|
|
May 26, 2013
|
|
|
|
 More Than a Failure to CommunicatePosted on Nov 10, 2010By Ruth Marcus The day after his shellacking, the bruised president offered a sober, tripartite analysis of voters’ message. First, he said, voters are fed up with Washington partisanship and special-interest politics. Second, they feel insecure and uncertain, about their economic circumstances above all. Sounds familiar so far, right? Except here’s the next part, “The third thing they were saying ... is, ‘There are things we expect government to do, but we don’t think government can solve all the problems. And we don’t want the Democrats telling us from Washington that they know what is right about everything.’ ” That last pivot is what distinguishes—you guessed it—Bill Clinton 1994 from Barack Obama 2010. It’s what worries me about the response of the shellackee in chief to the election results—and, even more, the response of the soon-to-be-former House speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Their instincts have tended more to blaming the dogs for not understanding how good the food is for them, not accepting that it’s time to tweak the recipe. The president’s self-diagnosis in his post-election news conference was dominated by the assessment that voters had simply failed to grasp—and that his failure lay chiefly in explaining clearly enough—why the administration took the steps it did. “What is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious—a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies—I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to,” Obama said. “We thought it was necessary, but I’m sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach.” Advertisement I write this from a perspective of sympathy with Obama’s aims and overall support for his performance over the last two years. But Obama’s dismissive analysis omits the non-emergency choices he made—primarily to press for, and in the end, muscle through the passage of health care reform—and the ensuing discomfort of voters. Discomfort that is entirely understandable, even to those of us who supported health care reform. Clinton campaigned as a different kind of Democrat for whom reinvented, and smaller, government was always part of the agenda. The health care debate interrupted that narrative, and helped set the stage for his midterm losses, but it was set to the background music of a reinvented, smaller government. In contrast, Obama campaigned, by his own assessment, as a “Rorschach test” Democrat: People saw in his candidacy what they chose to perceive. This deliberate ambiguity—traditional big-government liberal or post-partisan pragmatist—helped Obama finesse Democratic Party divides and attract independents during the campaign. When he began to sketch in the ideological blanks, with cap-and-trade, health care, the auto bailout, et al., voters had no reason to distrust their own perceptions of intrusive government. The administration offered no counternarrative to suggest that this new era of big government had any limits. As the Brookings Institution’s William Galston observes in a post-election analysis, “Obama’s agenda required a significant expansion of the scope, power, and cost of the federal government” at a time of record low trust in government. Despite the risk that this mistrust would limit public “tolerance for bold initiatives, he refused to trim his sails, in effect assuming that his personal credibility would outweigh the public’s doubts about the competence and integrity of the government he led.” There are reasons to hope that Obama can adjust and reconnect. By the time of his “60 Minutes” interview, he sounded more accepting of the notion that he needed not only to communicate better but also to govern more modestly. “The American people don’t want to see some massive expansion of government,” he said. I have less confidence in Pelosi’s adaptability. “No regrets,” Pelosi told ABC’s Diane Sawyer. “Should we have been talking about it more, and working on it less—that’s a question.” But, she said, “Nine and a half percent unemployment is a very eclipsing event.” Hoo boy. Losing 60-plus seats is a very eclipsing event too. It would be nice to see some recognition that what we have here is not only a failure to communicate. Democrats are making a big mistake if they think their problem was as simple as not enough talking. © 2010, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
Truthdigger of the Week: Medea Benjamin
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Bob Kinnerson, November 13, 2010 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
On BookTV the other day I saw Nigel Hamilton promoting his new book, “American Caesars,” a look at all the presidents since FDR.
Hamilton said there were two characteristics that he believed distinguished the best presidents: courage and a willingness to listen. I immediately thought how both are soooo lacking in President Obama. Then I modified that thought: Obama appears to listen, but to people like Rahmbo, Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, etc.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, November 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
Teddy Roosevelt called the Presidency “The Bully Pulpit” because you could talk to America from it. Obama just isn’t doing it and it’s not like he’s fumble-tongued like Bush was.
Rico. Chenaco makes Patron look rough.
Report thisBut my REAL favorite is good, well-aged rum, which is hard to get in the USA. You have to struggle to find the good stuff, the REALLY good stuff!
By knute, November 11, 2010 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t understand why Obama refuses to use his office to speak directly to main street in a discussion over things like the Bush tax cuts for the rich. If the vast majority of americans do not fall in the “rich enough to matter” category to benefit from Bush’s tax cuts then why can’t he take it to the people instead of only the hapless congress ? Congress will never do what is right, it is broken and inhabited by over 250 millionaires at last count. Are these people gonna bother to relate to the middleclass ? How could the opposing side, the repug.s defend their position to the vast majority of the people. All they base their argument on is Reagan’s trickle down. That worked real well didn’t it, since saint Reagan there has been a steady flow away from the working people into the wallets of the wealthiest among us while their corporations moved jobs overseas wherever possible. The repug.s argue it would hurt small buisness, and no one bothers to question that rational in a public forum. If they did, the american people might have a chance at seeing the lies in that argument. Wake up Barack…wake the fuck up.
Report thisBy McTN, November 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment
I’m not sure whether Obama or Pelosi really understands why they lost such a huge wave of support in just 2 years. Pres Obama bemoans the realities of the office and circumstances, something his “experience” should have told him during the last year of his campaign. They dawdled while their advantage numerically shifted away from them. They have created the reality they are now facing.
I’m opposed to Pelosi remaining in leadership and would like to see Clyburn, whose always been a direct speaker and people’s advocate, in that slot. I see Pelosi and am reminded of the countless times she and Reid folded, giving Bush the billions he wanted for the Iraq War, never even demanding an itemized receipt.
The govts continued partnership with Wall St over the concerns of Main St bother the hell out of me. I’m almost at a loss for words.
Report thisBy rico, suave, November 11, 2010 at 8:46 am Link to this comment
ITW:
Report thisLOL. Got the Goose and the MM. Don’t know Chenaco- tequila?
By Inherit The Wind, November 10, 2010 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment
Can I count on you and mdgr to have adult discussions about this on this space?
****************
Only if you keep Makers Mark and/or Grey Goose on ice.
Report thisBut if all you have is Chenaco Anejo, I’m happy with that, too!
By rico, suave, November 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment
ITW:
Yeah, I do. Call me a hopeless romantic. When does the new group get sworn in- January 2?
I’ll give them til March, then I’ll be seriously pissed.
Can I count on you and mdgr to have adult discussions about this on this space?
Report thisBy Randomnumber, November 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why is this website publishing such trite beltway conventional wisdom? The democrats got a shellacking because they did not deliver on jobs and the economy. They saved the banks and wall street but did little for the little people on main street. Most people outside the villagers of the beltway media elite don’t care about the size of government. That’s just empty republican rhetoric. Republicans will never shrink big government that benefits their patrons and corporations. Democrats lost because they served the interests of the elites first and the people last. Again, why are you publishing such dishonest nonsense?
Report thisBy Linda Sutton, November 10, 2010 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
“needed to govern more modestly”???? CUT ME A BREAK!!!
What Obama needed to do was:
1. STOP the war(s) and NOT start any new ones
2. CLOSE Guantanamo (as he PROMISED…in 1 year)
3. START the healthcare discussion with SINGLE PAYER on the table.
4. STAND UP to the right-wing propaganda machine rather than be kow-towing to their every scream.
The REASON the Democrats LOST was BECAUSE of their incredible timidity and spinelessness in the face of the Republican-CORPORATION onslaught. They had a MAJORITY and could have used it (with a spine implant, that is).
Instead, they WERE MODEST and Obama focused on the MINORITY and took his “base” for granted…thus, all the kids (or most of them) stayed away this time and didn’t vote and enough of the progressives he assumed would “vote Democratic because they would ultimately cave in”(like the Congressional Progressive Caucus) actually walked away—some out of politics, some to the Greens. Now what, Obama???
Report thisBy de profundis clamavi, November 10, 2010 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
Why is Ruth Marcus on Truthdig? Don’t George Will and David Brooks already do a perfectly good job of telling Democrats that the reason they fail politically is that they’re not enough like Republicans? Anyone who wants to read material coming from her ideological space can just pick up a copy of Time magazine. She’s a waste of space on Truthdig.
Report thisBy Queenie, November 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment
What we needed was a Bro. What we got was a Ho. Instead of checking in to see how the folk were doin’ we got someone who laid down on the job.
Report thisBy morongobill, November 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
Sure wish we could bring Harry Hopkins back from the dead to school the teacher-in-chief in how to get the people back on his side- actually do something for the average joe, not just the bankers. You know like give them a job. He keeps talking infrastructure needing repair, and then with Helicopter Ben’s help, throws trillions of dollars out to, yes, you guessed it, those loveable bankers again. With no end in sight to the madness.
I am really starting to think we are so screwed.
And the rest of the world is seeing it too.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, November 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment
As for Boehner- his hair is too perfect. Already I think we’re screwed.
**************
You lack certainty?
Curiously, what might be a comfort to both of us, you as a TRUE Conservative, me as a non-socialist liberal, is that with the winnowing out of the BlueDog Democrats, the House Dem Caucus may be able to maintain far better discipline. This means they COULD slow down and prevent the wild deviations from sane government regulations that the GOP wants.
No sane person wants no regulations. Then chemical processing plants will turn off their chimney scrubbers, and their waste reclamation and simply dump toxic waste in the rivers again.
I remember as a very little boy being able to swim at Croton Point on the Hudson. Then, by the time I was 4 or 5, it was no longer safe to swim there. It wasn’t until Pete Seeger’s Sloop Clearwater project had been going for 10 to 15 years that the State of NY and the Feds put in controls and they started working. It was finally sometime in the 80’s or 90’s that you could swim at Croton Point again.
Who wants to go back to rampant, China-like pollution days?
Getting rid of Glass-Steagel wasn’t a mainline GOP plan in the 90’s. It was SNUCK IN by Phil Gramm at midnight so that most of the senators didn’t even know it was in there.
