The New Republic

Thank you for writing this. I found Westen's op-ed infuriating; it epitomizes the worst reasoning and expectations of the left. It's terrible how folks frequently throw the president's tangible legislative accomplishments under the bus and assume he could have out-argued the intransigent right. He's made mistakes, for sure. But the notion that he's achieved nothing, and that the various forces opposing him were not formidable, is beyond ridiculous.

- maxhencke

August 8, 2011 at 8:52am

Says Chait: "Yes, even George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan infuriated their supporters by routinely watering down their agenda or supporting legislation utterly betraying them, and making rhetorical concessions to the opposition. (Ronald Reagan boasted of increasing agriculture subsidies and called for making the rich pay "their fair share" as part of a tax reform that did in fact increase the tax burden on the rich; Bill Clinton said "the era of big government is over" and ended welfare as an entitlement; etc., etc.)" Chait slips back and forth from policy to rhetoric in this essay as if the two are the same. They are not. (Westen makes similarly glissade's between the two, but I wasn't particularly confused by that or much interested in what he had to say about policy.) Is Westen wrong about rhetoric and its place in politics because he doesn't know the rules of Medicaid? Whatever their policy concessions, did Bush and Reagan really change their rhetoric significantly or did they largely continue with their rhetoric even when in conflict with their actions? And if they made tactical rhetorical concessions, why did they bother if, as Chait says, no one pays any attention to what presidents say? Or did they need to say something to bridge the gap when they felt that the tension between their basic rhetoric and their actions was too great? Does Chiat know what Republicans and supply-side wackos claim about the economy and what is to be done? I do. Does he know what the Democratic narrative is on that same subject? I don't. Chiat apparently doesn't care because he doesn't think it matters at all. Or so he says. Where do political movements come from? Why does every political movement that has ever existed spend so much time and effort on its communications, its propaganda? How is it that at least since ancient Greece politicians and leaders have devoted so much energy to what they say? How have they all been deluded for thousands of years about the irrelevance of political speech? From Chiat's economic determinist point of view -- how very Marxist of you, JC -- it would appear that political movements, tendencies, whatever are they genetically programmed responses to extant economic conditions. Inevitable therefore. This is learned helplessness, or rationalization of failure, or both. As for Obama's rhetorical commitment to universal coverage, did he tell us why? Did he tell us how it would be good for the country rather than just another entitlement expense? If he did, I missed it. I think Chiat quite misses the point. Politics is a team sport. One man talking, even the president, is not enough. You cannot simply step in front of a television camera once in a while and think you have done your job. Consistent messaging by all the party leaders and policy prescriptions that symbolically support the rhetoric do make an impression and can win or lose elections. But it is grinding work to organize and persist and requires that the head of the party not treat other political leaders as if they are every bit as much of the problem as his opposition. Is Obama paying for saying that his initial stimulus, larded with ineffective tax cuts, was enough? I think he is. But why if no one hear a word he says? Does the public largely believe that ACA is nothing more than some form or another of a tax to give coverage to those who can't afford it? They do. Why if nothing anyone says matters? Why do they believe what they believe? A complete mystery it seems.

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 9:03am

"It's terrible how folks frequently throw the president's tangible legislative accomplishments under the bus and assume he could have out-argued the intransigent right. He's made mistakes, for sure." Here we see the exact same error, confusing policy "achievement" with political support. The Republicans, in two years, have fought Obama to a standstill to the point where he can do literally nothing. He has no public support with which to push back on his opposition. This after eight years of Bush disasters. How did the Republicans manage this?

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 9:06am

The problem is that Obama can't always go to the basket, making Oval Office addresses every day to move the needle of American public opinion. Sure, it might work, but it also might highlight just how little power the president actually has. How many times does Obama have to interject himeslf before the Beltway circuit basically ignores him? I mean, it's not like he isn't already overstretched, making addresses hither and yon. The media just doesn't think it's all that important. And if he were more visibly on TV every day, regular people would just complain that he's all talk and no action, especially since such a move would cripple everything else that the White House has to do.

- chaitless

August 8, 2011 at 9:35am

Roid's point of the need for a unified political shop is interesting. I think you're looking for the top-down messaging coming out of a united front of Obama-Pelosi-Reid meeting twice weekly in the White House. This is certainly what Republicans counted on when they organized in the winter of 2008-2009 and explains their conflation of all three as if they were a secret cabal. I guess our real problem is they are not.

