An audacious 'Forward'

David Ignatius rather uncharacteristically demands to see, for a change, some presidential guns blazing:

It’s depressing that after four years of gridlock, a president who won what was supposed to be a decisive election is back once again to the politics of gridlock. That’s bad for Obama but worse for the country. Obama can still be the strong, successful president the country needs — but not unless he lifts his game.

How? Ignatius' final but foremost (in my opinion) recommendation is that Obama "communicate his vision forcefully to the country, governing over Congress’s head as Ronald Reagan did, if necessary."

There's no "if" about it. The necessity is overwhelming and enormously urgent.

Naturally, no one with even a dram of humanitarian blood wanted to see, say, unemployment benefits interrupted for days or possibly weeks. Yet just as presidents for some higher cause must send men and women to their certain doom in war, presidents must also weigh the tremendous advantages of short-term gains in domestic legislation against that legislation's abiding, long-term evils. He must say No--clearly, forcefully, and absolutely, for the nation's higher cause, no matter the acute pain. Yet Obama, in his most powerful circumstances yet, refused to "govern over Congress's head" and instead chose "No" to momentary agony; and so in the years to come, we--especially the already disadvantaged--shall quite literally pay for it.

What's worse, Republicans--just two months ago, pretty much the "late" Republicans--smell blood, which means there will now be lots more spilled than was otherwise necessary.

It's far from too late. Obama can yet reclaim his title to a great or near-great presidency. But first he'll need to out-audacity the audacious Republicans.

Comments

[cat]

Just another 4yrs of everyone wondering why Obama can't get the Gop to behave. Quite tiresome. The Gop White Mob of Men is all over TV this a.m. threatening to usurp prez power. Sign this Bill or Default. Maybe he should send a SWAT Team to deal with them. I'm glad he's in Hawaii w/his family.

[Betsy]

This is just ridiculous. President Obama has been campaigning on his vision for the country, where NO ONE gets left behind, for a long, long time. To that end, he is doing a good job. I am also glad he gets to finish his holiday in Hawaii with his family.

[Smartypants]

The lunacy of your approach is revealed when you go the next step in what you are suggesting. What you want us to believe is that if Obama just said "NO" the party of "no" would simply back down and/or go away. That's nothing but fantasy fueled by built-up testosterone.

What you're advocating is a lose/lose strategy.

[AnneJ]

Why doesn't Obama in negotiating with these knuckledraggers over fiscal cliffs and debt ceilings, when republicans say they want cuts to medicare and s.s, Obama should just go make a speech somewhere and say "Hey, just so you know, the republicans want to cut medicare and social security or they will default on our debts and devastate the world economy. Why don't you call your congressman's office and let them know what you think". He's always been good at taking it to the public before, why doesn't he do that again? Make it clear who is the one who wants unpopular cuts to popular programs? And another thing, why aren't what's left of the moderate republicans taking charge and putting the screws to those teabaggers in their own party? I know they are afraid of primary challengers, but why can't they go to their constituents and say "If you nominate this extremist, he/she will only lose to a democrat in the general election". Are they that afraid that their own voters won't get it? Come on, there has got to be a way, this country needs action now!

[Beulahmo]

AnneJ, I'm certain that's part of the plan -- taking it to the people -- and offering to extend his increasing public approval to shelter so-called moderate GOPers who will agree to join him in overcoming the mindless obstruction(while simultaneously threatening their public approval if they continue to enable the maniacs).

[japa21]

I am going to be very interested in two things in the upcoming weeks. The inaugural address and the State of the Uhion address. This is when Obama can start lowering the boom. These two events are when he will have a pretty decent share of the population watching him.

Since a) I don't think the fiscal cliff deal was as awful as some on the left believe and almost all on the right believe and b)what PM is referring to here is best done on those stages, I am going to withhold judgement until afterwards.

I would hope he makes strong statements on the debt ceiling and the three programs on the right's target list, SS, MC and MA. If he doesn't, or if he gives reason to believe he will actually accept BENEFIT cuts to any of those, I will be right there with PM.

