Legal Commentary

Obama No Lieberman? Sure, But What Is the Unifying Theory?

By Big Tent Democrat

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall's cutesy headline about David Ignatius' column misses a key point. Of course, Barack Obama is not Joe Lieberman. But that is what the Media thinks "bipartisanship" means. That is the essence of High Broderism - unity means Dems capitulating to Republicans on the issues. The question then is how exactly will, if not through High Broderism, Obama unify the country in post partisan fashion? We are back to discussing Mark Schmitt's theory of Obama change. I hold to my view (for an opposing view, here is scribe's take):

SCHMITT: This is the math of bipartisanship. It's not a matter of sitting down with thugs like John Boehner and splitting the difference, but winning over just a few Senate Republicans from outside the South. And if the number is small enough, that's entirely possible. . . . Obama's approach is better positioned to take advantage of this math. . . . [A]fter the inauguration, I think that opposition to Hillary Clinton will remain a galvanizing theme for Republicans, whereas a new face and will make it harder to recreate the familiar unity-in-opposition.

Now for the cosmic explanation: What I find most interesting about Obama's approach to bipartisanship is how seriously he takes conservatism. As Michael Tomasky describes it in his review of The Audacity of Hope, "The chapters boil down to a pattern: here's what the right believes about subject X, and here's what the left believes; and while I basically side with the left, I think the right has a point or two that we should consider, and the left can sometimes get a little carried away." What I find fascinating about his language about unity and cross-partisanship is that it is not premised on finding Republicans who agree with him, but on taking in good faith the language and positions of actual conservatism -- people who don't agree with him. That's very different from the longed-for consensus of the Washington Post editorial page.

[Obama's theory of change] Sounds beautiful doesn't it? Obama is for taking the GOP seriously and winning the argument! Except we all know in real life that does not work. Politics is NOT a debating society.

To accept this theory of politics is to ignore EVERYTHING we know about politics and the Republican Party of today.

It simply sounds naive. Frankly, I imagine Obama, if he becomes President, will soon learn this and will learn that he is not the singular figure in the history of the nation who can abolish politics.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 02, 2008 (boomark / email).