PLANK JUNE 14, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Today in Cleveland, President Obama jettisoned the theme of economic inequality that had suffused his economic speeches for more than six months, focusing instead on “how we grow faster, how we create more jobs, and how we pay down our debt.” The real issue, he said, is how we reverse the “erosion of middle-class jobs and middle-class incomes.”
In making that claim, Obama doubled down on the guiding assumption of his campaign—that he can turn the 2012 election into a choice between two models for the future, rather than a referendum on his first term. He made only a brief effort to defend his economic record, focusing instead on what he intends to do in a second term and on what he believes are the fatal flaws of the Republican/Romney agenda.
His argument for reelection is simple: Mitt Romney would take us back to the economic program that failed us under George W. Bush. The alternative, he said, is a strong and growing economy built on a strong and growing middle class—a twenty-first century economy built on a foundation of education, science and innovation, infrastructure, and clean energy, and paid for with a “balanced” program of deficit reduction that asks the wealthiest American to pay “a little bit more.”
All this invites an obvious retort: if that’s the right plan, why didn’t you implement it during your first term? Obama’s answer: the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t let me. And in November the American people should seize their chance to break this “stalemate.”
I’ve long argued that when presidents seek reelection, their record will be the focus of the campaign whether they like it or not. My critics suggest there is a real alternative—but is that really so? When Obama asks why we would return to the policies that failed us, he’s channeling the tag-line of one of the most effective political ads of all time, Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America”: “Why would we ever want to return to where we were?”
But I invite my older readers to take another look at the ad, and my young readers to look at it for the first time. You’ll find that most of it is a summary of how well things are going under Reagan’s stewardship. The concluding rhetorical question gains its force from the contrast between the optimistic experience of the present and the bitter memory of the past. The point isn’t that it was dark before, but that it’s morning now. Unlike Reagan, Obama can’t make that claim.
But it doesn’t matter what I think. The president and his top political advisors clearly reject the view that his record is central and believe they can make this election into a choice between two futures. As a Democrat, I hope they’re right. But as a student of American politics, I fear they’re not.
9 comments
That IS the plan he implemented in his first term. What, you've been drinking the Romney kool-aid that going from Great Depression II into a mere 8% unemployment is a huge failure? FDR would have rolled over in his grave to get to 8% unemployment in a mere 3 years. It's only June 14, you know. There's a whole lot of summer before Labor Day. Obama chose to come out of the gate focusing on the future. There's 4 more months of campaigning before the election -- he's got lots of time to "defend his record", and in those 4 months one of two things could happen. One, the record could get better. Two, the Republicans could get even MORE intransigent, and he can place the Recession Dip at their feet. Either way, now is the time to get the "vision thing" out there.
- AllanL5
June 14, 2012 at 6:54pm
If re-elected, what is BHO really going to be able to accomplish? Any honest Dem knows the answer: zilch. The economy under BHO or MR at best is headed sideward for years, and most probably is headed south. And BHO will have a Congress with at least one chamber-- perhaps both-- controlled by Repubs. And no working majority in the other chamber. It will be painful, but a Mittens win in 10/12 may actually be the best result for Dems who will be forced to face the failures of the last 4 years-- or really the last 30 years-- and reorganize under new leadership that I'd make a major wager will be much more Progressive than the current Executive and Senate leadership (The House is less of a problem).
- drofnats1
June 14, 2012 at 6:56pm
Well, actually, he pointed out the log-jam in Congress. And that the only way to break it is to choose to vote for the party that's trying to help. Not the party of obstruction, but the party that wants to work with him. Sadly, he has an awfully frustrating tendency to use euphemisms when he should be calling out the Republicans for their intransigence. Another thought -- since the Bush tax-cuts are expiring if nobody does anything, and since one of the things we need to reduce the budget deficit is higher taxes, in theory he doesn't HAVE to do anything, the Bush tax-cuts expire, and America will be the better for it in his second 4 years. But of course, that requires Obama to have balls, AND tell his advisers to shut up about the "Recessionary Impact of Tax Increases". Because that stuff is Supply-Side BS -- tax increases, especially on the wealthy, make it possible for you to afford your stimulus. It's certainly NOT recessionary when you have historically low tax rates as we do now.
- AllanL5
June 14, 2012 at 8:42pm
"Obama to have balls, AND tell his advisers to shut up about the "Recessionary Impact of Tax Increases". " Isn't that what one called Bill Clinton did in the early 90s, amongst GOP screaming, and we saw, er, the opposite?
- tmmats
June 14, 2012 at 9:33pm
William Galston, leader of the wet-blanket school of Democratic strategists.
- AaronW
June 15, 2012 at 7:14am
What we saw with the Clinton tax increases was an extended expansion of the American economy. And ultimately a balanced budget. And yes, the GOP screamed predictions of disaster at the time -- which did not come to pass. At least, they didn't come to pass until after Bush-II lowered all the tax-rates. Which the Republicans at the time predicted would improve the economy enough to pay for themselves. Which they did not, leading to our historically high 1 trillion dollar budget deficit. So I guess we're strongly agreeing with each other.
- AllanL5
June 15, 2012 at 10:21am
The idea that the election is a choice between two futures has one feature that Mr. Galston is ignoring: it is objectively true. If Mr. Obama is elected, the US federal government will do one set of things. If Mr Romney is elected, it will do a quite different set of things. Reality will be different. It doesn't matter what I or Mr. Galston or anyone else thinks, this is a fact. Most people are not fools. It is easier to convince the electorate of something that is objectively true that one might think.
- K_Wilson
June 15, 2012 at 11:10am
What if The President gave a speech & no one cared?
- CRS9TNR
June 15, 2012 at 11:22am
I suspect that this tack taken by Obama is a rational response to the unhappy May employment #'s AND the fact that Romney pounced upon that opportunity with formidable aplomb and established himself as viable candidate. It's going to be closer than I had previously imagined and Romney is going to show pretty well. The Obama people rightly figure that a frontal attack is a matter of establishing credibility with some authoritative flag planting. I'd like to see him fight even harder along these lines. There is still time to shape this campaign according to the facts on the ground..... as they were and as they likely will be.
- jacko
June 15, 2012 at 12:06pm