[Turgidson]

Even supposedly politically-savvy observers seem to think Obama can just sorta ignore one of the branches of Congress, I guess.

I'm on record agreeing that I think Obama's negotiating strategy was suboptimal. But I simply don't see how he can ignore the House GOP and enact his preferred agenda. Putting pressure on these knuckledraaggers doesn't work like it may have worked for Reagan or other presidents. They consider it a badge of honor to oppose Obama, no matter how stupid they look to non-teabaggers. And all these commentators saying Obama broke them on taxes and that there is now a center coalition that will vote to get stuff done are high, in my view. One split GOP vote doesn't portend dozens more. They'll go right back to being a wall of blind idiocy, just watch.

I voted for Obama realizing that this dynamic was likely to persist. It sucks, but this nation will reap the whirlwind for its 2010 folly for some time to come. I voted for Obama and hoped for a hold in the Senate more for the sane judicial appointments, executive branch policies, and a sane foreign policy.

[JTL]

Assuming that the current incarnation of the GOP isn't going to become any more amenable to actually playing a part in governing the country, maybe the only option is to make slow forward progress, while ensuring that the GOP look as silly as possible at every turn. Might that be the strategy?

As much as I would like to see the President amp up the aggressive rhetoric, the minute he does that he loses the "Mr. Reasonable" label, which the media will be only too happy to blame (at least in part - i.e., "both sides do it") for any ensuing failures. Hasn't his preferred tactic ALWAYS been to "keep calm and carry on" and let his opponent(s) self-destruct?

[Beulahmo]

JTL,

Though I hate resigning myself to it, I agree with your take. I just keep wondering why in HELL the majority of Americans keep tolerating these jackasses. We need motivated, angry voters to stand up to them, and put on the kind of town hall shows we saw back in '09.

[JTL]

I don't think the majority of Americans do tolerate them based on the current approval numbers and the recent popular vote for the House. However, many of those who are disappointed are likely moderates who are unwilling to loudly vocalize their displeasure. Plus gerrymandered districts make it hard to dislodge a lot of the problem politicians even in the face of public discontent.

[Ted Frier]

I think the sort of audacious strategy professor Carpenter has in mind would be for Obama to do something like using his marvelous reelection machine to raise money for the unemployed rather than allow the GOP to trade a one year extension of unemployment insurance for a permanent cut in taxes for people making close to half a million a year. You are only as strong as your weakest link and Obama's weakness is the way he keeps letting Republicans use the jobless against him. It's admirable on the President's part and, frankly, I don't really see how he could do any different. But the need to act responsibly, and on behalf of the weakest in our society, is always what disadvantages those who take on extremists like they've got in the GOP.

[JD]

Why does everyone assume that the bully pulpit will be effective in affecting public opinion let alone Congressional Republican opinion? There's simply no evidence to support this. Remember the "American Jobs Act"? Obama put everything in his power behind that and absolutely nothing happened.

[Beulahmo]

JD--

I don't assume the bully pulpit is especially effective. It's just that my jaw is on the floor and I keep thinking there just *has* to be a point at which the public's inertia breaks. I confess I'm not especially optimistic about that, though. :(( It's frustration and desperation that drive my thoughts at this point.

[JD]

I understand and share your frustrations completely. It is important for people to realize that PBO simply isn't going to change minds in the US Congress via the "bully pulpit". Public opinion will change through revulsion at GOP tactics and then MAYBE you'll see a little movement in Congress.

People (especially on the left) seem to think that if Pres. Obama simply "stands up to the Republicans" they will back down and public opinion will go in the president's direction. There is no evidence to support this and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that his approval ratings would improve in the worsened economic climate that would ensue were we to go over the cliff.

That said, I'm as frustrated as everyone here and hope that things work out so that the GOP is ineffective at blackmailing the country in March. I'm inclined to trust Pres. Obama but am still nervous.