Obama's tragedy of conventional political wisdom

I don't wish to pick on Jonathan Chait, whose writing I always admire and whose analysis I usually find flawless. But his post-SOTU piece picks up in casual error where his pre-SOTU piece left off, and I can't let it silently pass. Here's Chait's gist:  

President Obama devoted his State of the Union address to the economy for a simple reason: Americans think he needs to spend more time talking about the economy. They think that because they lack a detailed understanding of the situation in Washington. Obama’s speech was an extended attempt to humor their naivete.

A completely honest Obama speech about the economy would concede that he is nearly helpless to spur economic growth given the need to obtain consent from a Congressional party whose political interest lies in thwarting it. But he would be an idiot to say that. Americans tend to hold Obama accountable even for the actions of Congressional Republicans that lie beyond his control....

Obama’s greatest political puzzle, for the entire duration of his presidency, has been the ability of conservatives in Congress to block recovery proposals while foisting the blame for the consequences onto him. He’s tried to crack this many times, with little success. The main solution available to him is for the economy to recover without much help from Washington. In the meantime, his best course of action is simply to talk about plans to help the economy as much as he can.

Where to start. How about with Americans' "lack [of] a detailed understanding of the situation in Washington"? They don't need one. For the situation is witheringly simple, straightforward and unidimensional: Republicans are screwing Obama and everyone else but themselves.

That's the kind of "complete honesty" from the president that is most needed. Yes, some progress was made in economic recovery via the early stimulus package, which was monolithically opposed by Republicans, and some progress persists due to the natural upswings of a post-recessionary recovery. But drags on that recovery (and Chait reviews all of this) have been maliciously imposed by Republican pols feathering their little red nests, and they don't give a damn how many Americans it hurts. In fact, others' pain makes their day. Just an honest observation.   

I note with interest that "Obama's greatest political puzzle" is the one Republicans long ago solved for themselves. There's no magic involved here; they have rather simply pounded away at Obama's weak recovery. Franklin Roosevelt was confronted with the selfsame malicious negativity and hypocritical hogwash, yet he more or less sustained public approval by never letting the electorate forget just who the problem-solvers were--and who the problem-creators were. FDR delighted in such reminders, as did the populace.

Old-fashioned, old-school politics. That's what FDR practiced. And it worked. In any sport, one must remember the fundamentals.

Yet the only fundamental now fashionable among many of Obama's more ardent defenders is that the most powerful man on earth--a man with the world's largest megaphone and a stable of speechwriters and a veritable army of political hitmen at his disposal--is somehow helpless against a scattering of ... Louie Gohmerts. 

I happen to be one of Obama's more ardent defenders myself. But I don't buy into the above sort of victimhood. Obama has nine months to scrap and fight and be "completely honest" with every potential voter who doesn't yet comprehend "the situation in Washington." It's that, or the end of his presidency.

This is his call, not the GOP's. 

 

Comments

[Turgidson]

For as much as Obama and his team have talked about ignoring the conventional wisdom, I think it's clear that his advisors have come to believe that Morning Joe and his braindead ilk have outsize ability to influence public opinion.

So they have internalized the notion that Obama blaming the GOP for the lack of progress will make him look like he's making excuses, failing to lead, being partisan, all of the fatuous nonsense Fournier and his pals cram into their "Obama sinking" missives.

So we get last night's Obama. Damning the GOP's obstruction indirectly and obliquely. Better than nothing, and more agreeable to the Village Idiot crowd, but probably not changing voter minds.

He's at the point (and has been for a while) where he has little to lose by simply calling it like it is and naming the GOP as the enemy of progress that it is. But much as I admire the president, I know he's probably not gonna do it in the stark terms I think are warranted.

[Peter G]

You would have a point if it were just the Republicans hammering disingenuously away. But it isn't. In fact I would go so far as to say it is disingenuous not to notice the left has been every bit as quick and eager to blame the president for that Republican obstruction and, moreover to suggest that the president is really cooperating in this obstruction as part of his larger plan to surrender to the forces of darkness. I see it every day. It is received wisdom now.

If you want to argue that the president needs to educate the left as well as the right, I'll agree. Which makes Chait 100 percent correct.

[Charlieford]

Two things: 1) The SOTU isn't really the place to go all David Banner. 2) Obama really and truly is a follower of Lincoln, who always sought to turn the opposition (even when they'd seceded!) and never ceased infuriating his radical critics.

[P.M. Carpenter]

As a politician and president, Lincoln was blessed by the South's secession. He didn't have all those idiots in Congess.

[Paul Smith]

I disagree. I think Obama and his advisors believe the economy will be improving over the next few years despite inaction by Congress. By saying he is "taking action" he can take credit for it. And I don't blame him.

[Peter G]

Now that is thinking outside the box. And true.