original proposal.

Posted by creech | January 7, 2008 5:49 PM

The reason seems simple enough to me:

Many people pick political (or religious) sides not because they believe their ideas will benefit the country (or faith) but they believe that by assuming such beliefs, they will establish themselves as morally superior to those who do not hold them.

Call it moral consumerism.

It's the same thing that happens when a hipster's favorite obscure band gets popular - the band can no longer be used as a symbol of status, and thus the band gets dropped by the teenager. The actual musical merit of the band is irrelevant, just as the actual political ideas of a particular party are irrelevant.

Many people seem to be attracted to left-wing politics as a way to stick it to the middle class and middle-America. When a man appeals to the middle class, all those people disaffected people will reject him.

One of my favorite examples of this was how pre-9/11, people in my university were saying that Evil George Bush was being Evil because he was giving food aid to those Evil, Women-Oppressing Afghanis (no joke). There was a whole lot of flyer-rewriting after 9/11, when Evil George Bush was being Evil by overthrowing those Noble, Indigenous Afghans.

Even more disturbing, note the recent feminist *support* of female genital mutilation, which has come about because now that mainstream America is against that barbaric practice, the alterna-people must be for it.

One can see similar flip-flops on Israel, fat, China, etc. Anything the middle class likes, the alterna-people must hate, regardless of how odious the idea or how logically contradictory the set of ideas.

Politics, just like the Robber's Cave Experiment, is about selecting *people* you like. The "common ideas" are merely symbols, with as much deep meaning as team colors for a university football program.

I fully admit I suffer from this myself. I am quite forgiving of the sins of the middle class, and not nearly as forgiving of these sins when displayed by the upper and lower classes.

Posted by secret asian man | January 7, 2008 5:52 PM

Creech,

If his recent proposal on the cap gains tax is any indication (Obama wants to raise it to 28% - the rate it was before Clinton cut it to 20%), then I wouldn't expect much bipartisanship from Obama. This is probably just one of a number of examples where his policies would be to the left of Clinton's. I think what Obama is really pushing is "post-partisanship" which, as far as I can tell, means: "I'm going to use lofty rhetoric about healing and hope and act respectful of other points of view during my campaign, but if I'm elected, I'm going to pursue traditional liberal Democratic policies".

Posted by Fred | January 7, 2008 5:54 PM

Fred wrote: "From his middle name, it seems that Obama was raised a Muslim early on"

Now you are doing it. Obama was not raised a Muslim.

Of course, with the longstanding antipathy to Arabs and Muslims in the West, the far right has every interest to insinuate that Obama was or is a Muslim and thus has sympathies to Al Qaeda.

Posted by Rickm | January 7, 2008 6:01 PM

Krugman has been trying to burnish his appeal for high appointive office in a Clinton administration for years. His attacks on Obama are a part of his campaign. Now if there is no new Clinton administration, it's all for naught. Like Larry Tribe's campaign to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Some you win, some you lose.

Posted by dave.s. | January 7, 2008 6:05 PM

You tell him Miss McCardle. You tell him Megan. Tell that excitable neighbour three doors down to your left to tamp down his Obamania just a touch.

Posted by Ian Veitch | January 7, 2008 6:07 PM

He's not running as Barack Hussein Obama, he's running as Barack Not Clinton. Very wise. She is remarkable for being very shopsoiled without actually being in the least experienced. He has an excellent voice and no little charm, whereas she snarls and whines and is utterly charmless. Good luck to him. Only about 20% of your Presidents turn out to be much good, and I haven't the least idea whether he'll be one of them, but after Slick Willie and W, it shouldn't be too hard to be an improvement. One question I'd ask myself if I had a vote: she is evidently no judge of character. But is he - will he make good appointments?

Posted by dearieme | January 7, 2008 6:28 PM

Anybody remember last time we elected a youthful, low-experience Senator to the White House on a theme of change? Specifically, how he almost started a nuclear war because he was unwilling to handle a problem through quiet negotiation?

I've heard Obama called Kennedyesque, and I still don't understand why that isn't considered a grave warning that we shouldn't elect him. Especially after his talking about invading Pakistan. Are we really going to make the same mistake twice?

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | January 7, 2008 6:34 PM

"Of course, with the longstanding antipathy to Arabs and Muslims in the West, the far right has every interest to insinuate that Obama was or is a Muslim and thus has sympathies to Al Qaeda."-rickm

Rickm, I don't think Obama sympathizes with Al Quaeda and I don't think anyone else on the right does either, save a few fringe lunatics.

