Whatever your opinion about what Barack Obama has and hasn't done as president, I want to make clear WHY he's done what he's done, as that seems to be often lost in the discussion. You're free to think his "why" is stupid, short-sighted, naive, or anything else, and my point here is not to be an apologist or justify his objective. Rather, my goal is to rightfully point out exactly what his goal has been since day one, a goal he explicitly referred to in his inaugural address:
OBAMA: The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.
If you're trying to analyze why he's doing what he's doing on a fundamental level, this is the answer. Mind you, this is not the same thing as strategy - that is the how of the why. Hence, I'm not here talking about whether he's playing some billion-dimensional chess game.
I am, however, talking (to some extent) about his bipartisanship efforts. Yes, some of it has to do with his temperament, but it is also the case that he wants Washington, D.C. to work. And in order for it to work, there needs to be discussion in good faith and compromise between the parties.
True, that is not going to happen with this Congress. But that isn't the point, anymore than Reagan was solely interested in what he could get done between 1980 and 1984 after he first got elected. He was interested in reframing the national discussion to one where government was always viewed as a vile, nasty enterprise that should be subdued:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.
Reagan's objective was achieved. The GOP framing of taxes, spending, government, and foreign policy are now widely understood by the public at large, and need only quick references - small government, low taxes - with a few words to be activated in the mind. This frame has now stood for 30 years.
Obama's objective is to directly challenge this frame, and to replace it with his own. He was criticized by Democrats for praising Reagan's abilities of communication, but he was dead right. He could see the power of Reagan's frame, and that Democrats were never going to be truly successful unless they replaced that frame with another.
He did not try and come out with the "big government works" frame, both because that isn't always true, and because it's not a new frame. That was the frame that Reagan killed. Instead, he created a new frame that directly gets to why we have government in the first place: to create a more just, fair, safe, and prosperous society.
This is why, during the health care debate, he kept saying that he was "open to any idea" that would help bend the cost curve. He wasn't lying. He wasn't playing a game. He wasn't trying to be bipartisan for the sake of bipartisanship. He was speaking to his objective of "making government work."
Again, you're free to disagree, as I'm SURE many of you will. My point, agree or disagree with what Obama has done as president, is to show you, in his mind, what he's trying to do. If you're trying to predict what Obama will do on any given issue, be it taxes, climate change, financial reform, immigration, gay rights, it is to try and make government be more effective regardless of its overall size.
Yes, he is on the left of the political spectrum, and clearly wants a bigger government than the GOP does, regardless of what his detractors here believe to the contrary. He is also not a corporate stooge. He laid it out there, all on the table for everyone to see right at the beginning.
His objective, plain and simple, is to reframe the debate in the United States to one where we judge our elected leaders on whether or not they're actually creating a better society. And, it actually leads to a more liberal society, because it means that wastes of taxpayer money - such as the now-ended subsidies of private student loan lending - are ended. It also means that regulations are required to prevent abuses by various industries.
It is also politically brilliant in that liberals will be able to argue, if and when this frame takes hold, that they are not trying to create government simply for government's sake. They will say they are trying to make government work, unlike the bomb throwers and "drown government in a bathtub" crowd.