- chaitless

August 8, 2011 at 9:46am

There should be a phrase (preferably derogatory and full of snark) for a column like Westen's where the writer proudly gives us the fantasy speech he came up with in the shower for what he would've said had he only been elected President. It's an all too common trope and almost always indicative of gross self-infautation, dubious reasoning and bad prose. (I feel no sexism writing "he" as, oh, this seems much more common in dude columnists. Score one for the ladies! Anyway, whenever you see paragraphs of fantasy State of the Union address - in quotes no less - you know you're probably in for something lame and rather cringe-inducing) Westen also seems to believe we're still living in a nation where the news channels of three responsible middle-of-the-road network would (along with the responsible, middlebrow Time and Newsweek) deliver the President's sentiments & words to his fantasy well meaning if ignorant masses. A world without Fox News or talk-radio or the internet, a place where Presidents and Democratic politicians need not always worry about skirting anything that could make for a 10 second propaganda clip. Something Westen's silly fantasy speech, of course, would grossly fail at.

- mtinora@me.com

August 8, 2011 at 10:10am

It is neither possible nor desirable that any one person be the sole vehicle for the party "frame" within which individual messages or communications become "truthy." The framing should be ubiquitous and embrace as much of the organized political party as possible. It does have to include the president in a visible way, as well as congressional leaders. It is up to them to set the frame, in discussion with leaders at different levels -- what people believe they can stand behind as a message. Sure, it is easier in the Republican party where everyone just takes orders. But the basic ideology of Democrats is not THAT fractured that it cannot achieve any sort of unity. Policy initiatives need to be tied rhetorically to the frame. They and the rhetorical frame then become mutually supporting. And differentiating from the Republicans at every moment is essential, even if they are not "named." Remember how Bush use to say, "Some people say . . . ?" He was referring to his political opponents without naming them. Everyone got it. One of Obama's worst political offenses is lumping his own party and the Republicans together. If he is unwilling to say that Democrats stand for something, and lumps them in with Republicans, why should the public think otherwise?

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 10:11am

Let's stop thinking about Obama for one second, and think instead about Michele Bachmann. Coming from nowhere, she has risen to second in the GOP primary, on the strength of three things: 1) Being batshit insane 2) Speaking with clarity 3) Expressing anger Let's acknowledge that being insane is an advantage in today's GOP. But let's also acknowledge that the number of Christian conservatives hasn't suddenly changed overnight, that there is competition for that voting segment (from Santorum, Cain, etc.), and that even right-wing nuttiness will only get you so far. Bachmann is punching above her weight because people are scared about the direction of the country (since 2007), uninformed (as usual), and angry about DC (more than ever). You put those together, and you get a very large segment of the population that is more engaged politically than ever before, and knows it's mad, but doesn't know where to direct its anger. Obama, and the Democrats, have done almost nothing to speak to this population. Hope and Change did hold some appeal in 2008, but even then it was only working on people's positive emotions. By today, no one is feeling optimistic. To continue appealing only to peoples' better angels is to cede the entire population of the angry to the GOP. Worse, it makes Democrats seem out of touch, because Obama's calm and intellectual approach comes across as a lack of concern. People seem to think that more passionate, clear messaging is simply throwing red meat to pissed off liberals. In fact, it would be a far better way to win independents than Obama's dispassionate positioning. The average independent is not a well-informed centrist who wants someone to cooly balance between extremists. As Adlai Stevenson said, it's not enough to appeal to the thinking people - you need a majority. No, the average independent is someone waiting to be swayed by a message. And right now, the message from the White House is that Obama is an adult. That's not good enough to speak to the independent who is afraid for his 401k, his job, and his country.

- nr124831

August 8, 2011 at 11:06am

"The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science." Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I was an undergrad at the University of Michigan at approximately the same time as Chait (I think I graduated a year before him, in 1993). I was also a double-major in political science and psychology, and was one of probaby a thousand freshmen a year who had Drew Westen's introductory psychology course. While witty and charismatic (and soon-to-be quite well off, thanks to his consulting work and books), Westen struck me as glib and incredibly self-regarding. It was an incredible contrast to my professors in the political science department, who were almost universally committed to the procurement and analysis of data and the application of that data to the real world of politics and government in the US and abroad. From reading Westen's editorial opus/hit job, my respect for Drew Westen only got lower and my respect for the political science professors only increased.

- wildboy

August 8, 2011 at 11:08am

Valuable analysis by Mr. Chait with heavy factual support. I am not one to ask the President to boldly assert some liberal cause as a necessity, but I think it is critical for him to have marshalled a criticism of conservative talking points where, like the Republicans juggernaut, political leaders and self proclaimed experts flood the air waves with their opinions, and inside information is selectively leaked to the media (Like I'm sure Newt Gingrich did with Rush Limbaugh -- Limbaugh knew about the tiny check kitting scandal in advance so it could be turned into the big check kiting scandal -- and Cheney did with the New York Times).

- Nusholtz

August 8, 2011 at 11:15am

Four things to add here: 1. Obama's obsession with being calm and dispassionate, not given to anger, is rooted in his perfectly comprehensible view that he is only in the White House because a significant number of American voters are ready to elect a calm, dispassionate black man and not ready to elect an angry black man, which is exactly what he becomes to them if he gets angry, and that is the case even if the object of his tactical anger is not white folks. 2. This does not deny roid's and others' assertion that policy and political expression/tactics are two different things and there is a tendency among Democrats to conflate them, and indeed to assume that the public cares enough about policy to note the superiority of Dem policies. This is a flaw at the root of progressive politics today. Obama is not responsible for it but, admittedly, neither is he especially likely to break out of it. 3. One of the causes of this is the lack of a unified constituency for liberal, progressive politics since the late 1960s, when the white working class decided it was white before it was working class. This is not an absolute or unchanging phenomenon, but identity politics is still a red rag to a bull in middle-class and working class white America. Obama's great strength, interestingly, is that as a black candidate he was able to dial back identity politics to a harmless minimum in 2008 -- this is, in fact, one of the main reasons for the sheer intensity of conservative hatred. This wasn't just a black guy getting to the White House; worse, this was a black guy who, unforgiveably, didn't act like Jesse Jackson and scare folks. 4. There were rallies through 2009 and 2010 for the Tea Party etc, and well-organized town hall performances to put the frighteners on congresspeople. Where were the mass rallies for health care reform, where were the hundreds of counter-voices at the town hall meetings, where was the big push against Blue Dog Dems? Nowhere, that's where. Or more accurately: at home on the sofa, carping about Obama's failure to deliver the complete liberal package.

- ironyroad

August 8, 2011 at 11:32am

You are a marvel, roid. In your interrogative, you wonder if J. Chait knows about supply-side claims. He wrote a fabulous book a number of years ago on precisely that topic, The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics. And further, you ask if Drew Westen is wrong about rhetoric because he doesn't know the rules of Medicaid. No, he is wrong about rhetoric because he is wrong about rhetoric, which Chait proceeded to demonstrate with the example of FDR in the 1930s. Sometimes, I wonder if you even read these posts, other than in a highly cursory fashion, before you start pounding your keyboard. There is something very odd about your comments. Most commenters here are easy to understand; Allan always ludicrously writes in caps, rationale is always nutty as a loon, and abusive, too. But you can write terrific comments on one day and then utter nonsense on the next. One thing is definitely true and that is you are in the mad grip of the Greenwald Fallacy.

- liberalref

August 8, 2011 at 12:36pm

Thank you for that fascinating personal tidbit, wild. Irony, your comment is generally quite fine, thought I think points 1 and 2 are somewhat in tension. Also, I notice that you tiptoe around roid, either because he is a crony, or because you are afraid of him. Roid is just writing nonsense today, worse than usual, even, and I am the only one to call him on it.

- liberalref

August 8, 2011 at 12:41pm

"Here we see the exact same error, confusing policy "achievement" with political support. The Republicans, in two years, have fought Obama to a standstill to the point where he can do literally nothing. He has no public support with which to push back on his opposition. This after eight years of Bush disasters. How did the Republicans manage this?" This is because the Left didn't get everything they wanted in the first two years, and when they whine and complain, the people you need to go out and vote here this, assume utter failure, and then don't show up. Hence, huge democratic losses in the midterms. It took six years of Bush before the Right got tired/alienated and six months on the Left.

- SJ_LEX_LEO@YAHOO.COM

August 8, 2011 at 12:49pm

jamiller - one possibility is that the left-wing base whines and complains too much. Another possibility is that the leaders of the left are not doing anything to rally the base. It requires more analysis than I have time for right now, but I will note that the right-wing base complains even more than we do on their blogs and message boards. And I also can observe the deep, deep organization on the right that works to disseminate, support, and legislate their beliefs. From politicians to journalists to media personalities to think tanks to groups that pre-write legislation for companies, etc., it's turned out the right-wing movement is large and interlocked to a degree that we can only dream of. This can be blamed on the base, I suppose. But what we see on the right is that the organizations were organized from the top, and only have a facade of populism, grassroots organization added to them via the Tea Party.

- nr124831

August 8, 2011 at 12:57pm

NR124831 -- there are certain issues where the left can rally its base, and does. Remember the fight against privatizing social security in 2005. That said, much of what the left would like -- a substantially more economically equitable society, stronger environmental regulation, greater protections for minorities -- aren't clear majority positions (or at least aren't positions where majorities or near majorities are passionate). I agree that there needs to be a better network of think tanks, media networks, grassroots organizations etc on the left, but remember that in the late 60s/early 70s the left had most of the passion and organization (civil rights, anti-war, women's rights, the early environmental movement), and we saw Nixon get elected and reelected, Carter barely win after Watergate and then Reagan.

