PLANK JUNE 15, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Jonathan Cohn is right that Obama’s much-touted June 14 economic speech presented a devastating but truthful and fair critique of Mitt Romney’s economic plan. Noam Scheiber is right that political commentators who fault the speech for lacking poetry or novelty are missing the point: This speech was intended to delineate, in simple, direct terms, the differences between Obama’s approach to the economy and Romney’s. (Political commentators are notorious for being bored by recitations of policy differences.) But Bill Galston is kind of right, too, when he says that Obama didn’t put enough emphasis on the accomplishments of his first term.
Obama’s speech did, in fact, include a recitation of accomplishments:
“Over the last three years, I’ve cut taxes for the typical working family by $3,600. (Applause.) I’ve cut taxes for small businesses 18 times. (Applause.) I have approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. And I’m implementing over 500 reforms to fix regulations that were costing folks too much for no reason.... I’ve signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2 trillion.”
The trouble lies in the accomplishments Obama chose to cite—a boring litany of microgovernance that makes him sound more like President Clinton than like President Obama. Obama’s presidency has been more consequential than that of any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, but you would never know it from his speech. During his first two years in office he accomplished more than Jimmy Carter achieved in four or Bill Clinton achieved in eight. But these weren’t accomplishments that made him seem like a moderate conservative or a New Democrat. They made him seem like a muscular liberal.
The two accomplishments, in case you’ve forgotten, were passage of the health care law and passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. It’s notable that in his speech Obama mentioned these accomplishments only to emphasize how inoffensively moderate they were (“a health care law that relies on private insurance, or an approach to Wall Street reform that encourages financial innovation but guards against reckless risk-taking”). He’s practically apologizing for them! In fact, these were two landmark pieces of legislation in areas where Democrats had not previously been able to make a dent in at least a generation. Neither represents more than a necessary first step, but that first step was extremely difficult to achieve. If followed up on, they will change the country’s economic direction--a change that, as Obama notes in the rest of his speech, is badly needed.
I understand Obama’s skittishness about the health care bill, given the strong possibility that the Supreme Court will soon strike it down. But it’s the wrong strategy. Obama’s message should be: “Hey, I’m trying to actually do something here, and I’m getting somewhere, and that’s why so many conservatives are spitting mad.” Implicit in his message should be: “No matter what the Supreme Court does, we’re going to make this happen. Strike down this or that provision and we’ll come up with another, because we’re all about providing health care coverage to Americans.” Also implicit in his message should be: “This will get easier if I’m given the chance to make more Supreme Court appointments. It will get impossible if I’m not.”
I don’t understand at all why Obama is downplaying the achievement of Dodd-Frank. Maybe he’s internalized the left’s complaint that the bill didn’t achieve enough. His reply to that criticism should be: “Show me a pathbreaking reform bill aimed at reversing decades of bad policy that didn’t leave too much undone.” Striking out in a new direction is hard work, and your political opponents are always going to fight you on it. The nastier they get, the more you know you’re making progress.
People who vote to re-elect Obama aren’t going to do it because they think he’s a tax-cutter or a government-shrinker (even if, in some ways, he is). They’re going to do it because Obama’s made some powerful gains in his first term, and those gains desperately need to be protected and consolidated. If you don’t believe that, then you might as well vote for Romney.
17 comments
I don't care what you believe. It's not true that "you might as well vote for Romney." No one should be doing that.
- miceelf
June 15, 2012 at 1:50pm
Excellent post!
- Fishpeddler
June 15, 2012 at 1:50pm
"Muscular liberal" = yep.
- Wonderland
June 15, 2012 at 2:08pm
I second Fish's comment.
- liberalref
June 15, 2012 at 2:43pm
The problem with crowing about these two accomplishments is that the Republicans are busy characterizing those accomplishments as failures to be reversed. So if Obama points to them as signature successes of his administration, you get into a "Nuh-uh! Uh-huh!" finger pointing battle that makes him look idiotic. "Don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it." Dodd-Frank hasn't even been fully implemented, thanks to Republican stalling. And the Stimulus didn't "meet expectations" either. You have to admit, that Obama's approaching the Republicans in a spirit of compromise over ACA and the stimulus has enabled them to rough him up and cripple his policies pretty badly. This doesn't make him look like an effective President. If instead you grab hold of things the Republicans say they are going to do, and demonstrate how they've led to disaster in the past, and they'll lead to disaster in the future, then in the fall the voters have a real choice. If instead you point out how we need additional stimulus now, but the Republicans are too busy stalling to help the country, then the voters have a real choice. Now THAT is "on message".
- AllanL5
June 15, 2012 at 3:00pm
Passage of ACA and Dodd-Frank is a great accomplishment. But they (or more accurately most of their provisions) haven't become effective yet. How do voters grade a president on something that hasn't happened yet. It's like the manager who drafts the most heavily touted young player who has yet to play in a game. He may sound good on paper but how do the fans know he is a great player if he hasn't played in a game?
