by Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Some liberals might think that R. Bruce Josten has no business visiting President-elect Barack Obama's transition office once, let alone 16 times. That's because Josten is the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief antagonist to one of the leading interest groups--big labor--that helped Obama win the presidency.
Yet, after talking to the transition staff, Josten has pronounced himself satisfied that the incoming administration will consider the needs of corporate America.
At the same time, labor union officials feel confident about their relationship with Obama. They hope they can persuade the incoming president to press for their No. 1 goal, a new law that would make it easier for workers to form unions. The proposed law is so disliked by business that blocking it has become a top priority of the Chamber of Commerce.
Eventually, Obama is going to have to make up his mind on whether to lobby for the law, and one of these groups is going to be unhappy. But on the eve of his inauguration, it's not clear which one.
It is that lack of clarity that has come to define Obama since he decisively won an election 21/2 months ago and began building a new administration. Now that style will be tested as he begins governing, shortly after he is sworn in as president Tuesday.
Obama's recent predecessors, such as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush--all of whom brought a change in political party to the White House--took the oath of office following transition periods in which they laid out concrete ideological agendas, conservative and pro-business in the cases of Reagan and Bush, and more centrist in the case of Clinton.
But Obama has charted a different course, studiously avoiding firm commitments on some of the most controversial policy questions, while portraying himself as transcending ideology.
Repeatedly, he has described himself as a pragmatist, pledging to make decisions based on "what works." He has even coined a new term for this approach, describing himself as a "pragmatic progressive." Interest groups of all stripes have been welcomed with open ears into the transition offices.
See the rest of the report on Obama's pragmatic politics iin Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
Obama's non-partisan tone has won praise from across the political spectrum. He enjoys approval ratings in the 70s. And his top aides say that this style is not surprising, coming from a 47-year-old newcomer to the national stage who was not shaped by the old battles that have defined Washington.
"Obama just comes without the ideological wars and baggage of a lot of what's gone on in American politics in the last generation," said his transition director, John Podesta, who as a former chief of staff to Clinton and founder of the liberal Center for American Progress is a veteran of those battles. "So maybe it's a bit easier for him to navigate in a sort of post-partisan terrain."
But whether Obama can remain true to his pragmatic ideals once he takes office and faces difficult decisions remains an open question.
Interest groups across Washington are asking how a pragmatist will ultimately respond to their needs--particularly when each side believes that its argument alone is rooted in logic.
"There are going to be some broken eggs at some point," said Bill Samuel, a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO labor federation, which is counting on Obama to back the legislation making it easier to form unions.
Obama's pragmatism has already been tested by Congress.
He tried to woo Republicans and business leaders last month by offering huge tax cuts in his proposed economic stimulus package. Then, when Democrats and liberals objected last week, he backed down and suggested that the tax-cut component might shrink.
Another issue likely to provide an early challenge to Obama's pragmatism is the law that labor unions want, known as "card-check." It would require businesses to recognize a new union if a majority of workers signaled an interest in organizing by signing cards--a change from current law that requires a secret-ballot election. Labor leaders believe the secret-ballot requirement makes organizing more difficult and gives too much power to companies, which coordinate the elections.
Businesses say that giving unions greater leverage could further harm already-struggling companies.
Obama promised during the campaign to support the new law, and labor unions mobilized grass-roots machinery on his behalf. But Obama has barely discussed it since the election, allowing tension to build between the Chamber of Commerce, which has spent $10 million in recent months to oppose the proposed law, and labor groups that last week launched a new, $3 million ad campaign.
While labor officials say they remain confident of Obama's support, business leaders took great comfort when Obama told The Washington Post last week that he was wary of pressing for the union measure ahead of broader economic needs.
"If we're losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned," Obama told the newspaper.
Some liberals see Obama's approach as a threat.
His appointment of a national security team that was supportive of the 2003 Iraq invasion and his cautions that he might put off closing the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay despite a campaign promise to do so quickly are raising concern among anti-war activists.
They have also questioned Obama's decision to keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his post. And Obama's Pentagon team has asked the Bush administration official in charge of detainee policy to stay on, at least temporarily.
Gary Leupp, a Tufts University history professor and war opponent, said that the president-elect's claim to be a "pragmatic progressive" meant "absolutely nothing."
"He's trying to obscure the fact that when you look at the résumés of these guys you realize that their way of approaching things is very much similar to the people that they're replacing," Leupp said.
