Did the U.S. Turn Socialist Just Because Obama Won?

TNR’s Chait gets it wrong thinking Americans are all nouveau left-wingers just because Barack Obama won the White House

Jonathan Chait is all upset at the Democratic Party. Hs is damning their eyes for not blindly accepting every extremist, left-wing idea that President Obama would like to implement. Chait is wailing that Congressional Democrats are standing athwart Obama's radical agenda just when he assumes we are at a "once-in-a-generation chance for the Democratic Party to reshape" the country.

Chait is right, of course, that Congressional Democrats are not bending over blindly for Obama's agenda and many elected officials are jealously guarding their privilege is true enough. He is also right that Obama has faced some obstacles within his own party -- and it is probably coming as a surprise to the president, too. But he is wrong to assume they are doing it for spite, mere power or necessarily for personal aggrandizement. In fact, Chait has a major misunderstanding of the very country that Democrats represent. You see, Chait thinks that just because Obama won a 7 percent majority of the vote the whole country is ready to become a radicalized, socialist, anti-religious, and virulently anti-capitalist nation. Chait makes the major mistake in thinking "the people" of the United States of America are just like him.

Chait does a fine job in The New Republic chronicling what he sees as the unexpected and unwarranted resistance by many Democrats to the Obama agenda. He talks of arcane Senate rules and recalcitrant coalitions. He decries the many times that Democrats have thrown up minor road blocks to Obama's "reshaping" of the country.

However, Chait seems completely unable to fathom why this is so. He wonders why Republicans found it so easy to implement Bush's plans and marvels at how Bush moved full speed ahead after the 2000 election when so many from the chattering classes imagined that he'd have to scale back his agenda. Why can't Democrats do this, he moans?

Chait ends up deciding that these failures prove that Democrats are "congenitally" unable to govern. (Incidentally, the same thing is often said of Republicans. This might be a hint that the checks and balances inherent in our system exist for a reason, eh? Not that Chait grasps this concept.)

His main lament is close to the end of the piece:

Democratic partisans constantly complain that their leaders in Washington fail to display the same partisan unity as Republicans do. And, in many crucial respects, they are correct. Even when they control the White House and both branches of Congress, Democrats have not displayed the parliamentary-style cohesion Republicans managed under Bush.

But Chait makes a mistake to imagine that Republicans are better at party unity. The mistake he makes is based on where he and those "Democratic partisans" stand on the political spectrum. Naturally from the extreme left it will look like Democrats aren't far enough left and aren't supporting the correct ideas in a unified way.

Apparently, Chait thinks that just because the Democrats have a majority that the extreme left should prevail. And here is his problem, here is why he completely misunderstands why not all Democrats are dutifully lining up under the banner of the Mau Tse-tung wing of the Democratic Party. You see, not every Democrat is a bomb-throwing, worker's party member wannabe. Most Democrats are average, center left, Scoop Jackson sorts of Americans, not beret-wearing, sandal sporting, protest sign carrying Code Pinkos.

The reason that Bush found his agenda far easier to get through Congress, mandate or no, is that his ideas were far closer to the center than Obama's, or Clinton's initially turned out to be or Carter's were. Most Americans are center left/center right and not extremists to one side or another. But, for sure, they are far closer as a whole to the center right than the left. This country generally sports a traditional, conservative mind-set, Democrats and Republicans alike.

So, when Obama comes sweeping in proposing to devastate businesses with card check laws, a radical takeover our national health care system, and a massive bloating of the federal government, those center right constituents of many Democrats begin to get a little uneasy. They begin to call their Congressmen and Senators to urge a little cooling off time. And, therefore, Congressional Democrats begin to pull back from Obama's radical agenda.

Sure it looks like the party isn't unified. But it isn't because Democrats don't want to be buddies in a gauzy world of happiness and wallowing in moments of kum-bye-yah harmony with each other. It's because they are getting push back from the people that put them in office.

Remember that whole "representative" part of a representative republic, Mr. Chait?

The fact is the country DOES NOT agree with the extremist, left-wing agenda that Chait thinks Democrats should be able to push through just because they have a majority. He completely misses that this is why his ideas don't get passed.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

0
Your rating: None

Comments

I thought all liberal were socialists?