- rayward
June 15, 2012 at 3:19pm
Not really on point, but I can't help but mention Chait's historical revisionism in his blog post today blaming "Democrats in Congress" for extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 and putting us today at the mercy of the "no compromise Republicans". Throughout 2010 I chided Obama for offering a "partial extension of the Bush tax cuts" rather than offering his own "Obama tax cuts" (which I argued should be heavily wieghted to the working class and, since the working class mostly pays payroll taxes, should include a very large (why not 100%?), but temporary, payroll tax cut), and then forcing the Republicans to vote against the Obama tax cuts. My memory may not be the best, but I can't remember Chait pushing anything along those lines. Moreover, the "Democrats in Congress" deferred to Obama on the issue in 2010 (whether Obama volunteered for the assignment has never been entirely clear). And 2012? Looks to me like a repeat of 2010.
- rayward
June 15, 2012 at 3:44pm
"But Bill Galston is kind of right, too, when he says that Obama didn’t put enough emphasis on the accomplishments of his first term." Except that Galston's obvious implication, which differs from your assessment, is that the reason Obama was reticent about his administration's accomplishments is that the Obama administration doesn't have any politically bankable accomplishments to emphasize. Which leads me to this explication: Bill Galston is a dud.
- AaronW
June 15, 2012 at 4:34pm
"It’s notable that in his speech Obama mentioned these accomplishments only to emphasize how inoffensively moderate they were"... BHO's a "muscular liberal" to Blue Dogs and Repubs. I think most Progressives find BHO's accomplishments on health and financial reform-- and the stimulus/economy... indeed characterized (to coin a phrase) as "He has much to be modest about". BHO health reform is really insurance reform that so far benefits few-- and weak BHO financial reform just produced the most-recent banking debacle. As for the BHO stimulus package, if it had been adequate/muscular, Romney and the Repubs would have zilch prospects in 2012 as opposed to 40% or much better if the economy declines between now and November.
- drofnats1
June 15, 2012 at 5:39pm
The fantasist dro is ever at it. It is easy to "run" the country when one is sitting in an arm chair, running off at the keyboard. Barack Obama had a hell of a time getting his stimulus package through Congress as it was, but Mr. Know-It-All asseverates that all BHO had to do was to get a package passed that was multiples of what he did get through. If I ever become that dumb, I just want someone to shoot me.
- liberalref
June 15, 2012 at 8:53pm
"Mr. Know-It-All asseverates that all BHO had to do was to get a package passed that was multiples of what he did get through." But Obama didn't even ask, lib. You cannot receive that for which you do not ask. Would Obama have gotten $1.6 trillion? Likely not, though it's a good bet he'd have won somewhat more than the $800 billion he got. The Blue Dogs would have been saying, "See? We're so much more responsible than the president. He asked for $1.6 trillion and we only gave him $1.1. That's a $500 billion dollar savings!" And even if he did no better than he did, he wouldn't be stuck in the shithouse (Aussie slang for "bad") situation of having promised more economic improvement than he could deliver. I'm a hospital-based doctor, which means I treat a lot of very sick and very old patients, some of whom don't make it. I've learned that the WORST thing you can do is oversell the chances of a cure.
- AaronW
June 15, 2012 at 9:51pm
Would have been a nice selling point if DOJ had put a few senior Wall Streeters in jail. Nobody quite understands Dodd-Frank or the health reforms. Everybody understands jail time.
- Vogelfam
June 15, 2012 at 11:41pm
Obama's presidency may become "more consequential than that of any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson", but he ain't there yet. IF the rather modest reform of health insurance holds up and continues to improve; IF Dodd-Frank actually works out (once people figure out what it does and doesn't do); IF he continues to have a successful foreign policy without any unforeseen fiascos; and IF he's able to right the economic ship by reforming entitlements and the tax code, he will probably be seen as such. In the mean time, Bill Clinton turned a record budget deficit into a surplus; saved millions from becoming part of a perminent underclass with welfare reform; ended the war in the former Yugoslavia, saving hundreds of thousands of lives; and by doing these things shot a major hole in the traditional Republican meme of Democrats as Big Government big spenders in thrall to various identity interest groups and weak/incompetent on defense.
- Robert Powell
June 16, 2012 at 7:03am
"...and IF he's able to right the economic ship by reforming entitlements and the tax code." Robert, your conception of righting the economic ship is embarrassing and absurd. Couldn't bring yourself to even acknowledge the suffering of, say, the long-term unemployed, could you?
- Fishpeddler
June 18, 2012 at 9:06am
With all due respect Fish, I don't get the connection. Bankrupting the country with endless bi-partisan can-kicking doesn't strike me as being particularly in the interest of the long-term unemployed or anyone else. If we don't get the ship righted, which I think O can and will do if given the chance, we're only going to have more suffering.
- Robert Powell
June 18, 2012 at 11:58am
I'm sort of with Allan here. The problem with crowing about Dodd-Frank and ACA is that the Right is demonizing them as government overreach and the left is demonizing them as too little too late. Both sides are demonizing what are otherwise very decent ideas. So Obama doesn't have much room to talk on either side of either topic. And people hate the ACA on principle, now, so I really don't see him going to bat there.
- GSpinks
June 18, 2012 at 12:25pm
"With all due respect Fish, I don't get the connection." I know you don't; thus, my comment.
- Fishpeddler
June 18, 2012 at 12:26pm