Some environmental advocates are also quietly seething over Obama's decision to appoint a longtime friend, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, to run a little-known but powerful office within the White House that has review power over all proposed federal regulations affecting industry, from airlines to power plants to manufacturing plants.
Sunstein has expressed concerns about the costs that businesses would pay if climate regulations took effect, and he wrote a paper questioning the constitutionality of the Labor Department's oversight of workplace safety.
"I am heartbroken," said Rena Steinzor, a professor of environmental law at the University of Maryland, who advises Democratic congressional offices on regulatory issues. "This is a very disconcerting appointment, a bad sign for those of us who saw this as a time to revive the federal regulatory agencies" that were pruned during the Bush era.
A leading lobbyist for oil and coal interests said he is "heartened" by the appointment of Sunstein and others to big jobs in the Obama administration.
"These are best-in-class selections made with less concern about their ideology than their abilities," said Scott Segal, a lawyer and lobbyist for energy interests.
Energy lobbyists like Segal had been wary of Obama's enthusiasm for limits on carbon emissions as part of a "cap and trade" system to reduce global warming. And some business lobbyists are skeptical of the aggressive environmentalism espoused in the past by Carol Browner, Obama's coordinator of energy and climate policy.
But they say their concerns are alleviated somewhat by the presence of other White House officials, such as National Security Adviser James Jones, who until recently worked for a Chamber of Commerce-led energy working group.
Energy policy was the main topic recently when Josten, the chamber lobbyist, joined other business advocates at the transition office for a two-hour sit-down with Browner.
"They seemed open and interested in our viewpoints," Josten said.
Comments
"studiously avoiding firm commitments on some of the most controversial policy questions..."
In other words, the Empty Suit is also a Blank Slate.
Posted by: Rufus T. Firefly | January 18, 2009 9:29 AM
'Pragmatic progressive'? Why does this remind me of the good old 'compassionate conservative'?
Posted by: Obzerver | January 18, 2009 9:33 AM
Just like in Duck Soup, Rufus suported a bogus war. Talk about empty headedness.
Posted by: bill r. | January 18, 2009 9:45 AM
Obama needs to get rid of Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Emaneul past and current behavior has demostrated he is a hothead. Obama will suffer the consequences, as he already has, of Emanuel's behavior.
The problem is Rahm's inbred hate if his agenda is not followed. Emanuel can not subdue the personality for the long haul.
Posted by: Harry | January 18, 2009 9:53 AM
Obama needs to get rid of Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Emaneul past and current behavior has demostrated he is a hothead. Obama will suffer the consequences, as he already has, of Emanuel's behavior.
The problem is Rahm's inbred hate if his agenda is not followed. Emanuel can not subdue the personality for the long haul.
Posted by: Harry | January 18, 2009 9:53 AM
Emanuel could be a good canadiate for Obam's downfall down the road..
Posted by: Inky | January 18, 2009 10:38 AM
From the Lipstick On a Pig files:
.
Pragmatic Progressive = New Democrat
.
In the 90s the Democrats decided they couldn't find immediate employment if they stuck to traditional progressive principles so they became a wing of the Republican party and gave us nifty ideas like NAFTA.
.
Now Team Obama is pretending that this is a new approach. Ah yes, just what we need in the face of crises: standing boldly in the middle of the mainstream and defending the status quo!
Posted by: MJ | January 18, 2009 10:49 AM
"Emanuel could be a good canadiate for Obam's downfall down the road.."
Posted by: Inky | January 18,
Inky, what is a 'canadiate'? Is that a pragmatic thing?
Posted by: Flo | January 18, 2009 10:55 AM
Sorry, MJ--It has nothing to do with being in the middle or the status quo, it's about dealing realistically with the problems at hand (and there are big problems) rather than throwing ideology at them. You're trying to theorize (lamely), which is the opposite of pragmatism.
Posted by: gord | January 18, 2009 11:23 AM
Obama is still in campaign mode, not very definitive on decisions, and they all seem to have a caveat of some type. Close Gitmo, sure on day one, sign order, but it may take awhile, maybe a year or two to get it done...duh, what has Bush been doing? That just one example. Not much change in foreign policy or intelligence agencies either. Iraq; continue Bush/Gates guidelines. Afghan; deeper quagmire, Obama boondoggle, leftys bail on him. Syria; may make peace with Israel, Bush has initiated this. Iran; will propagandize diplomacy and not change until forced.
Domestically; he already telling us it is "going to get worse", especially with Dems. policies and failing bailouts. Bush will be blamed for the next four years. Leftys dismayed over Obama pragmatism, mount protests! Not much change.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 18, 2009 11:51 AM
Emanuel could be a good canadiate for Obam's downfall down the road.."
Posted by: Inky | January 18,
Inky, what is a 'canadiate'? Is that a pragmatic thing?
Posted by: Flo | January 18, 2009 10:55 AM
Flo
Speakes for it self-
Try to have a great 23009.
Posted by: Inky | January 18, 2009 1:46 PM
The "pragmatic" part means "whatever he can get away with"... and what he calls "progress" is what I'd call "spreading the wealth around"..
Oh, that's right... that's what Obama calls it too.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | January 18, 2009 2:05 PM
Actually MJ, it was the Republican party that gave us that nifty NAFTA idea. You and Bubba Porter are writing a lot of fiction today.
Posted by: Flo | January 18, 2009 2:57 PM
What I care about is what Prez-elect Obama does in office. Is he creating jobs? Staving off the great depression II? Is he getting us out of an expensive never ending civil war in Iraq? Is he reviving our economy in smart ways? Is he putting forth a sensible plan for universal health care? Is he prosecuting the BushCo war criminals?
I could care less about labels people want to put on him because if Obama does these things he will be deemed a success, period, end of story.
Posted by: Bill/Jeff | January 18, 2009 2:57 PM
Leftys dismayed over Obama pragmatism, mount protests! Not much change.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 18, 2009 11:51 AM
Poor Jeffy,
You spent two years on here cheerleading for Grandpa McCain and now you're just a lost aimless little soul who is mad at the world.
Last time I checked Prez-elect Obama doesn't take office until next week, how could anyone other than Wingnuts (you) be mad at him?
Posted by: sxcbm | January 18, 2009 3:04 PM
all i see here are posts by sore losers and pesimistic wah wah,s. You guys messed up our country to the bottom of the dregs at least give this new administration a chance before spewing your hate filled rhetoric. Geesh!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | January 18, 2009 3:26 PM
The business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is NOT that it will make it easier for people to join unions, even if empowering the labor organization lobby is damaging to the economy. That is the argument of legitimate economists who don't merely parrot what "labor historians" have told them. The main business argument against EFCA is that it is unconstitutional for the state to take an employer's property without just compensation whether by direct action or the delegated authority of an arbitrator. But the main argument of those who oppose EFCA because it is undemocratic is that it is inconistent with every democratic principle of free choice protected by secret-ballot election. Those who would take this right away wish to call themselves masters and they are no friends of democracy but only their self-interest. So although President Obama's first focus should rightly be on ensuring economic conditions that sustain employment, it should never be at the cost of individual choice.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/obama_on_the_employee_free_cho.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011503516.html
Posted by: a volunteer for democratic rights at work. | January 18, 2009 4:15 PM
From the Lipstick On a Pig files:
.
Pragmatic Progressive = New Democrat
.
* * * * *
Posted by: MJ | January 18, 2009 10:49 AM
.
Yes, and Gray Davis, the former governor of California was a "progressive" too. Just look how far his pursuit of the "progressive agendum" got him. He was the first and only governor in California history to get put out of office in a state-wide recall election because he wrecked the budget. And, mind you, Gray Davis got booted and replaced by a Republican in a state where the Democrats represent three-fifths of the voters.
.
Flo: NAFTA had substantial bi-partisan support and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. If he didn’t sign it into law, it wouldn’t be our burden today.
.
Scot Blakely: For the sake of everyone, I hope Barack Obama succeeds. I really do. However, I would be less than truthful if I didn’t tell you that I have serious doubts about his (and our) chances because of the direction he has chosen. Only time will tell. Many who post here feel the same way/ This, by the way, is not whining or sniveling. It is expressing a rational doubt. Your penchant for casting those who don’t agree with your political views as snivelers and whiners is appalling.
Posted by: John W. | January 18, 2009 5:54 PM
Inky, no one even responds to you anymore.. how long does it take to get this hint.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | January 18, 2009 6:11 PM
Yes. John W. I know that. I also know NAFTA was primarily negotiated by the 1st Bush Admin. and inherited by Clinton; it was not, as MJ suggested, an idea proposed by the Democrats. Pay attention, John boy.
Posted by: Flo | January 18, 2009 8:42 PM
Flo:
.
