Bush's Legacy - unrealistic expectations for Obama from his own base

[CTLawGuy]

There are several reasons that Bush was so successful at doing so much damage--i.e. doing what he wanted. Obama, as you will see, does not have these same advantages.

1. A party that discourages diversity of thought. The Repubs are driven by powerful interest groups and talk radio, all that spew out the same organized set of talking points. Republicans who might dissent cower in fear of groups like Club for Growth, who keep them in line. This means Bush could always count on congressional Republican unity, even in the Senate.

By contrast, the Democratic party attracts people with a greater diversity of philosophy. Democrats lack powerful interest groups that threaten primary challenges against dissenting Democrats (and many centrist Democrats are from areas of the country where there basically ARE no liberals that could keep them in line, i.e. the south or Nebraska). Unlike Bush, Obama has to actually worry whether these centrist/conservative Democrats will support his bills. Hence the "bipartisan fetish" that people here ignorantly whine about.

2. Effective congressional leaders AND Incompetent opposition leaders. When the Dems were in the minority, they were led by fairly timid people. I'm speaking mostly of Tom Daschle and Harry Reid. They refused to do anything to oppose major portions of Bush's agenda, the biggest example being the Iraq War. I still remember being sick listening to Tom Daschle pledging to give the president all the support he needs. Harry Reid was not much better. The Repubs were able to become an efficient rubber stamp for Bush's agenda through competent leadership. They used the novel idea in the Senate that you only need 51 votes to pass legislation.

By contrast, Obams deals with Democratic leaders unwilling to assert themselves and an opposition party united in the single goal of tearing down anything he does. Meanwhile Harry Reid has magically raised the vote threshold for EVERYTHING to 60 votes--instant costless filibuster. So not only does Obama have to worry ANYWAY about pleasing more conservative members of his own party to get 51 votes because there are not enough liberals in the senate, but he REALLY has to try to be bipartisan to get anything passed over Harry Reid's artificially enhanced threshold.

3. Utter disregard for boundaries--the constitution/international law. Bush was so slavishly devoted to his ideology that he would flout and ignore rules and laws that bound his decision making. The biggest examples are torture and the Iraq War. If you don't care about the rule of law or what the consequences of your actions are, you can accomplish a lot.

Obama respects the boundaries to his power like the constitution and international law, which is a great thing. We want our leaders to follow the law, even if they disagree with the law. Otherwise the president becomes a de facto legislator and is abusing his power. If you think that Obama should flout laws like DOMA and DADT because they are wrong, imagine Bush flouting the Voting Rights Act or social security or anti-torture laws (oops, he actually did that). I'm sure Bush thought anti-torture laws were wrong when "national security" was involved, but that sure as hell didn't give him the right to ignore said laws.

[Clio the Leo]

1. VERY valid point re: regional differences.....

... I think what some of us fail to realize is that the few Democratic members of Congress that are from the South ... Heath Shuler comes to mind, Harold Ford when he was in office .... MUST be more moderate to either get elected here or STAY in office.

We are lucky to have them .... it's either a moderate Dem or no dem at all I'm afraid. As I have said on NUMEROUS occasions, I would GLADLY take a Blue Dog/DLC/whatever over the peanut head (Wamp) I have representing me now. (or NOT representing me rather.)

[no_hypocrisy]

2. There is one more factor to be considered.

An unspoken worry or even desperation that the 2010 elections will bring a republican majority to the House, the Senate, or both and frustrate any reform/change that Obama had promised. And the campaigns for that election have effectively started already. Any vote by an incumbent will be used against him/her.

[JamesA1102]

3. Great analysis

But I would point out that one of the reasons for number 2 is number 1.

[craigmatic]

4. Not all of that is true

Bush pushed through his agenda in congress by a combination of being willing to bribe i.e. sign any bill his party wanted, bullying his opponents in congress to do things his way after 9/11 (even in his own party), and essentially staging a coup in the senate replacing lott with frist. There was diversity of thought in the republican party between traditional republicans who wanted to be conservative economically and the bible thumping religious fanatical neocons these 2 groups might agree on 70% of policy but are pretty different on the 30 % like using federal money for religious causes. Essentially bush got the support of the members of his party in the south, west, and midwest but it was the repubs from the northeast that gave him the most trouble. Jeffers left the party and turned the senate over to the dems. Lincoln Chaffee didn't follow his 100% of the time and neither did the 2 senators from Maine. Obama's problems are similar in that bush's worst in party opposition came from the north east Obama's worst opposition comes from the south. Obama has Pelosi in the house pushing through his agenda. The only real opposition in the senate are about 9 or 10 dems who either have the lobyists in their ears or are conservative wal mart backers from the south and west. The real question for me will be how the class of 2006 and 2008 vote on healthcare.

[stevenleser]

5. Great OP that should be pinned by the mods to the top of GD-P

so that all of us can refer to it as necessary.

;-)

[GivePeaceAchance]

6. Exactly our side doesn't fund the infrastructure for Obama to be liberal. I always donate to ....

liberal sources it's in everyones interest the message is everything. It's most essential thing everyone can do is making sure everyone across the nation hears the truth for the truth to run free. But not only that promote MSNBC, liberal radio and sites like crazy via facebook or banners. We have to completely drown out the right wing machine till no senator can avoid doing the right thing, because everyone will be watching. Well I say our side doesn't fund well at least fund it enough really, every penny spent is an investment in health care, incrementally more peace and hopefully over extended time more justice. Nature demonstrates when you sew the small seeds there is a large harvest so always give generously. I mean President Obama gave and investment injection to broadband for a reason he is giving us the tools all we have to do is make them work for everyone getting the word out.

[Odin2005]

7. Exactly. Obama is a president, not a dictator.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Good analysis

I might add that, as *bad* as some people seem to believe President Obama is, any of the other candidates for POTUS last year would've been dealing with much the same obstacles and would probably be facing much the same criticism, I'm afraid. Only being five months in, all things considered, President Obama is doing a good job IMHO and I have no reason to believe that he won't tackle important things like DOMA and DADT in due time.