Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
History and This Election Say: Don't Govern From the Middle
Even before the buzz of Barak Obama's historic victory has worn off, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said "A new President must govern from the middle." The lessons of history and the election of our first African American President say: that's nonsense.
Speaker Pelosi is confusing the need for skillful leadership, with the misguided compulsion to govern from the middle – a mistake which Democrats must finally abandon if they are to rise to the challenges that confront America. Middle of the road politics is part of the failed policies of the past, not the bright new future Americans have helped to create with the election of Barak Obama.
In his victory speech to young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, he said, "The Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress," demonstrating that he understands leadership that unites, but does not diminish our combined power.
Barak Obama said, "[T]o those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too," showing humility without capitulation.
He said, "This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can."
That's not about the tired politics of surrender; it's about the audacity of hope. President-elect Obama gets the distinction between middle-of-the-road politics, which takes us all down to the lowest common denominator, and leadership that advances everyone, helping us to soar decisively in the direction of the progressive change that Americans seek.
The great American Presidents – Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt – all knew the difference. The reason that they were great is because they led the nation through tough times with an ideology and dedication to principles that they were able to communicate effectively – not because the governed from the middle.
Abraham Lincoln did not lead us through the Civil War to the end of Slavery from the middle of the road. Franklin Roosevelt took principled positions with progressive policies to help us, to help ourselves through the Great Depression. Even Ronald Reagan, whose policies I opposed, led us decisively from the right. Proud Presidential legacies stem in no small part from major policy change, which simply does not happen in the middle of the road.
William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, George H. W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, have been flattened by history, like the proverbial dead skunk, because they did not understand how history and the voters frown on middle-of-the-roaders.
Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman said, "Great Presidents don't move to the middle, they bring the middle to them in order to achieve fundamental change."
The American people know the difference between concession politics and decisive leadership for positive change. The difference is what turned Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida from red to blue. The difference is why 20,000 people abandoned sleep and hit the streets and the phones for Obama for 2 years and especially in the last 48 hours of the campaign. It's the reason why, in Winchester, Virginia and small towns around the country, on the Sunday before the election the Obama campaign offices were pulsing with energy, while the McCain headquarters were dark, cold, empty and locked-down. It's the reason why Barak Obama won in a landslide.
Barak Obama must listen and lead. He should be the antithesis of the heavy-handed, partisan bullying that is the hallmark of the George W. Bush Administration and lead with open, democratic, principled and reasoned positions which spring from broad-based, deep knowledge and progressive politics. That's decidedly different from governing from the middle – which suggests concession and never creates change.
Barak Obama proved he understands that we didn't elect him just to win an election for the Democrats or to walk down some middle road, when he said, "[W]e know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century...There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake...and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair."
This is our victory, indeed. Let it not be underestimated, watered-down or dealt away. Let's do as our new leader suggest and dispense with cynicism, fear and doubt about what we can achieve, put our hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
- Posted in




158 Comments so far
Show AllNancy Pelosi!
I heard her comment and wondered why none in the MSM had mentioned Cindy Sheehan.
More dashed hopes from Pelosi, no traitor to HER class...unlike FDR.
-30-
Govern from the middle of what?
I can only presume she means to govern from the middle of the table, which now has plenty of room since impeachment has been swept off of it with much of the rest of the Constitution.
If this is what the title "Speaker of the House" means, it would be better to install her as "Mime of the House."
LOL
Oh, wait ... turns out she meant the middle of K Street. My bad.
There is some urgency here, with tough times ahead I don't think Obama can afford to mess about. He needs bold and imaginative strategies to successfully deal with the mess he has inherited, and they won't be found in the center. If he just dithers in the middle of the road he will be run over in the next election. The republicans will then give us our first woman president.
Good old Nancy Pelosi! But Obama will show her. He will govern from Jerusalem.
How come we couldn't get rid of that corporate w**r*??
Absolute foolishness, the idea of governing from the middle.
The middle does not exist--looking for it would be like Zenon's Paradox where you divide the distance between a and b in half and in half again ad infinitum, and therefore you never arrive.
I have very serious reservations about Bill Clinton's gang being back in the power. Wasn't the point of choosing Obama over Hillary the avoidance of that?
Yet, there they are--all lined up like crows on a fence, ready to take their old places at the cabinet table.
The more things change, the more things stay the same looks like the motto for this presidency.
But what you I expect with everybody breaking his or her arm patting himself or herself on the back for voting for a non-white???!!!!
I have tried driving down the middle of the road...and all I found was that I got hit from both sides, and ran everyone else off the road.