As “the Party of No” has to actually govern, they will find (if we are lucky) that there’s a NEW “Party of No” that acts like a giant governor for preventing the system from spinning wildly out of control, as it did between 2001 and 2009.
However, Power is the most powerful corrupter known. Already Rand Paul is succumbing to it.
The cycle of crap and corruption will continue following the “Me, First!” ethos that pervades ALL legislation in both parties.
Report thisBy AmiBlue, November 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
You don’t understand any more than Obama understands what went wrong, Ms. Marcus. And I’m tired of reading pundits who haven’t a clue and I’m depressed that the president doesn’t understand.
His #1 mistake was _not fighting_ for anything, not for health care, not for cap and trade, not for a bigger stimulus. He didn’t fight. Hell, he didn’t even negotiate. He started out with a republican platform and capitulated down from there. How much simpler does it have to be before you and all the rest of the villagers get it right?
Report thisBy Aarky, November 10, 2010 at 11:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Inherit the Wind said it well! Those millions of new voters who brought the Demos into power in 2008 were disenchanted, then disillusioned, then down right Pi****Off when they realized that they were being sold down the river and stabbed in the back by the Democrats in Congress and the WH. Their payback was not going to the polls. When Obama finally realized that the polls were realistic, it was too late. Most of the Demo and Independent voters knew what the Republicans stood for, but voters didn’t expect the Democrats to readily waffle, wimp, and surrender to them. The WH and Congressional Democrats attempts to create phony reasons for their butt kicking is BS.
Report thisBy rico, suave, November 10, 2010 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
ITW:
Like I said in a couple earlier posts- I’m already starting to get pissed off at the thought that these guys will be just like you say.
I read a Politico piece today that said half the freshman class of congressmen and senators have made noise about self-imposed term limits of various lengths. WE’LL SEE! Wait til they dip their toes in that hottub.
As for Boehner- his hair is too perfect. Already I think we’re screwed.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, November 10, 2010 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
Rico,
I’m actually serious about it. Now, as the GOP leadership tries to suppress the Teapartiers, they are in serious danger of following the Dems down that yellow brick road of stupidity, and alienating THEIR base, while claiming they are not getting THEIR message out either.
If there is ANY way the two parties are indistinguishable it’s their ability to pick gray, faceless leadership who only feels safe marketing Last Year’s products and ideas. Boehner sounds like Bob Dole in 1996, and Dole was off-target and not his usual self that entire campaign…so Boehner’s 16 years out of date, with a message that’s off-key as well.
Good luck, guy!
Report thisBy rico, suave, November 10, 2010 at 9:45 am Link to this comment
I agree with ITW. The Dems did a great job of getting their message out and voters decided they didn’t like what they were hearing.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, November 10, 2010 at 9:32 am Link to this comment
Ever hear someone try to sing who is tone deaf? That’s the Democratic Party for most of the last 4 years. 2 years ago, Barack Obama managed to get around that typical tone-deafness of the Democrats, but when he came into office, he was deeply infected with it as well.
It’s not just the President, the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader. It’s the Party. Are they listening to Howard Dean, the man who brought the Party back from oblivion in 2006? Or the ones who sank ‘em in the first place?
Example: My Senators are Lautenberg and Menendez. When the Dems had the majority and voted with Bush to gut FISA and enact the Military Commissions Acts, I emailed both. I got back from Lautenberg a mealy mouthed defense of it DESPITE no right of Habeus Corpus.
Menendez has sent out statements that “we need to get our message out” and then gave a laundry list of government programs Dems had backed—ALL of which were targets for GOP charges of “Government handouts”
Tone-deaf.
What’s the “message” they are trying to get out? We’re going to enact more give-away programs. Where’s the defense of our civil rights?
Where’s the challenges to the growing Republican racism as the party of White Men?
Where’s the challenges to “sanctity” of De-regulation in the waves of the bank scandals, the BP spill, and the stock-market fraud?
Where’s the challenge to the union-busting of the GOP?
Where’s the challenge to the de-industrialization of America?
Where’s the challenge to a GOP that has as it’s goal a modern feudal baron system, with just a few people like the Koch Bros, Rupert Murdoch, Big Oil and the Wall Street firms like Goldman, Sachs pulling all the strings?
Where’s the Frakkin’ BACKBONE????????
Nowhere. That’s what the President, the Senate Majority Leader and the future former Speaker don’t get, as well as most of their Capital Hill colleagues.
Howard Dean brought the Democrats back. Then they discarded him because they want the old, comfortable messages.
“We aren’t getting our message out!”
Yes, you are. That’s the problem. We Democrats DESPERATELY need a better message, one that strives to end union busting, excessive deregulation and policies that CONTINUE to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer hands.
Report thisBy Tesla, November 10, 2010 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
Ted, I don’t believe you need a crystal ball to make that
Report thisprediction. Unless we experience another major terrorist
attack on American soil, there is no doubt what you
prediction will prove accurate.
By tedmurphy41, November 10, 2010 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
What is President Obama to do?
Report thisMy theory is that he will dust himself down, get back to work and wait for the Presidential elections, to become just another footnote, alongside those other failed American Presidents who also did not have the courage or willpower to at least try, to live up to his promises.