I'm paying attention. It's just that too many people on the Swamp exemplify the old saying, "Success has many parents, but failure is always an orphan." After you said it was so-and-so's fault, I simply needed to remind everyone that Congress is a collective screw-up and that stuff like NAFTA is usually a bi-partisan mistake. NAFTA was, in fact, a bi-partisan disaster.
.
But don't worry: I'm on my toes.
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 2:13 AM
"[NAFTA] was not, as MJ suggested, an idea proposed by the Democrats"
Posted by: Flo | January 18, 2009 8:42 PM
.
Yes Flo. And so what? Clinton campaigned hard to get NAFTA passed -- WITH support from many Democrats -- AND he ceremoniously signed the Bill, AND subsequently spoke proudly of this achievement.
.
So the idea didn't start with the "Pragmatic Progressives" (then called "New Democrats") but they made it their own.
.
But while quibling about who first hatched NAFTA, you're skirting the key question --
Don't you think there should be a distinct difference between the Democrats and Republicans, or is a single (Republicrat) Party system OK with you?
Posted by: MJ | January 19, 2009 6:22 AM
I just think your premise is totally wrong MJ; there is no agreement on taxes, on abortion, on Iraq, Gitmo, on Supreme Court justices, on FISA. And you and John W are bashing me for bringing up NAFTA, when all I did was correct you. You guys always paint the candidate as a tax and spend liberal, socialist, immoral unAmerican, etc etc etc, and then act surprised when he turns out to be a lot like you. The parties have huge philosophical differences and that won't change; but they must also work together to pass legislation and solve problems. What's wrong with that. Are you suggesting that Obama is philosophically the same as a Republican?? That would be a huge mistake.
Posted by: Flo | January 19, 2009 8:21 AM
"Are you suggesting that Obama is philosophically the same as a Republican?? That would be a huge mistake."
Posted by: Flo | January 19, 2009 8:21 AM
.
If this were 1969, Obama could easily be a Rockefeller Republican, but wouldn't have fit in the Democratic Party. But 40 years ago there were substantive differences between the Ds and Rs.
.
And I'm not bashing you, but just clarifying my original meaning. And since you brought up Iraq, that was another bipartisan disaster. Yes, spawned in Bush's White House, but voted for by almost all Democrats. And please don't bother with the faulty intel response -- I and everybody I know thought it a mistake at the time; so did Sen Wellstone(D); so why not most Ds?
.
Yes you can point to philosophical, cultural and policy differences, but the common ground is so great that it's fair to call the Ds and Rs two wings of a single national party.
.
PS: I never call anybody a "socialist, immoral unAmerican, etc".
Posted by: MJ | January 19, 2009 9:10 AM
Your penchant for casting those who don’t agree with your political views as snivelers and whiners is appalling.
Posted by: John W. | January 18, 2009 5:54 PM
Poor John W. You certainly can dish it our but cant take it can you. You are complaining about someone who isnt even in office yet and all you in the mniority can do is make predictions and accusations that dont merit listening to because thats all they are predictions and accusations. For things that havent even happened yet! Any thing Obama does couldnt be worse then anything Bush did, as the majority of Americans beleive. Again, you are in the minority so sit back and wait and see ok. But somehow I suspect that even if Obama succeeds you and your groupies will find reason to complain. This Mr W is whats appalling!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | January 19, 2009 10:12 AM
"In the 90s the Democrats decided they couldn't find immediate employment if they stuck to traditional progressive principles so they became a wing of the Republican party and gave us nifty ideas like NAFTA."
Seems like it's MJ who was quibbling over NAFTA.
You didn't really expect a cabinet of Ayers, Sharpton, Rev. Wright & Kucinich did you? And you find fault with inclusiveness. That makes you a typical Republican, MJ; you think he should govern the way Karl Rove would have him govern? Obviously, that doesn't work too well.
Posted by: gord | January 19, 2009 10:12 AM
I really don't know what you are driving at, MJ. The two parties should and do have ideological/philosophical differences, and should be able to find common ground on major issues, so as to move forward and not be stagnant and ineffective. NAFTA and Iraq didn't start with a lot of bipartisan agreement. Both parties also have moderates and centrists who 'blur' the distinctions; but so what?
Posted by: Flo | January 19, 2009 1:11 PM
Flo:
.
I’m sorry if my little missive came across as “bashing [you] for bringing up NAFTA.” Bashing was hardly my intent. As I wrote before, I was simply trying to inject a little balance into the facts. I’m sorry if you took offense.
