***Originally published in The Harvard Citizen, 9/30/09***
Nothing has become more ubiquitous in American politics than pundits making baseless predictions about the future. Democratic ‘experts’ determined that the Clinton machine would simply be too much for Barack Obama to overcome. Just over six months before John McCain all but clinched his party’s nomination for president, ‘expert’ Charlie Cook proclaimed that, “…McCain’s campaign is over.” In 2005, ‘expert’ Dick Morris published an entire book entitled, “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”
After November’s election, pundits fell in love with a new fallacy: the election of Barack Obama represented a shift toward a post-partisan America exemplified by his ability to garner support from scores of Independents and Republicans. Commentators contrasted his campaign rhetoric with the divisive last eight years and lauded his Inaugural Address in which he called for “…an end to the petty grievances and false promises…that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
Such assertions were laughable. What does it even mean to be post-partisan? Given his position as the leader of the Democratic Party, it was not logically possible for Obama to be post-partisan when, by definition, he was a partisan. He was elected as a Democrat, would continue to lead the Democrats, and would therefore govern as a Democrat.
This point was codified just two days after his election with the appointment of Rahm Emanuel to serve as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel – a feisty, partisan, and effective operative from the Clinton years and respected congressman and Democratic strategist during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives – was a great pick to help the president push his ambitious agenda through the tricky corridors of Capitol Hill. But post-partisan it was not. With a fresh mandate from the American people, President Obama had the ability to select a deputy who would not draw the ire of Republicans. Instead, he chose someone who could ease relations with fellow Democrats, choosing partisan efficiency over bipartisan symbolism.
His first big legislative push, the stimulus bill, was an opportunity to pass legislation without regard to party politics. The handling of this issue would set the tone for his presidency. Yet, to avoid conflict with members of the Democratic caucus, the President deferred to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, allowing party leaders in Congress to write the bill.
As could be expected, the bill did not win Republican support. While both parties recognized the need to pass a stimulus package, the Democratic-written bill contained a large amount of pork for narrow interests of specific members of Congress. A bill stripped of this pork could have won Republican support, but Obama’s desire to avoid antagonizing members of his own party caused him to sign a bill that could have been vastly improved.
Defenders of the President argue that Republicans are obstructionist and are seeking to derail Obama’s agenda for purely political reasons. While this may hold true for a select few members of the party, the vast majority of Republicans take their duty seriously and seek to advocate on behalf of their constituents each and every day. It is not helpful to the debate to impute the motives of the opposition.
The only way to have true post-partisanship in Washington would be to elect an Independent candidate for President, one not beholden to the interests and pressures of either party. Such a scenario could provide the ultimate test of this country’s ingrained two-party system. But would a president without a party be able to govern?
Students of history could cite the difficult terms of Presidents John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, who both struggled to accomplish their goals due to their ambiguous party status. Perhaps, nearly 150 years later, it is time to give it another shot. What could an engaging, charismatic leader such as Barack Obama accomplish as president if he did not have the shackles of the Democratic Party hampering his every move? What could he be advocating if he did not have to worry about earning his party’s nomination again in 2012?
To the President, I would offer this advice: resign from the Democratic Party. Only then will you be able to live up to the rhetoric of your campaign and act as the president of all of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Then, we can fairly judge you on your promise to unite this country and put the politics of old behind.
If you are not willing to do that, then please bring your rhetoric in line with your governance. Acknowledge who got you here and that yes you, like those before you, do what is necessary to accomplish your goals in the partisan political environment that is Washington. Begin to push through your legislative agenda using force, if necessary. Elections have consequences, and it is about time you started using your mandate.
