Is It Possible To Change Washington?

Posted by Jason Douglas on 11.06.2009

A year after Barack Obama's historic victory, why so little progress?

Arianna Huffington wrote an article this week titled The Audacity of Winning Vs the Timidity of Governing (here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-one-year-later-the_b_343209.html). It was inspired by David Plouffe's new book about the Obama campaign, and she asked a key question: what would Candidate Obama think of President Obama? It cuts to the heart of an issue I've been debating with myself all year: Was Obama a wolf in sheep's clothing, or upon arriving in Washington was he swallowed up by a system so entrenched that no one can change it? First, for argument's sake we're going to assume that everything Obama campaigned on has majority public approval. Second, this isn't about asking why he hasn't achieved his stated agenda yet. We're talking about intentions and proposed action, not grading results. The "give him time" crowd has a point if the evidence suggests that he's pulling in the right direction and is merely meeting resistance and obstacles which have slowed him down.

There will be much discussion years from now about how Barack Obama fared as the first African American President. His successes and failures will be tied to the economy, the outcomes of wars, and whether he delivered on social changes he promised. These are very complex issues which don't allow cut and dry assessments of his individual performance. Just as you can't appraise a quarterback simply by his team's wins and losses, a President's effectiveness has to be placed in context. In the current context, the sitting President's party has super-majorities in both houses of Congress. He was elected by a populace which greatly disapproved of the previous administration, and was more afraid of staying on the same path than trying something new. Yet despite the stars aligning for Obama to be elected and have just about any idea embraced by the masses, if only because he isn't Bush, his initiative has been sorely lacking. Why?

To achieve a goal, the first thing a politician needs is to win his desired office. This is stating the obvious, but the implications of completing this first step affect everything that follows. Obama started out in the Chicago political machine, becoming a state Senator. It is impossible to win elected office as an Illinois Democrat without the support of this machine. This is a key point, because any notion of Obama's Presidential win being akin to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is false. He had a full taste of the most corrupt political system in the country right from the start. You shake hands with shady characters (google Tony Rezco), you smile and nod a lot so those with influence know you're one of them, and most of all your victory represents a guarantee of return on their investment. The examples of pay for play are too numerous to mention. What currently happens in Chicago is we have a system where everyone around the mayor who hasn't been convicted yet has their hands in things that range from ethically dubious to outright illegal. All the while, the mayor himself looks doe-eyed at the local press and says if there's corruption, he certainly isn't aware of it. As sure as the sky is blue, Richard M. Daley will never even be charged with a crime because he's smart enough to let his henchmen handle everything. There will never be a recording to link him to wrongdoing, because he's not even in the room when deals are cut. They get a wink and a nod and know what to do. This is the model President Obama witnessed for years, and never did he utter a word about it or aspire to change it. The only difference between how things are done in Chicago and in Washington is that in Chicago deals are for city contracts to benefit those who prop up complicit leaders, while in Washington lobbyists openly engage in bribery and nobody even worries about secrecy. Ted Stevens was caught dead-to-rights, convicted, and still never served one day in prison.

While the notion of someone becoming President through grassroots support is romantic, it doesn't happen. Obama's rise to the highest office began in Chicago, and it's no coincidence that his supporters here were brought along for the ride once he won. If he were to go against the machine even once, his largest source of support would be lost. Someone who won the popular vote by 6% can't afford to cast off his backers and prioritize the strength of his convictions. With the veto pen safely in the hands of a fellow Democrat, those who put Obama in the White House are free to bring the gravy train into the station. Any legislation that doesn't exist to facilitate pork barrel spending is a waste of time. I believe in principle that a government should deficit spend during a recession to spur the economy, and save for a rainy day when times are good. All we're seeing now is the perfect cover for massive waste and corruption. Streets that didn't need repair have been torn up and repaved while bridges continue to crumble. Why? Because the stimulus money has to be funneled to contractors the mayor's brother and other Daley friends just happen to own a large stake in.

At my most optimistic, I had hoped Obama would send lots of pork money back to Illinois in exchange for being free to pursue his national agenda. Instead, the tail is wagging the dog. Be it against Rahm Emanuel or the Geithner's and Bernanke's of the inner circle, I expected the President to stand tall and fight for his ideals, even if they came at a price. Instead, he is beholden to special interests. He cut a deal with Big Pharma, and hasn't spent any political capital on issues he promised to fight for. There's too much money at stake for his handlers to let him go off trying to make the world a better place. That's the real reason he has been nearly silent during the sparring over health care reform, save for one lofty speech. Those who really call the shots need their meal ticket to get four more years in office. Better to try for reform and fail than succeed but spend so much political capital in the process that down the line a big spending bill won't pass.

Over the course of the campaign, Barack Obama visibly aged about ten years. Was it because our economic meltdown would make his job many times harder? Was it the knowledge slowly setting in that things would be no different in Washington than back home? Or was it anxiety over how he would explain to the millions who supported him that "Yes we can" was just one more campaign slogan? Will he let the Wall Street and political insiders he has surrounded himself with largely call the shots, or will he realize that power is useless if he doesn't wield it? Bush never left any mystery about his goals, and plowed towards them with the full support of his party while half the country screamed. He got most of what he wanted, no matter how detrimental it has turned out. Obama had a huge approval rating, an agenda the country was ready for, and bigger majorities than Bush ever had, and he's still trying to make friends with those who will hate him no matter what he does. At this point in time, I assess George W. Bush as a better leader than Barack Obama. Maybe executive experience is more important than I thought when I voted for him. Bush could have proposed putting arsenic in school children's milk and had his party's full support. Obama can't get his side together on treating sick people. He can give a poetic speech and stir voter support, but politicians are immune to speeches. All they understand is money, and there's no money in helping people unless that help is connected to the votes that keep the gravy train rolling. Does such a connection exist? Will the profiteers have to answer to the people because it's good business, or can they run our nation in whatever way makes them the most money?

What do you think? In between the deal cutting, bank bailouts, silence on gay rights, indecision on Afghanistan (we don't even know what he's weighing as he decides on a course), lack of transparency on torture, lack of bank reform, lack of major energy legislation (new sources, not cap and trade), is the man of hope and change still in there? So far this year, we had a stimulus bill, and are still fighting over health care. Legislation which doesn't exist will never pass. A silent President won't spur legislation. When I try to conjure images of Obama this year, the big moments, I think of a beer summit, a lecture to kids to study, and someone shouting "You lie!" during a speech. With several issues of historic significance at stake, and a master orator in office, it stuns me that there has been no "Ask not..." or "The only thing we have to fear..." moment. Has his eloquence failed him, or is his inspiration dead? Where is the leadership?