- PeteM

August 8, 2011 at 1:32pm

I don't have the time to go through each individual dispute between Jon and Westen, but my sense is that Jon is probably correct in his analysis. Yet, I find myself more in sympathy with Westen's essay than with Jon's response. I think that Jon's argument is something of a straw man. I, too, found the Michael Douglas speech about "getting all the guns" ridiculous in "An American President", and I agree that it came from Aaron Sorkin's liberal fantasy about how government works. Nonetheless, I am bewildered and demoralized by Obama's passive style of governance, and I don't believe that this reaction requires a liberal fantasy or a misunderstanding about how government works. Thus, although I stipulate Jon's point-by-point analysis of Westen's essay, I can't help feeling that his rebuttal misses the forest for the trees. Perhaps the particulars of Westen's essay poorly document the case he makes. Nonetheless, his conclusion strikes me a generally correct one awaiting a better brief. He articulated my own frustration with Obama, which does NOT come from some lefty activist, because I am not that (MoveOn.org just annoys me).

- thuffman

August 8, 2011 at 1:36pm

I think you are not giving Westen enough credit, and are looking at particulars in the article without examining its overall thrust -- to wit, Obama does not lead and draws lines in the stand then erases them with striking rapidity. Many people have noted (and, in fact, I think you, Mr. Chait, have) that Obama confusingly negotiates with himself -- the single payer option being the prime example. After harping on that for months, he gave it up -- BEFORE HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS STARTED! Obama does not give those who would support him anything to rally around, particularly as he keeps putting things on the table (Medicare, Social Security) that he previously said were non-negotiable, or takes things off the table (need for tax increases) that he previously said had to be on. And he usually does this before negotiations with the GOP have begun. And not only does he deny his supporters rallying points, he continually takes swipes at his liberal base, which surely does not make liberals eager to cut him any slack. Reagan provides an excellent contrast, someone who could both excite his base -- through his rhetoric -- and compromise when getting down to the nitty-gritty of the cut and thrust of the bargain. Yes, Obama has tremendous accomplishments -- but if he cannot make his supporters realize what he has done, that is a failure of rhetoric, and he has principally himself to blame.

- dhmcarver

August 8, 2011 at 2:22pm

Sorry, lib. But it seems that you don't read the piece before you start writing. Here is Chait in his own words: "Westen 's complaint against Obama is rooted primarily in a lack of factual understanding of what Obama has done." Here are my comments on that: "Chait slips back and forth from policy to rhetoric in this essay as if the two are the same. They are not. (Westen makes similarly glissade's between the two, but I wasn't particularly confused by that or much interested in what he had to say about policy.) Is Westen wrong about rhetoric and its place in politics because he doesn't know the rules of Medicaid?" "Here we see the exact same error, confusing policy "achievement" with political support. The Republicans, in two years, have fought Obama to a standstill to the point where he can do literally nothing. He has no public support with which to push back on his opposition. This after eight years of Bush disasters. How did the Republicans manage this?" _________________ It seems that you are just not tracking the ball, lib. As usual.

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 3:27pm

And talk about a failure of reading comprehension on your part, lib. When I say< "Does Chiat know what Republicans and supply-side wackos claim about the economy and what is to be done? I do. Does he know what the Democratic narrative is on that same subject? I don't. Chiat apparently doesn't care because he doesn't think it matters at all. Or so he says." These are called rhetorical questions, lib. Do you think I really wonder whether Chait knows what supply-siders/Republicans claim? Everyone knows what supply-siders/Republicans claim: that government spending, particularly entitlements, are the reason for the recession and the way out is to cut them radically. Immediately. And in answer to my second question, does Chait know the Democratic counter-narrative? I doubt it, because I don't, and if he does I wish he would tell me. The Obama counter-narrative seems not to be one at all. He concedes that spending and deficits are "the problem" but claims, with no apparent conviction, that the solution must combine spending cuts and tax increases, then agrees to a plan with no tax increases whatever you can argue about the nature and timing of the spending cuts. In other words, there is no counter-narrative. There is only a slightly more moderate sounding version of the Republican narrative. But, as I have tried to point out to you endlessly, lib, whoever sets the frame of debate is overwhelmingly likely to win the debate. Having accepted the Republican frame, instead of working, with his party, to establish his, own, Obama is trapped. He has no political capital with which to do anything. Get it yet, lib? Or are you still in the determinist fog?

