Careful what you wish for

President Obama will struggle to make a difference. And his fiercest opposition may come from within his own party
December 20, 2008
To discuss this article visit First Drafts, Prospect's blog

The Democrats haven't been this happy since Bill Clinton's unexpected victory in 1992. Then, as now, the new Democratic president will arrive in Washington on 20th January with a healthy Democratic majority in the house of representatives and a handy, if not decisive, majority in the senate. President Obama, fortified by his Democrat allies on Capitol Hill, can deliver a new era of liberal, inclusive government that restores trust in government and re-engages with the world at large. A new liberal dawn is breaking all across America.

There is, of course, a problem. Will Rogers, the cowboy, comedian and philosopher, probably put it best. "I am not a member of any organised political party," he said. "I am a Democrat." The truth is that Democrats are not good at getting along together.

Historically, they have dominated congress for much of the past century. George W Bush was the first Republican president since Herbert Hoover to enjoy friendly majorities in the house and senate. Republicans, who tend to see government as at best a necessary evil (hence their difficulty in swallowing Hank Paulson's plan to part nationalise the banking system), argue less about what government should do; they generally agree that it should do as little as possible. The Democrats, on the other hand, come to government believing that it is a tool with which to achieve social ends—and this causes problems.

As a result, Democratic presidents and a Democratic congress have been a disastrous combination in the past. Harry Truman's disagreements with the Democratic congress were legion. He went to war in Korea in 1952 without congressional consent, setting a precedent most of his successors have happily continued, and vetoed much of the key legislation congress proposed during his term. There is a reason why the Marshall plan was named after Truman's secretary of state, George Marshall; if it had been called the Truman plan, it would never have made it out of congress.

It is true that Lyndon Johnson successfully piloted a whirlwind of legislation through the Democratic congress after John Kennedy's assassination in 1963, but this was on the back of a national tide of grief; just as the social and political disarray of the great depression allowed Roosevelt to pass 15 bills in his first 100 days. Later in their presidencies, however, both presidents' relationships with congress soured. After his re-election in 1936, Roosevelt seriously misread the mood of congress when he sought to pack the Supreme Court with more pliable justices. And Johnson's relationship with congress became increasingly difficult as he tried to deliver on his "great society" social programmes and, at the same time, provide funding for the massively escalating war in Vietnam and the ruinously expensive Apollo space programme. He chose not to seek re-election in 1968 and retired from politics a broken man.

Obama will have to avoid a number of pitfalls. This year, an influx of new, motivated, partisan and highly liberal Democratic members is likely to skew the congressional party to the left at precisely the time when Obama has had to lean to the centre-right in order to get elected. At the same time, a number of centrist leaning Republicans have lost their seats, pushing the remaining Republican caucus toward the right. Although there is a substantial Democratic majority in congress, it is not large enough that Obama can ignore the Republicans. Bill Clinton failed to recognise this and, as a result, the Republicans secured an election victory of historic proportions in 1994. The fondness with which Americans now remember the Clinton years can be traced directly to the way in which he learned to manage his relationship with the Republican leadership after 1994. Obama will need to reach out to the Republicans in order to get things done. The question is: will the Democratic congressional leadership allow him to?

The prospect of Obama butting heads with the new Democrats in congress is very real. Key among their demands will be a prompt end to the war in Iraq. However, as commander-in-chief, Obama will be pressured by the military to maintain troop levels, and if the situation in Iraq deteriorates, what will he do? He is likely to discover, as Nixon did with Vietnam, that as troops in the field are withdrawn, those remaining become more vulnerable. Casualties go up, not down. With the newly-elected Democratic house members looking at holding onto their seats in just two years time, this is going to be a serious issue for their re-election prospects. President Obama will face enormous difficulty whatever he does.

Domestically, Obama has pledged to deliver tax cuts for every American earning less than $200,000 a year. Coming on the back of the ballooning federal deficit, a social security system that is on the verge of bankruptcy and the prospects of a severe economic recession, this is going to be tough. A left-leaning congressional Democratic caucus will resist any attempts to reduce government spending, particularly those members who face re-election in 2010, and there is only so much tax revenue that can be wrung out of the rich before they up sticks and leave. The battle lines between liberal ideology and simple practicality are already clear.

Obama has also pledged to tackle the scandal of 47m Americans without health insurance. He'll get no argument from the Democratic caucus there, but it is difficult to envisage any solution that can survive the well-funded onslaught of the insurance companies, the healthcare industry and the newly-polarised Republicans. Brave campaign pledges are likely to come back to haunt him.

The problem of Democratic presidents dealing with a Democratic congress goes far beyond the tragedy of Jimmy Carter or the early floundering of Bill Clinton. It is endemic to a Democratic party that, unlike the Republicans, would rather argue among itself than unite in the pursuit of real political power. Any hope that the party might have changed should be discouraged by the memory of the ugly, protracted nomination battle between Clinton and Obama. The party remains deeply fractured, introspective and self-destructive. Obama's rhetoric of bipartisanship may help him reach out to the Republican minority in congress, but it will also alienate a good number in his own ranks. He has expressed his admiration for Ronald Reagan, the master of bipartisan political horse trading. But while Reagan had the foresight to keep his policy objectives limited in number and tightly defined, Obama has set out a much larger stall. The balancing act he must perform is far tougher, and he must achieve it in a deeply antagonistic political landscape. America is desperate for change after eight years of George W Bush, and deserves more from the Democratic party this time round. It is, however, likely to be disappointed.

To discuss this article visit First Drafts, Prospect's blog

Read more...

Michael Lind's post-electioncover storyon what Obama means for American liberalism, plus a Prospectsymposiumon the future of America with contributions from Martin Walker, Thomas Wright, Jonathan Derbyshire and James Crabtree.

Also, exclusively online, ABC's foreign correspondentJim Sciuttoargues that Obama will struggle to make friends in the middle east andErik Tarloffdissects the Republican's Palin problem.