South Park

I've been thinking a lot about South Park recently, specifically, their most recent election episode. In it, the people of South Park have split between Obama supporters and McCain supporters, and when Obama wins, the Obama supporters go wild, turning over police cars, drinking heavily in the streets, and simply riot throughout the town. The McCain supporters, on the other hand, stay in their houses and bring out their guns to defend themselves. As the episode progresses, McCain supporters flee for their "Arc"
which is cave in the mountain where they can wait out the night. One of the Obama supporters is Stan's dad, Randy. Overcome with joy about Obama winning, he goes on a bender yelling "woooo, change!" He gets so drunk, he confronts his boss, also an Obama supporter, and yells profanities at him and other abusive comments, all the while interspersing, "wooo, change!"

The next morning, the McCain supporters come out of their hiding place and find the world is still there, and nothing much has changed. They then wonder, hmmm, the world is still here, maybe it won't be so bad after all. Randy wakes up the next morning with no pants. His wife hands him the phone and tells him his boss is on the line- his boss fires him. Randy doesn't understand because Obama was supposed to bring change. So he goes crazy because he got fired (wooo, change!!!) and can't find his pants. He then says "I should have voted for McCain."

I bring this up because the residents' reaction is almost exactly what's happened since November 4. Republicans have found that Obama's selections are exceedingly reasonable. In her Chronicle column today, Debra Saunders compares Obama's picks to the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, with Obama being Capt. Picard. On the war issue, Saunders notes that "Obama understands that if Iraq collapses after U.S. troops are withdrawn, then it won't matter who started the war. America loses, and he loses." The one nominee that is bugging the right is Eric Holder, primarily because of his role in the Marc Rich pardon.

Even moreso is today's Michael Gerson column in the Washington Post. While Gerson does play down these appointments: "It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant." As well as the threat of Congress flexing its muscles and trying to pull Obama to the far left. But what I want to point out about the Gerson column is the following:

Obama's appointments reveal something important about current Bush policies. Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy -- Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach.

This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies -- without getting much bipartisan support. The transition between Bush and Obama is smoother than some expected, not merely because Obama has moderate instincts but because Bush does as well. Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

The candidate of "change" is discovering what many presidents before him have found: On numerous issues, the range of responsible policy options is narrow. And the closer you come to the Oval Office, the wiser your predecessors appear.

Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content.

His transition has seen the return of a pack of Clintonistas -- Lawrence Summers, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel -- prompting talk of Bill Clinton's third term. Some of this is unavoidable. Governing experience generally gathers in the stagnant pools of past administrations.

But the resurrection of Clintonism is more pronounced because Obamaism is so wispy and indistinct. Obama brings no cadre of passionate reformers with him to Washington -- no ideological vision cultivated in think tanks for decades. Instead, he has turned to experience and competence in his appointments -- which often means returning to the Clinton era. Experience is vital, especially in avoiding rookie mistakes.

So, while those in the middle and to the right get to breathe a sigh of relief, so far, with Obama's cabinet picks, although I'm not a Tom Daschle fan, the left gets its apologists. Gerson points out that Obama cannot simply wave a wand and undo what Clinton and Bush have done with foreign policy, taxes and trade. In order to lead like he claims he wants to, from the middle, Obama had to find those people, and they are old Clinton hands. He had to realize that he simply couldn't put progressives into high ranking places, or else risk having a Republican revolt in Congress, especially now that Democrats can't reach 60 in the Senate to cut off a filibuster. So, we get Obama the moderate, and progressives must put their faith in Congress leaders like Harry Reid, who is thankful for the new Capitol Visitors Center so that he will no longer have to smell them coming his way.

In a column yesterday, David Sirota wrote to calm down progressives who don't see much if any progressives in Obama's picks. Sirota notes that

"[Obama] figured out that because many "progressive" institutions are merely Democratic Party appendages and not ideological movement forces, he could build his own movement. He succeeded in that endeavor thanks to the nation's Bush-inspired desire for change, his own skills and a celebrity-obsessed culture.

Though many Obama supporters feel strongly about particular issues, and though polling shows the country moving left, the Obama movement undeniably revolves around the president-elect's individual stardom — and specifically, the faith that he will make good decisions, whatever those decisions are."

He then concludes with "Sure, we should be thankful when Dear Leader's whims serve the people — but also unsurprised when they don't."

That is all to say, "Hey, our man is in the White House, and of course you shouldn't expect change from day one." Or, as Glenn Greenwald put it- "So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered."

I have been very relieved by who Obama has put around his, especially on spending, trade and taxes (although, this report about Rep. Xavier Becerra being offered the job of U.S. Trade Representative does offer some initial concerns). Obama increasingly appears to understand that increasing taxes during difficult economic times is a bad idea. For example, today comes word that his transition web page no longer calls for a windfall tax on oil profits, despite his pledge during the campaign to institute one; my how things change so quickly. So, he's already sliding back on removing troops from Iraq, he's removed the mandatory volunteer program, he's keeping both Petraeus and Gates, and now he's removed instituting a windfall taxon oil profits. As my co-worker noted: And people thought they were voting against a third Bush term.