Even if it is, propping up Beltway bipartisanship on an issue as important as recovery has outlived any usefulness it might have once had. Entertaining the illusion that Congressional Republicans might work in good faith to deal with the investment / jobs deficit blurs distinctions that need to be made both for substantive and strategic reasons.
The Obama Administration has a Matt Taibbi problem.
[T]he nation needs a public jobs program in addition to a policy of helping small businesses grow again. The infrastructure investments Obama proposed will go part of the way toward meeting that goal, but specific programs of public employment, such as those created by Franklin Roosevelt and that notorious radical Richard Nixon (who signed into law the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, or CETA) are needed as well. Roosevelt in particular understood that major infrastructure projects took time and a major investment in materials, which is why he established two programs in the depths of the Depression: the Public Works Administration (PWA) for projects such as the construction of the Bonneville Dam, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) for more labor-intensive projects that were quicker to get up and running. He directed more than five times as much funding to the WPA as he did to the PWA, for the simple reason that Americans were clamoring for work and the private sector wasn't generating any.
When Roosevelt became president in 1933, he brought with him plans that progressives had developed over the preceding 30 years for public power and social insurance. When it came to public jobs, however, FDR was improvising -- progressives hadn't envisioned the Depression or how to deal with it. Obama entered office with a similar disconnect: His dance card was filled with health-care reform and climate-change legislation, but nobody had planned for how to deal with the most severe downturn since the 1930s. Roosevelt showed his mettle as a great political leader by pivoting to remedy mass unemployment. This is Obama's turn to do the same.
President Obama has turned out to be disappointingly centrist because:
* A. Wall Street has immense power, and you have to be at least as radical as Roosevelt to even partially dislodge it.
* B. As a consummate outsider, he concluded that he needed the blessings and the expertise of the establishment -- the financial establishment, the military establishment, the medical-industrial establishment.
* C. He never really was that much of a progressive on economic issues.
* D. He really believes what he says about building bridges and finding consensus -- which defaults to making accommodations with the powerful.
* E. All of the above.
Why should rank and file Democrats support people like Rep. Melissa Bean? All the DLC / Third Way / Hamilton Project Caucus has shown is that it's exceptionally good at finding ways to blow once in a generation opportunities.
I certainly don't envy the situation President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are in. But what we've seen so far is simply not going to cut it. While there is a lot to be said for nuance when looking at all the Administration and Congress are up against, the inescapable truth is that bold action is required.
Far too much is on the line to retreat into 90's - style Democratic establishment economic policy.
