JONATHAN COHN SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
President Obama has accommodated Speaker John Boehner by moving his speech from Wednesday to Thursday. He also intends accommodate football fans by finishing his address before the Packers and Saints play in the NFL season opener that evening. Kickoff is at 8:30, so I suppose that means the president plans to begin the speech early or to speak really, really quickly. Maybe he can get some pointers from the guy who used to make those FedEx commercials.
But does the speech even matter? In a provocative essay today, a weary and disillusioned Ezra Klein makes the case that it doesn't:
Obama’s speech will achieve nothing. It will go nowhere because it has nowhere to go. A speech can rally the base, and maybe even temporarily change the topic in the news. But it can’t change the fundamental fact of politics right now, which is that the two parties disagree on the most profound question in Washington. It’s not: How do we fix the economy? It is: Who should win the next election?
So long as Republicans and Democrats disagree on that, there will be no significant cooperation on substantive issues. Boehner simply will not cut off his party’s candidates at the knees, especially its presidential contenders, by handing Obama a major economic accomplishment. Because he controls the House of Representatives, that means Obama -- and, by extension, the U.S. -- is not going to get a major economic accomplishment.
Ezra is obviously right about the political fundamentals and he is right, I think, about the limits of what one speech can accomplish. And he's far from the only person I know convinced action on the economy is impossible. But being the eternal optimist that I am, let me make the case for why the speech really could matter – if the president and his advisers follow through on it.
It's true that few people will actually listen to speech and that many of those who do will be political junkies or political partisans who've already made up their minds about economic policy. But the next morning, many more people who don't pay that much attention to politics will hear a short excerpt of the speech while eating breakfast or driving to work. And even those who don’t hear content from the speech will be aware that Obama gave it – i.e., they will get the message that Obama wants to do something to fix the economy and create jobs.
And the idea isn’t simply to give one speech. It’s to follow up the speech with appearances, radio addresses, executive orders; to coordinate these actions with the rest of the Democratic Party leadership; to rally validators from outside the party; and to do this over a lengthy period of time. The idea, in other words, is to wage an aggressive and sustained public relations campaign for new interventions into the economy.
Could such a campaign force Congress to act? The odds are low but far from zero. Republicans didn't want to pass financial reform in 2010 and, in the Senate, they had the votes to get their way. They relented because some of them feared the political consequences of siding with the financial industry and against the average American. Particularly if Obama and his allies able to frame the debate over economic policy in similarly favorable terms -- whether it's between action and inaction, or helping the rich versus helping the unemployed – then I think Republicans might buckle once again.
No, they're not going to sign up for a 21st Century version of the Works Progress Administration, even though it would take that kind of ambition to create what would feel like a true recovery. But even modest action could employ a few hundred thousand people – an incremental improvement, yes, but of significance to the people who got jobs.
And that’s to say nothing of the political impact such a coordinated effort could have. Obama’s best case for reelection is to convince Americans he's trying to fix the economy -- and that the Republicans won't let him. The only way to make that case is to make proposals and then argue for them, in a very public way, over and over again. (This does suggest, as my colleague Jonathan Chait recently suggested, that the most important quality of the speech is its political potential, rather than its policy content per se.)
To be clear, I'm not guaranteeing that the upcoming push on jobs will succeed, either as policy or politics. It will require, among other things, the sort of aggressive, sustained campaigning we have rarely seen from the Democratic Party or from this White House. (Mike Tomasky, for one, is skeptical.) But the effort is worthwhile -- and a presidential speech before Congress is a fine place to start, whenever it takes place.
15 comments
I agree that the policy is secondary. Either the president will look like a charging rhinocerous slaming into the Republican Land Rover; or he is going to look like a schmatta.
- Nusholtz
September 1, 2011 at 2:53pm
John Moschitta! What a blast from the past! Now, if only you or Chait could post something with Michael Winsolw from the Police Academy movies ...
- wildboy
September 1, 2011 at 3:17pm
If the speech doesn't matter to Obama then why should the ordinary voter care about? In agreeing to reschedule the speech because of the debate among the Republican candidates he sending the signal that it's not as important as the Republican event. Yet again, Obama gives in without a fight.
- arnon
September 1, 2011 at 3:18pm
"Obama’s best case for reelection is to convince Americans he's trying to fix the economy -- and that the Republicans won't let him. The only way to make that case is to make proposals and then argue for them, in a very public way, over and over again." And it isn't just the best case for ensuring Obama's reelection; it's the best case for the Democrats' regaining control of the House and holding onto, or increasing, their majority in the Senate. In fact, it isn't just the best strategy, it's the ONLY strategy that has any chance of success. But Obama and the Democrats must hammer the Republicans relentlessly. It's way past time for them to start thinking of this endless conflict as not just politics but war. That's how the Republicans regard it, and they will use whatever tactics they can think of, regardless of how inimical they are to democratic standards of conduct, to prevail.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
September 1, 2011 at 3:58pm
Agreed, with the caveat that whatever policy Obama puts forward now is the policy he will have a mandate to enact if Dems win big in 2012. It'll be a lot easier to win votes for it if he can say "I put this to the voters and they said yes." So the policy content of the speech does matter. That said, it's certainly true that the goal right this moment is political rather than economic, to change the conversation and position the Democrats going into the next election. On the policy front, it's highly unlikely anything will get done before January 2013.
