As I've said and others have noted, David Brooks is the most consistently interesting of Obama's critics on the right, in part because he so clearly wants this president to succeed; to live up to his promise of Change. Brooks is pretty down on the new administration at the moment. He's exasperated by what he sees as Obama's excess of deference to the crusty old denizens of Capitol Hill who sit atop key committees and fashion bad legislation in back rooms the same way they've been doing forever:
If you watched Obama’s magnificent speech Tuesday night, you got the impression that he bestrides Washington like a colossus. He imposes his authority in ways large and small, purging old habits. In reality, the situation is messier. At times, there is a weird passivity emanating from the White House, a deference to the Washington establishment. Almost no sacred cows are cut from this budget. The president is now engaged in an argument with Democratic appropriators about whether to strike earmarks from the omnibus spending bill. He’s apparently getting rolled even on a matter as easy and clear-cut as this.
The bigger problem is health care... this is an area where aggressive presidential leadership is mandatory. Yet in no other area does the administration cede so much authority.
This may well be where Obama's lack of experience tells the most. It's a little reminiscent of Blair in 1997. He swept to power with a huge mandate, but for some reason was too timid to take on entrenched interest groups in the private and public sectors and really leave his mark as a great reforming prime minister. He later regretted his passivity and switched into a more aggressive mode, but by then he'd lost a lot of the political capital he had in those first years and found it hard to make progress. What's the betting that Obama "finds himself", politically, late in his first term or in his second, and confides to interviewers that he wishes he'd been more bullish in 2009 and 2010?
Perhaps Tony should give his buddy Barack a quick call and warn him to make the most of his honeymoon.
Brooks is dead wrong.
Each of the past two administrations endured its most significant domestic policy setback (Hillarycare for Clinton, Social Security privatization for Bush Jr.) by trying to ram through Congress a prepackaged reform of a complex system. This approach does not work. Nor should it. There are reasons for our messy legislative process. Obama's approach -- set a few clear guiding principles, then follow with back room arm-twisting and deal-cutting -- is the best way to reform something like the American health-care mess.
A jock-sniffer like Brooks yearns for strong authority figures to bestride him like a colossus -- what's better for America is a crafty, principled politician like Obama.
Posted by: Tom | February 27, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Tom's comment is right on the ball. Usually Brooks is much better than this. What exactly does he want - a dictator?
Obama, being a constitutional scholar and having been a legislator, is mindful of the checks and balances system of US constitution. In fact the main criticism of Bush by the Democrats was that he always acted as "the decider" and never the leader.
Healthcare will never happen if this White House does not allow congressional leaders to provide their input, many of whom have spent decades waiting for this moment.
Obama is not the prime minister, so he can never act like Blair. Though Bush WH might have given that expression due to their power grab, the president does not have the power to legislate, thats the Congress' job. He can guide them and if he is really opposed to their agenda then veto the bills.
Sorry to say, Brooks really dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by: Abhinav | February 27, 2009 at 02:58 PM
Tom's comment is right on the ball. Usually Brooks is much better than this. What exactly does he want - a dictator?
Obama, being a constitutional scholar and having been a legislator, is mindful of the checks and balances system of US constitution. In fact the main criticism of Bush by the Democrats was that he always acted as "the decider" and never the leader.
Healthcare will never happen if this White House does not allow congressional leaders to provide their input, many of whom have spent decades waiting for this moment.
Obama is not the prime minister, so he can never act like Blair. Though Bush WH might have given that expression due to their power grab, the president does not have the power to legislate, thats the Congress' job. He can guide them and if he is really opposed to their agenda then veto the bills.
Sorry to say, Brooks really dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by: Abhinav | February 27, 2009 at 02:59 PM
I take your points. Yes, being a president is very different from being a PM. So, let's wait and see what comes out of the sausage machine. But don't forget, Obama came to power on a promise to bring sweeping CHANGE to Washington. That surely meant more than a change of president, or a change of party.
Posted by: Ian Leslie | March 01, 2009 at 04:03 PM
In addition to party and president, Obama represents major changes in policy across the board.
Bush II attempted top-down changes in polity -- we all know how that worked out. Not so good, IMHO. I prefer a democratic (small 'd') sausage machine to a star chamber.
Posted by: Tom | March 01, 2009 at 11:18 PM