by Damozel | I like Obama a lot, and I'm really glad he won, but this is exactly the sort of complaint I had about him during the primaries: that he campaigned on promises that he couldn't keep, including many broad and sweeping promises to keep far, far away from K-street culture and Washington lobbyists. To be clear, we didn't believe then that he could realistically do what he implied he would do, so we're not particularly chagrined. But it's bound to be a rude awakening for people who expected a changier sort of Capital C change.
Obama, MSNBC says, "has imposed stricter conflict-of-interest restrictions on his White House transition team than any president before him." And that's a good thing.
So maybe this is cause for celebration as well. "The number of former lobbyists involved in Obama's transition thus far is small compared with the past two transition teams, but they occupy several key positions." (WaPo) On the other hand? "Dozens of former influence seekers are getting jobs," drones MSNBC.
So is there a disjunct between what he said and what he is doing? If you were paying attention the whole time, not so much.
Obama's formal policy during the campaign indicated that there may be some role for lobbyists in his administration, though his rhetoric did not always convey that. In a 2007 speech, he said he was "running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."
A few days later, he changed the phrasing to say that lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House."(WaPo)
The same thing happened with respect to NAFTA when he was campaigning against Hillary. In June, he did what I'll call a 360 on NAFTA---circling back toward his original position after echoing her anti-NAFTA rhetoric and characterizing his own as "overheated." From Fortune Magazine way back in June 2008.
Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.
The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone.
In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ("as a hammer," in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions. (Fortune)
This flip flop greatly upset The Nation and David Sirota, just to name two.
Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.
"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."(Fortune)
Remember all the ruckus over Austan Goolsbee's little chat with the Canadians about NAFTA? (CTV) And of course---oh, God!---there was FISA and telecom immunity. Supporters who still believed he was going to tilt to the left after that were simply deluding themselves.
I'll say it again: progressives who supported Obama might as well get used to the idea that his soaring rhetoric during the primaries and the hazily phrased promises of change might not be completely cognate with progressive ideas of what he should do.
Anyone who wanted to know where Obama stood only had to look at who he had advising him.
Let's just look at one example: Austan Goolsbee, Obama's head economic adviser, characterized by The New York Times as "an economist at the University of Chicago known for his centrist, free-trade views." Read lots more about this free-trade wunderkind here. He's definitely had some good ideas. NYT's Freakonomics blog raved about his "simple return" idea and said: "Let’s hope that Goolsbee keeps the billion dollar ideas coming. As Barack Obama’s head economic adviser, there is a real chance that Goolsbee will have the opportunity to put his ideas into action." But whatever else he might do or be, he is a University of Chicago economist who is---or was---known for centrist, free-trade views.
Anyway, whatever Obama might have said or implied in the primaries, I am very glad he beat McCain (and Palin). I expect to see him tack toward the center of the spectrum. That will still place him far, far to the left of Bush & Co., though not nearly as far toward the progressive end as I would someday like to see. Baby steps!
Anyway, as I had no illusions, the following has not disillusioned me.
From The Washington Post:
More than a dozen members of President-elect Obama's fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years. They include former lobbyists for the nation's trial lawyers association, mortgage giant Fannie Mae, drug companies such as Amgen, high-tech firms such as Microsoft, labor unions and the liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress.
Mark Gitenstein, one of the 12 transition board members who will play a significant role in shaping the Obama administration, worked on million-dollar lobbying contracts with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and promoted legislation for giant defense contractors Boeing and General Dynamics. Until this fall, he was registered to petition Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of AT&T, Merrill Lynch, KPMG, Ernst & Young and others.
From MSNBC:
[A] list of transition team members that his office made public on Friday includes a complicated tangle of ties to private influence-seekers.
Among the full roster of about 150 staff members being assigned to government agencies between now and Inauguration Day are dozens of former lobbyists and some who were registered as recently as this year. Many more are executives and partners at firms that pay lobbyists, and former government officials who work as consultants or advisers to those seeking influence.
My own thought is that Obama's supporters from the progressive end of the party might as well get used to seeing him proceed by what I shall call "baby steps." Nobody is going to change Washington culture overnight and at least he's trying to change the process and the ethics.
Or, as IOZ put it:
Meanwhile, all indicators point to a Clinton Restoration more complete than even La Hillary could have contemplated. She, at least, would've been constrained by Public Relations necessity to differentiate her administration from that of her husband. Obama, on the other hand, calls a press conference, and it's all like, hail, hail, the gang's all here. I understand that the Bill Clinton administration was the apotheosis of democratic self-government in the modern world, and all, forever and whatever, amen, but for realz? Larry Fucking Summers?
Shit, I'll admit it straight up: I did not expect Obama to start crushing the hopetastical dreams of his dreamy-eyed supporters so quickly, so thoroughly, so soon. I kind of admire him for it.
I didn't care for the hopetastical version (Obama v.1) during the primaries anyway. I only started really liking him when he started wonking his head off during the general (Obama v.2).
Anyway, ethical is as ethical does. We'll see how it goes as his administration proceeds.
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Bad Moon Rising? "Huge" Threat from Al-Qaeda; Financial Downturn Increases Security Risks
Should Obama Step Off the Bailout Band-wagon?
Jon Stewart Takes on Papa Bear O'Reilly (The Historic Uncut Interview)
Felon Ted Stevens 814 1,022 Votes Behind Begich in Alaska's Senate Race (Another update)
Comments