The White House loses control

Image by sofauxboho via Flickr

At its worst, the Democratic Party, and liberalism in general, is only the sum of its interest groups. Each group–labor, the poor, women, African-Americans, academics, gays, etc–pine for their share of the pie, without advancing any broader ideological message or goal. This was the rut that the Party famously found itself in the 1980’s, when losing candidate after losing candidate was forced to check off a series of boxes that pleased various groups but resulted in no coherent, overarching message. At its best, meanwhile, the Democratic Party acts as an umbrella organization for these groups, while putting forth a vision that encompasses all these groups at once. The interest groups, consequently, come to see their interests as being interconnected; political and substantive victories quickly follow.

Part of President Obama’s allure, especially for long-time Democrats, was his promise to unite the party’s disparite interest groups. Under his watch, no longer would the Democratic Party have to balance the needs of one group against another; all groups would put aside their petty divisons and work together.

At least, that’s what was supposed to happen. The reality has been a bit messier, and over the past week or so, these divisions have come into clear view. Most notably, women’s groups have waged a tireless campaign against the Stupak amendment; their message is, very clearly, that health care reform should not be allowed to pass if the cost is access to abortions. At the same time, gay groups and their allies, fed up with Obama’s…yes, his dithering on the issue of gay rights, have begun a boycott of the Democratic National Committee. Obama, it would seem, has lost control 0f the unified coalition that elected him just a little more than a year ago.

Now, some of this was predictable: gay groups  and women’s groups are working for the sake of Justice with a capital J, and as such are not likely to be swayed by arguments about the political calculus and the need for caution. Nor should they–for what they are pursuing is, simply put, more important than the latest Gallup presidential approval poll. Moreover, the last Democratic President also encountered and engendered this same kind of animosity. During his 1996 reelection campaign, he was booed lustily by liberals who opposed his welfare reform plans; many other groups inside the Democratic Party’s big tent also wanted nothing to do with the big dog.

Yet some of this was also of the Obama White House’s own making. At any time during the health care debate, he could have communicated, clearly and without ambiguity, that a woman’s right to choose was simply non-negotiatable, and any bill that in any way infringed upon this right would not be signed by him. Additionally, he could have taken more concrete steps on gay right’s then he’s taken. As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, he could have begun to overhaul DADT last summer, with, I think, minimal political repurcussion.

So what now? How does Obama get his band back together? For one thing, he should stop pretending that everything is OK. He should take a public side on the Stupak amendment (he’d be against, I’m pretty sure). And he should do something, more than appointing an Ambassador or showing up at a dinner–something substantive and risky–on gay rights. For heaven’s sake: Was he disappointed by the vote in Maine? Isn’t the continuation of DADT harming America’s national security–now, today, and not just when you’re on the campaign trail? Let us know.

The point isn’t that he should begin checking boxes to win support. He shouldn’t make decisions simply to defer to interest groups. But he should clearly not stand silent as those groups are under assault. To reclaim his promise, he ought to bring them together and make it clear that he is working, tirelessly and at some risk to his own fortunes, on their behalf. The health care fight is just as important as the fight against the Stupak amendment, which is just as important as the fight for gay rights. Candidate Obama seemed to get that. What about the President?