It seems to me that since his inauguration, the President has viewed most choices on policy issues as a binary one. On one hand, you have the "post-partisan/great conciliator" option, and the other is "hope and change/progressive policies/appeal to the base." I'd argue that the President has, for the most part, opted for the former, ostensibly because he does not want to hurt GOP fee-fees, which supposedly isolates independents, and because he doesn't want to appear as a radical liberal, which also supposedly isolates independents. Remember - there are few things more terrible in Washington than appearing to be liberal on anything. That is why people like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are denounced as fringe players and loons while total fuckwads like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are Very Serious and Courageous Democrats.
So here's the rub - the GOP and the teabaggers are going to paint him as a radical liberal socialist domestic terrorist regardless of how much ground he gives or the extent to which the final policy mirrors the GOP's own preferences or world views (see the Affordable Care Act, RomneyCare).
So in that case, why not pursue true progressive ideals and policies that will rally your base? It is entirely possible to pursue a progressive agenda without isolating independents, as numerous recent polls have shown that progressive ideals are wildly popular with the American public - increased taxation on millionaires and billionaires and closing tax loopholes for corporations, ending our irresponsible wars and lust for global empire, sound regulations of the financial sector and other corporations, and the list goes on.
Again, the GOP will paint him as a radical no matter what the President does or says, so he may as well at least let them paint him as such while he's, you know, actually pursuing a Democratic agenda on some of these issues instead of Republican-lite or compromise-for-the-sake-of-compromise-at-any-cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment