SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Is Obama's Campaign Deluded?

JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 1, 2011

Is Obama's Campaign Deluded?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Michael Scherer, via Mike Allen, reports that the White House is listening to cheerful historical analogies:

In June, ... White House chief of staff Bill Daley arranged a secret retreat for his senior team at Fort McNair ... Historian Michael Beschloss went along as a guest speaker to help answer the one question on everyone’s mind: How does a U.S. President win re-election with the country suffering unacceptably high rates of unemployment? The historian’s lecture provided a lift for Barack Obama’s team. No iron law in politics is ever 100% accurate, Beschloss told the group. Two Presidents in the past century—Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984—won re-­election amid substantial economic suffering. Both used the same two-part strategy: FDR and Reagan argued that the country, though in pain, was improving and that their opponents, anchored in past failures, would make things worse. ... The President’s aides, all but resigned to unemployment above 8% on Election Day, now see in Roosevelt and Reagan a plausible path to victory. They intend to make sure voters believe a year from now that their fortunes are improving, and they plan to persuade the American people that a Republican in the White House would be a step backward. ...

This is a reporter summarizing another's reporter's summary of an event no reporter actually attended, so we are looking through the glass darkly. That caveat aside, this sounds like pure delusion. Roosevelt in 1936 and Reagan in 1984 had high unemployment, yes. But they also had very rapid economic growth. Here's the picture in 1936:

And 1984:

These were situations where the public could discern rapid improvement from a bad situation. No such thing is likely to be the case next year. 1936 and 1984 are not good lessons. They're counter-examples, like learning how to handle a drought by studying what happened during Hurricane Katrina.

Again, it's hard to say exactly what the administration thinks these examples mean. The article does report, "Obama will try to divert the public’s frustration with Washington toward his main enemy, the GOP." That is the obviously correct strategy. Americans are very, very unhappy. Obama's task is to persuade them to blame Republicans. Running an election taking credit for, well, anything is a terrible idea.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

That was my reaction when I read that Scherer article too. A generous interpretation would be that Obama wants to emulate Reagan and FDR's style, rather than expect to do as well as they did in the re-election efforts given the obvious economic differences between the days when they were re-elected and 2012. Frankly, better examples for Obama's re-election would be Bush in 2004 and Nixon in 1972 and Truman in 1948 -- none of the incumbents was especially popular and all of them had been politically polarizing in their first terms and were running for re-election during periods of politicial turmoil that were nearly as bad as today (in Nixon's case, maybe worse). All three defended their first term accomplishments but mainly emphasized their opponent's unfitness for office. All three won when a critical mass of voters concluded that their opponent might not have what it takes to address the critical issues of the day, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the incumbent's stewardship of the country. Of course, the economic circumstances in 2012 will be vastly worse than in 1948, 1972 or 2004, so Obama's task is that much harder than his predecessors'. At least he has more political talent and is more personally likeable than Truman, Nixon or Bush, which could somewhat mitigate the bad economic fundamentals of his re-election campaign.

- wildboy

September 1, 2011 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama will try to divert the public’s frustration with Washington toward his main enemy, the GOP." Great! No time like the present. Seriously, can anyone think of another president about whom there needed to be so much speculation concerning what he was going to do next week, next month or next whenever? Why the f--- are we sitting around wondering what Obama's campaign is going to be like? News flash, Mr. Plouffe: THE CAMPAIGN HAS ALREADY BEGUN. Truth is, it never stopped. Just ask the Republicans.

- AaronW

September 1, 2011 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama's task is to persuade them to blame Republicans."
You may have stumbled across the gist of Obama's upcoming speech.

- GSpinks

September 1, 2011 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, he's probably going to blame it on "some in Congress", and let the Democrats do the work of tarring and feathering the Tea Party. That's fine by me.

- GSpinks

September 1, 2011 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Daley should have picked a better presidential historian than Beschloss. wildboy: did you read McCullough's bio "Truman"? He stopped at every train crossing, and the crowds kept growing and growing and growing once people heard and saw him in person, even though the media, including TNR, kept reporting the Dewey meme that Truman was too small a man for the presidency. and, I still think Kerry lost in 2004 because he speaks in such long, convoluted sentences, not that swift-boating.

- K2K

September 1, 2011 at 8:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Wildboy that the template for President Obama is Bush in 2004. Bush won by demonizing Kerry and getting out the anti gay marriage vote.

- Nusholtz

September 1, 2011 at 10:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"At least he has more political talent and is more personally likeable than Truman, Nixon or Bush..." What makes you say that, wildboy? Obama is certainly likeable, and certainly more personally likeable than Nixon, though with Bush as with Obama whether or not you think him likeable has a lot to do with how you view his politics. In 2000 the line on Bush was that he's the guy you'd want to have a beer with, i.e. likeable. And as for whether Obama has more or less political talent than the past presidents you named, I'd say that remains to be seen.

