A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.
Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.
These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.
It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.
Then began the descent -- when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.
Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers.
At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama's own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare's profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.
The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.
Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.
It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.
Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.
Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.
Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.
While I like Charles Krauthammer's writing and enjoy reading it, and agree with several points he makes, I find his logic here a bit faulty. It is quite premature to conclude on Pres.Obama.
It is about BOTH style and substance. Both are faulty.
It is not that he acted ideologically; rather he was not able to bring that spirit of campaigning to motivate and galvenize the people of America, nor to give leadership to the ideology-driven policies to bring bilateral solution.
This is only Year-1 so far. He has still some time left to correct course. For the sake of the country, I hope he does exactly that. Changing course as a country is much harder once these policies get signed in ink.
I hope the system does work... not just in taking revenge. The revenge now comes at the expense of people... at the expense of inaction when action is much needed. The sad thing is the action afoot is the wrong action by any side's assessment. And, that is something the President needed to see and course-correct sooner than later. Now, if he STILL fails to do that AFTER 1/19 (regardless of the outcome), that would indeed spell the fall of Pres.Obama.
-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 17th of January 2010 10:03:36 PM
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010
I honestly believe that Obama's difficulties are not just about style or substance. I believe, based on the many documented and discussed personality and character flaws he has displayed from the beginning of his political life in IL, that he is unable to develop a vision for this country. I don't think he even identifies with this country. I think he is a sad, pathetic, corrupt, individual without a sense of self, and that he has extreme internal conflict about actually serving the people of this country. It suits him more to be served.
I recognize that most politicians are corrupt - or become that way once elected. But, I believe Obama exceeds the norm, and that it is a fundamental component of his personality. This coupled with what I believe is his lack of regard for this country had doomed his presidency to failure even before he was inaugurated.
You are right, Sanders, about the suffering of the people of this country. I believe, however, that if we Americans do not take the time to take democracy back, to kick out the people who subvert it through corrupt election practices and lies, our suffering will be even greater in the decades to come.
If Obama fails, it will be because he lacked the experience, the preparation, the character, and the vision to succeed. His failure will have been hastened by the media, who never questioned him - only worshiped him. It will have been ensured by the DNC who, in their burning desire to defeat Hillary Clinton, used Obama, subverted democratic process, and deceived, threatened, and bribed party members and the country.
Obviously administrations before Obama's have been corrupt. George W's had much corruption at it's core. But in spite of this, and of his ineptness and incompetence, W did and does love this country and believed he was acting in its best interest. Obama's indifference toward this country, coupled with his corruption are, imo, almost insurmountable obstacles.
And, if he fails, I'll be neither surprised nor upset. My hope is that we will learn that we have to demand more of our politicians; that we will be more protective of democracy; that we will hold future candidates for every public office to a higher standard. The politicians and the country need to fully understand what happened in 2008 and how the country was betrayed by the DNC and by the media. Each and every individual and organization who had a part in stealing this election for Obama needs to be held fully accountable, especially, the media. If, by some miracle, that happens, this country will be in better shape than it's been in quite some time.
-- Edited by freespirit on Monday 18th of January 2010 12:33:20 AM
__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony
I enjoy Krauthammer's writing as well (why can't the Pubs find someone like him to run instead of people like Santorum), but I disagree with him on a couple of things in this article.
For instance, I don't think he is correct when he makes the following statement:
" As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers. "
Sorry, but Obamacare is not at all single-payer. It is a boon to big PhRMA, a bailout to the insurance industries. The right IMO then would be much better served to realize that many on the left, those of us who aren't "pretend progressives", are not happy with the bill specifically because it is not single-payer or even Universal Health Care like Hillary proposed.
Obamacare IMO takes the most stringent of leftist ideas (mandates, which under another context might actually be ok) and adds to it the worst of right ideas (sending subsidies directly to the insurance companies just as one example). It is, literally, the worst of all ideas of both parties, stitched together under the pretense of "change." All of the worst, with none of the benefits. Just MHO.
-- Edited by Eminence on Monday 18th of January 2010 03:24:12 PM
Also, as an aside, if anyone is interested -- I am working on a blog article that contrasts historically the Democrats' previous efforts at Health Care Reform with what is currently being proposed by Obamacare.
It basically looks at 1) Ted Kennedy's efforts back when Nixon was President 2) Hillary's effort in 1993/1994 and 3) and the effort currently in congress and analyzes them in relation to just how much Dems were asking and how much ground Dems were ceding. An analysis that measures how progressive each of these plans were and on what basis each of them failed. (Something interesting to note about those previous efforts is that each time Dems pulled back, because of principle).
Anyway, I am still working on fleshing out all the historical comparisons but I will share the thesis that has emerged.
Obamacare basically institutes all the crap the right tried to levy against Hillary back in 1994 when they were trying to "negotiate" with her. Many of the provisions that the left is crying foul about now, ironically, are the same stuff Hillary specifically didn't want because it was so damaging; the very reason she dropped the bill. And while Hillary, who stood on principle back then and said essentially "well, if I'm not getting UHC, then you aren't getting your perks, so the whole thing is off" -- this time around, we aren't even getting UHC but the corporate perks (amazingly!) are making their way to the bill.
Obamacare has pretty much all the elements of the Republican plan that the Democrats rejected in 1994. IT is literally the plan the Dems rejected back then, and to think that they now herald it?
America has seen the worse of the worst performed by this administration. If it were healthcare reform, then it would have focused on federal regulations, not taking over 1/6th of our economy.
I don't want our country to fail, just the policies being forced on the American people.