The Guardian had an interesting article regarding Obama's job performance as president thus far: This isn't a conservative hit piece, the author even states that he thinks Obama still has the potential to be a good or even great president. However, he says that, thus far, the Obama administration has done a "lousy" job. He suggests the following potential explanations: 1. Campaigns are easier than governing. Not to be discounted. Campaigns are hard, but governing is harder. You're actually responsible for stuff, and that stuff sticks to you more. Takes a while to figure that out. 2. They were overwhelmed by events. They didn't understand quite how bad things were going to be. Actual conditions, I mean: the economy, Afghanistan, unexpected things like the oil spill. 3. They didn't expect the partisan onslaught. I didn't either, so I have a basic sympathy with this error, but I also think it should have been evident long ago that error it was, and adjustments made accordingly. 4. It's about personnel. David Plouffe was on the campaign but isn't in the White House. Rahm Emanuel is, but wasn't on the campaign. And there are other personnel differences. Maybe these are key. 5. It's Obama himself. Ah, the conservatives will say...ding ding ding ding ding. But I really don't think so. He's a plenty smart man. His instincts haven't often seemed great, but hey, they did get him this far, which is far. 6. Maybe they didn't really run such a great campaign and were overrated from the start. Yes, I'm warming to this one. After all, they didn't have to run a brilliant campaign, they just had to run the best of three campaigns, the other two being Clinton's and McCain's, and those were both pretty bad, McCain's especially. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/aug/27/obama-administrationSo what do you think? Obama swept into office on a theme of hope and change and enjoyed broad public support and an extremely high approval rating. Now his approval rating is dropping like a rock and his party faces an electoral disaster in the upcoming November elections. What's his problem?
I think his problem is that he's rational and intelligent, which doesn't preclude the odd stupid mistake. The biggest problem he has is that America just doesn't do good rational or intelligent anything. He needs to morph into a fire-breathing evangelist, start telling everyone what God told him last night, how rich they'll all be one day, etc.
Leadership I would counter that his problem is that he's trying to be everyone's president. And while this is implicit of the office, President Obama seems to have failed to figure out just how many people don't want him to be their president. For instance, he has certainly tackled many of the issues he said he would. But in doing so, he seems to have favored a "centrist" or "bipartisan" approach. This is problematic on at least two levels. First, we must accept that centrism and bipartisanship led us into Iraq, built the economic systems that led us to the current crisis, disdain civil rights, watered down the health reform effort, failed to close Guantanamo, excuses and encourages torture, and fears taking any genuine risks. Many might despise Republicans for their outlook on public opinion, which ranges somewhere between apathy and belligerence. Indeed, the temerity of some GOP arguments is very nearly shocking. But Democrats, by contrast, are so eager to please everyone that, while we might complain of conservative corruption, we cannot ignore Democratic incompetence. At least with the GOP, we know where they stand and what they intend to do. As a result of his desperate attempts to appease those factions that simply will not be appeased, Obama has alienated his core support, fractured the Democrats' electoral base into more pieces than necessary, and now faces an energetic opposition driven by xenophobic paranoia and shallow, partisan hatred while hoping to rely on Democratic supporters who will grudgingly give him their approval because the most likely alternatives are even worse. This is hardly a recipe for success at the ballot box. One wonders if the Obama we see next year will look much like the man we've seen thus far. A drubbing at the ballot box will force a reconsideration of approach. Perhaps it is time to dump the Axelrods and Jarretts, and replace Robert Gibbs with someone who can at least suggest by his tone and posture that he believes the bullshit he is feeding us. And, certainly, the president needs to stop calculating his punches after an intractable opposition; he just needs to tear McConnell, Boehner, and the like new assholes. The best we might suggest is that an honest effort has run awry in the tempestuous winds of a vicious Beltway storm, but that would be laughable for suggesting there is any significant honesty left in American politics. I suppose it might be easier to simply say that Obama and the Democrats alike need to start living up to their liberal reputations. It would be one thing if Obama stood up to lead and met genuine resistance, but he buckled to dissent within his own party's ranks long ago. It's fair to question his leadership insofar as he has shown very little.
