Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ezra Klein writes: "Perhaps this is just the logical endpoint of two years spent arguing over what Barack Obama is - or isn't. Muslim. Socialist. Marxist. Anti-colonialist. Racial healer. We've obsessed over every answer except the right one: President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he's facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him."

President Obama speaks about the economy at the White House. (photo: AP)
President Obama speaks about the economy at the White House. (photo: AP)



Obama Revealed: A Moderate Republican

By Ezra Klein, The Washington Post

26 April 11

 

merica is mired in three wars. The past decade was the hottest on record. Unemployment remains stuck near 9 percent, and there's a small, albeit real, possibility that the US government will default on its debt. So what's dominating the news? A reality-television star who can't persuade anyone that his hair is real is alleging that the president of the United States was born in Kenya.

Perhaps this is just the logical endpoint of two years spent arguing over what Barack Obama is - or isn't. Muslim. Socialist. Marxist. Anti-colonialist. Racial healer. We've obsessed over every answer except the right one: President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he's facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.

If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal health care; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans have staked out before.

Take health-care reform. The individual mandate was developed by a group of conservative economists in the early '90s. Mark Pauly, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was one of them. "We were concerned about the specter of single-payer insurance," he told me recently. The conservative Heritage Foundation soon had an individual-mandate plan of its own, and when President Bill Clinton endorsed an employer mandate in his health-care proposal, both major Republican alternatives centered on an individual mandate. By 1995, more than 20 Senate Republicans - including Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and a few others still in office - had signed one individual mandate bill or another.

The story on cap and trade - which conservatives now like to call "cap and tax" - is much the same. Back then, the concern was sulfur dioxide, the culprit behind acid rain. President George H.W. Bush wanted a solution that relied on the market rather than on government regulation. So in the Clean Air Act of 1990, he proposed a plan that would cap sulfur-dioxide emissions but let the market decide how to allocate the permits. That was "more compatible with economic growth than using only the command and control approaches of the past," he said. The plan passed easily, with "aye" votes from Sen. Mitch McConnell and then-Rep. Newt Gingrich, among others. In fact, as recently as 2007, Gingrich said that "if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur ... it's something I would strongly support."

As for the 1990 budget deal, Bush initially resisted tax increases, but eventually realized they were necessary to get the job done. "It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform," he said. That deal, incidentally, was roughly half tax increases and half spending cuts. Obama's budget has far fewer tax increases. And compared with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire in 2012, it actually includes a large tax cut.

The normal reason a party abandons its policy ideas is that those ideas fail in practice. But that's not the case here. These initiatives were wildly successful. Gov. Mitt Romney passed an individual mandate in Massachusetts and drove its number of uninsured below 5 percent. The Clean Air Act of 1990 solved the sulfur-dioxide problem. The 1990 budget deal helped cut the deficit and set the stage for a remarkable run of growth.

Rather, it appears that as Democrats moved to the right to pick up Republican votes, Republicans moved to the right to oppose Democratic proposals. As Gingrich's quote suggests, cap and trade didn't just have Republican support in the 1990s. John McCain included a cap-and-trade plan in his 2008 platform. The same goes for an individual mandate, which Grassley endorsed in June 2009 - mere months before he began calling the policy "unconstitutional."

This White House has shown a strong preference for policies with demonstrated Republican support, but that's been obscured by the Republican Party adopting a stance of unified, and occasionally hysterical, opposition (remember "death panels"?) - not to mention a flood of paranoia about the president's "true" agenda and background. But as entertaining as the reality-TV version of politics might be, it can't be permitted to, ahem, trump reality itself. If you want to obsess over origins in American politics, look at the president's policies, not his birth certificate.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+22 # AndreM5 2011-04-26 08:43
Short answer: Don't listen to what I say during campaigns (R or D), watch what I do in office.
 
 
+20 # Chromex 2011-04-26 09:43
I wonder where Klein got the idea that the individual mandate was a "good" idea. People do not want "affordable " health insurance. They want health insurance that they can buy that doesn't cost as much as their mortgage but that will also cover their medical bills.All the "affordable" plans, per ad post Obamacare do not do this. They cover very little and charge a lot for what you get. No plan except single payer will give us true health insurance. I also wonder where Klein got his idea that Obama's positions on whistleblowing, secrecy, imperial wars, Bradley Manning, Guantanamo, assasination of americans without trail- or virtually any durn thing are moderate. Obama is not and never will be a moderate. He is the "kindly" voice of American fascism.Regardless of where he was born.
 
 
+3 # rm 2011-04-26 10:24
Chromex is exactly right when he says -- "Obama is not and never will be a moderate. He is the "kindly" voice of American fascism."

Ezra Klein works for the Washington Post and he is prohibited from saying something like that. He went as far as anyone taking a pay check from the MSN can go. He did OK, given the short leash all professional journalists are on.

But Chromex is right. He's a lot nicer than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice. But he's just as much of a fascist (or in the more polite term -- neo-con).
 
 
+2 # musiepuss 2011-04-29 14:14
rm- I think you are mistaken about what Erza Klein is trying to convey. I don't believe he is criticizing Obama at all-rather, he is pointing out how the Rebublican agenda has changed from "find a way to help people and businesses" to "Anything the Democrats try is to be blocked". Now, I am a Democrat, but if a policy works, I don't care if it is a "moderate Rebublican" one or not. The Rebublican party seems to be run by nuts now. But calling Obama a Rebublican doesn't necessarily mean he is a repeat of the Bush era
 
 
+6 # Kayjay 2011-04-26 11:06
I'd say Chromex's description of Obama as a "kindly" voice is spot on. You can call that voice as one continuing fascism or don't rock the boatism, but its never been one of "change to believe in." To be realistic I'm sure few ever expected instantaneous changes under Obama in four, let alone eight years. He got elected because of his inspiring oration. But he really isn't all that "interested" in walking the walk for the people. And I will bet that none of the materials in his presidential library will ever mention that... change didn't happen.
 