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 3:36pm

DH, just like Westen, you need some better examples of Obama's poor negotiating style than what you produce. For example, he never backed single-payer health care as a Federal elected official or candidate. During the health care negotiations, he often mentioned it but as a stalking-horse -- i.e., a plan more radical than what he was proposing. He was trying to convince the majority elected Democrats who DON'T support single-payer health care that his health-care plan was a rational and moderate response to the problem, and not something to be feared by right-minded people. The problem with Westen and his legions of admirers is that they are projecting their fondest policy dreams onto Obama and not actually listening to what the guy is actually saying. No wonder they are so disappointed in him!

- wildboy

August 8, 2011 at 3:41pm

"And not only does he deny his supporters rallying points, he continually takes swipes at his liberal base, which surely does not make liberals eager to cut him any slack." says dhmcarver. Yup, a guy who seems intent on writing liberal Democrats out of the party or just using them as a convenient whipping boy, as if there is not much if any distinction between them and extremist Republicans, does not engender my loyalty. And all the exhortation by wkwami that I have no choice but to support Obama doesn't change my feeling about it at all. I don't care for being held hostage by Obama any more than I do for being held hostage by the Tea party. Then to read that Obama's advisers think that liberal Democrats have no choice and so can conveniently be ignored pretty much cements the feeling. Chait's invention of absolutist liberals in his Millenial piece is of the same ilk. The lack of respect quickly becomes mutual.

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 3:51pm

Really, wildboy? Give us a whirl at explaining how the final ACA bill incorporated a multitude of Republican proposals as a means, purportedly, of gaining bi-partisan support, but failed then to get a single Republican vote? Obama forgot to ask, or thought they would so love him for his concessions they would give him their votes? Forget single-payer, what became of the public option? What was he "actually saying" about that? If we had a stimulus bill pointlessly larded with tax cuts, purportedly to placate Republicans, that then allowed them to claim that Obama, rather than they, was running up the deficit, did we need to hear from Obama that this was an excellent bill, just what we needed, rather than much less than what we may need but the best that could be obtained? Was it necessary to bail out banking shareholders and bondholders in addition to the financial institutions themselves and allow the perpetrators of the colossal mortgage banking fraud walk away with millions, never to be pursued? And what of the vanished insistence on repealing at the least the high-end pieces of the Bush tax cuts? Or a deal on a debt ceiling (which never should have been the subject of negotiations in the first place) that needed to be "balanced" between revenue increases and spending cuts but, in the event, includes not a dollar of revenue increases? So what is the guy "actually saying," as you put it, that we need to hear? That everything he is actually saying is what he is prepared to give away to appease his opponents who remain implacably opposed?

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 4:00pm

"Forget single-payer, what became of the public option? What was he 'actually saying' about that?" He was actually saying that he was in favor of it, and then he dropped it. Maybe a bad move, but I ask nonetheless, where was the pressure on the Dem senators like Max Baucus from their voters? Where were the thousands of emails and letters pouring in from constituents? Indeed, apart from a small minority (to which I belong), did anyone really care that the public option was dropped? My big question is, where IS this huge Democratic constituency out there that is being betrayed by Obama and always, always seems to exist on paper but somehow never seems to be holding the rallies or staging the passionate town hall meetings? The president can't provide one or call up one into existence. A movement can do that and the conservatives have one, and we don't any more. It strikes me it's not Obama's absence of passion that's the problem.

- ironyroad

August 8, 2011 at 5:11pm

Irony, the conservatives have a movement and rallies because they are being sponsored massively by the Koch brothers and their ilk. Where there's money, there's organization, passion, staying-on-message, etc.

- Idefix

August 8, 2011 at 5:24pm

Leadership also helps. Really, it does. It is one tough job doing political work, grinding, frustrating, unforgiving, with very few moments of satisfaction. But it helps a lot to feel like there is someone to the left of you, someone to the right of you, and leaders in front of you who are working with you, not against you. If you constantly demoralize your base by not at least giving the impression that you are doing your best for them, what you get is despair. And then people go back to what they feel they at least have a modicum of control over in their every day lives. This is why the notion that you can just ignore your base because it has nowhere to go is so pernicious. People are not automatons. If they have no sense of solidarity, of shared purpose, if they feel they are just being used for electoral gain and then snubbed, they turn away. As they should. My distaste for Hillary Clinton, whom I was happy to support when she first ran, grew out of the fact that her office would never lift a finger to help our local party committee with anything. She and Schumer were the de facto heads of the NYS Democratic party at the time because we had a Republican governor. She didn't see it as her job to build the party. She thought our job was to support her. What really sealed it was the evening I attended the annual county-wide dinner for local leaders, organizers, and workers. Lots of men and women in union jackets. Senator Clinton was the guest speaker. She came in late, blew up to the podium without greeting anyone as she made her way, and never even thanked the people sitting there for their work. They get no glory from it, they get no money. They do it solely because they believe in the Democratic party and its cause. Yet she didn't think even to thank them for what they do. I wouldn't have supported her for anything after that, and I won't in the future either. In sharp contrast, the year I ran for public office, Bill Clinton came to town to an event. He made a point of thanking everyone there who was running for local office. I will never forget him smiling and winking and saying, "Not as easy as it looks, is it?" I was standing about 15 feet away and I felt like yelling, "He gets it. He really gets it." Well of course he did. So, yes, leadership matters.