You're telling me there's degrees of leftism! My goodness! *Gasp*

Cheer up

Cheer up, WTH - your fellow countrymen are a lot happier:

Washington Post/ABC News Poll

Do you think things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel that things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

Right Direction

  • Dec - 15%
  • Jan - 19%
  • Feb - 31%
  • Now - 42%

 

Wait until the bills come due

shopaholics are always on  a high while shopping.

It feels good to spend a trillion dollars. But when the bills come due, the infighting starts.

You analogy is so wrong

Your analogy is so wrong it is pitiful - the idea that people get a vicarious thrill from TARP is laugh out loud ridiculous. Is that the best you can do to explain why people have greater confidence in the current administration than the pathetic bunch that have just left?

How else to explain?

 

 

The debt is unsustainable, according to the CBO (forgive me if I take their numbers instead of the Obama administration’s).

Do you realize the debt load that is unnecessarily being put on my children and grand children? I know you're a hopeychanger, but even the most vacuous Obama drone would have to realize at some point that all this spending will have a detrimental affect on all of us. Not today, not next year, but for the next 5 to 10 years and beyond.

Are we to believe that this is the first recession that would not end unless the U.S. goes into extreme debt for the next 10+ years? The very first one?

You need to listen when someone like Rahm Emmanuel says "never waste a crisis". I wonder what in the hell do you think that means? What? Really? Do you think it means, "we need to solve this crisis"? Or do you think it means "lets use this crisis to scare people into going along with our agenda"?

 

Debt is always sustainable

As long as no one decides to go to war with us.

It is the price we have to pay

First off, the claim that the CBO says the debt is unsustainable is bunk - it is just another right wing talking point that is not grounded in reality.

Second,  what is happening is the chickens coming home to roost - you have only yourself to blame for the fact that your children and grandchildren are still going to dealing with the messes left behind by the Bush Administration. Do you think the Germans blamed Konrad Adenauer for the piles of rubble in Berlin?

And who interesting it is to read that for some reason you DON'T believe that where we are now borders on the Great Depression? Lets hear your explanation for why things are, in fact, not so bad.

Given that monetary policy has no where else to go (nothing below ZERO, is there?) what past remedies seem like winners to you?

 

 

I'm Sorry

Let me rephrase:

Anyone with common sense reading the CBO projections of deficits and debt under the Obama plan would conclude they are unsustainable.

Housing started to turn around before the stimulous package hit. So, yes, we could have recovered without spending $750 billion on pork. (I know, not ONE DIME was spent on pork-in your world).

Your Konrad Adenauer analagy is hysterical! Thanks for the laugh.

It would only apply if he, upon looking at the piles of rubble in Berlin, said "let's bomb it again and do it right this time!"

Scarey that you believe this crap though. .  .

So, this is what a "housing turnaround" looks like?

So, this is what a "housing turnaround" looks like?

U.S. home prices fell an average of 19 percent in January from a year earlier, the largest one-year drop on record, according to a report released Tuesday. Foreclosures and a hefty backlog of unsold houses continued to glut the market and weigh on consumer confidence.

"Most of the nation appears to remain on a downward path, with all of the 20 metro areas reporting annual declines, and nine of the [metro areas] falling more than 20 percent in the last year," David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor's, said in a statement.

Your disconect from the real world is amazing.

 

 

I said "started to turn around"

I don't think you have the bandwidth to comprehend this, but, no Obama plan will raise real estate prices to  pre-bubble prices and then begin selling like hotcakes again. No matter how much he spends.

Those were artificial prices caused by Fannie and Freddie and there corrupt DEMOCRAT beneficiaries (Frank,Dodd,Obama).

See, the bubble bursts . . prices drop. . .buyers re enter the market . . .nevemind, way to complex for you. Just "hope" it all works out, okay?

Lets see your evidence

Lets see your evidence that the turnaround has started - or that it started on its own, without any intervention.

Housing Starts, Existing Home Sales

http://www.forecasts.org/house.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sales of previously occupied homes jumped unexpectedly in February by the largest amount in nearly six years as first-time buyers took advantage of deep discounts on foreclosures and other distressed properties.

