- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Of course you're right about this issue, Glen. The whole system runs largely on compromises and acquiescence--always has, probably always will.
But the "partisan rancor" narrative has become pretty powerful in the media and in our politics, "bipartisanship" is the buzzword, part of the supposed "mandate", so Obama's got to nod to it, make a show of it a little, especially at the outset. The jury's still out (or more accurately, hasn't been officially seated yet) but I think there's something to be said for the practice choosing one's battles--and I suspect (could be wrong, who knows) that in the long run, Obama will choose them wisely more often than not.
I don't know, I never bought that Obama was somehow idealogically pure--and so I'm not overly disappointed/surprised by his Lieberman stance or possible bringing in of Hillary. He's progressively inclined on most issues, but tempermentally conservative and consensus-building, perhaps to a fault. Still, the two big reasons I'm super glad he's elected are the two things a president can absolutely control: 1) a more multilateral foreign policy and 2) supreme court. Those things are 100% the Prez' call, not the congress, not even the secretary of state. A third reason is that he seems to think big and mostly just seems to THINK a lot, and maybe some of his formidable intellectual curiosity can rub off on the way we do business in congress and elsewhere.
Still, I have no illusions about our legislative process or our clubby and largely unimaginative legislators of both parties. Harry Reid, in particular, strikes me as a notably meek and mediocre figure. They'll stick with the status quo unless and until enough people raise hell about it--and perhaps, still even then.
