Last week, Obama appointed Bill Daley as his new Chief of Staff (replacing Rahm Emmanuel, who left to run for mayor of Chicago). While he has been praised by Howard Dean and Harry Reid, Daley represents yet another “shift to the right” in the Obama administration, and his appointment should enrage progressives and moderate Democrats alike. Is this a connection we want? The Huffington Post reports that Daley, a JP Morgan executive and brother of the current mayor of Chicago Richard Daley, has publically critiqued the President’s health care reform package and criticized the creation of a consumer protection agency. His appointment was enthusiastically supported by Republican leaders and Wall Street executives, who undoubtedly believe that Daley will have a pro-business influence on the Obama administration.
So why do Howard Dean and Harry Reid like Daley? Apparently, they think he has the perfect personality for a chief of staff. While personality is important, I’ve heard that George W. Bush was a very likable guy—and I certainly wouldn’t choose to put him anywhere near my government. I would be disgusted by Daley’s blatant connections to Wall Street and his criticism of Obama’s landmark policies even if he had been elected high school prom king for four years in a row.
As MoveOn.org points out, it makes absolutely no sense for Obama to appoint a chief of staff with such clear ties to big business while he should be reaching out to Main Street and regulating Wall Street hard. I frankly don’t see how a stronger White House-Wall Street connection is a “huge plus” at all. With Republicans’ new power in the House, Obama should be working to preserve his progressive missions—not catering to the Chamber of Commerce.
Columnist Glenn Greenwald writes that Obama’s appointment of Daley was consistent with the president’s political goals. Greenwald argues that progressives actually encourage choices like Daley by unconditionally supporting the Democratic Party’s policies. For example, he notes that progressive Representatives supported the health care reform bill even after the public option had been removed. In contrast, “the groups which Obama cares about pleasing — Wall Street, corporate interests, conservative Democrats, the establishment media, independent voters… will support only those politicians who advance their agenda, but will vigorously oppose those who do not.”
Sadly, I think that Greenwald is right—and that progressive voters should view Obama’s nomination of Daley as a personal affront to their values. Clearly, Obama cares more about vote-mongering than he does about his progressive ideals.
Does this mean that progressives should start voting for the Green Party in spite? Perhaps not. But it does mean that we have to pay closer attention to what Obama is doing with his presidency, and let him know when we don’t approve. Speaking out against the President’s “compromise” policies lets him know that liberals will not just sit back and let Obama do whatever he wants with the presidency—because he is supposed to be focused on the American people, not his next campaign.
photo credit: http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2011/01/06/image7220208.jpg
