What this GOP primary really says about President Barack Obama
Nothing clarifies the mind or unifies a movement — or steels the resolve of a democracy, for that matter — like an actual threat.
In this week after the commemoration of Pearl Harbor, that devastating attack on our nation seems like a great metaphor for the kind of crisis that puts patriots at their best.
I mention all this, because in the three years after President Barack Obama was elected, Republican leaders have insisted that his administration was the political equivalent of a foreign army arriving guns blazing on our shores.
Depending on who you ask, Mr. Obama is a false American, a false Christian, a radical black-nationalist Christian, a man steeped in Kenyan anti-colonialism intent on destroying our capitalist system, a Muslim, or all of the above.
Conservatives circulated images of Black Panthers lurking outside polling places and hinted darkly at widespread voter fraud.
They talked about “death panels” and a “war on religion” and the urgent need to “take our country back” — even hinting that “second amendment solutions” might be necessary.
In a recent column, conservative Charles Krauthammer warned darkly that if “Obama wins [next November] he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).”
All of which, if true or plausible, would certainly serve as a stiff wake-up-call to the right.
Let me again resort to history to provide a bit of contrast.
The clash with Fascism in the 1940s caused all Americans — left, right and center — to work together, differences be damned. Likewise, the Cold War effort to roll back communism stiffened a centrist resolve to overcome our differences.
The alternatives were simply too grave, too bitter. In those years, the enemies of our Republic were real, and the consequences of failure dire.
And so we got serious, we pitched in, we sacrificed and we prevailed.
Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Republicans don’t really mean what they say about Mr. Obama.
They have embraced a fiery, populist, occasionally ludicrous rhetoric because they think it will win them votes, particularly in white, rural precincts like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina where Mr. Obama is viewed with deep suspicion.
But the GOP’s leadership — and its top candidates — have failed to rally around any particular individuals or ideas. There’s no sign of anything like unity in this opposition.
The party’s grand old leaders, men and women of experience and gravity, haven’t emerged to demand some kind of serious, grown-up effort at leading the country forward.
On the contrary.
Out on the campaign trail, half the GOP candidates are hawking books, or promoting talk shows, or embracing a debate hosted by Donald Trump, or fending off sex scandals, or challenging each other to $10,000 wagers.
Given the tone of their behavior — in contrast with their words — you would think that there were no serious challenges in the world at all.
The secret behind all this muddle, I suspect, is that in their hearts these Republican candidates don’t actually view Mr. Obama as all that scary or radical.
Yes, they disagree with him on particular points of policy.
But it’s only fair to point out that Mr. Gingrich has occasionally embraced the individual mandate for healthcare and proposed big government solutions for climate change.
Mr. Romney in the past has been pro-choice and pushed through a big Obamacare type program of his own while governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Perry has been forced, as governor of Texas, to deal with illegal immigration in all its complexity, which is why he chose to educate the children of undocumented workers.
The reason that they are so close to Mr. Obama on so many issues is that, by most credible assessments, this administration has hewed a fairly centrist, pragmatic line.
To the frustration of many liberals, the White House maintained many policies and kept many cabinet leaders first chosen by President George W. Bush — who (you will remember) was hardly a popular figure at the time.
It goes without saying that, as we near the end of Mr. Obama’s first term, the economy remains deeply troubled and Federal deficits are massive.
I suspect there is a real appetite in the country to hear about alternatives to this President and his leadership.
But the effort to brand Mr. Obama as a bogeyman has been a flop. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, writing for the Washington Post, put it this way:
[W]hile voters may be disappointed with Obama’s job performance, they have not turned on Obama himself. His personal approval is strong.
Here there is a significant gap between the American public and, well, me. I have often found Obama’s public manner to be professorial and off-putting. Americans seem to think it calm, self-possessed and reassuring.
Even in his failures, Obama does not seem hapless. He fully inhabits the public role of commander in chief. And Obama’s commitment to his family — his protection of their and privacy and normality — is widely admired.
In the end, if voters are forced to decide which of these political movements seems more radical, more erratic, and more anxiety-provoking, Obama’s Democrats might fare surprisingly well against the GOP on display in this primary.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
A reasonable and intelligent person will find not much to argue with in this post, but we’ll see how things turn out.
Brian,
The fact that the right wing doesn’t like Obama is not news. If you want to analyze GOP prez politics, how about looking into who has an edge in the NY primary, something that’s of interest to us and will serve a broader purpose than a JDM vs. all-comers food fight.
Our state changed the calendar, and it looks like they made a smart move, given the unpredictability of the race so far. It’s your blog, I know, but a little reporting and commentary on this might be worthwhile and fun:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-20/local/29700797_1_primary-day-costas-panagopoulos-gop-presidential-hopefuls
“Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Republicans don’t really mean what they say about Mr. Obama.”
Brian, you have been around long enough. You didn’t just come to this conclusion? Of course they don’t.
Just like democrats don’t really mean what they say about the GOP. They are all desperately trying to get or stay elected.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the real campaign has not yet begun. Those who actually make the call on who will win the election are not paying much attention yet.