- Dausuul
September 1, 2011 at 4:13pm
I agree with Arnon. Who cares if the Republicans debate? The American people are far more important than some silly media opportunity for Perry to look dumber than Bachmann or vice-versa. Obama should have charged ahead with his speech. Most of us would have watched I think. Boehner looks like he has taken over the country. Maybe he has. If so, this is not legal and shouldn't be tolerated. Furthermore I think they are a bunch of racists. Plus, I don't want to miss kickoff. Just sayin':)
- Sophia
September 2, 2011 at 1:46am
I am serious about the racist part. I honestly don't think Bush would have been disrespected like this or even Carter.
- Sophia
September 2, 2011 at 1:47am
Well, after Obama made himself look weak by agreeing to move the date of his jobs address, here's the latest from the White House, according to CNN: "White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated on Thursday that the president intends to offer proposals that "are reasonable and ... should receive bipartisan support." SHOULD RECEIVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT?! How long is Obama going to continue with this fantasy? I thought this guy was supposed to be smart. Democrats have been imploring Obama to present a bold plan that would attract enthusiastic public support and then pummel the Republicans for rejecting it. Instead, he apparently wants to try, for the umpteenth time, to get the Republicans on board. The fact is, he could propose a jobs program that is exactly what conservatives want and the Republicans in Congress would still reject it because it would then be Obama's plan, and they're going to oppose anything with Obama's name attached to it. Is this president of ours totally clueless? Some observers claim this is some sort of reelection strategy, and I suppose that's right. But wouldn't proposing something really big that would fire people up, and then fighting hard for it, be a better strategy?
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
September 2, 2011 at 9:14am
Relax, Davey. Sounds like he's baiting the trap. He's just enough of a guy to tell the Republicans he's baiting it and what he's baiting it with. Now it remains to be seen if they take the bait anyway. They probably will.
- GSpinks
September 2, 2011 at 1:34pm
Well, we'll see, GSpinks. I hope you're right. Perhaps Obama will show himself to be a master manipulator, but lots of people are losing faith in him.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
September 2, 2011 at 3:55pm
I'm not surprised. As for continuing the bipartisan fantasy, it'll probably continue indefinitely. And that is fine by me because that's the only way this country is going to last. When two sides decide to go nuclear, demand everything and concede nothing, when diplomacy and negotiation are no longer options, that's when blood gets spilt. And let's not be coy, the Tea Party types have been more than willing to literally spill some blood whenever they aren't getting their way. The last thing we need is democrats devolving into cretinous morons, too.
And as an aside, on the topic of pulling the "middle" to the "right", I'd like to point out that with PPACA we landed to the right of the "ideal" spot, but far "left" of where we'd been the day before. Of course, that brings up letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I'll side with Obama every time on that debate. Because letting Rick Perry get elected and drag the country into the ditch in revenge for Obama not dragging the country far enough to the left is bs.
- GSpinks
September 2, 2011 at 4:30pm
BHO will have no mandate in 2012 unless he can convince voters that the Great Recession is in no way his fault-- and he has dramatic policies to end the recession. The first part would be to convince voiters what they have seen for two years is not correct--i.e., that BHO HAS proposed policies rejected to date that would end the recession. Given the first fiasco, he is VERY unlikely to propose policies that will really work-- he'll go small ball. Good luck with that. At some point , Progressives that are not genetically-determined Obamaphiles need come to the conclusion that their only (small) hope of really turning the economy around in the next 5 years is for a Progressive to successfully challenge BHO. In the absense of that unlikely event, Quite frankly, Perry is likely to be more successful in passing Keynesian stimulus bills than BHO.. Perry's main political philosphy is corporate cronyism--- and Keynesian economic policies are often attractive, rewarding one's cronies. And Repubs will rediscover Keynes once a Repub is in office. In these days and times, better a Rick Perry Boss Tweed than a Barack Obama Hoover.
- drofnats1
September 2, 2011 at 4:40pm
If the policy speech is that he will promote job-retraining, then not only will the speech have no impact, it will have negative impact, both on consumer confidence in the economy and in voters' confidence in his leadership. Unless he have something substantial, convincing and very likely: new entirely ... something that people feel like they can experience in their kitchen ... unless he has that, he would be better off saying nothing at all.
- dcwood10
September 2, 2011 at 5:38pm
Yup, GS, nothing like turning the other cheek. Political pacifism. And its working so well, both in sustaining a non-Republican administration and in preventing us from being dragged to the right. So, given the evident success, more of the same, no? The whole "adult in the room" thing is such a big winner, we should all play. OR we could take notice of the success the Republicans are enjoying in clawing their way out of the political disaster that Bush wrought for them and think to ourselves that maybe it is not possible to win a battle with them while remaining pure. It ain't beanbag. I think timidity and the refusal to recognize the nature of the opponent is the enemy of the good. Are you so certain that standing for mush is the way to prevent President Perry?
- roidubouloi
September 3, 2011 at 2:14am
I'm a supporter of the President and I'll vote for him again. I think he's done what he can to help reduce the severity of the recession. I'm frankly getting tired of people asking him to 'fix' this. No matter what some people say, the President's main role in the economy is to stay out of the way and not mess things up. It's up to us to invest, hire people, and spend money.
- bvanvlie
September 3, 2011 at 3:59pm