Comments on the Political Scene: An Obama Rant – by Eric Shapiro 2-28-2010
As countless political analysts and pundits have pointed out, there was something special about Barack Obama: the candidate. More than any other political figure in decades, he managed to channel populist disaffection and rage against the status quo into a potent force for change, successfully courting many demographics that the conventional wisdom held as not even worth the effort.
Particularly surprising was the enthusiasm he instilled in “the youth,” a notoriously fickle breed of voter, perceived as being more concerned with their everyday lives than ideology. Obama’s campaign strategy, engineered by his now-advisor David Axelrod, deserves a lot of the credit for this. Building on Howard Dean’s approach but with a much stronger and more eloquent candidate, Axelrod reached out to the youth in a language and a medium that they understood.
Extracted from the Obama message were the usual liberal obsessions such as abortion and gay marriage. In their place was an emphasis on change. After years of being governed by political insiders using “free-market” philosophies as cover to secure money from special interest groups, younger voters picked up on what they saw as Obama’s authenticity. Unlike John Kerry, Obama, a relatively fresh face in Washington, seemed plausible when he talked about change and after eight years of an administration devoid of both empathy and common sense, change was what the youth in particular, and the public in general, desperately craved. A key element of Obama’s change doctrine was a call for bipartisanship; the candidate was not afraid to chastise Republicans and Democrats alike for their chronic inflexibility and unwillingness to work together in passing meaningful legislation.
Obama’s mistake, as has become evident in the largely disappointing year after his election, was to assume that the Senate, intended by the founding fathers as the embodiment of the public will, was interested in serving the people. Obama was naïve enough to think that he could bring around Beltway politicians in the same way he did voters; the very same self-interested political insiders that set the stage for the current economic disaster through deregulation and corporate tax cuts. This bipartisanship manifested itself in anemic, toothless healthcare legislation and a stimulus package heavy on Wall Street bailout money and light on programs that would help get the American people back up on their feet.
By incorporating conservative ideas, the Obama administration reasoned, they could convince Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats alike to support his initiatives. There are two reasons why this approach is misguided. First of all, most members of Congress are not interested in meaningful change. They are perfectly happy with a status quo that has left so many people jobless and without adequate health care because it has lined their pockets and kept them in power. Second, and more importantly, the “ideas” of Republicans and right-leaning Democrats are precisely what the youth and the public have rejected in their call for change. The conservative “free-market” and “balance the budget” ideology that Obama has attempted to incorporate into his legislation as a bi-partisan concession in reality has nothing to do with a free market or balancing the budget. It is merely an excuse for its proponents to provide the richest 1% of our society, the corporate CEOs and children of wealth, with tax cuts and average citizens with nothing. Nevertheless, if paying some modest, half-baked form of deference to these dangerous ideas was sufficient to win over votes for healthcare legislation, then it would be worth it. Alas, this is not the case.
The enemies of change are not stupid; they realize that allowing the Obama administration to provide citizens with universal health care and end the recession by creating jobs will put their beloved false-free-market ideas to shame and result in a realignment that could set the stage for meaningful liberal reform for decades. Republicans have correctly perceived that their best hope of staying in power is to drag the Obama administration into the dirt and bathe themselves in a populist perfume to channel some of the public’s rage to their benefit. So far they have succeeded, and the Obama administration deserves a lot of the credit for playing into their hands.
They have squandered precious time and political capital in useless appeals to senators who would like nothing more than to see him fail. Even worse, the administration has neglected to use the most powerful tool at its disposal. Obama won the presidency not by courting the establishment, but by creating a grassroots movement for change, and now he has abandoned his movement at the time he needs them most. Perhaps he assumed that he could always count on the support of those responsible for his election.
He was wrong. Instead, he has left his most loyal, grassroots supporters disillusioned and stagnant. The tragic irony of Obama’s success and subsequent failure is that it has provided his enemies with a template for thwarting change. The Tea Party movement has take advantage of public anger where he has failed and their success is a testament to the power of a popular, grassroots movement to pressure the government.
The Tea Partiers, in their misguided fury, have successfully scared Blue Dog Democrats into abandoning health care reform and meaningful change. Obama’s only hope at this point is to abandon his ill-fated efforts to win over his enemies and re-energize his base with the same heartfelt rhetoric that served him so well before. The worst thing he can do is feed into the stereotype that he is out of touch by making technical speeches about his plan for health care reform.
Politics is not and never has been about hawking arcane details of specific legislation, especially in a time of crisis. It is about convincing the people that you are on their side and that you are willing to fight for them. This is what Obama did in his campaign, and it is what he should do now.
