Thursday, November 20, 2008

Thank Goodness for TAP

There are a few periodicals I read regularly, without fail. A couple are more nuanced to those of us who are very interested in and study the labor movement and especially its future. The others are largely more "mainstream" political journals of reporting and opinion. The best though has to be the American Prospect. TAP regularly churns out moderate-liberal (dare I say center-left) pieces of interest and thought. Their speciality seems to be political economy, and looking at their editorial group, it's no wonder. Over the years, the co-founders and regular types are like a who's who of noted moderate-liberal political economists.

This week, they've been fully up to the task of creating interesting, topical pieces that are worth a read. They include some web-only articles and those that will be in the next print edition (it's always a struggle for me to decide to read them online or wait until my copy arrives in the mail).

The most journalistic of this month has to be "Paper Chase," a study in the mounds of paper in think-tank reports, briefings, and memos that are being churned out as the Obama transition has gotten under way. I for one love the stacks of paper (although mine are on my hard-drive in .pdf form for the most part). For people like me (and I realize that's probably a small chunk of populace in this regard - literal students of public affairs and real policy nerds), the voluminous output of the liberal and liberal-ish think tanks keeps us up at night, cranking through reading piece after piece.

These think-tanks have been at this for probably 9 months now, drafting, writing, revising, editing, and then revising again to keep pace with the rapidly evolving crises and opportunities confronting our nation. Some of the material has gotten into books, others in briefing packets. Most all of it worth a read. And that's the crux of the article: will the administration, or even Obama himself, read the stuff. My guess? Yes. That's why you pay a staff and assign portfolios. There are lots of really smart people out there who are topical experts that can not only put together good plans, but also contextualize them in a way that articulates ideas and plans a) in language that is digestable not only for the policy staffer on the go but also the average person and b) in messaging style that can be used in political communications.

I definitely recommend checking out some of the materials referenced in the article, in addition to the article itself.

The second set of articles in TAP are more like a pair than any others. Paul Waldman's "Can Obama Make Wonks and Hacks Work Together" is the partner of Mark Schmitt's "Audacity of Patience" because they discuss the interplay of running a political office, balancing the need for good policy with good politics and getting them to work together synergistically to feed one another.

Waldman quickly: Bill Clinton's ambitious agenda in 1993 was derailed by bad politics (and no, Clinton didn't struggle because he tried to govern "from the left" early on) and policy complexities that fed the former; and George Bush's operation was entirely run by politicos who didn't give a damn about whether policy was good or not, only that it drove the conservative agenda (and it caught up with him). Obama needs to get the wonks and hacks to play nicely and feed one another, crafting not only an agenda, but also an order to the agenda that gets implemented with discipline and rigor.

Thank goodness that Obama seems to be bringing on people who can work with Congress and that his agenda at least has the appearance of tackling the major challenges in front of us. As something of an aside, two very important people this week were Tom Daschle and Henry Waxman. Say what you want about the Lieberman kerfuffle (I call it a fiasco of sorts) in the Senate. That wasn't about keeping Lieberman in the caucus (game theory should have taught Harry Reid that he wouldn't leave to become a zero-seniority backbencher with a platform in the minority caucus set to lose his seat in a few years - Reid buckled because the Senate is clubby and fundamentally un-progressive for now). This was about votes against a GOP filibuster. Caucuses don't win filibuster battles, votes do. Lieberman was staying right where he is on what will be the contentious fights on domestic policy in the Senate. He'll be there for Obama's agenda (I hope). And he would have been had he been booted from his chairmanship.

But anyway, Tom Daschle's appointment as Secretary of HHS means that Obama will be driving towards real healthcare reform. You don't pick a former Senator to be a bureaucrat running an agency. You pick a guy like Daschle to craft and implement legislation. And judging by Daschle's past statements, speeches, and writing, we're in for some strong action early on in the Obama admin as per healthcare. Will we get universal healthcare - or even universal coverage - right away? Probably not. But we'll get major healthcare victories that are - you guessed it - good politics and good policy.

The Waxman-Dingell fight in the House is a harbinger of a more progressive House and legislation to come out of it. As chair of Energy & Commerce, Waxman will shepherd through climate change legislation that Dingell never would have allowed. And Obama's de facto (if not de jure) leg director is a former Waxman staffer. Pelosi was silent on this battle - though her top aide in the house, George Miller, whipped for Dingell. You can tell where Nancy Pelosi was on this, and that tells you that there's some sort of concerted effort to get in place the mechanisms for moving a Democratic Obama agenda through Congress at least.

Back to TAP... Schmitt is much harder to summarize. His points are many and expansive. My best attempt at shortening his work, though it too is worth a read or else I wouldn't have linked to it above, is that Obama needs to move on a bold agenda, but he doesn't need to ram it through immediately. He can build on successes, matching with his personal style and demeanor, and escape the pitfalls that Clinton and Bush fell prey to in their early (and latter) days.

For all the crappy analogies being made about Obama the politician and Obama the former community organizer, he's got two things going for him, as Schmitt points out. One is that Obama gets that establishing relationships and mobilizing around them matters. Two is that patience is a virtue in seeking longer-term, bigger-gain ends than a quick push with high stakes can deliver. Time will tell. Bottom-line: a "100 Days" type administration probably isn't coming our way, at least on Big Picture, historical-level policy and legislative action. But that's a good thing. It's like Heinz ketchup on steroids: good things come to those who wait, and tastier, yummier ketchup awaits those with enough patience not to get thrown off-course. To mix metaphors and abuse them.

Finally, TAP's roundtable on keeping the "youth" vote/activists for Obama engaged is really strong, if too short. "How Do We Keep Obama's Youth Mobilized" brings to the writing table nine people with some perspective on how to turn the under-30 Obama Democrats into a political force - and not just for the good government aspects of higher civic participation.

There are a variety of perspectives and approaches. I can speak to this with my own, as someone under thirty years of age and as someone who went to the mat for Obama. Bear in mind that I never got the Obama vapors or drank the Kool-Aid, but saw him for what he was/is: a good politician that offered the best opportunity for progressive change. And I came to this conclusion after supporting John Edwards throughout the primary until he dropped out and then remaining agnostic between Clinton and Obama until the nomination was all but decided.

The best way for 'us' to turn the massive generational mobilization and support for Obama into further real successes is...many ways. We can't just have a one-size-fits-all approach, like in any organizing for social change. There will need to be insiders and outsiders, folks who get involved in the progressive movement proper and some who become an external force. Of course, some will drop out. That's not a generational comment, it's an observation of reality.

I think we need to develop leadership amongst this cohort and I think we need to plug them into existing institutions while providing support where others want to create their own. My only advice to fellow 'young' activists is to be strategic. Don't be blind followers of Obama and don't let this opportunity subside. For years, we have been ignored because it was said we wouldn't vote. Well, we did. And we have now for a few elections. It's time people like Obama and other national-level politicians respond to our concerns - which are not limited to things like student loans.

More on this another time. Time to get back to reading those think-tank reports before bed.

No comments: