Which hand is holding the rabbit?
In the NYTimes today, Drew Westen asks “What Happened to Obama?”:
Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling. He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production — two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing. He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day. He gives a major speech on immigration reform after deporting a million immigrants in two years, breaking up families at a pace George W. Bush could never rival in all his years as president.
The real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.
Who knew that compromise could be so audacious?
I think E.J. Dionne hit the nail on the head in his article (elsewhere on this site) urging us not to confound moderation with centrism. What we need is the former, not the latter. But I think that Obama has, for better or worse, inherited Clinton’s penchant for “triangulation,” which may help one get re-elected, but also may not do the country much good.
I hope all those White House advisers read Westin’s piece and think about it — not only in terms of the 2012 election, but in terms of setting forth a vision for the country which is more than a bit of A mixed in with a bit of B.
If A plus B works, why not? The problem is getting the best of both, and avoiding the worst. You can’t literally split the baby in two.
I also think Obama triangulates like Clinton, but not as well. He also has a very unbending faction in the Teapartiers that no one thought would be as rigid as they have proven. I certainly hope revenues will go up in the fall phase of the budget deal. Having our credit rating dinged for the first time in history will not serve Obama well, but is more an indictment of Congress. Obama’s silver tongue has gotten a work out, and I don’t know if anyone else could have done any better at this point.
If the market stays up tomorrow [Monday] the S&P downgrade will be a nothing.
I certainly hope that is true, ed!
The Tea Party is clearly counter productive. They have been clearly been paid off and funded by those who want to throw out the Democrats. Trouble is some of them believe their own press clippings. But we cannot escape the fact that Obama is a real problem here. He looks as helpless as Carter did. When he says we will get through this he sounds as if he does not believe himself. All the comparisons between him and Clinton favor Clinton by a huge margin. Clinton had the country working and clearly showed that Gingrich was off in trying to shut down the government. Westen makes a lot of sense sad to admit. Axelrod now lacks the steam he has always shown. Obama is not telling the story right. He has alienated his own leadership in the House and has many Democrats wondering about him. The only thing that will reelect Obama at this point is a very poor Republican candidate. Right now the election is the Republican’s to lose.
Right now the teaparty is being blamed for the credit downgrade by not sanctioning revenue hikes. I think the mainstream populace is growing disgruntled with the teaparty and it was never more apparent before and on August 2nd. Yes, Obama lacked will, but I’m not ready to count him out.
I posed a question to my Dad tonight; I thought it’d be interesting to ask it here:
Although it (most likely) would never occur, what do you think would happen if Hillary were to challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination? Would/could she win? Alternatively, what would happen if she were to run as an independent candidate?
Also: if Biden were willing, should Obama consider asking Hillary to be his vice-presidential running mate?
(I also think Obama should do something Chris Matthews recommended: make Bill the Treasury Secretary. If anything, it would just be interesting and uplifting; it seems like even the Republicans now have some fondness for Bill, or at least for Hillary. Who would have thought that day would come?)
Brendan–You pose some interesting questions. But I believe pressing the Clintons into that kind of service is a tall order for them. I think they are both looking for retirement status. But I agree that they have a lot to offer, and maybe in an advisory status would be the best use of their talents. That’s why I believe Hilary was a formidable candidate in 2008. She had the right amount of experience for the job, and obviously Obama thought she was good or she wouldn’t be Secretary of State.
Clearly, it’s an important article. In my opinion, it is brilliant in distilling and giving voice to progressives’ discontent with the President, and contains some compelling examples of the political storytelling the author advocates.
The S&P downgrade is a fastball down the middle, maybe even a batting practice lob, to the Tea Party. They couldn’t ask for a more dramatic illustration of their narrative that government debt is dragging down the country. Furthermore, this disfiguring of America’s face before the eyes of all the world will fuel the patriotic anger and discontent that drives the Tea Party. Just my personal opinion.
Unless the Republicans nominate a candidate who is closely aligned with the Tea Party – and as of today, I’d think it’s possible but perhaps not likely – then America as a whole will not get the opportunity to vote on the Tea Party. The core of the Tea Party’s strength in government is in the House. How the Tea Party fares in 2012 will be determined in dozens of local congressional elections. And as I say, I believe that the credit downgrade gives the Tea Party a shot of rocket fuel. So it isn’t going to go away.
It’s worth noting that the debt deal passed, not because of the Tea Party, but in spite of it. Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi figured out a way to build a bipartisan coalition to get the legislation through Congress. That may be a good precedent for what needs to happen going forward. Again, just my very amateur opinion.
Just now, S&P said we could get our credit rating back eventually if additional revenues are part of the mix. So sorry the Tea Party stood on principles instead of common sense. This sticking point may galvanize more people to President Obama. That’s what happens when self righteousness replaces what we were taught in elementary school, compromise.
Jonathan Chait did a nice job dismantling Westen’s piece:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/93323/drew-westens-nonsense