POLITICS SEPTEMBER 9, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Barack Obama’s jobs speech last night was not the speech his critics from the left had been asking for. It didn’t call out the “malefactors of great wealth” or “the forces of selfishness and of lust for power.” It didn’t adopt the language of FDR’s 1936 speech in Madison Square Garden—that gripping outlier even among Roosevelt’s own rhetoric, much less the mainstream of presidential speeches—so frequently invoked as a model in recent months: “They are unanimous in their hatred for me, and I welcome their hatred.” Contrary to all recommendations from Paul Krugman, The American Prospect or DailyKos, this non-populist, not-very-partisan president again refused to don the cloak of partisanship or populism.
And they loved it anyway, the critics from the left, in tone as well as content. That’s because, at least for the moment, Obama solved a persistent, deadly problem in his basic theory of politics: There was no Plan B.
The original theory of Obama was supposed to be a kind of win-win. With a conciliatory, open tone, and by putting process—deliberation, collaboration, good faith—at the center of his politics, he could maneuver with or without Republican cooperation. Either he would capture enough Republican assent (he didn’t need much) to move some of his agenda, or he would be able to call out the Republicans for their obstructionism and claim the higher, less partisan ground. This wasn’t crazy—all evidence from the 2008 election suggested that both the enthusiasm of younger voters, and the hesitant shift of older independents and moderate Republicans to Obama, had everything to do with that promise to tone down and change the process of politics. That change, not a vehement progressive agenda, was what the voters who made his majority expected.
The problem was that it was all too easy for a disciplined Republican congressional faction to entirely deny Obama the option of enacting his agenda. The Republican discipline of the Bush era became useless after the 2004 Bush reelection, and the party seemed totally at sea in moments such as the 2008 Wall Street crisis—but that’s because it was always a machine designed for opposition, not governance. Obama gave it the oppositional purpose that the partisan machine had lacked, and the Tea Party just helped kick the engines into gear.
And the idea of “calling them out” on partisanship didn’t work, because it was about process, not any particular thing. Republicans may have been “obstructionist,” but that was just an abstraction—there wasn’t any real thing they were blocking, some knowable alternative that would have changed the economic conditions of Americans. Or, if there was an alternative, it was everything: Republicans were blocking health care reform, and cap and trade, and appropriations bills, and nominations, and labor protections and environmental regulations—everything, and yet nothing that people could put their hands around and appreciate that it could have made a difference.
After two years of this, and the 2010 election, Obama was backed into a corner in which he was no longer even trying to set an agenda, but pleading for cooperation on ideas that weren’t even his own agenda, such as long-term deficit reduction. He needed a way out. The only choices seemed to be a strong partisan attack, exemplified by his April 13 speech on the budget, or being pulled deeper into the abyss of negotiating around someone else’s priorities. And his choice was to do both: Deliver a tough speech, then turn around and try to negotiate with John Boehner on John Boehner’s agenda, or the agenda of the people who were trying to unseat John Boehner for the very fact of negotiating with Obama. Nothing about that was going to end well.
Last night Obama found a way out, sort of. It’s not a fiery partisan confrontation; it’s a kind of fighting bipartisanship. He’s now putting forth a substantive agenda that is very likely to boost the economy, create jobs, and improve the basic fairness of the tax system in order to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly. But he aggressively linked almost all of those things to ideas that Republicans had already supported, or that wealthy people such as Warren Buffet had embraced. He took ownership of some ideas that had traditionally been conservative, and embraced ideas that had had some Republican support.
None of that means that the American Jobs Bill that he insisted Congress pass will pass. Of course it won’t. And maybe it’s all too late; maybe at this point, only results matter. I noticed an odd idiosyncrasy today in the July Pew poll on Obama: Despite his 44% approval rating, his rating on the question, “Cares about people like me,” which many politicos consider the only question that really matters, is at 60%, higher than George W. Bush at his best. But the combination of the two suggests that people no longer care that he cares. They’re fed up with gestures, empathy, or good ideas that get blocked in the political process—all they want is results.
Obama’s new approach, though, sets up, in theory, a different hypothetical win-win than the one we’ve been operating under for almost three years. One possibility is that Republicans have some qualms about a wholly obstructionist agenda, Congress passes some or most of the American Jobs Act, the economy improves (likely with some help from the Federal Reserve, international circumstances, and good fortune), and actual conditions get Obama out of the box he’s in. Failing that, if the White House and Democrats can keep their focus on the American Jobs Act (and if the left can avoid getting distracted by Obama’s wise concessions to reality, such as long-term reductions in Medicare spending), then Republican obstruction takes a new form. It’s not just blocking Obama, or his agenda—it’s blocking economic recovery, systematically, including ideas that Republicans have embraced in the past and will embrace again.
Pulling that off, however, requires a discipline that goes beyond one speech. It means that every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country. This speech alone won’t do the work. But if it’s a roadmap to the next period of the Obama presidency, it might represent a dramatic change, not just in the president’s electoral prospects, but in the range of policy solutions that are available now and in the future.
Mark Schmitt is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former editor of The American Prospect.
14 comments
"It means that every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country." This is the meaning of message discipline. ___________________ Odd that "the left" likes the speech so much if, as the author claims, it has been demanding hyper-partisan rhetoric. But this is a canard. No such thing. The left has been demanding that the president make his agenda, the agenda of the Democratic party, his narrative rather than constantly genuflecting to the Republican agenda. Finally, a bit of light.
