Squashed

A new approach from the Obama administration

The Obama administration has pioneered the much maligned “lead from the back” legislative strategy. In the healthcare debates, for example, he acted less like a star player and more like a referee. On one hand, nobody likes the ref. On the other hand, he’s gotten results. The stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, the DADT repeal. While the process has been frustrating, the results have led (and will continue to lead) to very tangible help for millions of people.

(There were some big misses too. I would have liked to see a comprehensive global-warming legislation and a sane immigration policy. In the current climate, I’m not sure either is possible. Raising energy costs during the recession is not a politically viable option. And, since economic suffering has given rise to xenophobia, I’d be afraid of any immigration bill that made it through Congress.)

That ended when the Republicans took power. Obama has fairly well held the line in ensuring there aren’t substantial cuts to his core priorities. And we’re even seeing some military cuts—which are awfully nice. But this is all playing defense. Nothing new is getting done.

The Obama administration has switched tactics again. He’s proposed the American Jobs act and laid out a credible deficit reduction plan. Both solid (and fairly moderate) legislative proposals. Neither has a chance of passing in its current form. However, they may well give moderates in Congress the political cover they need to address a comprehensive tax reform that includes some revenue increases. And that would be another legislative victory for the Obama administration.

In the meantime, rallying public support around good ideas will refocus the national political conversation.

“Obama needs to lead”

We hear this a lot—usually from legislators criticizing Obama for failure to take a more active role in the legislative process.

When it comes from the Republicans, disregard it. They don’t want Obama to take a strong leadership stance. When they say it, they mean, “Why don’t you lead the way through that mine field? We’re right behind you, honest. We would never consider shooting you in the back unless the opportunity arose.”

It’s a bit more complicated when it comes from Democratic legislators. Obama is the leader of the executive branch. Leading the Democrats in the legislator is somebody else’s job. This isn’t to say that Obama can’t or shouldn’t put his weight behind certain initiatives—but Obama’s weight shouldn’t be necessary unless the Democratic leadership has already failed. When the Democrats accuse Obama of failing to lead, they mean, “Obama needs to take over leadership because we suck at it.” Or maybe they mean, “We can’t get this done—but maybe Obama can do the impossible.”

It’s generally phrased as a criticism of Obama—but the criticism that there isn’t anybody in the world other than Obama who could get the job done is back-handed praise.

Unions are Important

Jeff and I have been going back and forth on unions—and it looks like we’ve finally gotten to the crux of the issue. It’s a question of influence.

Jeff lists a variety of examples where the SEIU seems to have benefitted from it’s close support of the Obama administration.. (As discussed earlier, the SEIU spent a lot of resources helping Obama in the election—though any implication that the SEIU gave millions to the Obama campaign is false.) Jeff concludes:

SEUI bought A LOT of access. Oh, and as noted above, it also bought some administration positions.

I don’t entirely agree. The SEIU was the first big union to back Obama. Compared to the other unions, the SEIU and Obama have a lot of common ground. If Andy Stern became Obama’s go to guy on unions by being there before everybody else, he did a good job of figuring out how to position himself at the right time. And if Obama puts some labor guys on the National Labor Relations Board … isn’t that entirely proper?

But Jeff’s larger point is exactly right. While the SEIU may not have bought the positions—but they certainly expected a quid pro quo for their extensive support. You can tell that much from Andy Sterns braggadocio. (Though I would interpret it as Stern trying to justify such extreme costs.) While I think the Obama campaign drew a broad enough level of support that it doesn’t owe a lot of debts to special interests, there’s no question that we have a tradition in the country of giving ambassadorship and such to big supporters. (This has happened less in the current administration—but I won’t say it hasn’t happen at all.) Money can buy access—particularly in smaller elections.

Jeff and I agree that the ability of a small group of people to wield out-sized power due to political donations or political horse-trading is a serious problem. Public sector unions are neither the only nor the most powerful power-brokers. (Incidentally, the SEIU is not a public sector union. And frankly, if public sector unions really wielded outsized influence, we’d pay teachers better.) And it’s not the only group expecting influence for campaign support. And, as Jeff implies, the SEIU brass may sometimes be more concerned with advancing itself than with its 1.5 million members, just as corporate officers might not always represent the shareholders. Too much money in politics from too few people causes problems. This problem is offset by large numbers of small donations. A healthy middle class is critical to a healthy democracy.

We’re losing that middle class. Unions are preventing it from disappearing entirely. We need a solid base of middle income folk who produce, consume, pay taxes, and have enough power to assert themselves politically, but not enough power to lord over everybody else.