I am sure Pelosi will be advocating that "Real Change" is now off the table.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Just remember when Bill Clinton was pushed too hard like many want to do, we lost health care for 15 years.
If Congress proceeds too fast it will be a short liberal run.
Ms. Strickler is wrong, history shows that Dems have tried to go too far left of the "center"......yep the center, where most people reside. Try and go too far outside too fast and we will lose this opportunity. At least thats my opinion.
I don't see it that way at all. The Dems in our government (with few exceptions) are in the center already --- and many of them already to the right of center. There is NO Left in our government anymore (with very few exceptions). When the Right pulled radically to the right (as in a tug of war), the Left didn't pull back to the left. Instead, it let itself be pulled to the right and it has stayed there. It stands on the Center dot and has hypnotized itself into calling it the "left".
We are way TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT in this government and it's been going on for too long. The people have been forgotten.
Truthseeker is correct. Even Richard Nixon was far to the left of any of today's politicians.
Not all politicians I hope!
But you are sure right about Bush and many of the Republicans.
....and equally right about the dems too....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"We are way TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT in this government and it's been going on for too long. The people have been forgotten."
Boy, I can certainly agree with that!
What I'm trying to suggest is that we have to look at what the vast majority of Americans think. There are certainly some far left elements in Congress, Franks, etc....but most I agree are center left. That of course suits me because thats about where I am.
I'm trying to point out that if we push too fast or if Pelosi tries to push too fast (example...her corporate masters cheap labor bill now) it will convince people they have made a mistake.
Krugman suggested this was a victory of progressive philosophy, which it too funny for words, but I think that many might believe that and get carried away.
Make sense?
"The vast majority of Americans think" that we should have simple, single-payer, universal access health care in this country. Many polls have demonstrated this.
I agree with you. But Thats what I'm trying to point out. Even if they do, they can spook........remember Harry and Louise? They don't trust anyone much right now. But they are willing to give Obama a chance.
Even the rock hard Republicans around here are saying it. Its a miracle.
.Barney Franks? The supporter of the bailout Franks? The Chair of the House Committee on enslavement to Wall Street Franks? That guy?
Is there, I wonder, such a thing as political dyslexia, left is right and all that????
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ok, Ok you old radical you.....caught me off base again.
.I live to educate and elucidate......even Texans!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
And we humble ole clod hoppers appreciate it!
.I doubt you are a clod hopper...and humble???? ;-)
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Hey, I'm from Texas....We're all humble. Heck, we drilled the hole that the Swiss drilled in that German wire lengthwise and didn't tell anyone.
.Ive been in Texas, and the only holes there are oil wells and outhouses. You aint kidding me Pilgrim! ( pushing back the brim of my Stetson in imitation of John Wayne)
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ah-Ha....but all our out houses are double holers for obvious reasons!
.You mean one hole on bottom and one above? EEEEwwww
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I'd tell you the real secret about the TexasTwoHoler, but then I'd have to kill you. And you're a good ole radical.
Off to kick some clods.
This is not correct.
Hillary Clinton did not propose a "liberal" health care program, she began by triangulating and sitting down with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and crafted a convoluted complex proposal that would have maintained these industries' supremacy over the billions of dollars that get wasted in unneeded administrative costs and monopoly profits.
We need a simple, single-payer, universal-access health care program. This is not "too hard" or "too fast", it is "the center, where most people reside". Poll after poll shows that this is what people in the US want.
"We need a simple, single-payer, universal-access health care program. This is not "too hard" or "too fast", it is "the center, where most people reside". Poll after poll shows that this is what people in the US want."
Absolutely.
"Hillary Clinton did not propose a "liberal" health care program" True, but I wouldn't try to sell that idea to the electorate. Walk up to anyone and ask what kind of health care plan did Hillary propose and I'll bet money 9 of 10 will say "socialized" I'm talking about what I'm afraid will happen. Thats my concern.
.Is history subjective? I seem to recall that Clinton's health care plans exploded precisely because Mrs. Clinton excluded the industry from her planning.....Now maybe they didnt want to participate, cant blame them for not rushing to lose billions in profit of course. But Clinton and Obama share the one fatal flaw in healthc are reform; they believe we can endure a for-profit system, we simply cannot.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"govern from the middle" - pelosi , pundits, "leaders of industry" of the usual path say?.
that is nonsense.
since WHEN did Ronald Reagan , bush, Gingrich , the republican "right" revolution , etc...."govern from the middle?" ...america has been DRAGGED to the EXTREME RIGHT by the mantra of "govern from the middle" .
the idea of "governing from the middle" espoused by pelosi is just another way of saying "we are FRIGHTENED" to be "branded" as socialists, communists, etc. and plays RIGHT INTO THE HANDS of the SAME reaganite nonsense that has "governed" FROM THE RIGHT.
the idea of governing from the middle is just a way of keeping america on the path of "conservatism" that has proven to be a DISASTROUS FAILURE.
obama governs from the middle? HE'll find out, as america will also find out - it's the SAME OLD TRAP...sooner or later...and they'll all be wondering four years from now - why the debacles KEEP COMING.
the remark by Lee hamilton - who was a member of the 9/11 commission as well as a member of the Warren Commission that investigated Richard Nixon - said something concerning 9/11 as a CONSEQUENCE of american policies in economics and militarism....