Economists said sales, while still at levels not seen since 1997, may finally be coming back to life after declining sharply following the stock market plunge last autumn

Must not have made your talking points memo.

It would be self evident that if the porkulous package didn't pass until mid February, it couldn't have had an effect on these numbers.

45% of sales being to bottom feeders is not indicative of

housing rebound. In fact, with residental construction still dropping... And more importantly inventory increasing... we still have 9.7 months of sales on the market -- that's flat, not dropping. Sales are not the only indicator!

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/03/existing-home-sales-increase-s...

also see:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/03/march-economic-summary-in-grap...

Are you betting on construction yet? ;-)

The bleeding has to stop before the recovery can begin

and it looks like we may be flattening out.

Permits are up marginally, so as cheap mortgages and the $8,000 first time buyer tax credit hit, well we'll see. Amazing that you can give a tax incentve, rather than a handout can actually help.

Of course inventory has to clear, but what a great time to be a young person with good credit that had previously been squeezed out of the markey due to high prices.

But that is not what you said

I quote your statement from above:

Housing started to turn around before the stimulous package hit.

Now that you've been pressed for you, you know, facts and stuff like that, you say:

The bleeding has to stop before the recovery can begin

and

it looks like we may be flattening out

I give you a great big Tweety "HAH!"

Which would exhaust your vacabulary

I gave you the facts. As usual if you libs don't like the facts, you change the metric.

If I wanted to say the real estate market has recovered, I would have said that (and been incorrect). I know that you believe that with the Obama magic, one month we will be in recession/depression, and the following month fully recovered and churning forward with remarkable GDP.

Can you discern the difference between a "turnaround" and a "recovery"? The numbers have to turnaround before the market can recover.

Yes you supplied some facts

but unfortunately they do not support your initial assertion, which you are now backpeddling on. Don't worry, I'm sure you people on the Right will eventually get the hang of this "rational argument" thing.

Yeah right like the global warming "rational argument"

Oh, thats right, all the scientists agree and there is no more need for debate.

Declare "concensus" and move on. I hope never to be that rational, or looney, thank you.

 

I suppose you also deny

that there is a higher risk of cancer and heart attacks among smokers?

Deny-Love it!

Yes. Agree or you are a DENIER! Now we make riduculous arguments with faulty parallelisms and high five ourselves! Yeah! The left has all the facts!!!

Don't worry. Conservativism is dead and the left will rule for 1,000 years. Its UNDENIABLE!

 

 

I believe

I believe that my work here is done.

If your work was getting

If your work was getting your backside handed to you, then yes your are done.

When we are 99.9999% confident

that global warming is occuring, based on current data sets -- you'd have to be nucking futz to not believe in it.

Am i right?

I'm not saying that our confidence interval is that good, no way in hell. But I'm just asking you to explain to me how much inductive reasoning it would take to change your mind.

I'm talking about "Rational Argument" from the left

Global Warming has plenty of room for debate in my opinion. Should we continue to work to reduce emissions? Yes. Should we destroy the economy with Cap and Trade schemes? No.

Is there conclusive proof that man is causing the earth to heat? No.

confidence intervals or GTFO.

What confidence interval would you need to be convinced that man was heating the earth's atmosphere?

At what, presumably lower number, would you be willing to admit that it was "a really bad potential possibility" that as a conservative, you think we ought to guard against? (we're on the inside edge, the hot edge, of human habitable planets, fwiw. I think there's reason to be prudent).

Conservatism has never been about sticking your head in the goddamn sand and saying "lala, let's listen to more propaganda now"

What I'm saying

Is that it can't be proven.The propaganda is coming from Gore and company.

If I were the benevolent dictator of the world, I would start building nukes for power. A plant costs $10 Billion, and we just spent $750 Billion on "stimulous". If Obama were serious about Global Warming, he would do some thing about it. And don't tell me cap and trade is doing something, because thats just political BS.

 

proof, shmoof. what's your confidence interval?

if you ain't got one, you ain't gonna hear back from me. Because if you can't admit you're wrong, when in a billion chances, there's only one frail chance that you're right.... then you don't deserve conversation. you deserve ridicule.