 
+15 # stonecutter 2011-04-26 11:27
What I love and respect about the comment streams at RSN, let alone some of the actual articles published, is there's a lot of blunt truth in them, often backed up with strong argument and facts, not just empty emotion and sarcastic humor (although I love the humor too).

Sadly, the MSM as we call them, owned lock, stock and barrel by reactionary corporate interests, offer little if any blunt truth. Instead, they have commodified the "news" and turned it into a form of fast food for the senses, if not the intellect. Noise, flashing lights and graphics, computer tech wizardry, super-quick cuts born on MTV years ago...a lot of heat, very little light.

We get polished, heavily varnished sound-byte drivel, vetted by a falanx of editors before it ever sees the printed screen or broadcast. Leaders of both parties, or their army of talking-head flacks, come onto MSNBC or CNN, or "Meet the Press", or "Face the Nation" or "This Week", or the morning shows, or "Morning Joe", or FOX News, ad infinitum, and regurgitate scripted, mind-numbing talking points over and over again during a given news cycle, as if they're providing real information to the public, rather than what they're actually doing, which is beating the audience to death with a rhetorical hammer.
 
 
+19 # rumigirl 2011-04-26 11:39
I got stuck on "America is mired in three wars."
I guess he means Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya.
But we are/were also bombing Yemen but pretending Yemen is bombing Yemen (thank you WikiLeaks for letting us know), and we have been in Pakistan for years.
When we are sending U.S. jet fighters to bomb, I call that WAR.
Wonder where else in the world we just haven't heard about yet?
HO HUM war doesn't get much attention.
 
 
+23 # teineitalia 2011-04-26 11:55
this is exactly why all the Progressives who supported him are so deeply disappointed. He needs to move us farther than 'center right' to counteract the craziness of the social conservatives and fiscal hypocrites, the paranoid zenophobic climate-change- deniers who make up the Re-thuglican party today. He needs to tie renewable energy to job creation in a HUGE way...and put an immediate stop to escalating conflicts which involve death and destruction. Put a leash on the military and their profligate spending, and he will go a long way to easing the problems with the deficit. We don't need Bush lite, we need FDR dark.
 
 
+1 # Becky 2011-04-27 04:58
I love the analogy!!! As a Progressive also, I absolutely totally agree with you! Well said!
 
 
+9 # John Gill 2011-04-26 12:48
Hi, I've been biting my tongue for months and now I guess , because I ran out of coffee this morning, I'm gonna speak my peace about something that occurs again and again in the comments here. "Re ""thug""lican", "Re ""pug"" nican' etc., etc.. do we really have to resort to cute little plays on words that amount to pretty much what Sarah Palin or any number of other idiots in that camp would toss out there and snigger at? Aren't we more sensible than this? These "appeals to the man" don't win any arguments. Sorry
 
 
+1 # don emilio 2011-04-26 14:40
And do the Dems really expect me to vote for Barack W Obushma next year? Well, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I'm looking forward to a right wing, repressive, corporatist landslide next year. I believe Comrade Trotsky said it will have to get worse before it can get better.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2011-04-26 19:48
Better description would be NEO-CON Obama.
Many neocons were leftist - their parents were. NYT gets Obama re-elected - $$ money is there (for politicians)-
"possibility that the US government will default on its debt." is over 50% in the next 2 years.
Bombing of Qaddafi home shows how desperate we are ...
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2011-04-26 19:53
How about gettin' out and voting -and sponsoring a REAL progressive candidate like Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders against Ob;'. Go on; I dare y'all! What have you got to lose? In the interests of full disclosure, I'm not a citizen (mostly because of the crappy health-care-non-system you keep nurturing, election cycle after election cycle) but they take my taxes anyway, so I'm shoutin' like the rest of you who are left with any consciousness in this "Brave New World Order"! Give true progressives a run -it might even get what passes for the media here's attention!
 
 
0 # je proteste 2011-04-27 01:59
We can't vote for them, if they don't run.

The people I am still ticked off by are the ones who, early in the primary, said they liked Dennis Kucinich, but he could never win, so they were going to vote for Obama / Clinton.

Quitters. Or quislings?
 
 
0 # phrixus 2011-04-27 05:37
Still waiting for "The Change."
 
 
+1 # S R Gagliano 2011-04-27 10:59
Our president, a very smart black man, has gotten where he is because he never threatened anyone. He has always won by being reasonable, amiable, literate, and respectful. He gets no credit with those of us, not black, who know that the people he wants to negotiate with, are out for blood. His blood. They are the worst sort of racist, hypocritical, mean-spirited, inconsiderate, lying and selfish individuals. We should recognize this for what it is...a right-wing conspiracy. The ultra rich against the educated middle-class and the poor.
 
 
0 # bobby t. 2011-04-27 15:53
years ago i was made to read the book, the power elite. it was written by a very rich sociologist named c.w.mills, and told the story of a 1950's meeting in the northeastern mountains by all the main powers in the world, including the u.s.s.r and red china. years later i saw the movie network. and read the book catch-22.
galbraith tried to sell us the theory of counter vailing power such as big business vs. big labor. he was wrong. they are all partners. the nfl and the players will work out their stuff. nine billion is involved and they are not going to kill the goose who laid the golden egg. retired and sick players will still suffer when they lose the five year medical benefits.
we were not born to be socialists. we were born to be predators and killers. we have canine teeth and eyes in front of our heads. our killer instinct, along with our death wish, will kill us all. time to put your heads between your legs and kill your butt good bye. no president is going to be the one who saves the world, unless he was born on krypton......
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.