I have to admit, much like Rachel Maddow, that the end of the year in politics was far different from what I expected. I, too, did not expect a lame duck session so chock full of undeniable accomplishment, genuine changes that forced me - even me - to admit that this President Obama guy might be kind of okay. Good, even.
The turn of events, all in the space of about 10 days, I think tended to throw everyone off, and has, in its way, made the start of this new year, and the prospect of a new Congress, even harder to anticipate. Will we get nothing but gridlock? Fighting? Or maybe, just maybe, some more remarkable accomplishments.
Don't look to me for predictions: I don't like them, and am often terrible at them. But I think to understand where we might be headed it's worthing noting that few people, seem to know what to make of what just happened, and almost no one seemed to note the few things I saw that might have some real impact going forward.
The main one, I think, is that the final weeks of the lame duck showed both the power and promise of Harry Reid, a reminder of why he is both underappreciated and uncredited with what accomplishments Democrats can actually celebrate, and that, along with his leadership, the story of the lame duck, probably, was the collapse of Mitch McConnell's "Just Say No" strategy for opposition. And if those two realities hold... then the next year or so may not be as bad as Democats fear... or Republicans hope.
Reid demonstrated those qualities that rarely get enough credit in these sped up times: patience, determination, a willingness to wait. At a time when so many had written off the "super majority" rules of the Senate as hopeless, Reid didn't just find the votes for the occasional 60, he found the more than 70 needed to move the START treaty as well. And that, really, is the kind of "politics of cooperation and compromise" that pro-compromisers like me wanted - not "don't stand for your principles", but "do what it takes to get the things you want done."
Still, I don't think we'd be looking at the results he got if it wasn't clear that the kind of "moderate Republicans" people had been counting on all along - the Olympia Snowes and Susan Collinses and Scott Browns and such - hadn't apparently grown tired of walking lockstep with GOP opposition. There is a point where not doing anything becomes the danger of doing nothing. Some things need to get done, and sometimes, it can be time to do them.
The "new Washington" after all, is a reality where the real power Republican will be John Boehner and his leadership team; even Mitch McConnell seems to get that, and none too happily. It may be that some Senators decided that it was better to get what they could now... but I also suspect that this is the new reality in the Senate: moderating compromises between Boehner, Reid and the White House will succeed with a smattering of GOP Senators willing to horse trade or accept compromises. The alternative - of continuing to oppose and every proposal - will not, for instance, get Scott Brown reelected.
All of that said, I don't think there's much for Democrats to feel that good about; the lame duck session was, in its way, also the moment when many Obama supporters learned their lessons the hard way: that Democrats really did lose in November's elections, that losses have consequences, and that the failure to save the House majority may have been preventable. Nor could supporters resume simple cheerleading for President Obama as a result of lame duck successes that had everything to do with the tenacity of gay activists, the work of Senators like (even I must admit) Kirsten Gillibrand and Joe Lieberman, and little to do with a White House that, even now, can't seem to figure out its message or its goals.
It may be that Obama and his team can produce some real changes out of the election results and end of the year reconsideration; though I don't think any White House has ever solved its problems with a few staffing changes. The real changes in a President's approach that result ibn success are qualities of adapting and shifting that Obama has not really shown, ever. So far, there seem to be no moves to offer more specifics, refocus on the economic needs of people well below median income, or to admit previous miscalculations. If none of those... then what, really, is about to change?
More likely, the President will limp into 2012 standing tall amidst midgets; there is little real appetite on the left to move to a different Democrat and pretty much no Democrat in the modd to challenge him. And while Republicans may have some successes on the edges of the "Obama Agenda" (the budget fights may indeed get interesting), there's little chance of repealing healthcare, undoing the limited financial "reforms" underway or much else. With neither side seeming any closer to producing the kind of political agenda that might attract a new wave of voters, we'll spend the 2012 election season replaying arguments of 2010 and some from 2008... and in that atmosphere, I suspect Obama will lokk better than just about any alternative. Which is not the same as saying he'll be the best, or the right, choice. Just better than the alternatives, much as he was against John McCain (and doesn't the dodging of a McCain Presidency - still - seem like the best reward Obama's provided?).
Mostly, I find myself facing 2011 much as I saw 2010 - few real expectations and the sense that we are stuck in a pattern which is frustrating for all, beneficial to few. "What now" is, in many ways, the wrong question. It's what we would want instead, and how we would go about getting it that I think few people are thinking deeply enough about, or proposing. And without that... what we get is going to look a lot like what we got. Feel better?
I think I look my best when standing tall among midgets. Really very lithe.
Posted by: Leigh | January 04, 2011 at 05:16 PM