A little less than two years ago, Barack Obama faced a dire threat to his presidential candidacy: The publication of explosive comments by his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama responded with what many people considered the speech of his life.
Today Obama faces a dire threat to his presidency: A political backlash threatening to destroy his signature domestic policy initiative and, more broadly, his entire governing agenda. Can he give the speech of his political life--again?
I hope he can. But it won’t be easy.
Whatever the true meaning of the Massachusetts election--and you can count me among those who think it’s been wildly over-interpreted--there’s no question that the public has become frustrated with the Obama presidency. At a time when they’re worried about their incomes and their jobs, they see Washington dithering and dealing over a health care bill that, they’ve been told time and time again, won’t make much difference in their lives. According to the polls, Democratic congressional candidate are increasingly vulnerable, while the president’s own job approval ratings have fallen to around 50 percent.
Obama could respond simply by lowering his ambitions, as much of the Washington establishment seems to be counseling. He could stand at the podium Wednesday, suggest he’d reached too far and too quickly, then unveil a list of modest, poll-tested initiatives like the ones Bill Clinton used so successfully after his own political drubbing in 1994. Obama could then spend the next year muddling through, trying his best not to offend. And the Democratic Congress would probably go along, given how easy fecklessness comes to them.
The alternative would be to double-down--to keep pushing an agenda of sweeping change. No, Obama can’t ignore the voter anger or pretend Massachusetts didn’t happen. He needs to promise action on the economy--and a commitment to cleaning up government. But he doesn’t have to abandon his agenda, either. The people elected him on a platform of “change,” he can say. And change is what he still intends to give them.
As you can doubtless detect, that second strategy isn’t easy to pull off. It requires the ability to send two messages at once--the rhetorical equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time. And in more ways than one.
On a purely programmatic level, Obama has to deal with impulses that are clearly at odds with one another--like the fact that the voters want more jobs but oppose deficit spending, which just happens to be the most effective way of reducing unemployment. When it comes to talking about the political process, Obama must somehow address the public’s frustration with gridlock and yearning for bipartisan outreach, even though Republican obstructionism has rendered Obama's efforts at bipartisanship futile.
So can Obama pull off this trick? Maybe. As I’ve mentioned before, I never drank the Obama kool-aid. But that’s not because I didn’t like him. It’s because the qualities I saw in him--from hearing his 2004 speech and then reading his autobiography---seemed ill-suited for politics. He was clearly somebody who reveled in ambiguity and embraced contradiction, which is great if you’re a writer or intellectual but not so great if you’re trying to win votes in the world of thirty-second sound bites.
Or so I thought before the Wright speech. The easy approach to that controversy--the one, I’m sure, most political consultants would have advised--would have been a simple and apologetic disavowal of Wright. Instead, Obama seized the opportunity to offer a disquisition on American attitudes about race, in all of its mind-numbing complexity.
Somehow, the gambit worked. People paid attention. They respected Obama for it. And his candidacy survived.
My gut tells me that this State of the Union cries for the same approach--that people will respect and embrace Obama if, rather than backing down, his reaffirms his commitment to the ideals on which he ran. They want to know he’s listening, but they also want him to keep fighting. They can handle the complicated message--in fact, they want it.
And perhaps this is what Obama himself wants to do. More than most politicians, he seems to enjoy confounding Washington experts by challenging the public. It's worked for him before. Maybe it can work again.
Follow Jonathan Cohn on Twitter: @jcohntnr
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
COMMENTS (9)
The problem is that two years ago, no one knew who Obama was. The word "change" had real resonance, particularly coming from someone who identified himself as a mix between JFK and MLK.
Now, everybody knows Obama is just another Ivy Leaguer who favors banks and pharmaceutical companies.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Obama's speech will have resonance. After all, we're talking about the teleprompter king. But Obama's resonance is now restricted to the ears of other Ivy Leaguers for whom favoring banks and pharmaceutical companies the way Obama favors actually makes sense.
