A Democratic Freakout?

By Dave

That's what conservative Jon Henke sees on the horizon:

The first Democratic freak out will be an internal Congressional fight in 2010 over whether to (1) move big and fast while they still have the votes, or (2) slow down and preserve as many seats as they can. The second Democratic freak out is going to occur in 2011 and beyond, when Democrats try to figure out what the lesson of the 2010 elections really is.

• Progressives - and especially the netroots - will say the lesson is "Damn the Republicans, Full Speed Ahead", but that's what they always say.  Revolutionaries like bold action more than practical details.
• Moderates/pragmatists will say the lesson is "don't try to do too much, take smaller steps, make reasonable compromises".  But that is more effective at maintaining power than accomplishing major policy goals.

I think, except for moderates/pragmatists part, Henke's analysis is largely right. At least, it's definitely a possibility. As I've said before, I don't think 2010 will be a year of amazing legislative success. The realist (or cynic) in me says that 2010 is a mid-term election year. Historically, the party in power loses seats. Democrats are nervous. As Wade's post showed, Republicans have no idea why they lost the last two elections and their confusion makes them all the more pissed off and angry. They smell blood in the water and think now is their time to seize back power. They are going to fight with everything they have.

So this makes for a cautious legislative environment, particularly for those with fragile holds on their seats.  

But that being said, I don't think 2010 will be some sort of 'lost year.' If health care reform passes, the toughest battles will be behind Democrats. Sure, climate change regulation will be difficult but can it be as hard as health-care? I don't think so. Reid is already saying the Senate will be up for it by Spring.

My prediction: 2010 will be a year for low hanging legislative fruit, symbolic victories to rally the base, and maybe one or two big, important, but divisive issues (climate change and financial reform?).

As for the Henke's analysis of Moderates/Pragmatists, I 'd say the Obama track record shows exactly the opposite. Pragmatists have made concessions and compromises in order to accomplish major policy goals. (See: Stimulus, health care, etc.) It still is yet to be seen if this strategy will help them maintain power.

Better than LBJ?

By Dave

That's what a report from Congressional Quarterly says. Obama won 96.7% of the votes in which he had any stake. That's almost 4 points higher than Lyndon Johnson, the famed arm-twister of the Senate. Not bad at all.

The reason for Obama's success is two-fold. First, the President has been very cautious, almost to a fault, about the fights he's willing engage in. Second, Obama has been very willing to accept compromise in order to secure a victory. There has yet to be an issue in which the President has drawn a line in the sand and declared "We will accept no less than (name your arbitrary breaking point)!" This all goes back to Obama's training as a community organizer. To paraphrase Saul Alinsky: if you come in with nothing, ask for 100% and compromise for 30%, you're 30% ahead! Declare victory and continue to fight another day. Having nothing doesn't leave you or your constituents any better off.

This mentality seems to have made for a good legislative track record. But it has left the liberal base restless. Americans, left and right, like to treat politics like team sports. They want to see their guys win and the other guys lose. Preferably lose big. People want to see you spike the ball in the other guys face. As a result, some on the left claim to be disheartened or even betrayed by Obama.

Personally, I've appreciated the President's style of governance. I like that Obama isn't "The Decider." Maureen Dowd be damned! I like that he doesn't treat us like children. I'm glad we finally have a president who doesn't act catty or petulant. Obama took the distinction between campaigning and governing seriously. We should be proud. It's something the last guys didn't do at all!


But I get it. It would be nice to see Obama put his foot down and get tough on an issue or two. My guess is we'll see more of that in 2010. It's a campaign year, after all. It could be a year to give red meat to the base and get down and dirty against political opponents.

But I wouldn't be surprised if their stellar legislative record suffered, as a result.