"WE AMERICANS ...we NEVER learn, do we?"
this -- "governing from the middle" as a DISGUISE for governing FROM the right -- in the reaganesque mold which has proven DISASTROUS in its freewheeling "laissez-faire" , ayn rand, alan greenspan, milton friedman style of disaster capitalism -- is ONE SUCH EXAMPLE of what Hamilton said , although HE might never have realized that his own words APPLY to this nonsense of "governing from the middle" -...which is actually "governing from the right".
that's what it's really all about.
Obama has a choice -- govern PROPERLY -- which is AWAY from the middle and to the LEFT ....or "govern from the middle" and be another FOOT SOLDIER for the "conservative right" and ITS disastrous REGRESSIVE policies.
Well-said, Teddy!
Recall Pelosi!
Works for me.
The voters in San Francisco had the golden opportunity to do just that and yet just a few days ago, they totally blew it by voting for allowing Pelosi to remain a neoconservative puppet. Of course Sheehan may not have run a great campaign but still, the voters choose blind party loyalty over a real deal. This is no different from voters in rural America voting against their own economic interests by electing Republicans who bait-and-switch them on social issues only to put them on the backburner once elected. The voters in SF can stop calling us voters in rural America "stupid" after proving to be no better having re-elected Pelosi.
the Pelosi mantra is nothing more than a reflection of the continuing "moderate" democrat SPINELESSNESS ....even with a mandate to govern in the way they ought to govern FOR the common wealth of people.
she is a coward as are most of them handed power to do the right thing for people.
When Pelosi talks about governing "from the middle" she's saying governing "from the top." The problem isn't that she's spineless. The problem is that she's got an imperial mindset that says she, and a few others, know what's best for the rest of us. Just as President Bush is the son of a president and the brother of a governor, so Pelosi is the daughter of a mayor of Baltimore and a sister of a mayor of Baltimore. Born to rule.
In 2006, the people of San Francisco voted to direct our "representatives" to start impeachment proceedings. Pelosi high-handedly took it "off the table." The people of San Francisco voted to end the war in Iraq, but Pelosi continues to fund it.
Yet discouragingly, the people of San Francisco, among the most progressive in the US, voted overwhelmingly to return Pelosi to office. I worked on Cindy Sheehan's campaign. Sheehan got a pitiful 17%. Why the majority of otherwise sane San Franciscans voted to return Pelosi to office is beyond me.
What is wrong with listening to all the views, thereby trying to reach the "Middle". President Elect Obama, which I being from the Mississippi and a child of the Sixties has given me a feeling that I would have never thought would be possible. It wasn't just Obama calm in his mission of change needed, but it was my belief in My God-His God-Your God, bringing out the fact that we are all children of creation. We all are the seed of Abraham (Red, Yellow, Black, and White)so, Romans 14, verse 11-13 "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to GOD. So then everyone of us shall give account of himself to GOD. Let us not therefore judge
one another anymore: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way". We, as children of Abraham, are brother's, (like it or not--it isn't changeable)so let's be a nation of togetherness again.
The children of Abraham? Are you kidding? That would be some jews and some moslems. That's it. Talk about ethno-centric. Judeo-christinas are a minority and even then they are not descended from Abraham. We are all descended from Africa, including Abraham. Why do you sqay such silly things?.......... lizard
The title of one of Jim Hightower's books says it beautifully, "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road, Except Yellow Lines and Dead Armadillos".
We didn't lose national health care for 15 years because imaginary leftist boogeymen "pushed" Bill (and Hillary) Clinton "way too hard." We lost a golden chance to get a modern, single payer national health system because the Clintons never advocated for one, preferring instead to invite all the interested stakeholders in the existing, private health insurance/employment-coverage-based system to come, sit down around a big table behind closed doors with them, and tinker with the existing system in hopes everybody at the big table would go away satisfied, supporting a consensus compromise package.
The result was a debacle. All the stakeholders paid lip service to their consensus compromises until Bill and Hillary were out of earshot. They each then turned their lobbyists loose once the Congressional legislative process began, working furiously to undermine any meaningful reform of their own, respective financial fiefdoms. By the end, there was nothing left in the Clinton health reform proposal package worth fighting for or enacting.