- roidubouloi

August 8, 2011 at 5:50pm

Jonathan, First, you have to ask what does change voter attitudes. Because they do change substantially. Over the last 30 years voter, and conventional wisdom, attitudes towards government programs, endeavors, spending are far more negative than they were in the 30 years before that. SOMETHING CAUSED IT. THINK ABOUT IT. So what? Yes, I agree, one Presidential speech and a little one week campaign aren't usually going to do much, just as a few TV commercials over a course of a week aren't usually going to do much to change attitudes about a type of consumer product. But what about an intense, focused, relentless, heavily funded campaign spanning five, ten, twenty, or more years? You think that can't have a substantial effect? Because that's what the Republicans have done over the last generation, and it looks like it did have a big effect. If a Democratic President and Party did take a long view and said we're going to relentlessly over years and decades, without backing down, convey to Americans that for many things government is good and this is why, these are the problems long established in economics that can happen with pure free markets. This is what an externality is – it's not complicated or difficult if explained well. People won't pay attention? You think marketers haven't run into that problem? You say it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again…in different ways with different messengers. And I know something about marketing and sales and what it can achieve with effort, time, and resources. I have an MBA from your alma matter and have been a very successful salesperson and businessman. Another way? The vast power of try-and-see for great ideas. The New Deal revolutionized America not so much because of compelling speeches by FDR, as you have shown, but because once it was finally tried, even in a very modest form, it eviscerated Republican lies and disinformation, and people saw firsthand it made their lives much better, so it was quickly expanded and the Republicans could never get rid of it, and the try-and-see really changed attitudes. It is for this reason that Obama may have made a huge leap forward in our country and attitudes by finally passing even a relatively modest and flawed universal health care bill. The tremendous power of try-and-see for good ideas is the reason Democrats SHOULD be fervently against the filibuster, try-and-see's great enemy, and should have abolished it long ago.

- RHSerlin

August 8, 2011 at 9:05pm

I'm surprised that no one recalls the relevant point made in the first debate with Stephen Douglas by Abraham Lincoln, the greatest communicator ever to occupy the White House. Lincoln said: "In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." That is precisely Westen's point. It is not enough to "enact statutes and laws," as Chait, Drum, and others have claimed for President Obama. It is even more important to "mold public sentiment" to understand the reason and necessity for those laws. The history of the Affordable Care Act -- enacted but not explained, and therefore still misunderstood and widely opposed -- is practically a case study in the truth of Lincoln's point; and the same could be said for Obama's management of the banks, or his overall budget policy, among other things. When a Democratic President finds himself repeating Republican falsehoods about how the federal government budget is just like the family budget -- falsehoods leading to destructive policies -- he is not molding 'public sentiment' in the right direction. Nor did Lincoln merely enunciate this principle; he lived it. He correctly identified the central problem of his times as the slavery question, and he hammered at it remorselessly for years -- not just during his presidential campaign in 1860, but also during his senatorial campaign in 1858. His essential points were few and clear: -- Slavery is wrong, and the United States cannot survive as a free government if it remains. -- Slavery must therefore be placed "in the course of ultimate extinction." -- The first step to doing this is to ensure that it does not further spread and thus entrench itself. By the 1860 election, no informed voter in the United States could doubt what Lincoln, if elected, would do about the central question facing the country. And his conduct after the election was consistent with his public teaching. During the "Secession Winter" between November 1860 and his inauguration in March 1861, Lincoln consistently rejected compromises that might have averted immediate war but would have preserved the slave system. He told his representatives in Washington to "entertain no compromise" with regard to the extension of slavery, even if refusing to do so led to war. The central issue of our times is America's multifaceted economic plight, and especially the stagnation of middle-class wages and the great damage being wreaked by mass unemployment. Westen's basic point is that Obama has failed to follow Lincoln's principles and example in addressing this problem. Can Chait, Benen, and Drum really find reason to disagree?

