Last thoughts on compromise (well maybe)

I’ve written about Obama’s enthusiasm for compromise as a political goal here and here. And since reading this Lance Mannion post, I’ve wanted to tackle one more post.
Mannion’s view is that Obama has achieved more liberal goals than he gets credit for (for example requiring insurers to include birth control in their coverage) and that in many cases he’s done the best he can given the opposition in Congress. For those whose response is to compare Obama’s accomplishments with FDR’s, Mannion’s response is that “if we were alive then we’d have been screaming bloody murder about how FDR was always caving to [racists and segregationists in Congress], which is what he did, because he needed their votes.”
Which is actually close to Obama’s response to his critics on the left: If they’d been around during the Civil War, they’d have ripped Lincoln a new one for only emancipating slaves in the secessionist states, not the union.
I actually think there’s some truth to this. I just don’t think that means that Obama’s right and those of us who criticize him are wrong.
First off, it’s certainly true we’re getting more good outcomes from Obama than we would from a President Perry or Bachmann (although Glenn Greenwald has argued that libertarian Ron Paul comes closer to the left on a lot of positions than Obama). And in the voting booth, I’m sure as hell going to have that in mind.
But in day-to-day politics, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for activists to keep pushing and not settle for half a loaf if they get it. This is, after all, how the right has made such gains on banning abortion and cutting taxes on the rich over the past 30 years: No matter what they get, they come back and demand more. Maybe compliment whoever’s in office for what they did do, but pointing out that rich people still pay taxes and abortion doctors aren’t all dead yet, so step to it!
Gay rights activists, ditto. Since gay marriage became an option in 1993 in Hawaii (overturned later) they’ve been pushing forward. When they get civil unions, they cheer, but they don’t give up pushing for full marital rights. Which is why I think they’ll get them eventually.
Which brings up another point: Whether Obama’s doing a brilliant job or not depends in part on what issues you care about. If your primary passion is reproductive freedom, then the insurance decision may outweigh the negatives (surveillance state, state secrets privilege, increasing warmaking). If your goal is an end to war, that’s a whole ‘nother story. From a labor perspective, FDR’s New Deal was awesome; from the point of view of blacks trapped in Jim Crow or shut out of sundown towns, probably less so (surveys during WW II found a number of American blacks figured they couldn’t do any worse if Japan did win).
I also think there’s a sharp difference between not improving things and actually making them worse. It’s reasonable to argue that FDR shouldn’t be held responsible for segregation continuing long after his death. There’s no way to argue he isn’t responsible for interning American’s Japanese citizens and residents in prison camps, even though the government knew there was no evidence of any widespread subversion or espionage (and none ever turned up: As far as the record shows, there were no Japanese-Americans spies).
Likewise, I can accept an argument that Obamacare is the best he could have done (I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s a reasonable position) and an improvement on the current system. But I can’t ignore the things he’s done that have made things worse: The increasing use of the “state secrets” privilege to keep cases out of court, constantly widening wars in the Arab world, and calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare well before his back was to the wall.
Better than the alternatives? Yep. Definitely.
So good he deserves a break from the criticism? Not even close.