Proof that Obama means business: The Appointment of Rahm Emanuel

Obama’s first appointment says a lot. Rahm Emanuel is a consummate politician in the best sense of the word. He is a hatchet-man. The one who will say “No” over and over again. He will protect Obama from his worst enemies: the very people who think they got him elected, the special interest groups with their grievances and pipedreams all of which Obama promised or half-promised or denied he would act upon, and which those who voted for him and showered him with cash think he will  and must act upon. Instead, he will not act upon them except insofar as they further his chances to be a two-term President and rebuild the fortunes of his party.

I come from a political family. My grandfather ran for mayor in Madison WI (and lost). Back in the days, my family and the LaFollette family were two peas in a pod. If you know nothing about Robert M. La Follette, Sr. and Robert M. La Follette, Jr., then I’m not sure you know enough about American political history to understand its long-term rhythms, its deep undercurrents and its deep ironies. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. , the Supreme Court judge, is in my family tree. He took utilitarianism too far, but the strength of that position in the world of politics is difficult to overestimate. Therefore I judge politicians not by moral standards, though I want them to be moral, nor by high-flying rhetoric, though I love eloquence more than most, but by how much they get done. If you want to get something done, Rahm Emanuel is your man.

If Obama is able to successfully address the long list of problems Bush and the Republicans never came close to resolving in the last 8 years, he may well usher in an era of renewed Democrat dominance. Here's a short list in no particular order of importance:

(1) The disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street

(2) The disarray and inequities inherent in the health care delivery system

(3) A tax code tilted too far in the direction of the very wealthy

(4) The need for sensible energy policies

(5) A revamp of the mortgage and lending system

(6) Entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare

(7) Immigration policy reform

What are the chances that Obama will make significant headway on these issues? Not great. But if he does make headway on the above issues, he will go down as one of our greatest Presidents.

The past election did not signify a move leftwards. As David Brooks has emphasized (see his piece here), as Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center has put it, “This was an election where the middle asserted itself.” There was “no sign” of a “movement to the left.”

The hot-button issues? The things you really would want to address, but are in no position at the moment to do so, like education reform? Leave them lie. Let them work themselves out on their own, through the long intestines of the culture’s digestive tract. Keep your eye on the ball, Obama.

Comments

[James Pate]

I know McCarthy beat one of the La Follettes.

[JohnFH]

He did, James, by a few thousand votes

LaFollette Jr. blamed the loss on Communist operatives among the labor unions. LaFollette was a falling star by that time anyway, but there is delicious irony in the fact that McCarthy may well have been elected by votes dictated from Moscow.

American Communists were not numerous, but they were dangerous. I grew up hearing that McCarthy framed a lot of innocent people, and I imagine that's true.

It is also true, as we now know for certain, that some of the very people well-meaning liberals defended at the time really were Communist operatives working for the enemy.

All things considered, the anti-Communist hysteria looks exaggerated in retrospect, but the anti-anti-Communists also appear to have had their eyes wide shut.

[James Pate]

Yeah, that is ironic. But McCarthy wasn't really a die-hard right-winger when he first ran, as far as I know. Is that your understanding?

[JohnFH]

McCarthy was in some ways a tragic figure, a creature of the contradictions of his time who morphed into this or that as the occasion dictated.

[Peter Kirk]

You really meant to say that Obama will not act upon any of his promises "except insofar as they further his chances to be a two-term President and rebuild the fortunes of his party"? Wow, that is cynical!

[JohnFH]

Peter,

It's not cynical if you believe that your party is the better one to lead the country.

Now maybe Obama doesn't believe that. If he doesn't, we will soon know it, because he will appoint some of the very bright Republicans out there, not just Democrats, to his cabinet.

That would be truly post-partisan. I will be overjoyed if he takes that route, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Kevin Sam]

John, Thanks for your thoughts. I sort of feel the same way. I have hopes for President-elect Obama that he will lead the country to a better way. For a lot of people he is their new hope. I hope it will lead to a good change.

[Iyov]

I know you admire David Brooks (I think he did better with Bobos in Paradise than with his current role as a media pundit). In any case, here is his take.

[JohnFH]

David Brooks is spot on in many ways.

He speaks as a conservative, though he is not a social conservative. He is hard on his own and on social conservatives, as he should be.

But I posted on Obama. What about the liberal movement? It has been handed power. How will it use it? Does it have a coherent political philosophy? If it did, would it have the courage to implement it?

There are plenty of reasons for harboring doubts of all kinds on these questions.

It will no longer be possible for liberals to cover their own nakedness with the fig leaf of the sins of their opponents now that they control, as they did in the period before the so-called Republican Revolution of Newt Gingrich, both branches of Congress and the executive branch.

The time will soon be ripe for another Republican revolution, I imagine. For the sake of the country, let's hope it will have more substance than the last one. For the sake of the country, let's hope that conservatives like Brooks and Rauch find a way to forge a rejuvenated coalition with Palin and Jindal supporters, as well as with libertarians.

Libertarianism has little in common with either liberalism or social conservatism. But libertarianism is big, and will soon get bigger, if Democrats make things worse rather than better in their rush to "fix" the economy.