What’s Left of the Obama Administration

If you want to take the temperature of the Obama administration going into the home stretch, the lame duck period of presidencies, you could do worse than spending about an hour and a bit watching the State of the Union the other day and reading David Remnick’s 16.658-word epic portrait of the president in the New Yorker – yes, that’s right: I counted.

First, the State of the Union. He shall, from time to time, do the big speech in front of congress. And while I’m one of the people who thinks Obama pretty much has never done a bad speech, this one was particularly strong. Despite his more immobile position and the obsessive, white-knuckled stalemate in Congress, he seems more offensive than he has been since he was doing his ultimately failing drive for gun control in the wake of Newtown.

Second, I thought the crazy novella of a portrait interview by presidential biographer Dave Remnick was a window into the mind of the late-period Obama. I loved this passage on the messiness of social change. Both because it shows the clarity of Obama’s analysis, and at the same time it inadvertently captures the fact that Obama’s big problem is a reluctance to get messy, to expend political capital to reform the institutions that fail to produce sound policy.

Here’s the quote. It’s long but it’s, like, 1/100th of the piece.

When I asked Obama if he had read or seen anything that fully captured the experience of being in his office, he laughed, as if to say, You just have no idea. “The truth is, in popular culture the President is usually a side character and a lot of times is pretty dull,” he said. “If it’s a paranoid conspiracy-theory movie, then there’s an evil aide who is carrying something out. If it’s a good President, then he is all-wise and all-knowing”—like the characters played by Martin Sheen in “The West Wing,” and Michael Douglas in “The American President.” Obama says that he is neither. “I’ll tell you that watching ‘Lincoln’ was interesting, in part because you watched what obviously was a fictionalized account of the President I most admire, and there was such a gap between him and me that it made you want to be better.” He spoke about envying Lincoln’s “capacity to speak to and move the country without simplifying, and at the most fundamental of levels.” But what struck him most, he said, was precisely what his critics think he most avoids—“the messiness of getting something done.”

He went on, “The real politics resonated with me, because I have yet to see something that we’ve done, or any President has done, that was really important and good, that did not involve some mess and some strong-arming and some shading of how it was initially talked about to a particular member of the legislature who you needed a vote from. Because, if you’re doing big, hard things, then there is going to be some hair on it—there’s going to be some aspects of it that aren’t clean and neat and immediately elicit applause from everybody. And so the nature of not only politics but, I think, social change of any sort is that it doesn’t move in a straight line, and that those who are most successful typically are tacking like a sailor toward a particular direction but have to take into account winds and currents and occasionally the lack of any wind, so that you’re just sitting there for a while, and sometimes you’re being blown all over the place.”

The politician sensitive to winds and currents was visible in Obama’s coy talk of his “evolving” position on gay marriage. Obama conceded in one of our later conversations only that it’s “fair to say that I may have come to that realization slightly before I actually made the announcement” favoring gay marriage, in May of 2012. “But this was not a situation where I kind of did a wink and a nod and a hundred-and-eighty-degree turn.” The turn may not have been a sudden one-eighty; to say that your views are “evolving,” though, is to say there is a position that you consider to be more advanced than the one you officially hold. And he held the “evolved” position in 1996, when, as a candidate for the Illinois state senate, he filled out a questionnaire from Outlines, a local gay and lesbian newspaper, saying, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages.”

When I asked Obama about another area of shifting public opinion—the legalization of marijuana—he seemed even less eager to evolve with any dispatch and get in front of the issue. “As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”

Is it less dangerous? I asked.

Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. That’s one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, “Scratch that,” or, “I think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.”

Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.” He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

As a side-note to the last quarter of the Obama administration: as so often before, when I read about the dysfunction of US parliamentarianism, I found myself thinking of something I heard Paul Krugman say back in the dark days at the Bush administration’s apex. I can’t locate the exact quote, but he said something about how his big fear wasn’t a collapse of democracy. What he feared the most was a kind of hollowing out of the institutions of democracy. There was a long time at the end of the Roman republic, he said, in which all the institutions of the republic were still in place. You had senators taking votes and elections taking place and proclamations and advisings and committees and the whole production. But the actual power was elsewhere. Democracy in a fitful coma, of sorts.

I know it’s not there, yet. And likely won’t get there. But the institutions of the United States no longer produce sound outcomes. There has ceased to be rational, deliberative institutions at the core of democracy. Something’s got to change, and fast. The world doesn’t have time to not have the US in the game.

Advertisements
3 comments
  1. Matthew said:

    The sailing analogy for social change is pretty potent. I think it offers a big-picture perspective in a time where the 24 hour news networks only cover the day-to-day shifts in winds.
    .”…to expend political capital to reform the institutions that fail to produce sound policy.” Many of us in 2008 (myself included) were so hopeful for his ability to do just this. Thanks for the great post!

    • Release said:

      I remember a politician in my home country a few years back in an election campaign using the analogy of two ships departing from the same harbor. If you choose the other government coalition, you would get a slightly different course. And at first you wouldn’t notice. But after a few years, the two boats would be arriving in radically different ports. Small differences would come to mean the difference between arriving in Antarctica and Manhattan.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: