The Obama Administration

Buck again tried to inject constructive discussion into the inevitable partisan dogfight between Ron and myself and that got lost in the shuffle, so I want to start fresh and give some opinions on some of his questions and general ideas of how I'd like to see the Obama Administration start out.

What President-elect Barack Obama (okay, I'm not tired of saying it but I'm tired of typing it) and the Democratic majority need to do first, between now and the inauguration, is to forcefully make the point that the result of this election was an endorsement, to some degree, of the left-of-center policy agenda that Obama laid out and not simply a rejection of the Bush Adminstration. They need to push the idea that they have a mandate. And it's a real mandate; a Reagan-in-1980 mandate, not a Bush-by-two-points-and-thirty-electoral-votes-in-2004 "mandate," and that they're going to get the honeymoon that neither Clinton nor Bush got. At the same time, they need to emphasize that they will not look to engage in retribution or extract punishment for the last eight years except where it is a legitimate necessity for moving forward. Democrats should be conciliatory and advise Republicans that when a bill is brought to the floor for debate that they are interested in rational, measured input and that they will consider reasonable, principled opposition, but that a refusal to engage in honest give-and-take and engaging in naked obstructionism will be unacceptable.

Something that most people aren't aware of is that the current process for filibustering is no longer the arduous task of taking the floor and keeping it tied up Strom Thurmond-style until the majority gives up and removes the bill from the agenda. Since the 1980s a "gentlemen's agreement" has been in place where the Minority Leader will advise the Majority Leader that a particular bill on the agenda will be filibustered if brought to the floor and so, in order to keep the business of the Senate working, the Majority Leader will simply remove the bill if he doesn't feel he has the necessary votes for cloture; this is often the case if support falls along party lines. Anyone is free to attempt a traditional filibuster, but that is usually a result of a weaker opposition that can usually be defeated with a cloture vote. This agreement has benefitted both parties and the country as a whole by avoiding legislative gridlock, but in the most recent term where the Republican Party has been in the minority it has been wildly abused, setting a record of more than 70 filibusters in the 2007 session and reaching a pace in 2008 likely to triple that number. With that in mind, Majority Leader Harry Reid should let the Republicans know that if it appears they intend to continue this strategy that the "gentlmen's agreement" will be removed and that they will be forced to do the "Mr. Deeds Goes To Washington" filibuster and put a very public face on their obstructionism. Beyond that, Reid should also consider invoking the "nuclear option" and taking the filibuster away if opposition goes from principled to partisan and ties up the policy agenda.

Obama should immediately begin work on two fronts: economic policy and foreign policy. On the economic front, Obama should look to quickly implement the tax policy he put forth in his campaign unless he is given serious indication by trustworthy advisors that it would be devastating to do so. Next up should probably be a stimulus package to keep things moving. The next year to two years are likely to be the bottom of and emergence from a recession, but I don't think that we're looking at a true depression. I don't think anyone has an expectation, nor did Obama give the indication, that the economy will be back to the good times of 1998 in short order. I and many, many others refuse to buy the argument that a return to Clinton-era tax levels is going to be the death of our economy. (If it is then we're fucked, but it's highly unlikely and arguments otherwise are simply untenable given the wealth of evidence that was the period from 1993-2000 and our survival of truly confiscatory marginal tax rates from World War II through 1980.) Offer Republicans input and be willing haggle on the tax raise for the top bracket, but if necessary do what Clinton did: pass it without a single Republican vote.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama laid out clear positions for the War on Terror, which includes closing Guantanamo Bay and ending the use of torture and extreme rendition. Implement these changes without delay. They are an affront to what America stands for and they have badly damaged our credibility on the national stage. As far as Iraq goes, the Iraqis themselves are demanding our exit and just today Gen. Petraeus reduced troop levels by one brigade. Work out the details of the status agreement with Iraq and begin the drawdown in a safe and orderly manner. Move new troops headed for Iraq into Afghanistan and help Afghanistan establish a more legitimate government and offer military assistance in Pakistan to secure the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Foreign policy is, to a large degree, solely the domain of the executive branch so there really isn't any need to appeal to the right on these matters. Opposition to the war in Iraq is the centerpiece of Obama's appeal and rise in the Democratic Party and I don't see his foreign policy agenda as being negotiable right now.

Not to go right back into the division argument, but if the Republican minority isn't willing to cooperate reasonably and provide principled opposition then let them bank on the possibility that Obama's economic and foreign policies are immediately disasterous or that they can take Congress back in 2010; this is a risk Obama and the Democrats have to be willing to take if it comes to it. We don't appear to be looking at the same electorate that Clinton faced in 1994 that punished Democrats for perceived overreach and the margin of victory this year suggests that Republican opposition is going to have to be far more substantial than crossing their arms, saying no, and crying "liberal" to the voters in the aftermath. Having a large section of the country pissed because they didn't get their way is unfortunate, but that's government and there's no way around it if the opposition is unbendingly partisan.

I'm not entirely certain that this the tack that Democrats are going to take, but that's how I'd like to see it begin.

Buck's other questions are answered by pointing out the coalitions that make up the modern Republican Party. The GOP has fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservative warhawks, and paleoconservative isolationists working together to create a party platform that is at times absolutely schizophrenic. I can see how, for example, some pro-life Christian Democrats like Harry Reid can accept that the government should involve itself very minimally in reproductive issues and the personal lives of homosexuals and work toward economically liberal goals. However, I have no idea how a Republican could expand the federal government by massively increasing social program spending and fighting two wars while cutting taxes without making any significant budget cuts therefore drastically increasing the deficit and argue for a strict reading of the Constitution for the purposes of opposing abortion, gun control and gay rights at the same time supporting secret CIA prisons and torture in violation of treaties that we signed and are Constitutionally obligated to uphold. Don't forget the Log Cabin Republicans that get in on this mess; homosexuals that throw their lot in with the party that very strongly opposes homosexuality! And the philosophical theme park that is the Republican Party's brand of modern conservatism has been under construction since long before 2000, it's just that this is the first time they've had this much power at once.