- roidubouloi
September 9, 2011 at 12:36am
"Pulling that off, however, requires a discipline that goes beyond one speech. It means that every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country." ] You are so right. This could indeed be an Administration going to the mat for the very practical steps it has proposed. EVERYTHING depends on discipline. This WH needs to learn from the George W. Administration. How in the world could they build support for invading Iraq when the majority of Americans, polled after 9/11, did not believe Iraq was involved. DISCIPLINE in MESSAGE. Every significant Cabinet member and Admin. spokespeople repeated the same message: Iraq=MWD=Al Queda. So 'everthing proposed is bi-partisan=pass this bill now=the American people are waiting for you (Republicans) to do the right thing.
- CAMtwo
September 9, 2011 at 1:08am
But didn't Obama set himself, and the Democrats, up for a negotiation on the Republicans' turf, by his framing of reductions in Medicare spending as a condition for the jobs bill? So now we will spend months negotiating Medicare cuts only to discover in the end that no amount of concessions to the Republicans on Medicare cuts will deliver any Republican votes for a jobs bill. With an end result that the focus becomes Medicare cuts not the jobs bill while giving Republicans cover for not supporting the jobs bill (because Obama wouldn't accept Medicare cuts necessary to "save" Medicare). I know, Obama didn't exactly say that Medicare cuts must be approved now as a condition for passage of the jobs bill, but that's how his speech will be interpreted by Republicans and the commentariat, an interpretation that will be readily accepted by a public weary of deficits and skeptical of government "stimulus".
- rayward
September 9, 2011 at 7:15am
See Brooks' column today confirming the commentariat's interpretation.
- rayward
September 9, 2011 at 8:48am
LATimes headline wins the prize today: "961 days in, Obama becomes sick and tired of someone dawdling about jobs"
- seattleeng
September 9, 2011 at 9:56am
Right on Roi - Brooks is a such an idiot!
- WandreyCer
September 9, 2011 at 10:04am
Excellent article. But rayward's correct, I think Obama is making a tactical error by separating the "paid for" component in a separate deficit reduction bill. He should build in the savings that pays for the stimulus into the jobs act itself, then pursue deficit reduction beyond that if he wants. By having two semi-linked, big-time proposals on the table at nearly the same time, he risks losing the message discipline that we all agree will be critical to the jobs bill's success.
- polcereal
September 9, 2011 at 10:13am
Obama is off the ropes. The Republicans are punched out. Know hope!
- paskunac
September 9, 2011 at 10:15am
Excellent article and excellent response by CAMtwo. What is needed is discipline in message. The average voter only understands short phrases repeated over and over. I don't know what slogan the Democrats can come up with, perhaps WE WANT JOBS NOW (which would echo what unemployed Americans are saying). But the slogan has to be repeated in the media, national and local, millions of times over the next 13-plus months. Do the Democrats have the discipline to do that? We'll see. On the campaign trail the president could repeat the slogan at the end of each public appearance, as could his press secretary, as could VP Biden, etc. Things are looking up, if only Democrats would display WILL and focus. Republicans did that and brought America down in the process. Democrats would be building the nation back up. Which would you choose if you were a voter who wasn't mean-spirited and self-destructive, like the majority of Republican voters are?
- magboy47.
September 9, 2011 at 11:37am
The party of "Hell No!" won't be put off much by a single speech, or a single plan. I agree, it's a start. And I agree, continuing to stay on-message would help. But the only way to defeat Republican instransigence is to get them thrown out of office. If this speech (and the following speeches, and the policies followed) for the next 12 months can convince America that the Republicans are NOT on their side, and convince America that Republican Congressional behavior since 2008 has stalled the recovery and damaged the economy, then perhaps it's a beginning.
- AllanL5
September 9, 2011 at 12:17pm
The speech was great in terms of starting to give both independents and disgruntled supporters (myself included) a reason to vote for Obama and not simply against whomever the Republican nominee is. And as negative as next year's campaign will be--"Obama has been a disaster" versus "Perry/Romney/Whoever will be a disaster"--he needs to start re-inspiring people. I remain deeply disappointed that O cedes so much ground to the Republicans, rather than standing up for an alternative narrative that makes a logical, truthful case for a Keynesian approach. But at least in terms of both substance and (possibly more important for the election) style, he's starting to put up a fight.
- Thunderroad
September 9, 2011 at 12:40pm
It's a given that the Republicans are going to try to kill the American Jobs Act. But did you see the deer-in-the-headlights look of some of the Republicans in Congress during Obama's speech? As Republicans, they'll have to do everything they can to obstruct Obama on jobs creation, while having to face their constituents, some of whom favor jobs being created by whoever can do it. It's obvious that Republican "job creators" aren't going to help us. Corporate America now has $2.5 trillion in savings. Public-sector jobs are our only option now. Some Republicans in Congress my lose their own jobs while waiting for their "job-creator" buddies to kick in and help Americans. If that happens, my satisfaction would be small, but sweet.
- magboy47.
September 9, 2011 at 2:01pm
The President may be doing something like promising a chicken in every pot. In the past, presidents running for re-election played Santa Claus where they mixed campaigning with governing by showing up to announce the opening of a military base in a town and the sprinkling of money here and there. The President may be campaigning and governing simultaneously for the next 14 months without criticism because of the urgency of the issue and he is showing up with a hard hat on to fix a bridge or a building.
- Nusholtz
September 9, 2011 at 9:19pm
Plus, the Republicans might have been getting an earful from their constituents. CNN pointed out that the rhetoric, even from the likes of Eric Cantor, has cooled down; he personally admitted that they've been hearing from the people on recess and the people are, I think he said, scared. Also, probably threatening to vote for SOMEBODY ELSE if they don't knock it off, pdq.
- Sophia
September 9, 2011 at 9:25pm