Too bad Bill Clinton hadn't instead used his honeymoon period to announce upfront that the goal was "to put an end to private, employment-based health insurance as we know it." Unfortunately, that rhetoric was saved for a later Clinton era measure - welfare "reform" - a stark example of how econmically repressive policies get enacted under the guise of governing from the middle.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill from Saginaw -- you are EXACTLY right on the button!! it is this "fear" so deeply embedded in american mentality - owing to big business and political thinking's propagation of a cultural mentality that OVER-emphasizes the MYTHICAL american "idea" of "individualism". it is just an OVERDONE nonsense. and from that idea of "individualism" comes the idea of "government can do nothing right" ....because "it takes away YOUR individual freedom" ....
and then when applied to economic reality -- shows DISASTROUS results such as a "employment based" hodgepodge of "private insurance".
the basic fact is : a HUMAN NECESSITY such as health care ought NEVER to have been placed in the hands of "profit making" . THAT"S the big trap america is in. and it takes a REAL leftward move to enter the IDEA -- just the IDEA -- that single-payer, or universal health coverage, REGARDLESS of ability to pay or employment - is just a TOP , BASIC priority of ANY economy - so that its citizens or residents can be RELIEVED of the WASTEFUL expenses paid to the insurance industry which is riding on the taxation of people AND causes the collapse even of entire industries such as the auto-industry.
what a MESS. it really began in the 1940's when industries "offered" private insurance as a way to attract "healthy" employees....and made "employment based" insurance into the TRAP that it is today. it trapped BOTH the industries that offered it while wasting their finances on insurance coverage rather than on concentrating on job creations and wages and infrastructure - and TRAPPED workers into ever-rising premiums...and TRAPPED america itself in the hands of the "private for profit insurance" and pharmaceutical industries.
these should never have been ALLOWED to play the game about a NATURAL human right to have good decent health care provided by a COMMON WEALTH which is what a government is supposed to represent.
there are simply things of such national and universally NATURAL importance that they should NEVER be left in the hands of "private" industry whose essential motive is PROFIT.
once that comes in -- there will never be a way out of it - UNTIL IT IS ALTOGETHER, by gradual change or outright , wholesale change, FORCED OUT of the system itself.
i do no believe however that america is "culturaly" prepared for this. it is too BACKWARD -- considering it is the world's greatest power and economy -- to get around to that realization -- until one day -- these piecemeal approaches , maintaining a "private insurance" hand of "the market" , show, AGAIN - another COLLAPSE. and THEN maybe, when people find themselves homeless, without jobs, without even industries that can support jobs, and LITERALLY begging on the streets for someone to help them or bring them to a hospital that won't accept them without insurance...or "no government funds"...will finally wake up what their own
CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS and mentality brings them.
maybe americans DESERVE this kind of suffering...as a measure of their own SHORTSIGHTED vision.
i'm just as concerned that this kind of mentality DOESN"T spread some more globally, even as other nations try to develop as yet another "american way" of "privatization".
it's just NONSENSE.
I have to disagree. The Congress pushed Clinton to address it before he should have. They weren't ready for it at all. But he didn't resist them.
You are exactly right about what they did, but I believe you are mistaken about the why of the timing. So I'll stick by my statement. It cost us 15 years because people couldn't wait.
Thomas,
How can you "disagree"? You did not dispute anything Bill wrote about the actual history of triangulation and compromise and sell-out in the Clinton health-care fiasco. There was nothing at all premature or far-left about it.
Please give some specific outline of something about the Clinton plan that was too far left-of-center.
Sorry, I only disagree about the timing, his history and sequence of events are correct as they usually are.. Congress pushed them into dealing with it too early. They weren't ready as witness the hash they made of it.
Their plan was certainly not what Congress had in mind, it wasn't left or right, it was exactly what you said above. More of the same.
Geeezzzzz, I wish I had the clarity of writing some of you guys have.
.We are, most of us, legends......in our own minds of course.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
He campaigned on it in 1992 and won the election. What is that if not a mandate?
While the Clintons were advocating national health care publicly, privately they handed health care over to the new HMOs. Bill and Hilary are liars, and their lies have hurt millions.
Too bad Bill Clinton hadn't instead used his honeymoon period to announce upfront that the goal was "to put an end to private, employment-based health insurance as we know it." -Bill from Saginaw November 7th, 2008 2:55 pm
That is so right.
Exactly. (This comment of mine goes all the way up to Bill from Saginaw November 7th, 2008 2:55 pm)