- AFdiplomat

August 9, 2011 at 1:45am

Mr Chait, Your post is a crate of sour grapes. Westin's "nonsense" makes all you wonkish scriveners with your deep policy analysis look like you're wasting your time, because of course you ARE wasting your time. As recently as today you're busily parsing how the Republicans are incoherent on policy as if that's news and as if saying so here at TNR makes the least bit of difference. Guess what, you're part of the problem. Smart, detail oriented, "realist" commentators like you feed the lie that what matters in politics is being right on the merits. Being right is certainly better than being wrong, but it doesn't win political fights because political fights aren't about who is the smartest, they're about who is the most persuasive, the toughest, the most persistant, the most impervious to criticism and the most ruthless. Westin rightly points out that Obama is none of these things. Obama--and you--can be right all day long and it isn't worth a hill of beans.

- AaronW

August 9, 2011 at 1:58am

Absolutely correct, AFdiplomat, and to that extent I'd like to take the liberty of repeating the point about "public sentiment" that I made above: 1. Obama's obsession with being calm and dispassionate, not given to anger, is rooted in his perfectly comprehensible view that he is only in the White House because a significant number of American voters are ready to elect a calm, dispassionate black man and not ready to elect an angry black man, which is exactly what he becomes to them if he gets angry, and that is the case even if the object of his tactical anger is not white folks.

- ironyroad

August 9, 2011 at 3:02am

I had never read that point by Lincoln, AF. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention. Out of the mouths of political geniuses. And thank you too for your superb explanation. Irony, if there is no way for Obama to lead effectively because he is black, then we made a mistake. It was too soon. Certainly that is what the evil rightwing would like us to conclude and a good part of the reason for its obstruction. They refuse to allow a black man to succeed. I don't think this is the case, but being black does not absolve Obama from the demands of being president, most particularly the requirement that he take as his first task shaping public opinion, or sentiment as Lincoln referred to it in the preferred 19th century term. In my far less felicitous phrasing than our 16th president, this is why I keep saying that the job of the president is Politician-in-Chief, not policy Wonk-in-Chief. If the president does his job with respect to public sentiment, everything is possible and there are legions of wonks and political subordinates who can attend to policy. See, e.g. FDR. Why does Chait deny this?

- roidubouloi

August 9, 2011 at 8:59am

Where did you suddenly come from AFdiplomat? We could have used you around here for a long time now. And bravo, Aaron. Not quite Lincoln, but right to the core of it.

- roidubouloi

August 9, 2011 at 9:01am

". . . being black does not absolve Obama from the demands of being president, most particularly the requirement that he take as his first task shaping public opinion, or sentiment as Lincoln referred to it in the preferred 19th century term." Indeed, roid. I am not disagreeing with that. What I am saying is that Obama, for some very good reasons, can't deploy the "anger/passion" mode that many people have been demanding. I believe the president has been taking on that task of shaping public opinion in many areas from health care to bank reform to energy policy since the day he took office.

- ironyroad

August 9, 2011 at 10:48am

Thanks much to Roid and Irony for your kind words. Actually, I've been a reader of TNR for years and keep up with Chait, Cohn, and others. In general, what they say is not so far from my thinking that it requires the kind of post I did here. But Chait, along with Benen and Drum on their blogs, is just completely off base on Westen; and as a longtime Civil War-period buff and someone with an interest in the political side (I did a Ph.D. in government at Claremont before joining the Foreign Service), I knew about the relevant Lincoln piece. There is a great deal to learn from Lincoln about effective political leadership in America; this is only one small part. My family on both sides is Republican, going back a century or more -- in my case, to when my grandmother got off the ship from England in 1920. I was raised in the classic conservative tradition (and in fact did my M.A. thesis on Edmund Burke). The departure of the Republican Party from rationality, honor, honesty, graciousness, prudence, and all that used to define that classic tradition has thus been really painful. (I noted with real appreciation, for example, the revival in a couple of places lately of Edmund Burke's refusal of the demand of some of his constituents in Bristol that he sign a Norquist-type oath about how he would vote in Parliament. Would that today's Republicans were conservative enough to know and follow his example.) In response, I've been moving gradually left and find myself subscribing to THE NATION and all kinds of similar things. Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate I (and my wife) had ever voted for (in the general, not the primary, since we're still registered Republicans -- something that may change). As a Foreign Service officer, I've of course been involved in human rights work, and I had real hopes that after all the awfulness under President Bush, Obama would right our course here. That, as you can imagine, has been a special sadness; in no other area has President Obama so signally disappointed those who put their confidence in him. We'll see where things go from here. But with such encouragement as you've provided, maybe I'll post a bit more often.

- AFdiplomat

August 9, 2011 at 11:07am

Please do, AF. Your evident learning and experience on these subjects is most welcome!

