Searching for an Obama Doctrine, finding silence
The latest polls trickling out of Washington DC suggest that President Barack Obama is in fairly good shape politically, with his approval ratings stabilized around 50%.
The latest poll from Pew suggests that 47% of Americans want Obama to serve a second term, compared with just 33% who want a Republican in the post.
Obama is also buoyed by the fact that Republicans have a troubled slate of top-tier candidates, ranging from the social complications of Newt Gingrich, to the Southern entanglements of Haley Barbour, to the polarizing Sarah Palin.
Even Mitt Romney, the ostensible Republican everyman, has a couple of huge deficits, including his Mormonism (which is a tough sell for many evangelical conservatives).
He also created a healthcare system in Massachusetts, while governor of that state, that looks very similar to the Democratic health plan which conservatives now revile.
So what could go wrong for Obama?
The president’s chief worry as we stumble toward 2012 is the growing perception that this White House doesn’t have a plan, or a vision.
It’s remarkable that at this stage in the game, a person like myself — a politics and news junky — can’t articulate a single Big Idea that Obama stands for.
I can’t even think of a respectable Middle Sized Idea. In fact, after the president’s over-exposed first eighteen months, I feel like I’m just not seeing him very often any more. Or maybe it’s just that he’s not making an impression?
It’s true that Bill Clinton won a second term based on a laundry list of micro-management initiatives and feel-good projects; and he also triangulated to the center and gobbled up a lot of Republican ideas.
But that was when the economy was strong, the Cold War was over, Federal budgets were in balance, the two parties weren’t so severely polarized, and people were more or less content with their lot in life.
That world is over, done, ancient history. From the terror attacks on 9/11 to the Great Recession, to the increasingly dangerous Federal deficits, we Americans don’t particularly like what they’re seeing on their television screens.
We really do want change, for the better, and fairly fast.
During his first two years, Obama delivered on a very specific vision. He used Big Government to shore up a down-spiraling economy.
He pushed through a historic healthcare bill, hoping to use government to improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans who were uninsured.
You can hate his ideas, but you can’t argue that Obama didn’t have a philosophy or a specific program to implement it.
Fast-forward to 2011 and it’s very hard to find any remnant of Obama’s world-view, or any program that would carry such a philosophy forward.
The man who insisted that he would reduce our military obligations overseas, and improve what he described as our country’s tattered moral standing, has failed to close Guantanamo Bay and has now involved us in a new war in Libya.
When George Bush went to war, by contrast, he offered a clear set of ideas explaining why. We were searching for WMDs, hoping to disrupt terrorist support networks, and also attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East.
It turns out a lot of those ideas were deeply misguided, but at least Bush was making an argument that Americans could mull over.
But Obama’s logic for involving us in Libya doesn’t appear to be part of any doctrine or philosophy. Indeed, he himself seemed distinctly reluctant, and had to be dragged into the conflict.
So why this particular fight, Mr. President? Why now? What’s the end-game?
At present, we just don’t know.
The same goes for Obama’s current handling of the economy. One of the biggest national trends right now is the rapid downsizing of education programs.
Since 2009, this White House has presided over the largest mass-firing of teachers in American history, as cash-strapped schools slashed their teaching staffs.
At first, Obama used Federal aid to stop the tsunami of dismissals, but all such efforts have stopped, and the president no longer talks about it.
Has he changed his mind? Does he no longer think it’s a problem?
Again, we know what Republicans think. The GOP believes that shrinking government is good, that these painful cuts will lead us toward a more efficient, stable prosperity.
They think Big Government is deeply suspect, even when it is educating our children.
Has Obama come around to their way of thinking? Does he think this is the best way for us to prepare our next generation of entrepreneurs and scientists and engineers?
Is he convinced now that we can we make these cuts without crippling our future? We don’t know.
One obvious change, of course, is the election in 2010 of a Republican House. Pushing an ambitious program in this political climate would be brutally difficult.
But other presidents have squeezed far-reaching legislation through Congress at times when their parties were out of power.
And even when they failed to pass their bills, those presidents used big political fights to articulate a clear vision, popularizing doctrines that they believed would carry the country forward.
Now it may be — and this is pure speculation — that Obama believes that it is enough to simply manage the country well, to push for leaner, more efficient, and more effective Federal programs.
Normally, I am drawn to that kind of technocratic, fiddle-the-knobs professionalism in politicians. But not now. Not at this point in American history. We can’t wait two years to solve some of these problems.
Before the klieg-lights of the 2012 campaign fire up, Mr. Obama needs to rediscover his vision thing. How about a massive Marshall Plan designed to wean American off of foreign oil using new and renewable energy technologies?
Or how about a big shake-up of our economy-stifling, morally reprehensible immigration policies?
Or maybe the next Great Push Forward should be a creative and expansive effort at debt reduction, one that involves a mix of tax increases and belt-tightening?
