What David Brooks Doesn’t Understand About Barack Obama
Image by Center for American Progress via Flickr
There’s a pronounced tendency in Washington to look at the failures of a particular politician and argue that, if only said politician had followed your particular ideology, if only he/she shared your values and vision, then obviously that politician would be in much better shape. It’s easy to see why this line of thought is tempting; it allows you to reaffirm your own beliefs while advancing a case for their universality. David Brooks–who, holding true to stereotype, is this liberal’s favorite conservative–makes this kind of argument in his column today. Obama’s plummeting approval ratings, argues Brooks, can largely be explained by the Administration’s deference to the Democratic Party’s left-wing. In order to get back on track, Brooks argues, Obama “has to align his proposals to the values of the political center: fiscal responsibility, individual choice and decentralized authority.” In other words, Barack Obama should govern like David Brooks would.
If only it were that simple.
Let’s first consider the Brooks-approved notion that turning over power to liberal Congressional Democrats has been politically disastrous for Obama. You hear this argument all the time from Republicans: If only Nancy Pelosi and David Obey had less power, then our problems would be solved! The stimulus would have been more stimulative, health care would be a done deal, and Miguel Estrada would be on the Supreme Court (joking about that last one). Politically speaking, however, it’s hard to see how Obama’s deference to Congress has been problematic. Do most Americans even know the name of David Obey, the Wisconsin Congressman derided by the right for making the stimulus too pork-friendly? Yes, Nancy Pelosi’s approval ratings are rock-bottom–but so were Newt Gingrich’s, which didn’t prevent the GOP for holding on to power for some time. Americans, as a general rule, don’t like Congress. And why should they? It’s the messy part of democracy.
But it’s also an essential part of democracy. Even more essential is the fine division of powers outlined by the Founders, a division Obama is obeying. I assume Brooks knows this. His attack on Congress is thus really a proxy attack on liberalism. Brooks doesn’t like the liberal direction that the Congress, with Obama’s support, is taking America in. That’s his perogorative. But it’s important to recall that Americans voted for this Congress. They first placed the Democrats in charge in 2006, and then renewed that lease in 2008. David Brooks doesn’t have to like the Democrats. He is entitled to substantive disagreements. But berating them for being liberal is a bit foolish. It would be akin to attacking George W. for being a conservative–it’s true, but it’s besides the point.
Now, I’m going to avoid falling into the same trap that Brooks fell into this morning. I’m not sure if tacking to the left is the best way for Obama to right his ship, much as I’d prefer to see him do it. I do know, though, that there’s one culprit for Obama’s troubles Brooks never identifies: the unhinged town halls that took place all over the country this summer, in which conservative activists all but accused the president of being a socialist hellbent on denying America’s grandmas their health care (or, worse yet, of sending them to premature death beds). These accusations were extreme, almost entirely disconnected from the facts, and designed to derail health care reform. Over time, through relentless repetition, they’ve had an impact. When the Administration has to explain that, no, it doesn’t want to kill your grandmother, and no, there won’t be any death panels, then you know that it’s in trouble.
Obama and his team were caught flat-footed in responding to these charges. That much seems undeniable. The level of vehemence in the health care debate was simply not anticipated by the Administration, and the Administration has suffered because of it. But if they’d gone to the center even more strongly than they did, they’d have encountered the same roadblocks.
In fact, the trifecta of proposals–deficit reduction, personal choice, and decentralization–that Brooks sees as halmarks of the political center have already been made in effect by the Administration. Peter Orzsag has emphasized the necessity of making health care reform deficit-neutral again and again; the president himself has repeatedly said that reform won’t impede anyone’s ability to make personal choices; and, much to the chagrin of many liberals, this White House doesn’t seem attached to any centralized public plan.
Yet to Obama’s opponents, those who have spent this summer spewing lies and misinformation, none of this matters. Those who’ve fueled the anti-Obama tide aren’t motivated by substantive disagreement, let alone the fate of the “center.” They’re right-wing partisans who are intent on obfuscating their way back to power. David Brooks should acknowledge that. Indeed, the president should, too.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Despite their initial courting of conservative literati – Brooks included – I doubt the Obama administration pays too much attention to what David Brooks has to say. (Personally, I think the only reason he appears as tolerable as he does is because he appears on PBS, the most tolerable TV news outlet going, with Mark Shields and Jim Lehrer.) I mean, how much time do you think the George W. administration spent worrying about what Tom Friedman had to say?
Mr. Porter,
There are actually two entirely separate questions here, one is factual and the other is procedural. First, as a matter of fact, Mr. Obama has not been particularly deferential to the left-wing of the party. I think would have seen a much more vigorous effort to investigate torture, to eliminate the extra-legal activities such as extra-ordinary rendition, and greater adherence to the transparency of government he campaigned on if he were really so thoroughly influenced by the party’s left-wing. Second, I think there is a valid point about the process questions. Mr. Obama, with both the economic stimulus package and the health care reform, was mistaken to allow the congressional leadership as much a role in crafting these initiatives as he has. This has created poor public outreach and a confused message that has allowed conservatives to create a public image for these efforts because of the vacuum of Democratic Party leadership. Mr. Obama would have done well to have take a greater leadership role in the development and roll-out of these initiatives. At least part of Mr. Obama’s recent plummet in the poles has to do with his poor performance in communicating what his initiatives are about.
Now of course Mr. Brooks means something different than I do. By taking Ms. Pelosi and Co. out of the process Mr. Brooks believes that a more conservative approach would naturally emerge. However, the country had an opportunity to vote for a more conservative president, if that is what it had wanted to do. I for one do not see why the winning candidate in election should adopt the philosophy of the losing candidate.
I think that’s quite wise. Give this man a spot in the NY Times!
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Porter,
Hey, there is no need to get nasty. Let us keep this civil shall we.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Porter,
I think you’ve missed the point of David Brooks’ column today. I consider myself a moderate Democrat and his column spoke directly to my concerns about this President and his administration. Mainly with regard to their inability to drive the discussion versus handing it over to Congress and the media.
One of the key factors I considered in voting for Mr. Obama is because he consistently campaigned on taking responsibility for our personal actions. He also campaigned heavily on taking on the entrenched special interests (his responsibility) that have taken over our country. Unfortunately I have not seen the President be forceful in taking on any of the special interest. If he won’t fight to do the hard work then why should we? Where are the lines in the sand? It seems more evident to me that Mr. Obama is not willing to slug it out and wants to avoid any and all conflict.
Lastly, in my opinion, the whole outrage thing at health care town halls is not “about health care” reform as much as it is how people scared to death of the future. Too many uninformed folks are screaming to be let off the fast-paced, information driven, globalized world we find ourselves in.
Too bad the President hasn’t talked to them about their fears about the future. Too bad he hasn’t reassured them with clear, concise, fact laced plans.
“Caught flat footed”, that to me is the real shocker. How did they not expect any of this? Maybe they believed their own campaign mythology.
That’s probably true. One of the most appealing things about the Obama team is that they actually believe what they’re peddling–that their guy can change the tone of politics for the better. The more cynical among us haven’t been shocked by his failure to do so…
In response to another comment. See in context »