Here it is. The independent voters are jumping off the Obamamobile in groups. The Republicans are much more cohesive in their political desires than the Democrats are for the general election in November. The economy will still be puttering along at its pathetic no growth/inadequate growth pace and there is nothing the federal government can do about it between now and November 2.
Nothing good yet? Stay with me.
The Republicans will substantially increase their votes in the House, joining the Blue Dog Democrats in opposing so much as a hallway conversation about liberal political ideas. The Democrats will keep their majority in the Senate, but see it reduced. The President's days as Legislator-in-Chief are over until January 2013, when he will return to his legislative program after a resounding victory in the 2012 election.
Here's the short form. When President Obama looked at his legislative majorities and the number of campaign promises that required successful legislative action, he identified his presidency as a legislative presidency and disappeared from public view. I'm guessing that his political advisers warned him what would happen if he did that and that he said that the policy gains would be worth the political costs "in the long run." The very phrase "in the long run" sounds like blasphemy to political strategists for whom "the long run" means more than one news cycle.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Matt Bai wrote two really good pieces in the New York Times yesterday. I put them together here because Bai talks about the cause (Whatever happened to the President?) and Stolberg about an odd effect (President Obama is a Muslim).
Bai's point is really clear. Americans, especially in hard times, like their presidents available. They want Dr. Phil. Actually running the country can wait until we are less anxious and more prosperous. We don't want the President holding long sessions with recalcitrant Congressmen. We want him hitting the state fairs and telling us it's Morning in America. At the next election we will punish him for a "do-nothing Congress" and the failure of nearly all his campaign promises, but right now we want comfort and inspiration from our Barometer-in-Chief and if we don't get it, we will think bad thoughts about him. So there.
What bad thoughts will we think? Stolberg cites polls that show that the percent of people who think Obama is a Muslim has risen from 11% at his inauguration to 18% today. Less than a majority of Democratic voters--Democratic voters--now think Obama is Christian. And for those of you who want to point out that the Constitution forbids a religious test for office, let me tell you that candidates are punished for being less than prominently Christian. One quarter of the population believes that President Obama was born outside the U. S.--they are, in the current term, "birthers,"--so that he has to use a fake Social Security number.
So Bai argues that the President did what he had to do to meet his legislative obligations and take advantage of his fleeting Congressional majorities. He went to Capitol Hill, in other words, went in at the service entrance, and has not been seen since. With his availability occluded, people are doubting whatever else concerns them. What if the President is really a Muslim?
It's nuts, I know, but it is the way American voters work and it has been that way for a long time.
So, finally, the good news. The decisions the Obama administration made that have removed him from public view are all going to change. With Republicans prominent in Congress and perhaps controlling one house, the President will have no choice but to reappear as President. He will be everywhere once again. No state fair will be too small; no voting bloc too insignificant. Photo ops will once again dominate the President's schedule as they did when he was merely a candidate. "I'm back!" he will say. He might even try to sound like Arnold Schwarzenegger when he does it. MUCH better than Dr. Phil.
This struck me as a strange blog, Dad. The conservatives have always had a more cohesive voice than the Dems. I would say that it is one of the characteristics of the kinds of people they attract: tell me what to say and I will say it. Jon Stewart did a piece on how fast the singular voice of the party worked a few years ago. Nothing changed there. I think the Dems, to their peril, like to think, talk, argue, and ultimately agree on topics. Without that, they don’t feel as if they are participating.
ReplyDeleteI would love Obama to come up with some answers and not appeasements. Why are we in Afghanistan? What are we doing about the fine line of taxation and deficits? What would it cost us if we didn’t do Obamacare? People can hold forth on opinion, but what is the President saying about those questions? He isn’t. I agree, he needs to be out more. I am confused as to why he might be playing Rope a Dope with the Republicans. Clinton hit twice every time he was hit. It worked! It seems we are trying not to lose or maybe lose by not by as much. We aren’t driving the democratic agenda. Does it seem that way to you?
Thanks, Dan. I feel the same frustration you do. Why isn't Obama saying the things that need to be said? And I'd take your list as a good startiing point.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of complications, though. First, Obamacare is a political nightmare. It's all Congressional at first, then it's all administrative. By its nature, it skips over the Executive. The only thing he can say is that the Republicans gave everything they had to defeat it and they lost. On Afghanistan, he said there was a way out (cointerinsurgency) and he would give it so much time and no more. No "blank check." Counterinsurgency isn't working, of course, but the time to stop the charade has not yet come. Taxation would require a Congressional incentive he doesn't have any more. He has exhausted his Congressional allies. He never had a way to make the banks, the most immediate beneficiaries of the stimulus spending, actually use the money he gave them. The Democratic voters have been very focussed in forcing the Republicans out of office. When you are governing and campaigning at the same time, it is always a two-front war and that was one too many for the Bush administration. They lost seats in 2004 (I think) and in 2006 and 2008 for sure. Now it's the Democrats turn to try governing and campaigning and they are going to lose seats for sure. The Republican voters (not the activists), so divided in 04, 06, and 08, have regained their unity.
Your point about Clinton leaves me entirely without an answer. I don't know why the Obama White House is so calm and so slow. You know Rahm isn't. Axelrod isn't. It must be the President. Doesn't want to be the "angry black man?" I have no idea. He certainly isn't saying the things that would make me feel good.
I'll weigh in here too, but on a different point from you and the Broheim.
ReplyDeleteDo you feel Obama hasn't been visible? You think he's been reclusive? I don't know if most people would agree with you on that point, and politics is perception, after all.
Ask Mr. Lunchbucket (you know, the guy who thinks Obama's a Muslim) and he'll point to his appearance on "The View" and in the Gulf, etc. So I'm not sure, reality aside, if that's a known issue.
But I sure do hope you're right about the long view. I hope he does get a second term, and I hope he gets some legislative muscle back in 2012, since the common wisdom is that we're going to take it in the shorts in the mid-terms.
-Doug