- AaronW

September 1, 2011 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back when it was time to choose between Hillary Clinton and Obama as the Democratic nominee, I kept wondering if Obama was tough enough to be president. It didn't take a genius to know Republicans would be slinging mud fast and furiously. I wondered if Obama would be tough enough to throw it back. I'm still wondering. I'm all for taking the high road, but sometimes that doesn't work. I get especially frustrated when acquaintances blame both parties for our current mess. Yes, many Democrats in Congress lack a backbone, although I don't know why. They have nothing to lose. But it's a fact the "center" has veered rightward and both moderate and far-right Republicans would rather die on their swords than give an inch. They are to blame. Obama MUST draw a line in the sand and stop the rightward drift, then defend that line with everything he's got. If he provides true leadership, Congressional Dems will follow. They have to. Nothing else is working. I'd rather have a stand-off based on principles than continue resisting the right-wing vortex. I don't understand Obama's game plan. Give the right enough rope to hang themselves? I'm still waiting for Obama to tighten the noose.

- Claris

September 2, 2011 at 5:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW, I stand by my thought that Obama has more retail political talent than Truman or Nixon (though Nixon was a much better behind-the-scenes politican). Truman, for all of the love directed at him post-Presidency by historians and nostalgic Democrats, often came across as truculent and politically constrained. He certainly didn't command the respect of much of the public and his handling of the Korean War, while praised by historians, was seen at the time as confused and unsuccessful. Nixon was actually a pretty poor retail politician, ran a poorly focused race in 1960, got elected in 1968 only because of a historic split in the Democratic Party and his re-election in 1972 was immensely abetted by the Democrats' self-destructive nomination of McGovern and shenanigans surrounding the Vice Presidential post. As for Bush, I agree with you that he had good retail political skills and was perceived as personally likeable, especially during the 2000 election. By 2004, however, the likeability had rubbed off for a lot of people (as it has with Obama) due to the divisive politics surrounding the tax cuts and especially the Iraq War. A near-majority of voters in 2004 had already soured on Iraq, especially as violence was ramping up in the country and no WMD or Al Qaeda link had been found. Bush was throughly hated by core Democrats and disdained by much of the electorate, including independents. And yet, he managed to convince voters that he was the right choice for an uncertain time in which threats from Al Qaeda were ongoing and American troops were in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't just the swift boats or Kerry's long-windedness, but also an appeal to Americans' sense of insecurity that won the day for Bush. But the love was pretty much lost for him among persuadable voters in 2004, and fear won the day. To his chagrin, Bush found out how little love there was for him on non-foreign policy and security issues the following year, when Social Security privatization blew up in his face without even a vote in Congress.

- wildboy

September 2, 2011 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill Daley?! He's in the cockpit on the politics?! Couple weeks ago, the NY Times had him and Plouffe objecting to a more aggressive jobs policy. But Daley is an inside wheeler-dealer. Kind of Obama's Rummy. I don't think he did the political strategy for Gore. How does the change agent end up with Daley brain-storming the politics? Another negative indicator.

- jzuraw

September 2, 2011 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well you know it's bad when people start asking, What Can Democrats Do About Obama: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/09/04/favoritesonsanddaughters Sadly, I am thinking we need to do something! Because, we don't have a Democrat in the White House apparently; or, somebody or something has scared him? So yes, I would say the bright upbeat happy campaign slogans are delusional.

- Sophia

September 4, 2011 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: Watch Harry S Truman at the 1948 convention in Philadelphia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6eAxG7Y47Y&feature=related when all else fails, listen to Ronald (the Liberal Democrat) Reagan's radio campaign message for Truman and Hubert Humphrey in 1948: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M&feature=related Cheer up. Maybe Obama will do an LBJ and decide not to run. The Dems decide to nominate Christine LaGarde, figuring it will take three years for Donald Trump to force her to produce her birth certificate :)

- K2K

September 5, 2011 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the people in that Salon article are deluded. In spite of total and irresponsible opposition from the Neanderthal Party, he passed major health care reform, financial reform, stimulus that real economists (as opposed to Hoover Institution in-house pets) think saved the country from a second Great Depression, ended torture by US agencies, is drawing down our forces in Iraq & Afghan, handled the Libya crisis wisely, got significant new auto mileage standards, and appointed 2 excellent Supreme Court justices. But some people don't think he's a Democrat? Baloney. It should have been obvious to anyone paying attention in 2008 that Obama is a moderate progressive, not a true "man of the left". The latter could not get elected in 2012; just look at the numbers on percentages of Americans who self-identify as conservative, moderate, and liberal. When Democrats and Republicans split the moderate vote, we get the 1984 election (60/40 GOP win). Anyway, the notion of a successful primary challenge to Obama is nuts. The staunchest Democratic primary voters are African-American, and a challenger to the President would get obliterated. Get real: Obama is our 2012 nominee, and we need to beat the Tea Party nut cases!

- bjones

September 5, 2011 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

am waiting until October (surprise!) to see if Obama follows LBJ into not seeking re-election. Obama may not survive his 3Q (lack of) fundraising totals. Will the Dems recruit David Petraeus or Hillary? All America needs is a candidate who inspires confidence. The only way Obama recovers is to demand serious and immediate reform of ACA/Obamacare and Dodd-Franks, and rein in the EPA, his three big albatrosses.

- K2K

September 6, 2011 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close