« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Jon Chait and understanding Obama.

Jonathan Chait really, really, really wants liberals to not notice that President Obama is no George W Bush. How much does he want it? He wants it badly enough to jettison the entire idea of the Imperial Presidency (don’t worry: Chait and the rest will start grousing about it again on, say, January 20, 2013). Nope, it’s not Barry Obama’s fault that he couldn’t spin insanely lopsided Congressional majority straw into policy gold, because of… separation of powers:

The most common hallmark of the left’s magical thinking is a failure to recognize that Congress is a separate, coequal branch of government consisting of members whose goals may differ from the president’s. Congressional Republicans pursued a strategy of denying Obama support for any major element of his agenda, on the correct assumption that this would make it less popular and help the party win the 2010 elections. Only for roughly four months during Obama’s term did Democrats have the 60 Senate votes they needed to overcome a filibuster.

[snip]

That kind of analysis, however, just feels wrong to liberals, who remember Bush steamrolling his agenda through Congress with no such complaints about obstructionism. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald recently invoked “the panoply of domestic legislation — including Bush tax cuts, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Part D prescription drug entitlement — that Bush pushed through Congress in his first term.”

First term.

Hee.

Let’s talk about Bush’s second term, instead. Actually, let’s talk about the second half of Bush’s second term.

Picture the scenario: it’s January of 2007. Congress has just flipped from Republican to Democratic control; the numbers are 49/51 Republican/Democrat in the Senate, 202/233 R/D in the House. The Democrats have run explicitly on an anti-Republican and anti-Bush platform; the expectation was that the President would be thus constrained or overruled on a variety of topics, including the most important one of the time. I refer, of course, to what would be later called the Global War on Terror, which touched on everything from the liberation of Iraq to proper detainee policy to vigorous domestic counter-terrorist data analysis. I’ll give a spoiler now: Chait mentioned none of this in his essay, largely because doing so would have been… awkward.

And it’s awkward because George W Bush, despite not actually having a majority in Congress, achieved the following in the GWOT between 2007 and 2009:

  • Prevented the war in Iraq from being abandoned.
  • Prevented the war in Iraq from being defunded.
  • Successfully instituted a ‘surge’ policy that allowed us to finally actually stabilize Iraq.
  • Reauthorized FISA.
  • Let me repeat that: REAUTHORIZED FISA. The Democratic base invested an incredible amount of time, money, sweat, and influence in trying to sabotage our foreign-to-domestic data mining operations; their abject failure to prevent a clean bill from passage should be the subject of books.

In other words, when it came to the war – which the netroots hated, up until, oh, January 20, 2009; and which motivated most of them to become politically active – George W. Bush found it possible to actually define the goals and tactics, despite the fact that he was facing an opposition that dwarfed anything that Barack Obama faced in 2009 and 2010. And that happened because George W Bush (despite his faults) was and is a better politician than Barack Obama is – and a better man as well. You see, when Bush said that something was important to him, it typically turned out that it was important to him. And so he’d fight for it. Obama doesn’t fight for things. He just wants other people to give Obama the things that he wants, and he gets very, very petulant when he doesn’t get them.

Which is sufficiently obvious that you have to wonder about Chait’s title for his article (“What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama”). I think that more people on the Left than are willing to admit it in public understand Obama quite well: he’s no fighter. The question is, does Chait understand this, too? – And if he doesn’t, then how long before Chait starts wearing his underwear outside of his pants?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • johnt

    The first quoted para should be cut in rock somewhere, large majorities in both Chambers in O’s first term & he blames the GOP.
    He suggests idiocy by pointing out the childishly obvious, the “separate and equal” thing. Of course and again largely in the Dems favor, & with agreement on the issues, putting aside mind numbing incompetence and stupidity.
    And the inevitable but by now vomitive, blame the Republicans, the last refuge of children afraid of looking in the mirror.
    Bush made mistakes, but he was and is a man. More than you an say for either Obama or certainly Chait,

  • romeg

    the details of which are a bit fuzzy so I will cut to the punch line. Sir Larry’s response to the somewhat silly question about his portrayal of a character posed by his interviewer was “It’s called Acting, Dear Boy.”

    In the case of Dubya vs Obama, it’s called “Leadership, Dear Boy.”, that chemical element essential to every political leader of which Barack Hussein Obama is utterly devoid.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    during the making of “Marathon Man.” It was in reference to the fact that Hoffman had not slept for 72 hours in order to attain the anxiety needed to portray his character during the infamous “dentist drilling” sequence of the film. Olivier was neither a student nor a fan of method acting.