Obama seems to me like a nice guy. I'm sure he wants the best for the country. In fact, I'm rooting for him, at present, because he stands between Mrs. Clinton and the White House.

I want McCain. I could live with Obama. And I can't stand Hillary (again because she's thorughly corrupt).

Posted by rwe | January 7, 2008 7:11 PM

I don't think Obama sympathizes with Al Quaeda and I don't think anyone else on the right does either, save a few fringe lunatics.

And that will stop it from being said or people claiming it as an excuse to hate the guy with the D after his name?

Posted by MNPundit | January 7, 2008 7:18 PM

rwe,

"again because she's thoroughly corrupt."

while there are two i's in Hilliary, there's "Keating 5" in McCain..

2X standard rwe?

Posted by MEH | January 7, 2008 7:23 PM

Obama is a big government nanny stater. He has voted a consistently liberal Democrat line. For example, on gun control, he is as F rated as they come.

Why wait for several years to complain about a statist? We can do it right now.

Posted by Kevin P. | January 7, 2008 7:55 PM

Re: Creech
Since when is bipartisanship have to involve compromising on your principles? Old school thinking here, imho. The point is to find common interests and work from there. This man has been schooled on coalition building. Furthermore, as a constitutional lawyer, I think he's kinda attached to liberties and the bill of rights.

Posted by Beth in VA | January 7, 2008 10:33 PM

"...while there are two i's in Hilliary, there's "Keating 5" in McCain."

Mark, I agree that McCain didn't cover himself with glory in the Lincoln Savings business. But since then he has been better than most on spending and pork.

I have my objections to him. His collaborations with Feingold and Kennedy, for example. But he has been one of a very few Republicans who have been consistent in opposing wasteful spending.

I find Thompson and Giuliani acceptable as well. Indeed, almost anyone looks good when Hillary is the alternative.

Posted by rwe | January 7, 2008 10:49 PM

Really? Guiliani's stated foreign policy doctrine amounts to endless and expanding war. Sign me up!

Posted by Rickm | January 7, 2008 10:51 PM

Neoadolescence, huh?

I don't know about you, but I'm a paleoadolescent...

Posted by Herb | January 7, 2008 11:35 PM

Why do you use words that your readers don't understand, i.e., "neoadolescence"? This word is not in the dictionary, nor does it make sense. Why do you use it? You're confusing your readers.

I saw another post you wrote about "Ricardian Equivalence." I went to college and every day I read the business pages, but I have no idea what this type of equivalence is. Why not simply drop the jargon. Please, please, use the English language. Instead of giving up meat for Lent, please, for the love of G, stop the jargon!

Posted by Mortimer Madler | January 7, 2008 11:56 PM

Front and center, in Bush's effort to "change the tone in Washington" he retained Clinton's heads of the CIA and the FBI, as most of the National Security Counsel supporting infrastructure. He also retained quite a number of US Attorneys, removing them only later, rather than all at once as had Clinton the day Reno took office.

On 9/11, we saw how well that worked out. And still, Democrats wouldn't accept even joint responsibility. Fairly, it was Clinton's folks. A clean sweep of the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department and State might have put this country on a much more secure course.

Can you imagine Obama leaving in place any of Bush's appointees? His bipartisan siren song is a steaming pile.

Posted by anilp | January 8, 2008 12:00 AM

"Bush was making this claim at least equally convincingly"

Yes, that was very convincing. Just ask John McCain after South Carolina.

Posted by Justin | January 8, 2008 12:03 AM

I think the whole notion that "ending bitter partisanship" is a desirable goal is naive and mistaken. People presumably want the government to be less divided so that it gets things done, and addresses the country's problems. It seems to me, thought, that the best way to get things done is for one party to gain a decisive advantage over the other. Move from a 51/49 political landscape, in other words, to, say, 58/42. Who knows, maybe if Obama can dupe millions of independents and Republicans to vote for him in November, he'll end up having really long coattails, and that will translate into deeper Demcoratic majorities.

Posted by Jasper | January 8, 2008 12:11 AM

Rickm,

Endless war? Of course. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but we are in a cultural and violent war against the Islamists that will last probably forever. And it didn't start with 9/11.

Expanding war? Just where do you get this idea from?

