HPRgument Blog — February 4, 2010 1:28 pm

Postcards from Nixonland

By Max Novendstern

For Obama’s first-year anniversary the New York Times rounded up some White House veterans to write about their respective presidents’ first years. This one, especially, surprised me:

It was in many other ways a very good year for President Nixon. He called to congratulate the Apollo 11 astronauts on their moon landing. He initiated a huge expansion of the National Endowment for the Arts and began the processes that led to the desegregation of public schools in the South and a historic reform of the government’s policy toward American Indians. He announced the “Nixon doctrine,” providing aid — but not military forces — to our anticommunist Asian allies. He signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Nixon was a pretty abominable guy. He brought this country to the biggest political and constitutional crisis it’s faced since the Civil War, and he did this riding on the back of racial politicking and fear-mongering, the effects of which still reverberate through our politics today. On the other hand, he did manage do so some good things to advance the causes of American liberalism. He expanded social security benefits, he created the EPA, and he poured a lot of money into our national park system. He also introduced a bill for universal health care, which, according to some historians, he might actually have had the political capital pass.

Now, I personally don’t buy the meme that Obama’s first year has been some sort of unmitigated calamity for American liberalism. But it definitely could have better. There are a lot of issues our country needs to tackle — primary among them is the need to save the middle class, to fix our banking industry, to fix our energy economy, and (yes) to fix our health care system — and the prospect that we’re going to be able to do these things does indeed seem much smaller than did a year ago. Yet that’s less Obama’s fault than it is the fault of the system, than it is a signal of the sclerosis of our governing apparatus. We’re entering into the fourth decade where our country has failed to take on a major domestic project and succeed at fixing it.

Looking back, it’s a scary thing when a conservative a-hole like Dick Nixon can deliver on change, while a guy like Obama, whose mandate is much larger and whose integrity is much, much deeper, has to struggle so hard. The lesson to draw from that, to my mind, is that our current problems — our current inability to solve problems — is less about Obama than it is about us, our country, how we conceives of our national community and how we legislates on our own behalf. Self government involves a great deal more than the nature of the man on top.

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related posts:

Obama Mad Libs
Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Google Sells Out
Breaking Down The Super Committee
  • Alexander Sherbany

    This seems to be the most common reaction among liberals to the first year of the Obama presidency. He didn’t fail us; we failed him. We got a president of exceptional integrity, intelligence, and charisma and even then we couldn’t get our act together.

    There is a different narrative, mostly farther to the left, (The Nation, Harper’s, Salon, DailyKos) which blames Obama for coming up short and betraying the principles of his campaign.

    The latest issue of Harper’s, which I happened to pick up, makes this point exactly in critiquing Obama’s first year. It is stunning to see the disillusionment over decisions to send additional troops to Afghanistan, compromise on healthcare, not air negotiations on CSPAN, etc. The editor, Roger Hodge, concludes that Obama has never shown himself to be anything more than a common politician, who has devoted his life to seeking power.

    But Obama is both a pragmatist and an ideologue. He knows that his image as a centrist is key not only to his electoral success but to the success of his legislative program. He is no less a liberal, I believe, and indeed a social democrat at heart, than someone like Barney Frank or even the editor of Harper’s. But the way from point A to point B isn’t always a straight line.

    I have no doubt that he would have really preferred single-payer healthcare, for instance, but he’s aware that politics is the art of the possible. Hence the public option, which virtually everyone in “progressive” circles saw as a gateway to a government-run system. Ultimately, the gateway was just out of reach.

    If the President were to go as far left as some of his critics want, it would do little to actually advance his agenda. It would be counterproductive to sacrifice his image as a centrist for nothing, just to run up against a wall.

  • Pingback: Three Weeks of HPRgument » The HPRgument

custom writing