  • whiskeyjim

    I’ve tried to read Mr. Chait. The issue is twofold; he begins with assumptions that are so debatable that one often wants to discuss his priors more than the article.

    The second issue is his selectivity. As outlined in the Bush example in the post above, Mr. Chait skews his reasoning through selective memory in such fundamental doses that his columns often make the opposite point that any review of the actual facts warrant.

    I believe Mr. Chait remains popular because of these glaring issues, not despite of them. For he does have a knack for redistributing facts to fit the Progressive narrative. As habitual reading of his column demonstrates, it takes quite some doing. In fact, I would describe some of Mr. Chait’s columns as heroic.

    The man clearly lives on a different planet. And a number of his readers dearly wish to make believe they are living there with him.

  • benko

    I happened to do my professional training partly under Chait’s father who was a conservative, which I suppose speaks for itself.

  • Adjoran

    He writes well enough, but he’s a prisoner of the mindset of the left: everything he believes and thinks he knows is part of the construct, the Marxist narrative of humanity. He cannot break free of this.

    The hack propagandist’s duty is not shedding light upon his subject, but rather kicking up more dust to cloud the truth enough so that the failures of the Narrative can be excused in a fog.

    If Obama personally slit the throats of five elderly nuns, Chait would find a reason for it, or at least a reason to blame it on the Republicans.

    Reading the worthless hack’s output destroys brain cells. You are better off taking a handful of sedatives and tranquilizers and washing them down with grain alcohol than spending a minute reading Chait’s drivel.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Only for roughly four months during Obama?s term did Democrats have the 60 Senate votes they needed to overcome a filibuster.

    Specter announces switch, reported 4/28/2009 (after voting FOR the Porkulus).

    Scott Brown Defeats Martha Coakley on 01/19/2010

    Too bad the Dem’s think that spending $3.8 trillion /yr is “roughly” in line with $2.2 trillion of annual revenues.

  • renl57

    The Dems aren’t buying his argument:

    “I worked in Congress for five years as a lawyer to a senior US Senator. I think I’m familiar with Congress’ existence, and how it works. Yet, I still am highly critical of the President’s refusal to stand up to Congress….
    “George W. Bush never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate throughout his eight year term, and I don’t recall him whining about how weak he was.”
    — John Aravosis, AmericaBlog
    http://tinyurl.com/3sazr6n

    The hard-core Left isn’t buying it:

    “Why Obama’s Beltway Apologists are Letting Us Down:

    “Progressive defenders of Obama need to stop trying to discredit critics like Drew Westen [and Jonathan Chait], and be honest with Americans about the President and our politics….
    “What’s understandable to all liberals is that the President is in peril and that the likely alternatives to him are worse. What’s objectionable is that his writerly defenders, truth-tellers by profession, aren’t any more candid than he’s been about the unsustainable premises and practices they’ve all ended up defending.”
    — Jim Sleeper, AlterNet

    http://tinyurl.com/3g3u8ym

    These lefties will still vote for Obama in 2012, if only to try to stop a conservative from becoming President.

    But they have a lot fewer illusions than they used to about the nature of the guy they’re going to be voting for. (Gallup has liberal approval of Obama down to 68%. That’s the lowest it’s been yet.)

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …and the following is why:

    “These lefties will still vote for Obama in 2012, if only to try to stop a conservative from becoming President.”

    This is precisely why they keep getting the belt from the Democratic establishment. Frankly, it’s why the netroots deserve the belt: if you can’t respect yourself, don’t expect anybody else to, either.

  • carolina

    .

  • carolina

    .

  • trutexan

    But one of the things that Bush should have dug his heels in during the 109th Congress in 2006 was signing into law H.R. 6407: Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It’s in the news now that the USPS will default by the end of the year. The only reason they will default is because the law requires them to pre-fund healthcare for current and future employees. What on earth was he thinking? Sure the bill was sponsored by a Republican (VA11) and co-sponsored by Waxman and 2 NY weenies, but it had the unanimous support of the Senate.

    I?m hearing from a local USPS union president that they want to go after FedEx and UPS in a capitalist way to become competitive and bring in more revenue but federal laws won’t allow it. He?s a big lib and union guy, but he?s also so frustrated. He says that revenues are actually up but HR 6407 is what?s putting them in default. And they are the ONLY ?company? that is required to pre-fund healthcare for its workers. And that?s what?s bankrupting them.