Legislative pragmatism: or, why the left is unhappy

David Brooks has a neat analysis today: the Obama people have learnt their lessons from Clinton and the Democratic collapse and are making sure that every legislative/policy piece is being led by the Congress.

But the new approach comes with its own shortcomings. To understand them, we have to distinguish between two types of pragmatism. There is legislative pragmatism — writing bills that can pass. Then there is policy pragmatism — creating programs that work. These two pragmatisms are in tension, and in their current frame of mind, Democrats often put the former before the latter.

In other words, this will soon bug the life out of the ultra-left. And, in fact, they have already complained about: the pro-corporate tilt of the bailouts; escalation of war in Afghanistan; the relative inaction on Don't-ask-don't-tell and gay marriage; and, soon, in healthcare.

I differ (or perhaps add) to Brooks with this: Clinton did have to work with a Republican Congress from two years into his term. It was not merely the healthcare fiasco that triggered the loss of Congressional leadership; it was a highly focused "Contract with America" platform led by Newt Gingrich and his allies. One could argue that the Republicans are in such disarray because, among other things, they could not stay true to that Contract. But, that is for another day. In Obama's case, the ultra-left's complaint has been that Obama has elevated legislative pragmatism when he does not really have to, given the huge majorities Democrats have and his own popularity ratings. So, while Clinton had to compromise, does Obama really need to water down his policies?

I suppose these questions are not that different from the conclusion that Brooks draws:

The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance. And Congressional governance is a haven for special interest pleading and venal logrolling.

When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.

Brooks need to do one more: combine the dominant (approval rating) executive branch with a dominant (majorities) Congress, with both coming from the same party. Meanwhile, the opposition has no leader, and is in shambles. In such a contemporary scenario, where from comes the mishmash? I think there is no excuse for mishmash.