Global Warming is False

But, treating the planet well makes sense. I'm all for a better environment through technology. We are moving that way if only because fossile fuels are getting to be more difficult to depend on as far as supply.

I'll ask you a question:if there is serious concern around global warming, why aren't we building nukes? As a stimulous, they are long term projects that provide high tech jobs, once completed will provide more good paying jobs, and there is  built in market for what they produce. France gets 75% of their power from nukes.

But, my feeling is the same people who run around and say the world is ending are the same one's that say no nukes. And no solar in the desert, and no wind mills off cape cod.

And denmark gets all their power from wind.

Remember that they're in an integrated power grid across Europe -- it's not like they aren't buying power from other places... Whatever's cheapest is what gets got.

Uranium is no magic solution, we have about 300 years worth of supply at current usage rates. However, that's a lot better than we can say about oil -- where we've basically hit peak (if you assume a growing world economy, which isn't the case about now).

There are some wacked out environmentalists out there...

I'm strongly pro-nuclear power -- with the understanding that we need to use it as a "bridge" fuel, and not an end in of itself -- it will run out too, and if we double the amount of nuclear power plants, it will run out a lot quicker.

In everything, we have to make sacrifices. Me? I want to beam all of our energy down from space using giant mirrors. That's truly sustainable.

yes, yes, I see your blasted point.

i just disagree with your facts, and posted someone far more qualified to discuss why your facts are bloomin' idiotic. But hell, I'm willing to make this an honest wager. If we see some honest improvement (based on what Calculated Risk has to say -- and though he's been a bear, he's pretty honest about such things) in March, I'll write a whole essay here about me dancing around in a tutu and tiara. If we don't see such a thing, are you willing to do similar?

You are on. Bring on March

You are on. Bring on March Madness.

a man of his word!

An admirable trait, that.

I tip my hat to you sir, and may the best man win! ;-)

Are you INSANE?

or have you just not been listening to me?

Yes, I am very glad that we don't have a $16,000 tax credit available to everyone. That's rewarding problem behavior, and I dislike stupid shit like that. Strings got pulled to get that out of the bill.

Of course, an $8,000 tax credit is only seen as helping if you like the idea of putting our gov't in arrears just to artifically inflate housing prices.... by 8k

The credit crunch for consumers is intensifying. Trust me, if you lose your credit card (and Amex is cancelling like crazy), you're more likely to think twice about a new house.

Also, prices have yet to bottom in most distressed places. Buying now is betting that your neighbor won't be a crackhead whore, and that you will still have police protection. Not to mention that your house won't be burned down in a riot.

Ayiyi, folks, please, wait until the knives stop dropping!

housing starts rising?

did you happen to notice that "rising housing starts" are still well, well below the lowest of the 1982 recession that the gop thinks is the correlary to this one?

you are delusional

I suggest you read calculated risk, which will explain exactly why we haven't nearly hit bottom in residential housing (and commerical real estate is widely expected to lag that)

Obama's plan is not breaking windows.

When's bottom?

I'm moving to Hawaii, and I figured if I could get a house cheap there it might be worthwhile :D

oy. a quick google finds... (since hawaii isn't on case shiller)

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090305/BUSINESS04/903050318/...

If you won't be on O'ahu, you might try contacting the people who did the study. They might have some research on other islands...

Bush found it easier because of one reason

9/11

I mean, seriously. You wrote all of those paragraphs without mentioning the sole event that completely empowered the conservative foreign policy agenda that defined Bush's entire 8 years in office. If he had chosen, he could have EASILY passed every one on Obama's current policy initiatives in the 2002 budget.

Absurd

Bush was getting his agenda thru before that. Besides, 9/11 didn't have anything to do with most of his domestic agenda.

you're missing the point

It was Bush's sky-high approval ratings after 9/11 that allowed him to invade Iraq or basically push whatever agenda he desired. Bush really didn't have a domestic agenda beyond tax cuts and deregulation, which weren't really considered controversial since the country was running a surplus at the time.

Bush was not popular before 9/11, especially after the embarrassing blunder with China. His administration would have had little chance of getting anything done if his administration hadn't been sleeping at the wheel that summer.