A Tale of Two Models

There have been two Democratic administrations in the past 40 years (prior to the current, putatively Democratic one).

One of them was weak, indecisive, self-involved, malaise-mongering. It lasted one term, and did great things... for the Republican Party.

The other, while flawed, was energized, smart and combative. It swam against the prevailing tide, and yet managed to last two terms and deliver unprecedented peace and prosperity.

Guess which of those models our current occupant has run away from as fast as he can? Guess which predecessor he has mirrored -- up to and including a reflexive desire to self-flagellate and appease enemies?

Just sayin'...

If this is the case...

If it has become evident that Jimmy Carter II is harmfully unserious as a leader, then how is it possible for any, er, serious observer to continue maintaining that he was ever the right choice as our candidate? Does it not follow that everyone who pushed him, who put their thumb on the scale, who demonized the Clintons, who indulged in their deeper misogyny, who nominated this person... owes America a big "mea culpa"?

Sweeheart, Get Me Rewrite

Too little, too late.

Too little, too late.

Oh, I don't have the energy for this. You fill in the rest.

On Leadership

This duck is getting lamer by the hour. The House is balking on healthcare, in response to the Tuesday Night Mass-acre. Dems in the Senate are yelling, “Bring me the head of Ben Bernanke” – and if they’re going after even him, the best of our financial brain trust, it tells you that Geithnerdaemmerung (duly acknowledged, Professor Pun) and Summers’s End can’t be far behind.

So the Administration’s two signature initiatives – healthcare reform and financial recovery – are now generally regarded as failures across the political spectrum. Even if Congress manages to semi-rise to the occasion, the moment has passed for the party's and nation's leader to get political credit for it. Overall, “Change you can believe in” has devolved into “Better than nothing.” And that’s among his supporters.

And the White House's political response is... to bring back David Plouffe?!

Why did this collapse occur? The standard trope in the Pumasphere is that it’s about ideology: He wasn’t Left enough or principled enough. As BTD always reminds them, “pols are pols… and they do what they do.”

In many respects, I share that view – and I greatly admire BTD. But I don’t think it’s a sufficient explanation of the current devolution of the Administration to say that Barack Obama is, after all, just a pol… or even to say that he’s a Republican in Dem’s clothing. Because the collapse of his Administration isn’t only about motives or ideology. It’s also about the skills of leadership.

FDR was a pol. Lyndon Johnson was a pol. Jimmy Carter was a pol. Bill Clinton was a pol. All of them were left of center. But their impacts varied greatly. Of course, much of that had to do with the moment in history each inherited – the pond inside of which each was fated to swim. But it also had to do, in part at least, with their individual capacity to lead – to understand present societal and economic realities, to project trajectories into the future, and to turn that understanding into actual outcomes through political action. Their ability to form coalitions, to frame debate, to set agendas (rather than play inside somebody else’s), to make decisions. Their degree of clarity about who they themselves are.

On that front – the capacity to lead – Barack Obama doesn’t get a B+, or a C+. If we’re being generous, he’d get a D+. He just isn’t right for the job. And that is, imo – yes, along with the other factors of policy squishiness and faux purity (or, if you prefer, the delusions of his Kool-Aid drinking followers) – the reason for his political collapse, his loss of the capacity to govern.

As we sit here today, does Barack Obama have any base left? Is there any chunk of the population, even of the Village, that would rally to his defense in the event of a challenger for the nomination? BTD thinks so. I'm not convinced. And so it is seeming to me more and more possible that Hillary Clinton will become President in 2012... that the next election will be a do-over.

Obviously, she wouldn’t do anything to break away from the Administration before the mid-terms. But assuming that this implosion of Obama’s political power continues, that his descent into Jimmy Carterdom isn’t reversed in some as-of-now inconceivable way, the Democratic Party will be presiding over a dyspeptic stasis come early 2011, even if they hold onto majorities in both houses. They’ll be looking around for some way to save their individual and collective asses in the next Presidential cycle, looking for someone, anyone, to fill the empty space currently occupied by our Vacuum-in-Chief. And who else is out there who could challenge Hillary for that job – assuming she wants it?

The tipping (over the cliff) point?

Was this the beginning of the end? It certainly feels more like that than the end of the beginning.

With the debacle in Massachusetts, we may be hearing the bell tolling for the Obama edition of American Idol. It’s a bit early to know, of course… but on my Magic 8 Ball, it says, “Signs point to yes.”

As I speculated in my previous post, the time will (in all likelihood) arrive when a consensus crystallizes that this Administration is Jimmy Carter II. That moment might be right now. Certainly, the hamina-hamina-kumbayamina response from the White House does nothing to staunch that perception.

Whether it’s now or in November, once this consensus forms, it’s game over, politically speaking. When it becomes generally understood that a person in charge can be rolled, everybody starts acting on the basis of that understanding, and the natural forces of vacuum-abhorrence take over. Departmental satraps strut a bit more confidently. External competitors and allies alike make plans with a weak actor in mind. Everywhere, small-ball power games get ramped up. The center does not hold. Mere anarchy may not yet be loosed… but at best, stasis reigns supreme.

As to the personal narratives here, the whole thing has a kind of Mobius-strip-like quality, folding back on itself.

Ted Kennedy's long-ago fatal sexual flaws mean he doesn't defeat Jimmy Carter for the nomination…

So that Jimmy Carter's leadership flaws mean that we get Ronald Reagan…

So that Ronald Reagan's political luck can land him in office at the moment the Soviet Union is collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions…

So that the end of the Cold War (and related rise of globalization) can unleash a new political alignment…

So that Bill Clinton can emerge to grab one part of that new alignment – and do the best that can be done, still inside the rightward pendulum swing…

So that his sexual flaws can then derail the end of his presidency... and cloud Al Gore's vision...

So that Gore's political limitations (and a criminal Supreme Court) can allow W to "win"…

So that W and Cheney can unleash the Right’s fondest fantasies...

So that those fantasies can crash and burn -- not only much of our government and society, but the GOP as a national party...

Meanwhile, back to Ted Kennedy…

Whose jealousy and unresolved regrets about his own truncated ambitions lead him to turn on the Clintons...

So that Obama gets crucial help in gaming the nomination…

So that, when Teddy dies, Obama's limits as a leader result in the loss of Teddy's empty seat to a W clone...

So that the chances for Teddy's lifelong political goal may once again fail to materialize.

“Where have all the flowers gone? Picked by young girls every one..."