What's interesting about this story from yesterday isn't Afghanistan, it's that we're finally seeing some clear signs of trouble in the relationship between the White House and the Congress. We've already seen strained relations between the White House and various constituencies, including the Netroots, gays, women, and the immigration community, to name a few, but just this past week we saw the Congressional Black Caucus challenge the White House, and now others in Congress on Afghanistan.
To some degree, this is natural. It didn't happen much when George Bush was president, but Bush tended not to allow dissension. And while the Obama White House hasn't hesitated to push back against liberals on the Hill, they've been less likely to pressure conservative Democrats or Republicans. That has started, I think, to push the rest of Democrats to the edge of their tolerance. If you think about, there were some early signs. Rockefeller getting ticked off at the White House and Baucus over their negotiating with Republicans and not Democrats on health care reform. Or the White House not supporting Speaker Pelosi when she tried to take on the Teabaggers last summer (Pelosi didn't respond at the time, but it's hard to believe that she didn't notice the White House publicly undercutting her position.)
Most interesting in the article is this line from an Arizona Democrat: “We want this administration to be successful,” Mr. Grijalva said. “It is important to us and it is important to the country. But the loyalty issue is a two-way street.” I think that sums up a lot of the concern that a lot of Democratic constituencies have had with the administration.
And finally, one part of the article I do not agree with at all:
To a considerable extent, the strain stems from a calculation by Mr. Obama’s aides that it is essential to move early in the term. But there are political calculations as well: Mr. Obama has nearly three years to recover from any damage he suffers by pushing through legislation that divides the public. Members of Congress do not.I'm not convinced the White House moved early at all. If anything, they compromised early on the stimulus and health care reform. But, even if you accept that analysis, it spells trouble for every other issue if the message now is that the White House was being bold this past year, but will be less bold when it comes time to address the other campaign promises, like climate change, Wall Street reform, immigration reform, or gay rights. There's already significant concern that those promises are being watered down. If it gets worse in the coming years, I think the fissure is going to get a lot wider, noisier, and nastier.
“They say you do the tough things early,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York. “Early 2010 is early for the White House, but it is perilously late for members of Congress. I don’t know if it’s a new tension, but it’s certainly something people are talking about on the Hill.”
