Barack Obama: Liberal Governance Vs. Moderate Rhetoric

Stuart Taylor has an interesting piece in today's National Journal laying out the two possibilities of the Obama administration. On the one hand, he sees a far left governing nightmare in which every far left whim is granted by an Obama administration and the far left Congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

This Obama has endorsed a long list of liberal restrictions on free enterprise that could end up hurting the people they are supposed to help, along with the rest of us: statist remedies for our broken educational system; encouraging unionization by substituting peer pressure and an undemocratic card-check process for secret ballots; raising the wages of women or lowering those of men who have dissimilar jobs that are declared by bureaucrats to be of comparable worth; renegotiating NAFTA; and more.

I wonder how far Obama wants to go down the road suggested by his lament in that 2001 radio interview that the civil-rights movement had failed to engineer "redistribution of wealth" and "economic justice." Would he be content with the moderately redistributive, Clintonesque increase in taxes on high-earning Americans that he proposes now? Or would he end up pushing for confiscatory taxes that could stifle entrepreneurship and job creation?

Taylor goes into a long standing far left voting record including being voted by his own magazine, the National Journal, the most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2007. He lists a long line of radical associates like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, and William Ayers. He also points out a voting record in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate. Furthermore, he points out that he's never reached across the aisle on any issue of substance.



Stuart started his piece by pointing out the nightmare far left governing scenario as he saw it. He also made a strong case, at least to this partisan. I was curious how Taylor saw the potential of a bi partisan Obama. Here is what gives Taylor hope.

The pragmatic, consensus-building, inspirational Obama who has been on display during the general election campaign is a prodigious listener and learner. He can see all sides of every question. He seems suffused with good judgment. His social conscience has been tempered by recognition that well-intentioned liberal prescriptions can have perverse unintended consequences. His tax and health care proposals are much less radical than Republican critics suggest.

This Obama has surrounded himself not only with liberal advisers but also with mainstream moderates such as Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. He has won the support of moderate Republicans, including Colin Powell and Susan Eisenhower, and conservatives, including Kenneth Adelman and Charles Fried.

Now, bi partisan rhetoric and some bi partisan adivsors is not much of an argument, given that Senator Obama has had a long history of associations with far left radicals, a lifetime of a far left voting record, and absolutely no history of bi partisanship. It's very easy to make bi partisan rhetoric. It is only slightly more difficult to put a few non liberals on your advisory staff. There is one dynamic that Taylor didn't address that will affect his governance.

Obama will govern with both Houses of the Congress. As such each and every proposal he wants will pass. As such, you can bet we will have redistribution of wealth because that's what he has been campaigning on the whole campaign. You can bet we will have a quasi socialist health care system because that's what he has been campaigning on. You can bet we will have a new "windfall profits tax" because that's what he has been campaigning on. You can bet we will see a plethora of new spending programs, new corporate tax cuts, and a dovish foreign policy because that's what he has been campaigning on. We WILL have another stimulus package costing over $100,000,000,000 because that's what he has been campaigning on. You can bet that we will leave Iraq on a timeline and attempt to meet with vicious dictators ASAP because that's what he has governed on. You can bet we will have a plethora of new business regulations because that's what he has been campaigning on. We will have a plethora of new far left judges because that's what he has campaigned on.

The only questions remain are whether or not the far left will take full control. The question remains whether or not the Fairness Doctrine will be re instituted. The question remains whether or not we will remove secret ballots for union voting and force unions upon WalMart. The question remains whether or not laws like ENDA will be implemented. The only place where Senator Obama is in line with conservatives is on some education issues. It remains to be seen whether or not there will be merit pay and more funding for Charter Schools. It also remains just how much pork there will be in the budgets for the first two years.

Even if Senator Obama had a Free Trade epiphany, the liberal Congress would never allow any new free trad pacts. The only question is whether or not he follows through with his primary rhetoric of re negotiating old ones, or he is the more moderate of the general election. The question is not whether or not terrorists will receive more rights but how many. We will seriously revisit don't ask don't tell for our military, and both the Congress and Senator Obama have made promises to cut military spending. None of this is a battle between moderate and liberal ideology. Rather it is a battle between liberal ideology and far left ideology.

The idea that Barack Obama will stand up to the far left on the Fairness Doctrine would be welcome to anyone that believes in free speech. That said a bloated budget, where health care is socialized, income is redistributed, Iraq is lost, and our enemies are met with, that also doesn't include a new Fairness Doctrin and ENDAbut does include new merit pay and more funding for charter schools, is not exactly governing as a moderate.