Whatever the idea is, the White House should explain to America how it will move us forward again, away from this hardscrabble moment in history where we don’t want to linger.
Then President Obama should start fighting for whatever it is that he believes in. And he should trust the voters to decide whether his path is one the nation wants to follow.
Tags: economy, politics, President Barack Obama
.png)
Why on Earth would he open his mouth right now and run the risk of being the lead story at the top of every hour? The Republicans and Tea Partiers are out there doing all of this nutty stuff with public sector workers and state budgets and discretionary spending in the federal budget. Additionally, they are stumbling all over each other with Newt, Michelle, Sarah, HAley, The Donald etc. If I were in his place, I’d sit back for the moment and let them be the headlines. He is going to have to step out of the shadows soon, but timing is everything and there is no gain in this time period.
“But other presidents have squeezed far-reaching legislation through Congress at times when their parties were out of power.
Examples?
I am way down on Obama lately, but not because he isn’t articulating some grand vision. What would be the point of proposing another big legislative package right now, and watching it get tossed aside by the bizarre preoccupations of the current Congress?
More worrisome to me right now is the patchwork feel of the response to the revolutions in the Middle East. This is certainly the most significant political change since the fall of the Soviet Union, yet our reaction seems ad hoc. If he rises to the challenge of forming a coherent policy in this area, he might win my vote for a second term.
Erb –
Examples: The Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the first round of George Bush’s tax cuts were all passed in 2001, while Democrats controlled the US Senate and Republicans held only a 9-seat majority in the House.
Brian, NCPR
The Pew poll sampled 503 Democrats, 308 Republicans, and 570 Independents.
That’s 32% more Democrats than Republicans. Thats 1/3 more Democrats than Republicans.
If only 47% wanted to see Obama reelected, then the mix was about 60/40 Republican to Democrat in the Independent group.
In other words, it took a lot of oversampling of Democrats to skew the results to make Obama look favorable.
60/40 Obama is out.
I agree with the overall assessment of this President Brian M makes. However politically I think John is correct, the less we see of him the more popular he becomes based on the recent poles. He is more popular now than he was a year ago.
I think his big new idea is getting elected to a second term. He is very weak and indecisive when it comes to foreign policy from what I can see. He was not strong enough to really pull out of Gitmo and we are still in two wars and we now have added a third. He seems to be just lumbering along. But sometimes that can work of the Republicans don’t get their act together. However if the Republicans jettison these also ran losers who people are frankly sick of, and tap into a relatively talented pool of successful governors he could be in real trouble.
Anyone looking for a grand strategy for the Middle East is likely to have a long wait. The “Middle East” is a geographic concept (and an inaccurate one at that) that doesn’t take into account the different histories and ethnic and religious make ups the countries assumed to comprise that region. A one-size-fits-all approach is misguided under these circumstances. At the same time, the average citizen likes simplicity and doesn’t have the patience or the attention span for an explanation of the complex underlying factors. That is further aggravated by the impracticality of vocalizing universal ideals (e.g., democratization that could very conceivably push governments toward Iran or a similarly theocratic model), something that sounds attractive in concept but fraught with uncertainty.
It seems that Americans tend to believe that we can control events that are fundamentally uncontrollable. That doesn’t excuse bad policy, but it does recognize that international events have their own dynamics and that often the best you can do is to react while balancing competing objectives.
Brian M,
Your list of legislative achievements is a bit misleading. There’s an old saying, every analogy begins with a lie (since no two scenarios are ever truly “the same”). Bush faced none of the economic constraints that Obama faces and 9/11 created an environment that made the Patriot Act, while controversial, an easier argument. The context for advancing policy in 2011 is far different from what existed in 2001.
Personally, I think Obama is completely in over his head and has no real “plan” other than a general plan to pay off his supporters and line up support for 2012. After sitting here truing to be as fair as I can, his foreign policy moves have been disasters. I never thought I’d have any admiration for Hillary, but she’s done a fair job as Sec State. Economically Obamas either ignorant or so out of touch ( probably the latter) that he simply has no clue.
Honestly, I hope the guy get his act together a little more. I won’t vote for him, but I am truly concerned with the course we’re on. He really needs to get it together on the economy.
Well the idea that we can control external events would lead us to do things like bomb Libya.
I don’t want to set myself up as an apologist for Obama, but I don’t think there can be a plan when it comes to present day foreign policy. You can espouse certain principles and try to influence outcomes at the margin. The Iraq invasion was part of a plan to “drain the swamp” and introduce democracy in the region. The irony is that this neoconservative plan was a disaster and the seeming democratic awakening we are seeing now was spontaneous and sparked by a self immolation in Tunisia of all places.
Life truly was simpler in a bipolar world where we were actually stronger is a relative sense and more united politically when it came to foreign policy. In a multipolar world there is more complexity and there is potential for more flash points throughout the globe.
