A recent news item disclosed that Melody Barnes, the Domestic Policy Adviser to President Obama will be leaving her White House post at the end of the year. Many others have been expressing surprise at this announcement, but for me this is welcome news. The major reason President Obama is struggling politically at this time is HIS BAD CHOICE IN ADVISORS from day one in the White House. I am certain that Barnes, Jarrett, Axelrod, and Plouffe are all wonderful pleasant people. However, I am just sure, as has been well demonstrated; they are all woefully politically naive in terms of Washington Politics. These folks including the President are all “Soft Democrats”, when what was needed to properly manage the unique situation of a Black President interacting with a white Congress was a core of “Hard Democrats”. Actually Vice President Joe Biden is the closest person to a true “Hard Democrat” currently in the White House. More Hard and Soft stuff below the fold.
Let me digress for a moment to explain the difference between a “Soft Democrat” and a “Hard Democrat”. A “Soft Democrat” is a Democrat whose basic character is by nature mainly passive tending towards favoring strength in intellectualism and while maintaining a rather resigned tolerance towards the practical side of issues. Aggressive tactics and strategic planning are considered to be non-essential in the mind of the “Soft Democrat”, who believes that all disagreements will be eventually resolved by sober compromise between all parties concerned. Simply put a “Hard Democrat” is by nature the exact mirror image opposite of the “Soft Democrat”. A “Hard Democrat” is by nature politically aggressive whose character tends to value the realistic practical advantages over his Party’s enemies. These advantages can be anything that secures the unconditional cooperation of the political foe. Needless to say the “Hard Democrat” is constantly planning strategies for the present and the future, and deems it unacceptable weakness not to be prepared for virtually any circumstance. Over the decades the Republicans have been able to influence the creation of a majority of “Soft Democrats” in the Congress. This they did by encouraging the establishment of political cultism among “Soft Democrat” leaders in congress. These were people like Byrd, Kennedy, Stevenson, Harkin, and many more. During this period of time the “Hard Democrats” were kept out of the leadership positions of the Democratic Party, thus allowing the Democratic Party to replace the Republican Party as the Party of Reaction, and the Republicans became the Party of proactivity.
Why were “Hard Democrats” needed? Simply because from the time that Obama won the election the Republicans made it clear that they were going to play “hard ball” with this president until the day he leaves office. And they demonstrated it over and over and over again at every opportunity. A good experienced crew of “Hard Democrats” would have taken no more than 6 months to have squeezed the political life out of these bombastic Republicans. During the interregnum, President-elect Obama should have started an exhaustive search to locate the “Hard Democrats” needed as his principle advisors in the White House. Instead Obama spent this precious time basking in his historic win and simply settled for a Chicago connection to guide his choice of critical advisors. The goal of an effective senior advisor is to work tirelessly to create strategies that always keep their Boss, the President, ahead of his enemies and detractors in the vast political arena of Washington D.C. As a senior advisor, you must feel deeply and irreconcilable that each political failure inflicted on your Boss is a personal repudiation of your own personal capabilities. Methinks that the Obama White House is now finally aware that “The West Wing” TV drama is definitely not the REAL WORLD!.
.
How reality sinks in just 4 years later … where and what opportunities? Life is about survival. Even more so in Washington politics.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Rahm Emanuel was a soft (hearted) Democrat? While definitely not a Liberal, it is difficult to think of anyone who more embodies the concept of hard Democrat as you define it. If it were not for the unexpected decision of Richie Daley not to run for re-election as Mayor of Chicago, Rahm would still be Chief of Staff. And nothing would have been different at all in policy.
So I have to reject your thesis. Good try.
Dear VITW, Your dismissive argument uses the classical sophistry approach, namely first present an opinion as a fact and then hang your supposition on the strength and merit of that supposed fact. Sorry it doesn’t work in most cases and it certainly doesn’t work here.
First of all I did not divide Democrats into the categories of “Hard” or “Soft” exclusively on the basis of “Liberal” or “Conservative”. I defined “Hard” or “Soft” strictly in terms of the type of behavior exhibited by persons assigned to either category.
Furthermore I did not speculate on the personal reasons that any Democratic politician might have for choosing to aspire for a particular office in order to advance his/her career.
Please do not think my suggestion is in the least bit uncharitable, but I really suggest that you re-read and understand my post before commenting.
I suggest you re-read my post, because I did not say what you say I said.