By FRANK RICH
Published: September 11, 2010
NO, he can't. President Obama can't reverse the unemployment numbers by Election Day. He can't get even a modest new stimulus bill past the Party of No, and even if he could, there would be few jobs to show for it until (maybe) 2011. Nor can he rewrite the history of his administration. Its signal accomplishments to date are an initial stimulus package that was overrun by the calamity at hand and a marathon health care battle as yet better known for its unseemly orgy of backroom wrangling than its concrete results. While that brawl raged, the White House seemed indifferent to the mounting number of Americans being tossed onto the Great Recession scrapheap.
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
And so the odds that Obama's party will survive the midterms seem less than Indiana Jones's in the Temple of Doom — as we are reminded hourly by the Beltway herd flogging the latest polls. The Democrats are facing a "historic" rout, an earthquake, a tidal wave — well, you know the drill. End of story.
Unless it's not. On Labor Day, the fighting Obama abruptly re-emerged, a far cry from the man whose Oval Office address on Iraq days earlier was about as persuasive as a hostage video. Speaking to workers in Milwaukee, the president finally started giving voice to the anger of America's battered middle class. And he even let loose with a little anger of his own. The unspecified "powerful interests" aligned against him, he said, "talk about me like a dog."
That inelegant line — "not in my prepared remarks," Obama explained — landed because it was true and because he said it with a grin. Americans like their warriors happy, not petulant (cf, "You're likable enough, Hillary").
For a guy facing a tidal wave, the president was so ebullient, you had to wonder if he knew something we didn't. Maybe he simply read the unabridged poll numbers rather than the CliffsNotes summaries of cable news. Those numbers are hardly as monochromatic as advertised. Obama's approval rating, for months a consistent (not imploding) 45-ish percent, still makes him arguably America's most popular national politician. The polls also continue to show that, while both political parties are despised, Democrats are slightly less despised than Republicans. In The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, for instance, 36 percent of those surveyed rate the Democrats positively, compared with the G.O.P.'s 30 percent. It's only when the November horse-race matchup is limited to "likely voters" that the tidal wave rolls in, giving the Republicans a roughly 10-point lead.
That spread is the Democrats' dread "enthusiasm gap." And since that gap can't be bridged in two months by new government programs or divine intervention for the nearly one in six Americans who are un- or underemployed, what could give the Democrats even a slender reed of hope? If there's any plausible answer, it can be drawn from the single poll finding that is most devastating for Obama, the question (as worded by The Washington Post/ABC News) of whether "he understands the problems of people like you." There his numbers really have imploded. When he arrived in office, 72 percent answered Yes and 24 percent No. As of last week, Yes had fallen to 50 and No had doubled to 48.
That a former community organizer and insurgent presidential candidate from a rocky middle-class background could be branded an out-of-touch elitist is not entirely the fault of his critics. Obama has perhaps never recovered from handing his administration's plum economic jobs to Robert Rubin protégés with dirty hands from the bubble — Lawrence Summers, a deregulation advocate from the Clinton administration, and Timothy Geithner, an indulgent regulator at the New York Fed. Their presence has helped Obama's more unscrupulous adversaries get away with the lie that his White House, not President Bush's, created TARP. Indeed, such is the Obama administration's identification with the tarnished Wall Street culture that even Michael Bloomberg mistakenly identified Geithner, a longtime public servant who never worked at an investment bank, as a Goldman Sachs alumnus at a public event in New York last month.
The White House's not-on-C-Span deal-making with the health care industry behemoths only cemented the administration's corporatist image, as did Obama's meandering path to what still looks like a loophole-ridden compromise on financial regulatory reform. This is why even many Democrats have become lukewarm in their conviction that their president "understands the problems of people like you."
For Obama to make Americans believe he does understand their problems and close the enthusiasm gap, he cannot merely make changes of campaign style. Sporadic photo ops in shirtsleeves or factory settings persuade no one; a few terrific speeches can't always ride to the rescue. Nor would there be much point in firing Summers and Geithner — a political nonstarter anyway, now that it's been opportunistically proposed by the G.O.P. leader John Boehner (his one good idea). Certainly Obama can add powerful new hands who might actually fight to protect ordinary Americans from the sharks; the star consumer advocate, Elizabeth Warren, should have been front and center, even in a Senate confirmation battle, long ago. But in the short term between now and Election Day, Obama may have the most to gain by sharpening his attack on those "powerful interests" who liken him to a dog. A top dog bites back (with a smile).
In a second forceful speech last week, delivered outside Cleveland, Obama titillated the political press by calling out Boehner by name eight times. But though Boehner is a nice soft target — he belittled the economic meltdown as an "ant" and has staked his political capital on extending tax cuts for America's wealthiest 3 percent — he's merely a front-man. Obama must also call out the powerful interests who are pulling the G.O.P.'s strings (and filling its coffers), whether on Wall Street or in Big Oil or any other sector where special interests are aligned against reform in the public interest.
If Obama can speak lucidly about a subject as thorny as race, he can surely do a far more specific job of telling the story of how we got to this economic impasse. He must join the many who are talking about why the top 1 percent of American earners now take home nearly a quarter of Americans' total income — perhaps the single most revealing indicator of how three decades of greed and free-market absolutism have eviscerated America's fundamental ideals of fairness. It can't all be reduced to the shorthand of "George W. Bush."
Obama might be so rude as to point out how these top earners are whining all the way to the bank even as the G.O.P. opposes extending more benefits to the unemployed and new tax cuts to small business. In June, the Business Roundtable chairman and Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg gave a speech so rank with self-victimization — he claimed that government was "reaching into virtually every sector of economic life" — that the normally polite Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein reviled him as "a corporate hack" peddling "much-discredited country-club nonsense."
Seidenberg was soon topped by a multibillionaire Republican contributor, Stephen Schwarzman, who likened Obama's modest financial regulatory package to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Among the clients of Schwarzman's private equity company, Blackstone, is Goodyear, which signed on in 2004 to get advice on "optimal business configuration" and announced it was shipping more jobs to Asia the following year. That narrative, one of countless like it, might have come in handy last week when Obama was speaking in Ohio, just 30 miles from Goodyear's headquarters.
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
As many have noted, the obvious political model for Obama this year is Franklin Roosevelt, who at his legendary 1936 Madison Square Garden rally declared that he welcomed the "hatred" of his enemies in the realms of "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering." As the historian David Kennedy writes in his definitive book on the period, "Freedom from Fear," Roosevelt "had little to lose by alienating the right," including those in the corporate elite, with such invective; they already detested him as vehemently as the Business Roundtable crowd does Obama.
Though F.D.R. was predictably accused of "class warfare," his antibusiness "radicalism," was, in Kennedy's words, "a carefully staged political performance, an attack not on the capitalist system itself but on a few high-profile capitalists." Roosevelt was trying to co-opt the populist rage of his economically despondent era, some of it uncannily Tea Party-esque in its hysteria, before it threatened that system, let alone his presidency. Only the crazy right confused F.D.R. with communists for taking on capitalism's greediest players, and since our crazy right has portrayed Obama as a communist, socialist and Nazi for months, he's already paid that political price without gaining any of the benefits of bringing on this fight in earnest.
F.D.R. presided over a landslide in 1936. The best the Democrats can hope for in 2010 is smaller-than-expected losses. To achieve even that, Obama will have to give an F.D.R.-size performance — which he can do credibly and forcibly only if he really means it. So far, his administration's seeming coziness with some of the same powerful interests now vilifying him has left middle-class voters, including Democrats suffering that enthusiasm gap, confused as to which side he is on. If ever there was a time for him to clear up the ambiguity, this is it.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment