Sometimes a week is all you need to show key difference between the two parties.
Granted, the Republicans are still trying to figure out their course of direction, but even though moderates Powell and Ridge have criticized right wing evangelical hardliners Limbaugh and Cheney for taking the party too far to the right, the hardliners are winning.
This quote by Mary Matalin, a key Republican strategist, says it all,
“When [Powell] supports Barack Obama, one presumes he’s supporting those principles and policies. Those are liberal principles and they spawn liberal policies. The road forward for Republicans is not to be ‘liberal-lite.”
With their refusal to support President Obama on anything, and Rush Limbaugh winning the propaganda battle, expect the Republicans to not give an inch on anything.
And the Democrats? Quite the opposite. Senate Democrats rebuffed Obama on closing Gitmo, one of the more popular decisions Obama made. Was their refusal to spend the money to close the prison based on principle, or because Cheney had recently hit the airwaves claiming Obama made America less safe for closing it? I fear it was the later, since Democrats usually duck and cover when they start taking flak.
Obama got in on a similar game too, flip flopping on releasing more Abu Ghraib torture photos, reversing an earlier decision to end military tribunals, and practically reciting former Pres. Bush in his Thursday speech on foreign policy.
Common theme here? All of these issues center around national security.
Apparently, Dems think they still cannot go toe-to-toe with Republicans on national security. The sad thing is that the two issues Obama flipped on were two of his more popular decisions when he took office. When will the Dems learn they do not have to run and hide every time the Repubs attack them on security issues? Obama was flying high on these decisions; the public loved him for it. That was the change they were seeking. To reverse them was pure folly and a clear misreading of the public on this issue.
Obama and the Dems’ strategy is clear - drop controversies where taking a strong stand distracts from safer objectives. This same week, Congress passed a huge credit card reform bill that big business and credit card companies hated but the public loved. Obama also announced increasing fuel economy standards to a nationwide average for new cars to 35 mpg. This was long overdue and not long ago would have been dead in the water. Now, with car companies weakened (i.e. going bankrupt), Obama saw his chance and announced the new fuel efficiency requirements.
So we got some popular progressive changes counteracted by a reinforcement of conservative policies and narratives on security. Overall not bad. Traditionally, though, this strategy the Dems oft employ does not work.
I know I sound like a broken record here, but on this point Mary Matalin is right. A party has to have a soul and identity. Try to morph into the other party and you will lose. In the past this has cost the Democrats dearly, since the public will always vote for a real Republican over a Democrat dressed as a Republican.
Will Obama be able to make the strategy work this time around? Will moving to the right on some issues deliver key Democratic electoral victories in 2010?
Even if it does, I have no reason to believe Obama will then govern as more of a progressive. But he might; I just do not know.
One thing is for sure, when you drop contentious issues you cede ground to the enemy. Now, as a result of the Dems’ capitulation on Gitmo and Obama backing off his strong stand on torture, all the media can do is repeat Republican talking points on these issues, such as ‘can we really keep terrorists safely in our maximum security prisons?’ or ‘clearly they are so dangerous we cannot afford them all the rights our civil courts provide,’ or ‘Obama must now see Cheney’s point about how releasing those torture photos will hurt America’s security,’ or ‘our security demands secrecy, not transparency’, and so on.
Thus, the public will think about these issues on Republican terms. Again, nothing new here, but it bears pointing it out every time it happens. In the medium and long term surrendering the narrative does more harm than good.
If Obama can make it work through the ’10 elections and gain key Democratic victories in the Senate, then it might be worth the risk, but only as long as he then takes his stronger majorities in Congress and makes real progressive change happen.
I get your general thrust, but it looks like Obama and friends are hitting back on the security issue.
Maybe not the greatest or most forceful counterattack, but they do not seem to be lying down on the national security issue.
Left by fred on May 29th, 2009