- roidubouloi

August 9, 2011 at 1:09pm

irony says: "I believe the president has been taking on that task of shaping public opinion in many areas from health care to bank reform to energy policy since the day he took office." I just don't see it, irony, at least not by methods I understand. The single thing that I find most disappointing about his approach to this task is his failure to organize and work with the Democratic party in making his case, treating congressional Democrats as if they and the Republicans are of a piece. Under no circumstance is political framing the work of one person or voice. Politics, successful politics, is a team effort. The single-combat method works only very briefly if at all before the champion is over-whelmed by the swarming team on the other side. This is another description of what has befallen Obama. He chose to stand alone and above. He has no support with which to withstand the onslaught from the Republicans acting very much in concert. One man cannot defeat an army.

- roidubouloi

August 9, 2011 at 1:14pm

For a more comprehending take on Drew Westen's essay (and the back-story behind the significance of the NY Times' publishing it), plus a response to Jonathan, please check this post at TPM: tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../the_story_obama_never_told/

- jimsleeper

August 9, 2011 at 1:57pm

Oops. For the post responding to Jon Chait on Drew Westen, try this link, and see the third paragraph of the post: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/07/the_story_obama_never_told/

- jimsleeper

August 9, 2011 at 5:30pm

I don't find it a more compelling response to Westen's banshee howl than Chait's, Jim, but apart from that, could I point out that there is something both clumsy and embarassing about the author of an opinion piece posting a comment on a discussion board with a link to his own text that he declares in advance to be "a more comprehending take" on something?

- ironyroad

August 9, 2011 at 8:29pm

It would be a pipe dream to imagine Obama approximating anywhere near the pluck and vigor of David Cameron's reaction to the London riots. It is that characteristic of a leader under siege which he lacks. He just doesn't know how to get angry and combative when the country is under siege by the right. That's what's needed today. Clear action, clear push back with the entire weight of his office on a daily basis in front of the American people, and saying very clearly that "all options are on the table" including the "nuclear" option of the 14th amendment, and not hiding behind his lawyers (whoever heard of a lawyer advocating something daring and bold to anyone?)

- peterkussell

August 10, 2011 at 12:48pm

"...the pluck and vigor of David Cameron's reaction to the London riots." You mean the David Cameron who didn't cut short his vacation and return to Downing Street until three days of rioting had past? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/10/uk-riots-david-cameron-valued-his-summer-holiday-over-welfare-of-the-nation-115875-23333286/ Such pluck and vigor! They are calling this his Katrina moment, and I agree.

- zardoz67

August 10, 2011 at 4:20pm

Also, what on earth is the parallel between the English riots, a law and order challenge at first instance, and the longer-term economic and budgetary problems the U.S. faces at this time? I don't claim that such things aren't connected, but they are certainly not obviously interchangeable (and indeed the Katrina parallel is a bit weak too).

- ironyroad

August 10, 2011 at 5:00pm

i've said before and i'll say it again: thank god for jonathan chait! not sure i'd be able to survive these trying times without you. there is no one else writing about this stuff who reflects my thinking more closely. now please start a facebook page for us political junkies jon!

- sephirothic77

August 13, 2011 at 7:25pm

You have picked a fight with Westen but have not focused on the one underlying truth that to me is the most important. You are fighting amongst the trees and missing the forest. Rather than citing examples of what Obama has said in speeches as proof that he is using the right rhetoric and telling the right stories, it seems to me that the real issue is has he succeeded? Has he been able to educate the public about his policies? Has he been able to convince people that the stimulus was a success in that it helped to avoid a global depression? Three months after the stimulus was passed, Eric Cantor and other Republicans were everywhere in the media asserting that the stimulus was "a failure" even though it was not even spent. That line has been repeated effectively so many times that most people no longer question it. Who's fault is that? Pundits? Average Americans? No, i have only Obama and other Democrats to look to and say how did you lose this battle of rhetoric? The same can be said of health care. Do people believe it is "job killing socialized Obamacare" or that it is a middle of the road attempt (dreamed up by Republican think tanks) to leave the free market in the mix and avoid a single payer solution to an otherwise insoluble problem? (single payer is where we will eventually be by default if the Supreme Court throws out the mandate) The answers are, sadly, that Obama has failed to tell the stories, paint the pictures and educate America in an effective and successful way. Other Dems are also to blame but I look to the leader of the party - the buck stops with him. You say people do not listen to presidents and that could be true, although i disagree because it is more nuanced than you make it. Many do listen and many do not, however, even if you are right, there is no reason for Obama not to double down and keep trying harder and better. I believe he is losing the substantive battle and a failure of effective communication comprises an important part of that failure. That, of course, does not minimize the zealotry and uncompromising nature of the Republicans in the equation, however, it is something I would assume everyone would agree must happen if there is to be a reasonable chance of success. To see you fighting with Westen and not addressing the issue at this level is like watching two kids in a sandbox throwing sand at each other over who will get the ice cream while the third child sits on the side and enjoys the cone.

- rglustrom

August 17, 2011 at 2:46pm