Is Obama viewed with “deep suspicion” in NH? I guess I don’t know what you mean by “deep suspicion”.
It does beg the question though for the GOP, what is wrong with your nominating process that you can’t field a truly serious challenge to a guy with this horrible of a domestic record? To Obama’s credit and I think ironically he has taken the wind out of the hawks challenge to him from the right, he has been more successful against Islamic terrorism than the previous administration and excelled in foreign policy in general.
In the same way Reagan presided over the collapse of the Soviet Dictatorships, Obama is presiding over the start of the collapse of the Islamic dictatorships.
Mervel, all Reagan did was raise the price on being a communist, untill the Soviets could not afford it. It cost us plenty in the long run too, mind you Russia was involved in an Afghan war at the time. Please don’t carve his bust into Rushmore yet…
There is an elephant in the room that no one to the right or left is willing to touch. You would lose even if you mention it. What could it be?
The recession has proven something to business which business has long thought to be true. It has proved business can grow and have higher profits with fewer employees.
Here we are with unemployment just below 9% nationally and yet consumers seem to be spending more this year than last year. While some suffer long term unemployment, the vast majority have a job and the wealthy remain wealthy. Business and most consumers have figured out how to live in spite of what everyone would call an unacceptable high rate of unemployment.
So here is where I’ll go out on a limb. I would not be surprised if the unemployment rate ever again goes below 5 or 6% and even that might be wishful thinking.
If business can continue to grow without hiring more people, there is simply no reason for them to do so. With advances in automation and computerization, I do not see this trend reversing, especially when you look at the increasing number of the human population.
With the population continuing to grow, the percentage of the unemployed could stagnate at a level even higher than 6%. Business would hire but not at a rate high enough to meet the rise in population.
I hope my guessing here is wrong but only time will tell.
Pete, The elephant in the room is bigger than that. We live in a world of finite resources with an economy that REQUIRES constant, unending consumption and growth. The two cannot coexist forever. Finding ways to grow the economy without hiring are temporary band aid fixes. At some point we need to transition to a sustainable economy and the longer we wait, the harder the transition will be.
Two Cents, ha no I am not putting him up there yet. But what he did was more than just out spend them; he didn’t get in the way of the forces inside the totalitarian system that communism is; these people were not going to stand for the boot of oppression forever. Those forces were going on with or without Reagan. Just like the average Arab or Persian living in the Middle East today that wants a real life, at some point; likely right now, they will say why do we have to live under this totalitarian system? The US has given the dictators an excuse for many decades as the great Satan. When Obama spoke in Cairo I think he laid it on the line that we are not the great satan that we stand with the people against what has been an essentially corrupt system. They all need to go; Syrian leaders, Pakastani leaders, Saudi Arabian leaders, Iranian leaders, Jordanian kings and on and on. We have to get out of the way and I think Obama realized that or was at least in the right place at the right time, much like Reagan. Plus he is killing Al-Quida leaders including of course Bin Lade, who are the true enemy.
“[W]hile voters may be disappointed with Obama’s job performance, they have not turned on Obama himself.”
This is largely due to the media’s white glove treatment of Obama.
It would be all too easy to turn him into a buffoon with any one of his numerous gaffes, but, that has not happened.
The disapproval rating, now at more than 50%, shows that the majority of the people “get it” anyway.
His popularity rating, now at just over 40%, show that you still can fool some of the people, some of the time.
I was thinking about that though; I am not sure we can blame the media on the treatment of the President, which I think is biased a little. Part of it is the creation of expectations. If you look at someone like Rick Perry what expectation did he create? He wanted to be a plain spoken tough talking guy from Texas, one of the people, okay fine but that expectation would also include just plain dumb, which is how is now portrayed. The Democrats to their credit have never played the reveling in being dumb card.
Republicans are sick of that and I think it is why Newt for all of his faults is in the lead.
Obama has created an expectation that he is not stupid and so his gaffe’s are gong to be overlooked. If you create an expectation that being stupid is a good thing your gaffe’s are going to be focused on.
Mervel,
what you point out about the Middle East, is exactly how i imagine the 99%ers, and the Occupy_____Street people feel about this country. It’s certainly a hint of the taste left in my mouth.
Thanks for mentioning the killing part, i was afraid if i did it’d be read too “snarky” here, but those actions were key, and that is the only difference between us and them. Foreign Governments have not eliminated any of the Polititians here, that they don’t like, and the Occupy people have not taken up arms, yet. i believe it’ll be the Tea Partiers first anyway ( sarcasm implied)
When it comes to the economy, let’s be a bit realistic here.
The fact of the matter is that the economic glass is more than half full. Over 90% of the people have a job. While this is not great news for those who don’t have a job, it certainly doesn’t rise to the levels seen during the Great Depression.
What I’m saying here is that it all depends on how you “spin” the numbers.
Right on cue, JDM says: “This is largely due to the media’s white glove treatment of Obama.”
FOOD FIGHT!!!!
“white gloves” are certainly what Steve Kroft was wearing when he interviewed the president for 60 minutes (aired yesterday).
