Yes, itwould be easy to read about the president trying to clear the Empire State'sprimary field for appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and then pen ascreed wondering how that squares with Obama promising to avoid "be(ing)the kingmaker" in local elections.
With theWhite House citing genteel deference to incumbents as justification for itsefforts to stop a Democratic primary against Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter,it would be a cinch to write an essay noting that Obama might never have becomea successful politician had he not first taken on incumbents in 1996 and 2000.
WatchingObama help newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., attempt to thwart aprimary challenge from former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D), Imight have a grand time simply railing on a president who never would havereached national prominence had he not run against machine-backed puppets in aSenate primary. Indeed, this Colorado exampleis a replica of that now-famous Illinoiscontest in 2004. Bennet, like one of Obama's toughest opponents back then, is amillionaire who has never run for public office. And like 2004, thatmillionaire is being propped up by the establishment against an Obama-esquestate legislator who has oodles of experience and grassroots support. The hypocrisy,of course, is that Obama is now backing the tycoon instead of his former self.
No doubt, ifI devoted this column to any of that history, presidential aides would respond(if at all) by saying Obama is only aiming to preserve Democratic Party strength.And then I would publish an even easier-to-write follow-up reminding thoseaides that last year, Obama said primaries like his 2008 presidential campaignhave helped the Democratic Party because they have "engaged and involvedpeople like never before."
Butincongruity and deceit are tired subjects. From Glenn Beck attacking WallStreet largesse that he previously applauded, to congresspeople criticizingdeficits they originally created, there's so much discrepancy in today's publicsphere that it is no longer interesting.
Obviously,Obama and other politicians are happy to "kick away the ladder," asthe saying goesthat is, to close off paths they once used and to underminelocal democracy with tactics they heretofore inveighed against.
Obviously.And it would be a waste of space to obsess over that grotesque banality.
Far lessobviousand far more worthy of precious column inchesis an examination of whatthe hypocrisy says about the president's outlook, beyond letting us know hesees Washington as a country club that must protect its own members.
At a momentwhen Obama's agenda is acutely threatened by congressional Democraticrecalcitrance, the president's anti-primary posture tells all Democraticincumbents he will defend them, regardless of their position on issues. Andthat message blunts Obama's most powerful instrument of legislative leverage:fear of contested elections.
Withoutvigorous primaries forcing Democratic legislators to face Democratic voters,those legislators feel free to defy the president's Democratic agenda.Alternately, with primaries, Democratic lawmakers typically compete to show whois more committed to the Democratic agenda. As two examples, Sens. Specter andBennet went from mealy-mouthed equivocation to strong support of the publichealth care option immediately after opponents announced primary challenges tothem.
Hence, intrying to prevent or weaken primaries against incumbents, Obama is not merelysignaling a royalist's disdain for local democracy. He is exposing a corruptedpol's willingness to prioritize country club etiquette over policy results. Ifhis agenda ends up being killed, that cynical choice will be a key cause ofdeath.
© 2009CREATORS.COM