Posted by Rex | January 8, 2008 6:26 AM

Meagan, who is the grown-up adultish candidate, and why should the internet vote for him or her?

Posted by Patrick | January 8, 2008 8:24 AM

"five gets you ten that in a couple of years conservatives will be complaining about him just as bitterly as they did about Clinton"

I agree with rwe that you're forgetting how deeply, fundamentally corrupt in every aspect Slick Willie was. It wasn't just womanizing, it was drug use ("nose like a vacuum"), draft-dodging, and financial sleeze everywhere you looked. Worse yet, his foreign policy often appeared to be for sale. One Chinese dissident said that Clinton was lucky that his girlfriends distracted everyone from the other things he was doing.

It was hard to find even one untainted corner of Clinton's life. The Whitehouse Travel Office firings were petty but downright dirty. And remember all those trade trips that Ron Brown and Hazel O'Leary took top contributors on? Clinton's own office lobbied for Enron in India, in exchange for contributions in the 1996 election (or perhaps it was just a coincidence that the two came within days of each other).

I was living in Asia for much of the time Slick Willie was in office. People in Asia felt comfortable with a politician that was for sale but were puzzled that he could be bought so cheaply. You couldn't have bought off one of Suharto's golf buddies for the kind of chump change that would get you time with the leader of the free world - just ask Johnny Chung. John Huang was even able to get top security clearance.

I have concerns about Obama's policies but would very gladly accept him over a return to the corruption of the Clintons. It wasn't pure partisanship that drew such bitterness.

Posted by Ann | January 8, 2008 8:46 AM

The thing about bipartisanship is -- a lot of voters (maybe most) are legitimately in the middle. We don't want liberal Democratic policies OR conservative Republican ones, at least not across the board. What plays to the respective party bases just irritates us.

So, how does a candidate both play to his/her base and try to lure independents and centrists? It's a tricky game, and different politicians try different approaches. Bipartisanship is one. The one I prefer is actually proposing centrist policies and d*** the base, but not all candidates have the nerve to go down that road.

Posted by M.C. | January 8, 2008 10:31 AM

You don't transcend partisanship by being a non-polarizing figure. You do it by having superb communication skills and using them very, very judiciously. Obama has so far succeeded in performing this particular high-wire act and avoided falling into the velociraptor cage below him.

Bush may have been blandly bi-partisan in Texas, but he couldn't articulate a non-polarizing message beyond, "Ah'm a unahter, not uh divahder." That won't take you very far, and indeed it didn't seem to survive past the Recent Unpleasantness in Florida. The fact that the man can't string more than four extemporaneous words together into a coherent thought completely doomed any real chances for running even a polite government, much less one that had any semblance of unity.

You can be a flaming liberal and still be able to transcend partisanship. You have to be willing to communicate your position, then moderate that position like crazy to get something accomplished. I think Obama may just be skillful enough to pull this off. Mind you, I'm not fond of very many of his domestic policies and his foreign policy appears to be slightly insane. But I think Megan's wrong when she dismisses him as your run-of-the-mill bipartisan.

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | January 8, 2008 12:25 PM

Mortimer wrote: Why do you use words that your readers don't understand, i.e., "neoadolescence"? This word is not in the dictionary, nor does it make sense. Why do you use it? You're confusing your readers.

Just one, evidently. As for why, presumably she does it because she speaks English. English is flexible and allows for an unlimited range of wordplay, and MM writes this blog as a casual conversation directed toward an English-speaking audience.

Perhaps you are a more recent entrant to the language. Neoadolescence is a compound of a standard word and a common prefix:

Neo-, meaning "new", usually in conjunction with one of "[recent/unusual/abnormal]"; plus adolescence, meaning "of or relating to the transitory period in the teenage years when a child undergoes the mental and physiological changes that precede adulthood".

In the context of the post contents, the word she coined clearly implies an abnormal return to adolescent thought processes.

Posted by anony-mouse | January 8, 2008 1:10 PM

To be fair, any chance that Bush had of being a uniter vanished with the 2000 election fight.

Posted by Mike | January 8, 2008 11:51 PM

We need to get the word out and expose this man.
Google "Freedom's enemies, Barack Hussein Obama", by Beckwith for the true, amazing facts of this man's life- with links to back it all up.
(mostly from his own books)

Posted by E Howard Bailey | January 13, 2008 1:03 PM