Something is happening in Wisconsin*. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed that before. Nevertheless, there are aspects of the show down between Governor Scott Walker (Republican) and the public sector unions that may become familiar over here too. The details* of the dispute in the Badger State need not concern us unduly – though James Joyner has a good round-up – save to observe that the combination of deficits, a conservative administration and unhappy unions is hardly limited to Wisconsin. David Cameron’s government will face its own union-led challenges soon enough.
Nor do I think it terribly surprising that Barack Obama has backed the unions. So I’m a little surprised that as urbane a commentator as Clive Crook is surprised by this. He argues:
I was surprised to see Obama inserting himself into the fight in Wisconsin over public employees’ collective-bargaining rights.
[…] I can see that the Democratic party base will love it, obviously, but in the battle for centrist opinion, does it make sense to align with unions against governors struggling to balance their books–that is, to align with unions against taxpayers? I doubt it.
Nothing obliged Obama to take this position. He could have recused himself, as he has on, say, budget policy. And it is one thing to offer comment in support of the unions, quite another to get his staff working in “close co-ordination” with the protesters. A shame he cannot be as forthright about long-term fiscal discipline as he is about the rights of public-sector unions.
Granted, the labor movement is in decline and the public, including many Democrats, tends to disapprove of it when asked the question by pollsters but labor is still a vital part of the Democratic party’s base. Moreover, the unions*** are a vital part of its election-organising base. Without union-families the Democratic party would be even weaker amongst blue-collar men than it is anyway; without their canvassing muscle and fundraising Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts would be much weaker. Obama won’t face any meaningful primary challenger in 2012 but he still needs labor in November.
Of course Obama is not as forthright about “long-term fiscal discipline as he is about the rights of of public-sector unions.” Indeed, the shellacking Democrats took in November makes it harder, not easier, for the President to stand by and say nothing when the movement is in such obvious distress and, now, revolt. Moreover, while the deficit is something he vaguely aknowledges it’s apparent that he doesn’t think it the kind of pressing problem that needs to be dealt with now. This is a pretty orthodox view and the President is a man of often orthodox views that are hidden in plain sight, disguised by much of the rest of the stuff that comes with his Presidency.
Most successful politicians blend pragmatism with principle and calculation with instinct. Obama is no exception. Campaign promises from Guantanamo Bay to Wall Street have turned to shibboleths in office. Obama does want, I think, to be seen as a post-partisan President but his definition of post-partisan is, well, partisan. In any case, he wants to define the parameters of all this himself; like most people his idea of bipartisanship requires other people to agree with him. His idea of the centre is not necessarily Clive Crook’s idea and anyway part of the game is to try and shift the centre.
Sometimes, however, instinct trumps calculation. And this may be one such instance. Obama has never been a New Democrat. You can’t imagine him chumming around with the boys at the Democratic Leadership Council (now, tellingly, shutting up shop). He’s not a Bill Clinton and, I think, doesn’t suffer from one of Clinton’s weaknesses: the desire to be not just liked, but well-liked. He’s colder, more ruthless than Clinton too. Possibly stranger too.
Going further back, I’d be surprised if Obama, had he been so minded at the time, would have been drawn to Gary Hart’s campaign in 1984. I suspect he’d have been in Walter Mondale’s camp. The nature of his candidacy and the backdrop of the Bush years obscured the fact that in terms of policy Obama is quite an old-fashioned Democrat. There’s nothing fraudulent about this. Nor does it mean Obama is some kind of Secret-Socialist. He’s a pragmatist too, constrained or tempered by a keen sense of what is possible. There’s no hidden agenda; he’s just quite an orthodox politician – albeit one with an unorthodox temperament. And temperament is perhaps his greatest under-acknowledged strength.
But when it comes to this kind of showdown it’s not surprising that he dances with the boys that helped bring him to the White House. This isn’t shocking.
Meanwhile, since nothing is so solipsistic as a protest march one should not be surprised by the banners and signs in Madison claiming that Governor Walker is a cheesehead Hosni Mubarak and all the rest of it. Needless to say, this is grotesque.*Pleasingly, Wisconsin’s official state dog is the American Water Spaniel.
**I think Megan McArdle and Reihan Salam have plenty of sensible things to say on the merits of Walker’s proposals to make public sector workers pay more for their own healthcare and pensions, while also limiting future pay rises and restricting some collective bargaining rights. Politifact is more sceptical about some of it. And if you want a leftier perspective, see Ezra Klein here and here. Also Andy Kroll.
***I don’t know much about Wisconsin’s teaching unions but if they’re anything like DC’s then Governor Walker’s plans probably don’t go nearly far enough.
Comments