The American publics’ sense of superiority and intolerance of complexity is a dangerous combination, especially when politicians promote our exceptionalism and reduce complicated issues to the least common demoninator.
Oh Bret…not Hillary! That over righteous hawk is the reason we’re spending money that we don’t have in Libya. Remember the primary race? We could never have voted for her ’cause she couldn’t keep her story straight. She looked so poor that Mccain had to bring in Palin so that he could lose …Who would want to be president after Bush sunk the economy?
I had the highest hopes for Obama, and I’m disappointed. He sounds just like Bush every other week, and the rest of the time, he and the rest of the democrats are just gutless.
I agree that we the public have to accept complexity and up to know many don’t seem to want to do that. But at the same time we can and should have basic principles of how we are going to use our power and force. When Obama came into power he had set forth some principles in this area and some specific plans for ongoing activities. He has not really followed through on those.
I still think either intentionally or unintentionally he was smart to be a cheerleader as he was in Cairo when speaking directly to Arabs in the Middle East. Words are cheap both fiscally and humanly, but a person schooled in advocacy like our President can really make them work in some situations. We should talk more and do less when it comes to our overseas entanglements. I think he was on the right path but now is faltering and that is disturbing. The guy has a great ability to recover though.
Mike, I said, “fair job”, not that she was great or anything. She, for the most part, hasn’t made any massive blunders that I can think of, but she’s certainly not Condi Rice either.
Obama is following through with the same strategy he used in his campaign- hope, change, yes we can. Very little in specifics that you can tie him down to, generalizations, platitudes and denials. His gaffs are ignored, quite a change from the Bush years. High prices simply aren’t his fault, much less his problem, again unlike the Bush years. Foreign involvements aren’t “imperialistic war mongering”, another non-Bush trend. He has had success in passing unConstitutional laws that may well bankrupt the nation, but since its all about hope and change, yes, we can ignore that silly old Constitution.
Hey, there’s good here too- he makes Clinton look all that much better.
JDM nailed it the poll you based Obama’s future on is skewed. As far as any grand vision, other than where hes going to play golf this week Obama has no vision. He is the incarnation of Jimmy Carter 1 term president.
I will do the Obama apologist. His first half-term they got a lot of stuff done (remember health care). That motivated the Tea Party, the Liberals were dispirited from all the compromises, and the economy failed to rebound in terms of jobs created. The democrats got clobbered in the bi-election. This is a democracy. Obama has to deal with the cards he is dealt (and the congress that got elected). He and his advisors have obviously decided that keeping their heads down is the best policy in terms of getting re-elected. That is a defensive strategy, but not an unrealistic one. The hope is that the tea-party enthusiasm burns itself out dealing with reality. The fuel that keeps them going is furry about big government (whatever that is).
Brian,
I like your suggestion of the Marshall plan for energy independence. I would take it one step further and incorporate infrastructure as well. And here’s how we get the public to seriously support it, and not just with their attitude and vote, but with their pocket book. We create a plan which also creates wealth for every citizen who invests in it with actual dollars.
For instance a large federally guaranteed, inflation protected bond program. Sort of along the lines of war bonds during WWII. Let the public have a chunk of the profits that the future smart grid, third generation bio-fuels, solar, wind, safe nuclear, geo-thermal, wave generation, mass transit, high speed rail, etc. with create. Many people are on the fence when it comes to Wall Street, they’re more skeptical then ever about putting more retirement or investment money in a market that has cost them loads of money the past couple of years. The time is right to offer alternatives to an otherwise skeptical public. I’m one of those people, and if I could get a say 4-6% guaranteed return, and own part of the “re-birth” of the nation at the same time, I’d put some of my money into such a wealth creating plan.
We just need a passionate leader to push the idea and make it a priority.
Clap, where does the money come from to do this? What laws/regulations/Gov’t agencies will need to be pushed out of the way for it to be a success? What part would/should Gov’t play in this?
The money comes from the public and is administered by the federal gov’t. And the federal gov’t pays the bond when it comes due. Same as war bonds during WWII. It could even be a joint public/private venture in that the gov’t develops the projects and the private sector bids to build them. Similar to how much of our infrastructure is built now. The state rebuilds a section of Route 81, and construction companies bid on it and actually complete the construction. They of course hire people, buy the goods and services necessary from other private entities, circulate money, and via the multiplier effect, we create wealth, jobs, and new infrastructure. Including a smart grid, alternative energy production projects, etc…..
Its interesting how this all starts up when it is time to discuss the budget for the military.
The justification for going to war against Libya is less convincing than the justification for invading Iraq. Now we are not invading Libya with troops to Obama’s credit, I think we are in a war for no reason except that our President wanted to avoid conflict with his staff and other leaders and avoid criticism which is a piss poor reason to go to war.
Clap, once again it comes back to “the money comes from the public”. So either you get people with extra income to invest (the RICH!) of you tax the worker bees.
Great Idea in theory, more taxes in reality.