In the first year of his administration, Barrack Obama’s promise to elevate the civic culture of Washington, DC was about 95 percent vapid rhetoric, 5 percent reaching across the aisle with a limp handshake. Meanwhile, for the Democratic Party on the whole, it was business as usual. If the last two weeks are any indication, Phase-II of Obama-era postpartisanship might be even more cynical than was Phase-I.       

For many Democrats, Phase-I of Obama-era postpartisanship was mainly concerned with further weakening a damaged Republican brand. During the first months of the Obama presidency, Democrats/progressives were high on Tanenhaus ecstasy, convinced that they had won a sweeping mandate that was really a mirage. A few weeks after Obama was inaugurated, several of my Democratic friends explained to me, with devious smiles, how the Democratic Party was set to deliver the coup de grace to Republicans/conservatives. While Obama projected an image of exalted postpartisanship, his Democratic colleagues in Congress would ram through major initiatives, like the Stimulus, card check, cap & trade, and health care reform, completely locking out Republicans from the deliberations and, more importantly, the spoils. My Democratic friends predicted that, because Obama was so popular at that time, the Democrats would easily peel off a handful of moderate Republicans to support their agenda, while the remaining Republicans would try, unsuccessfully, to obstruct the program. When the economy started to rebound in fall 2009, the Democrats could take full credit, claiming that the New New Deal had pulled America back from the abyss – no thanks to those wily Republicans, who only care about party politics. Game, set, match.  

Phase-I of Obama-style postpartisanship backfired when the Democrats were unable to peel away more than a couple of moderate Republicans on major legislation (and later started losing stray Blue Dogs), while the economy and the deficit grew progressively worse. The Democrats’ pseudo-postpartisan maneuverings during year 1 of the Obama administration was partly motivated by the tendency of progressives to disregard political opposition and condescend toward non-elite Americans. When political and media elites began making haughty, crass jokes about town hall protestors and “tea baggers,” the malevolent side of ”progressive” culture was on ugly display, which undercut President Obama’s “hope and change” rhetoric. Recently, the activist left has been hammering Obama for allegedly being too nice to the real enemy (Republicans/conservatives), seemingly oblivious to the possibility that their gratuitous, drive-by attacks might have damaged their own movement. Of course, Obama damaged himself as well, like when he lets his mask slip, revealing just what he means by postpartisanship.              

At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama ostensibly offered a few conciliatory, postpartisan remarks to Republicans/conservatives, yet his idea of postpartisanship always has to be on progressive terms:  

But there is a sense that something is different now; that something is broken; that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should.  At times, it seems like we’re unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate.  And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens.  It poisons the well of public opinion.  It leaves each side little room to negotiate with the other.  It makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth.  And then we lose sight of the children without food and the men without shelter and the families without health care.

To paraphrase what Obama is saying: The great majority of Republicans, and a small minority of Democrats, are “poisoning the well of public opinion,” which is getting in the way of the great progressive project to feed all the hungry children, house all the homeless men, and provide healthcare to all the uninsured. Nevermind those seven decades of “progressive” policies have generated net negative results in terms of reducing poverty and lowering the costs of housing and health care. Obama’s postpartisanhip reminds me of a backhanded apology. “I’m sorry that you were offended by my actions, but you can’t help yourself.”

Obama’s remarks at the prayer breakfast also sound to me like Phase-II of Democratic postpartisanship in the wake of Scott Brown’s victory. The new “postpartisan” narrative (myth/lie) is that, in the first half of 2009, Republicans were invited, with open arms, by the Democratic congressional leadership to participate in legislative discussions, but decided to sit in the corner and throw a tantrum. Now that the Republicans have a 41 vote stranglehold in the Senate, they need to step up to the big kids table and take responsibility for governing “ungovernable” America  (because no political party has ever been able to get anything done in the Senate with a razor thin 59 vote majority). Of course, that means that Republicans will be expected to help the Democrats ”save the children,” and vote for items many Republicans/conservatives would be diametrically opposed to, which are cynically attached to bills that have nothing to do with those items, or else the Republicans will have reverted once again to being partisan, child hating cretins.

Just like Phase-I, the political effectiveness of Phase-II of Obama-era Democratic postpartisanship will be determined in part by macro-forces, like the economy, deficits, etc. Unfortunately, though, the PR machinations will come into play. Hopefully, the “progressive” left will not be able to resist sabatoging Phase-II, like they sabotaged Phase-I.

Update

Right on cue, Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine whined today that the “ungovernable” American public is becoming more ”childish, ignorant, and incoherent.” My first reaction was: Is this piece an example of the “reality based community’s” tremendous adherence to making claims based on empirical evidence? Maybe Weisburg is privy to some peer reviewed research supporting his blanket claims? Perhaps the childishness index has jumped since January 2009? Undoubtedly, the childishness index was quite low during the golden age of the post-WWII liberal consensus . . .  

I was the going to dissect the rest of Weisberg’s rant, but Bruce McQuain so completely destroyed Weisberg’s arguments that there is not much left to tear apart.

Let me just say one thing: It is by no means irrational (or ignorant) for people to want the government to provide premium goods/services to them at a low cost while insisting that the government be fiscally prudent as regards everyone else. Similarly, if you are a land owner, the best case scenario for maximizing the value of your property is that you (or future owners of your property) would be allowed to do whatever you wanted on your property, but the neighboring land owners would be very strictly regulated (and limited in terms of use).

Our Founding Fathers understood the above problem all to well. The so-called progressive movement has been one of the more destructive forces in eroding our constitutional protections. Now that the ”hope and change” express is losing steam, and no longer having a specific symbol at which to direct their fury (GW Bush), the progressives are actually lecturing the American people about being spoiled brats? That’s rich.

Update II

Right on cue, part deux: as part of the Phase-II rollout of Obama-era postpartisanship, which is now back to being called good old fashioned bipartisanship (and not by accident), the president is now calling for a half-day bipartisan summit on health care. To help Plouffe, err . . . Obama ensure that this latest bipartisan gesture is not perceived by opponents of Obamacare as another cynical trap – heaven forbid!, Hugh Hewitt has offered several excellent suggestions for facilitating an open, rigorous, balanced, participatory discussion. You know, those aspects of the democratic process that academic-types are always claiming are in too short supply. Surely, the postpartisan Professor Obama (h/t Jay_C) would not object to ”equal time”?