I'm sure TNR editors will be toasting tonight. Everyone else will toast in November. Not out of happiness, but of resentment ... view full comment
The problem is that two years ago, no one knew who Obama was. The word "change" had real resonance, particularly coming from someone who identified himself as a mix between JFK and MLK.
Now, everybody knows Obama is just another Ivy Leaguer who favors banks and pharmaceutical companies.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Obama's speech will have resonance. After all, we're talking about the teleprompter king. But Obama's resonance is now restricted to the ears of other Ivy Leaguers for whom favoring banks and pharmaceutical companies the way Obama favors actually makes sense.
I'm sure TNR editors will be toasting tonight. Everyone else will toast in November. Not out of happiness, but of resentment. I don't know if that resentment is justifiable or not. The point is that it's already out there -- "it's our turn for a change" -- and that it will be impossible to contradict it.
Ideaot, November is a long, long way away. If the economy improves significantly, then the only thing that will be toast is Republican expectations. If the economy is improving but not enough to really reduce unemployment, then it will be a good night for the Republicans but not great, and if the economy muddles along or double dips...well, then it is lights out.
The simple fact is we have no idea what will happen then, so lets put away our crystal ball.
Ideaot, November is a long, long way away. If the economy improves significantly, then the only thing that will be toast is Republican expectations. If the economy is improving but not enough to really reduce unemployment, then it will be a good night for the Republicans but not great, and if the economy muddles along or double dips...well, then it is lights out.
The simple fact is we have no idea what will happen then, so lets put away our crystal ball.
He could address what has the Democrats floundering - acting like Republicans, legislating in the short term interests of big corporations. He could say that the bipartisan agreement to try to reform health care by relying of for-profit insurance has failed, that we need to cut what we spend on health care in half, and provide secure coverage with a single, not-for-profit system. He could begin the push for a constitutional amendment that states that only people are persons. He could say, more eloquently than this, that we do need to pay our taxes, more than we are now, to invest in ourselves and our future.
I don't think this is a time of Republican ascendency. I think it is a time that dema ... view full comment
He could address what has the Democrats floundering - acting like Republicans, legislating in the short term interests of big corporations. He could say that the bipartisan agreement to try to reform health care by relying of for-profit insurance has failed, that we need to cut what we spend on health care in half, and provide secure coverage with a single, not-for-profit system. He could begin the push for a constitutional amendment that states that only people are persons. He could say, more eloquently than this, that we do need to pay our taxes, more than we are now, to invest in ourselves and our future.
I don't think this is a time of Republican ascendency. I think it is a time that demands the leadership to drive the investment in our human capital and counter the choke hold that corporate interests have on our government.
Welcome back, Mr. Cohn. I would like for the House to just pass the Senate bill (and have written my congressman to that effect), but I think we need a fallback plan. I don't think we need to pass anything in the next month or two - after all, many of the provisions wouldn't take effect for 2 or 3 years.
I don't care what the "Teapartiers" and hardcore Objectivists think (even if they do make up about a third of the country). And the people who voted for McCain & Palin are going to oppose pretty much anything Democrats propose. However, I am concerned about losing the support of moderate independents, and there is substantial evidence (not just the Mass. election) that such voters ... view full comment
Welcome back, Mr. Cohn. I would like for the House to just pass the Senate bill (and have written my congressman to that effect), but I think we need a fallback plan. I don't think we need to pass anything in the next month or two - after all, many of the provisions wouldn't take effect for 2 or 3 years.
I don't care what the "Teapartiers" and hardcore Objectivists think (even if they do make up about a third of the country). And the people who voted for McCain & Palin are going to oppose pretty much anything Democrats propose. However, I am concerned about losing the support of moderate independents, and there is substantial evidence (not just the Mass. election) that such voters are very suspicious of current reform proposals. Our friends on the left would like to believe that the only problem is that the current proposals are too moderate, too "timid", or too reliant on private-sector solutions. Well, the polling I've seen doesn't bear that out, and I know a lot of genuine moderate independents, and that's not what has them concerned. They really have bought into this narrative (against much evidence) that Democrats just drafted a partisan bill without consulting Republicans.