As countless political analysts and pundits have pointed out, there was something special about Barack Obama: the candidate. More than any other political figure in decades, he managed to channel populist disaffection and rage against the status quo into a potent force for change, successfully courting many demographics that the conventional wisdom held as not even worth the effort.
Particularly surprising was the enthusiasm he instilled in “the youth,” a notoriously fickle breed of voter, perceived as being more concerned with their everyday lives than ideology. Obama’s campaign strategy, engineered by his now-advisor David Axelrod, deserves a lot of the credit for this. Building on Howard Dean’s approach but with a much stronger and more eloquent candidate, Axelrod reached out to the youth in a language and a medium that they understood.
Extracted from the Obama message were the usual liberal obsessions such as abortion and gay marriage. In their place was an emphasis on change. After years of being governed by political insiders using “free-market” philosophies as cover to secure money from special interest groups, younger voters picked up on what they saw as Obama’s authenticity. Unlike John Kerry, Obama, a relatively fresh face in Washington, seemed plausible when he talked about change and after eight years of an administration devoid of both empathy and common sense, change was what the youth in particular, and the public in general, desperately craved. A key element of Obama’s change doctrine was a call for bipartisanship; the candidate was not afraid to chastise Republicans and Democrats alike for their chronic inflexibility and unwillingness to work together in passing meaningful legislation.
Obama’s mistake, as has become evident in the largely disappointing year after his election, was to assume that the Senate, intended by the founding fathers as the embodiment of the public will, was interested in serving the people. Obama was naïve enough to think that he could bring around Beltway politicians in the same way he did voters; the very same self-interested political insiders that set the stage for the current economic disaster through deregulation and corporate tax cuts. This bipartisanship manifested itself in anemic, toothless healthcare legislation and a stimulus package heavy on Wall Street bailout money and light on programs that would help get the American people back up on their feet.
By incorporating conservative ideas, the Obama administration reasoned, they could convince Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats alike to support his initiatives. There are two reasons why this approach is misguided. First of all, most members of Congress are not interested in meaningful change. They are perfectly happy with a status quo that has left so many people jobless and without adequate health care because it has lined their pockets and kept them in power. Second, and more importantly, the “ideas” of Republicans and right-leaning Democrats are precisely what the youth and the public have rejected in their call for change. The conservative “free-market” and “balance the budget” ideology that Obama has attempted to incorporate into his legislation as a bi-partisan concession in reality has nothing to do with a free market or balancing the budget. It is merely an excuse for its proponents to provide the richest 1% of our society, the corporate CEOs and children of wealth, with tax cuts and average citizens with nothing. Nevertheless, if paying some modest, half-baked form of deference to these dangerous ideas was sufficient to win over votes for healthcare legislation, then it would be worth it. Alas, this is not the case.
The enemies of change are not stupid; they realize that allowing the Obama administration to provide citizens with universal health care and end the recession by creating jobs will put their beloved false-free-market ideas to shame and result in a realignment that could set the stage for meaningful liberal reform for decades. Republicans have correctly perceived that their best hope of staying in power is to drag the Obama administration into the dirt and bathe themselves in a populist perfume to channel some of the public’s rage to their benefit. So far they have succeeded, and the Obama administration deserves a lot of the credit for playing into their hands.
They have squandered precious time and political capital in useless appeals to senators who would like nothing more than to see him fail. Even worse, the administration has neglected to use the most powerful tool at its disposal. Obama won the presidency not by courting the establishment, but by creating a grassroots movement for change, and now he has abandoned his movement at the time he needs them most. Perhaps he assumed that he could always count on the support of those responsible for his election.
He was wrong. Instead, he has left his most loyal, grassroots supporters disillusioned and stagnant. The tragic irony of Obama’s success and subsequent failure is that it has provided his enemies with a template for thwarting change. The Tea Party movement has take advantage of public anger where he has failed and their success is a testament to the power of a popular, grassroots movement to pressure the government.
The Tea Partiers, in their misguided fury, have successfully scared Blue Dog Democrats into abandoning health care reform and meaningful change. Obama’s only hope at this point is to abandon his ill-fated efforts to win over his enemies and re-energize his base with the same heartfelt rhetoric that served him so well before. The worst thing he can do is feed into the stereotype that he is out of touch by making technical speeches about his plan for health care reform.
Politics is not and never has been about hawking arcane details of specific legislation, especially in a time of crisis. It is about convincing the people that you are on their side and that you are willing to fight for them. This is what Obama did in his campaign, and it is what he should do now.