Beto O’Rourke is the new face of Obama-style politics. Here’s why that might not be a good thing.
In an era of political polarization and divisive rhetoric, many Democrats find refuge in nostalgia for the presidency of Barack Obama. Articulate, thoughtful, and personally charming, Obama seems in every way the opposite of the current occupant of the White House. In Beto O’Rourke, the galvanizing speaker out of El Paso who emphasizes themes of unity and optimism, many see a chance for a return to the more feel-good political style of Barack Obama. But such thinking fails to remember one crucial aspect of Barack Obama’s approach to politics: it requires actors on the other side of the aisle that can be relied on to act mostly in good faith, and is therefore naively unworkable given the current state of the Republican Party.
Obama’s approach to politics is easy to remember favorably because his successor is, in all of the worst ways, his polar opposite. For many liberals, the cruel vulgarity of the Trump presidency has been a deeply shocking experience, and many yearn for a return to the deceptively rosy era of several years ago. Enter Beto O’Rourke, the three term ex-Congressman from Texas, who failed to defeat Ted Cruz in a Senate race that grabbed the attention of the nation and turned O’Rourke into a superstar. Now, O’Rourke has set his sights even higher, announcing that he will seek the presidency in 2020. In a three minute announcement video, O’Rourke touted his ability to unite a polarized country and find common ground. Many, including a handful of alumni from the Obama administration, see in O’Rourke someone who can pick up the baton and replicate the stylish, unifying politics of the Obama era.
But, as O’Rourke becomes the subject of endless conversation in the media, the question has to be asked: would a return to the politics of Barack Obama be a good thing? For eight years, Obama carried out a political strategy based on the premise that Republicans would react favorably to compromise and political flexibility. As a result, he sought to accommodate the right on virtually every issue, hoping to entice Republican support and shore up a broad coalition. Even Obama’s signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was a market-friendly model based on a proposal by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. But the promotion of relatively conservative policies designed to attract Republican support had no clear benefits. Instead, Obama would court compromise, and the GOP would shift the goalpost rightward.
This dynamic was on full display when Obama put forward Merrick Garland, a moderate judge with sterling bipartisan credentials, as his Supreme Court nominee, with the belief that he would be more acceptable to Republicans. In the face of this good-faith attempt, Mitch McConnell famously looked Obama in the eyes and stated defiantly: “Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.” In the face of Obama’s compromise choice, Republicans simply refused to hold a hearing, won the election, then installed two right-wing judges to the bench.
While O’Rourke has picked up some of Obama’s charisma, he seems to have done so without understanding any of the central lessons of Obama’s presidency. While candidates like Elizabeth Warren have centered their campaigns around a commitment to spelling out the problems facing Americans, identify the forces behind them, and advancing bold and groundbreaking policy solutions, O’Rourke seems to believe that optimism and shared purpose will allow him to bring unlikely allies to the table. In a recent tweet, Beto declared that “We need to show up everywhere, listen, learn, and bring this deeply divided, highly polarized country together around the big challenges before us.”
But on the most urgent issues facing the American people, O’Rourke doesn’t seem to recognize that the Republican Party of 2019 has no interest in coming together to tackle big challenges. In the face of rising public support for progressive policy options, the Republican reaction has been to rile up their base with rhetoric that is increasingly detached from reality.
If Republicans reacted to the Affordable Care Act by calling it socialist, how does O’Rourke think they will react to sincerely progressive policy initiatives? Here’s the problem with the politics of unity: both sides have to represent sane actors acting in good faith. The modern Republican Party, an institution that peddles white nationalist rhetoric and is currently trying to stir up its base with claims that the Democratic Party supports infanticide, is no such partner.
How does Beto plan to win over a party promoting the belief that immigrants represent an invading force threatening to wipe out the American way of life, that climate change is less important than the scaling up of American coal production, and that Democrats are in favor of killing live children? None of this is to say that, should areas of potential substantive compromise arise, Democrats should turn their backs on potential bipartisan successes (the recent passage of a resolution ending American complicity in the war in Yemen is a good example). But if O’Rourke is serious about building an America that works for everyone, he should recognize that he will not find many reliable partners on the other side of the aisle.
