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?

Image via Wikipedia

Mike Bloomberg won last night, but barely–with 5% of the vote, which is absolutely less than the margin of victory $100 million is supposed to buy you. But it’s a victory nonetheless. Having won three elections, he’ll be mayor of New York City for twelve consecutive years. Mike Bloomberg has effectively bought the lease to Gracie Mansion. In total, how much has it cost him? What price does a vote fetch these days?

continue »

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Rudy Giuliani is never going to run for office again. Neither is Newt Gingrich. Yet today, both men, artifacts of the 1990’s, are in the news, discussed as possible future contenders for political office. New York scribe Fred Dicker reports that Giuliani has been told by representatives of Andrew Cuomo that Cuomo is planning to seek the New York Governor’s mansion in 2010. And Newt is once again sounding off about a prospective presidential candidacy.

continue »

Did you ever hear the one about the 19 year old college student who put out a classified ad seeking a personal assistant? No? Well, that’s because it’s not a joke. In Washington this week, that’s exactly what happened. As The Post reports:

[Charley] Cooper, 19, logged on to the [Georgetown] university’s student employment Web site last week and posted an ad for someone to tackle “some of my everyday tasks,” such as organizing his closet, dropping him off and picking him up from work, scheduling haircuts, putting gas in the car and taking it in for service, managing his electronic accounts and doing laundry (although the assistant will be paid only for the time spent loading, unloading and folding clothes, not the entire laundry cycle).

The successful applicant can expect to work three to seven hours a week and make $10 to $12 an hour, although “on occasion it will be possible to work additional hours and/or receive bonuses at my discretion.” Preference will be given to Georgetown undergraduates, Cooper says in the listing, and the assistant can spread his or her tasks throughout the day.

You can read the full article here (hat tip Laura Conley).

Now, of course this could have happened anywhere. Recall only a few years ago the ill-fated effort on the part of some Harvard students to create a business around the prospect of hiring maids to clean dorm rooms (the entitlement! the privilege!). But the fact that this happened in D.C. is especially disconcerting, because it seems to cut against the defense of Washington I usually offer to cynics.

In the anti-D.C. caricature, political Washingtonians are fundamentally purchasable creatures, for sale to the highest bidder, more intent on amassing power than exercising the wheels of democracy on behalf of the common good.

I’ve often replied by explaining that, at least among young people, the opposite is true. They come to D.C. to do good deeds, not to get rich. Yet now we learn that even the kids here aren’t exempt. They, too, have no souls.

continue »

Image via Wikipedia

A few days ago over coffee, a friend of mine who also counts himself as a regular reader of this blog confessed that, while he generally appreciated my beneficent and infinite wisdom, he was a bit put off by my intense affection for Barack Obama.

And I admitted it: I really like our president. He hasn’t been perfect, but he represents the best hope for progressive change I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. More to the point: I sincerely doubt that his successors will be better. Call me a cynic, but Presidents Bayh, Hillary, and O’Malley fail to excite me. And let’s not even talk about the possible Republican contenders.

continue »