.
I must also agree with MJ on the great similarities between the Democrats and Republicans. Both are right wing organizations, inasmuch as both have accepted the “Big Government” model handed down from FDR’s New Deal. (Contrary to popular ideas, the far “left wing” is occupied by anarchists, not communists.) Both the Republicans and Democrats actually depend upon the big government model to further their agenda. That has become even truer of the Republican Party under Bush than it had in the past. Yes, they have some ideological differences on certain issues, but those differences are seldom reflected in a change in governing style once the minority party becomes the majority again. In the end, they act like two ends of a giant Push-Me-Pull-You presiding atop a huge, wasteful government edifice. Voting for one party or another invariably turns out to be a choice between Brand X and Brand Y, neither offering any significant change. Once voters get fed up with one side, they vote for the other, wondering whatever got into them to vote for “those people” in the first place; and then the process repeats itself.
.
Unlike MJ, however, I will use words like “tax and spend” and “socialist.” However, I do not confine my use of those terms to any one party. Republican politicians, as of lately, have become worse than “tax and spend” artists, because they can’t even bring themselves to “tax” to pay for all their spending. The level of Republican support for Bush’s Wall Street bailout (eclipsed only by the Democrat support for it) was disheartening to someone like me who thinks that fiscal responsibility and accountability in government aren’t simply “good” but, rather, essential. As I see it, that one pretty much put fiscal restraint off the table. The newly proposed massive spending programs that have garnered bi-partisan support are proof of this. And, no, I don’t just blame Democrats in Congress for this. I blame everyone there for it.
.
Furthermore, if I call someone a “socialist,” I’m not just throwing around a label. Nor does it mean that I think the person plans to bring in a Stalinist regime with “socialist realism” posters lining the streets and all the other accoutrements. George Orwell was a socialist, yet in his writings he attacked communists, Marxists and the excesses of the Soviet state. Socialism is any political philosophy that seeks to promote “social justice” (read “economic justice”) through: (1) collectivization of the masses, and (2) a central government used for management and allocation (or redistribution) of material resources and wealth. We already have a number of socialist institutions in this country. And it isn’t that I think socialists are evil. I think they intend to accomplish something good. I oppose socialism and “socialist-like” plans because they are unconstitutional, contrary to notions of self-discipline and self-sufficiency, operate contrary to human nature, and have, thus far, failed on a major scale wherever they have been tried.
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 2:54 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | January 19, 2009 10:12 AM
.
You still don’t get it, do you Scot? My distaste for your style is that you use labels to disguise a lack of thinking on your part. Calling someone names like “whiner” and “sniveler” only masks the merits of a person’s position. Doing so is neither an argument nor a substitute for reason.
.
Insofar as my criticism of the incoming administration goes, I don’t have to wait to see it fail before I can believe that it might be on the wrong path. For example, what Obama and company have now proposed to stimulate the economy has been done before in this country and in other countries - and it has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Even some of the partisans who support the plan in theory have grave doubts as to whether the implementation is “big enough” to be effective. These are rational doubts, Scot - and not sniveling or whining. It is certainly not “sour grapes” or criticism just to be contrary.
.
I also suggest you reflect on the possibility that propaganda hounds - like you - who try to smack down others for raising objections are fueling the failure. Intelligent decision-making requires the airing of dissenting voices, and not just those of “yes” men and hero worshippers. You studied business in college; you should know that. That reminds me: You are wrong to suggest that “Any thing Obama does couldn’t be worse then anything Bush did.” To say such a thing reflects a massive failure of imagination on your part. Things could get a lot worse under Obama, just like they could have gotten a lot worse under Bush. And BTW Scot, there has yet to be a moment when I have been unable to stand toe-to-toe with you and debate any issue.
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 3:14 PM
Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2009 3:14 PM
Well John, lets just say that we have two differnet styles of communication. I find most Obama complainers as whinning cry baby sore losers with nothing but emotional rhetoric to back their insipid claims. You on the other hand, well you said it, Toe to Toe.
Posted by: scot S. Blakeley | January 19, 2009 5:37 PM
John W,
I avoid the word "socialist" simply because it has become a misunderstood, misused pejorative. It's a hot buzz word that that usually gets people on both sides off on some rhetorical tangent.
.
Excellent point to scott re: the vital importance of dissent. The cheerleading plus the ganging-up against alternate voices that i see is, frankly, scary.
Posted by: MJ | January 19, 2009 8:01 PM