I have rarely ever seen a reporter ask the president why he has chose NOT to put forward a plan or a budget. Why he has chosen not to lead? When you are in his position (between a rock and hard place) blaming the GOP is, I guess, his best hope.
Paul,
The President puts forward a budget every year. Saying he doesn’t is a falsehood:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
Regardless of that, it’s Congress’s responsibility to draft a budget, starting in the House, per the Constitution
verplank, the senate voted the only budget the president has put forward. They voted it down as you probably know 96-0. That is right not even as single democrat voted for it. I guess I should have said that the president should put forward a budget that is based on reality. The house did submit a budget that seriously addressed the issues facing the country. The senate (controlled as you know by democrats) has chosen to do nothing.
verplank, face it. This president has no realistic plan. One good example is his unwillingness to address entitlement reform despite the fact that the deficit commission (including his own people) have told him that he must for the sake of the country do something. What he is concerned about is getting re-elected. Why many in the press continue to give him a pass on this is what JDM and others are frustrated with.
Here is a good description of the issue. This actually comes from a NYT editorial that was mostly in favor of the budget put forward by the white house:
“What Mr. Obama’s budget is most definitely not is a blueprint for dealing with the real long-term problems that feed the budget deficit: rising health care costs, an aging population and a refusal by lawmakers to face the inescapable need to raise taxes at some point. Rather, it defers those critical issues, in hopes, we assume, that both the economy and the political environment will improve in the future.”
This kind of thing should not be buried in the editorial pages. This should be the headlines, maybe then something would get done. Why the press doesn’t have the guts to take on the real problems and possibly sink the president in the process is what JDM refers to as “white gloves”. It makes no sense to many people.
Paul – I don’t know why you keep saying the president is unwilling to deal with entitlements. He and Boehner worked out a deal that Boehner couldnt sell to his republicans. The deal included raising some taxes as well as “entitlement reform”.
Saying Obama is unwilling to address entitlements is just factually incorrect. What he is unwilling to do is address them without also addressing taxes.
Obama has put significant entitlement cuts and reform on the table… but in return he asked for tax increases on the wealthy and the closing of corporate loopholes. Several of these deals have been offered to the GOP (including the one Boehner accepted but could not get the votes for). They were rejected NOT because they lacked entitlement reform, but because the GOP refuses to budge even an inch on the tax issue. The same thing just played out in the super committee.
This is ridiculous. The senate would never allow the entitlement cuts that the president “put on the table”. So let’s be honest those proposals were just a scam.
Paul – the senate democrats offered the same deal in the supercommittee. Again the republicans couldnt do it. you are wrong about this.
Pete, the “super commitee”was a different thing. The committee had many solid recommendations that the administration chose to ignore for political reasons.
The presidents new mantra is “tax the fat cats” and all our problems will be solved. Class warfare is the way to get the base to the polls that is the number one priority right now.
Two cents,
I think it denigrates the actual true suffering and heroism of the people in the Middle East who are standing up and dying to overthrow true dictatorships; to compare them to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
We have a democracy they don’t. Our democracy needs a little work I agree but there is no comparison to the totalitarian systems that rule much of the Middle East today.
Obama is killing people at war with us, something that Bush should have done from the beginning instead of waging war on an entire country of people that were not at war with us. What Obama is doing with the use of drones and the targeted killing of enemy leaders is fully justified, it is in fact how we would define a just war. Versus an unjust war such as Iraq and what we are doing by occupying Afghanistan.
mervel,
you misunderstood my point.
no, no one from Occupy have self immolated themselves.
Is that what it takes in a Democracy for the point to be made? That’s what it took in the Middle East. A common man, a vendor got tired of permit bureaucracy. Simple.
The opression felt by one group or another is all relative
When in the Middle East we support it, when in Manhattan we chase them off the streets. Hypocritical, especially in a Democracy.
The Dictatorships were a result of the Allies and the end of WWII attempt at correcting colonialism, and dividing up the spoils of war.
Those chickens came home to roost 60 some odd years later, after the generation that fought that war are nearly all gone from the face of the Earth. Yeah that seems about right for me for times to change, if i were a Middle East-er.
It seems right for changes here too. Does a protester have to die, or kill to be taken more seriously than a hippie drum circle?
As far as Obama vs. Bush tactics– i’m with you all the way.
Bush had no plan past earning Halliburton millions and millions.
He acted like the stereotypical, all hat and no cow Texican. All mouth as it turned out. That is what i think is disrespecful of suffering and heroism.
If Obama did anything right, is was killing enemy leaders, he gets a free pass from me on that alone. Bush gets nothing but my contempt.
How many of our Politicians have/had children serving in Afghanistan or Iraq?
The Democrats control the Senate? A body that requires a 60 vote majority with regard to a great deal of its legislation? I wasn’t aware the Dems held 60 seats. When did this happen?
Two cents I think our Vice President’s son served in Iraq and there are several members of congress who have children in the Military, but not many.
Anyway I don’t know what it takes actually, I think it takes a true movement of the majority of people in one direction, in the Middle East that happened in some of those countries. I don’t think Occupy right now, has that wide of appeal, but maybe soon? Another 5 years of this recession or worse and yes I think we will see some major cracks in our society and government.