So Obama could do the following: (a)argue the case for health insurance reform, puncturing a number of Republican hypocrisies along the way (e.g., you can't be for ending discrimination in cases of pre-existing conditions, and against a mandate);
(b) offer to negotiate with Republicans over the next 4 months to see whether some of them will vote for real reform if we include some GOP ideas. (a) is the "keep fighting" part of the speech; (b) is the "he's listening" part.
I know, we're all very skeptical of GOP good faith, with good reason. But people would like to SEE the effort. So invite some key Democrats and Republicans to Camp David in March, and spend a few days exploring what they would go for. Repubs. say they want "malpractice reform", interstate insurance policy purchasing, and some sort of tax credit. Make them flesh those ideas out, and ask, OK, if we agree to some of that, what would you agree to that Democrats want? Maybe we should put some of this on CSPAN - I think Obama would eat McConnell's lunch.
Maybe we peel away a few Republicans and pass a "bipartisan" bill; maybe the economy is doing better in a few months and Obama gets credit, giving him the clout to pass something without the GOP. But we don't have to pass the Senate bill next week.
Don't kid yourself Blackton. If Repubs are smart enough to present credible alternatives, or at least presentable ones, with all the anger out there, folks will vote out of it. Even left wingers. And they'll feel good about it. You can bet on it.
And it's not just the economy, even if really good job numbers are very unlikely this year. Obama will not be able to present any military results until November, since he defined his Afghan and Iraqi strategy according to his own electoral cycle. It's up for Dem Senators to defend their asses. If they don't, no dream team of campaigners will be enough.
Don't kid yourself Blackton. If Repubs are smart enough to present credible alternatives, or at least presentable ones, with all the anger out there, folks will vote out of it. Even left wingers. And they'll feel good about it. You can bet on it.
And it's not just the economy, even if really good job numbers are very unlikely this year. Obama will not be able to present any military results until November, since he defined his Afghan and Iraqi strategy according to his own electoral cycle. It's up for Dem Senators to defend their asses. If they don't, no dream team of campaigners will be enough.
Y'know, baxter, I've suggested just such an effort on these boards, and been roundly shouted down. Obama needs to be seen, at least, consulting with the GOP leadership. Offer them a deal they'll have a hard time refusing. Sounds like triangulation to me - remind you of anyone?
Y'know, baxter, I've suggested just such an effort on these boards, and been roundly shouted down. Obama needs to be seen, at least, consulting with the GOP leadership. Offer them a deal they'll have a hard time refusing. Sounds like triangulation to me - remind you of anyone?
This article is symptomatic of the problem concerning the Obama presidency. There is this idea that speeches are a substitute for a political strategy. So far his presidency reminds me of JFK's, beautiful speeches, soaring rhetoric but the inability to pass key legislations. It was the rough and crude Johnson who knows how to be a politician and pass landmark social legislation. Obama, unfortunately is paying for his aloofness from the political process.
This article is symptomatic of the problem concerning the Obama presidency. There is this idea that speeches are a substitute for a political strategy. So far his presidency reminds me of JFK's, beautiful speeches, soaring rhetoric but the inability to pass key legislations. It was the rough and crude Johnson who knows how to be a politician and pass landmark social legislation. Obama, unfortunately is paying for his aloofness from the political process.
At least JFK had some Republicans who were willing to work with him. That was before the Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich takeover of the GOP. Now the main thing holding the Repubs. together is to oppose whatever Democrats want to do.
One minute they say he's too partisan; next they say he's "aloof from the political process". Geez, pick a storyline and stick to it, OK?
At least JFK had some Republicans who were willing to work with him. That was before the Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich takeover of the GOP. Now the main thing holding the Repubs. together is to oppose whatever Democrats want to do.
One minute they say he's too partisan; next they say he's "aloof from the political process". Geez, pick a storyline and stick to it, OK?
I'm hoping for and predicting a strong speech that will revive health care reform, signal new action on jobs, and shut down the Obama's winter of discontent story for at least 30 seconds.
I'm hoping for and predicting a strong speech that will revive health care reform, signal new action on jobs, and shut down the Obama's winter of discontent story for at least 30 seconds.