Our Suddenly ‘Progressive’ Congress, And How President Obama Can Exploit It

On Tuesday, May 12, Senate Democrats blocked a bill that would have granted President Obama authority to accelerate passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP), a broad trade accord with Asia that critics have panned as a Pacific Rim equivalent to 1994’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Senate
Photo from media files

Despite NAFTA being signed into law by a Democratic president, even liberal think tanks agree the deal killed American manufacturing jobs, and the modern-day party’s progressive wing has similar skepticism regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Their concerns are well-founded: International free trade agreements, by their nature, weaken the bargaining chips of workforces in First World countries by exposing them to heightened competition from less expensive developing-world workers. Eventually, about a dozen Democratic dissenters relented, re-voted and allowed the Senate to continue debate on the TPP, but only after approval of legislation that cracks down on countries who manipulate currency rates to boost exports ? a tactic that, within the friendly confines of a free trade agreement, can place American manufacturing workers at an even greater disadvantage.

Still, the 33 ?nay? votes in the second round included three of the Senate’s leading liberals: popular progressives Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Exactly zero Republicans voted no, a nod to the party’s undying devotion to untethered, free-market capitalism at whatever cost.

So in a real rarity considering today’s ultra-partisan political atmosphere, a bill backed by a Democratic president had been obstructed by members of his own Party, while nearly all Republican Senators had supported it from the outset. To ensure Senate passage, the terms surrounding an Obama-initiated bill had to become more liberal rather than more conservative.

That same week, the House of Representatives also took a left turn when it passed, by a resounding, bipartisan tally of 338-88, a bill that would end the direct mass collection of Americans? phone data by the U.S. government. Following a contentious special Sunday session on May 31, the Senate failed to pass a straight extension of the Patriot Act, making it likely that it, too, will pass some version of the NSA power-limiting bill passed by the House.

Despite dovetailing in result, the reasons for each party’s assent of the bill ? dubbed the USA Freedom Act ? are starkly different. One party’s yeses derived from evergreen principles, the other’s from a selective, situational distrust.

Specifically, Congressional Democrats voted for the measure because its voting base, regardless of what party holds the Executive Branch (and therefore oversees both the National Security Agency and the military), is overwhelmingly against giving the government unrestrained capabilities to spy on innocent citizens.

By contrast, it is far less certain that Republican Congressmen would have voted similarly had a Republican been in the White House. Besides personally hating President Obama, House Republicans must pander to a base of voters so distrusting of him that the Republican governor of deep-red Texas felt compelled to take measures against a the feared Army invasion. In a party obsessed with both personal liberties and national security, Republicans are careful to whom they grant powers that, if mistreated, could be used to trample upon individual rights in the name of combating terrorism.

In other words, they’ll be damned if they keep letting that Muslim socialist in the White House know who they’re calling. Who does he think he is, Dick Cheney or something?

These two recent examples suggest that Congressional Republicans can be cajoled into supporting progressive agenda items in one of two ways: by presenting these stances as either baldly pro-business or bluntly anti-Obama. Or ? even better ? as both.

Amidst this new, oddball coalition of the unwilling there is, perhaps, opportunity to advance other progressive positions. After all, President Obama doesn’t have to worry about reelection next year. Ironically, the best way for him to cement his long-term legacy within the progressive movement may be to sacrifice his short-term reputation.

America is supposed to be a land of unparalleled ingenuity, is it not? Let’s get creative here, Mr. President. Liberals think you’re too centrist, and Republicans think you’re too?well? you can pretty much play MAD LIBS with that one. Suffice to say they don’t like you.

First, let’s finally do something significant to combat climate change. It’s your seventh year in office, Mr. President, and we’re still getting 39% of our energy by burning coal ? basically the filthiest means available ? and 27% from natural gas, which is primarily obtained through the dubious-at-best process of hydraulic fracturing.

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Taking a nod from your predecessor, the time is right for an address to a joint session of Congress that unequivocally cites the electric automobile, solar power and wind turbine industries as the new Axis of Evil. To help your sales pitch, find out if any clean energy companies have recently tried to purchase aluminum tubes from Africa; as we all know, that’s proof positive of a burgeoning nuclear weapons program.

Congressional progressives, of course, would need to be clued in on the prank beforehand, lest a resolution to invade Tesla be authorized. Republicans, on the other hand, will see their least favorite commander-in-chief bashing American businesses, and react in kind. The resulting ?American Freedom Patriot Business Energy Act? will make the current set of subsidies and tax breaks meted out to oil and coal companies seem miserly. We’ll be green and clean in no time.

Next, let’s do something about the crumbling, dangerously underfunded infrastructure in this country. Bridges are collapsing, trains are derailing, and roadways have potholes large enough to loosen teeth.

Go somewhere urban (read: black; gay) with a well-known bridge; San Francisco and New York are probably the best options. Pick a nice, clear summer day for an outdoor press conference with, for example, the Brooklyn Bridge as a backdrop. Close off traffic before starting the event.

Because once the press conference starts, we’re blowing that baby to smithereens.

Then, Mr. President, just sit back, kick up your feet in the Oval Office and watch the infrastructure funding come rolling in. We’ll be pothole-free by Labor Day.

You see where this is going. Want to close tax loopholes that favor the rich? Host an event for Wall Street CEOs where you openly gloat about your offshore assets, then high five Jamie Dimon for good measure. Want to get comprehensive immigration reform passed? Introduce a bill illegalizing not only Mexicans, but Mexico itself.

The ball’s in your court, Mr. President. It’s time to get collectively progressive by being thoroughly self-destructive.