I mentioned this to my father. Bush and Clinton didn't obsess so much about their opponents (well, they probably did, but still followed their ideological path), but Obama seems to want to be everybody's president and alienate no one. While I don't want a good chunk of his concepts to be implemented, I just wish he would just pick a "thing" and run with it. He seems to waffle a bit much. At first I thought all that intellectual introspection was a good thing. . . now I realize it's making him indecisive. He so obsessed with every American that the entire country is getting lost in the process. ~String
Its a long time between now and November, and in this fast declining economic atmosphere...I don't know. Those that propose taxing the wealthy, against those who insist constructing slave work-camps and lower wages/hours for the working class. The greater number of voters that show up at the polls will determine the outcome. This next three months are going to be a wild ride, as the housing debacle is breaching as we speak. I doubt we have a month before some real concerns appear. (My money's on the worried working man--their numbers of affected allies completely overwhelm the number of wealthy and their cohorts). The great showdown is about to commence. Get your popcorn.
I think you have to give credit to President Obama for doing some very amazing things. He delivered healthcare reform - although it was greatly watered down. He delivered reform of the nations financial institutions - although it was watered down. He did deliver a stimulus bill - althought it was greatly watered down. Do you see a trend? I have to agree with Tiassa. Obama wasted a lot of time and political capital trying to appease Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers - those people who were not going to be appeased at any cost and had no real solutions to the nations ills. In the process of appeasement/bipartisanship President Obama lost a lot of time and much of his political support. Appeasement him look weak and he has failed to keep the enthusiasm of the nation and his policies were not as effective as they otherwise would have been. The real question now is can President Obama recover? The jury is out on that one.
Obama's problem is simple: ________ Okay, probably not. I was about to use the "u" word, but at the risk of riling certain people, I'll use the "p" word. Puppet. He's probably got blackmail issues, amongst other problems. The more mundane of those problems would be the extreme divide between the two acceptable Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! parties, as well as the fractures within those sides. And also the growing numbers of people who are refusing to wear the mantle of Democrat or Republican, or who eschew even the liberal or conservative labels. And add to that the growing discord between the lower classes and the elite, upper classes.
Thank you sciforums, for you unavailability at the time I posted, which ensured that two copies of my post would be presented to the forum.
This and That The real question, come November, is how the voters will regard such issues. If we gamble on history—usually a fairly safe bet in this context—voters will direct their anger toward the party in power. In addition to what some might rightly accuse as Obama's failure to lead, the Democrats simply haven't helped themselves any under the Congressional leadership of Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi. Ideally, this should be the year of the third party. That is, if everyone who spent their vote on a Democrat or Republican because they thought a third-party vote is futile would actually support an alternative candidate, well, those votes probably wouldn't be wasted. Of course, it would probably help if the Greens or Libertarians put up viable candidates; it is doubtful the Socialist Equality Party ever will. A Republican victory in November will force that recovery even if it doesn't change the overall balance of power in Congress. A respectable Democratic defense will only encourage more of the same. A genuine Democratic victory—the least likely outcome—could give them the majority they need, and we might then finally see them get some courage from the wizard. Of course, that's even less likely than a victory in itself. • • • Something about forests and trees comes to mind, for certain.
I think the author of the article referenced in the OP came up with some excellent points in his list: 1. Campaigns are easier than governing. Obama seemed great as a candidate, but when you actually have to govern you can no longer be all things to all people. Each and every choice you make alienates someone. The soaring rhetoric of a campaign that appeals to almost everyone doesn't necessarily translate into policy that does the same. 2. They were overwhelmed by events. This also makes sense. In his quest to accomplish everything on the liberal to do list, Obama largely ignored the elephant in the room: the faltering economy. He passes the stimulus package and then pretty much moved on. 3. They didn't expect the partisan onslaught. What happened here is that many on the Left vastly overestimated the significance of the 2008 election. They seemed to believe it represented a fundamental shift to the left among the US electorate. That the public was finally on their side. But what it actually represented was an electorate tired of George W. Bush, fascinated at the prospect of the first serious black presidential candidate, and influenced by the economy imploding at the perfect moment. With that misconception in mind, the Obama administration didn't spend enough time and effort selling their ideas and so were caught off guard by the massive backlash his proposals engendered. 4. It's about personnel. David Plouffe was on the campaign but isn't in the White House. Rahm Emanuel is, but wasn't on the campaign. And there are other personnel differences. Maybe these are key. I don't know much about these specific individuals, but I will say that the Obama administration is sorely lacking in people with experience in the private sector. 5. It's Obama himself. Obama may be a smart man, but I think he lacks the experience necessary to lead the United States. What on his resume would suggest he was ready to serve as president? 6. Maybe they didn't really run such a great campaign and were overrated from the start. Like the author, I'm also partial to this one. McCain ran a pretty lousy campaign and simply appeared to be the grumpy old man running against the dynamic young guy who represented "faith and hope". Throw in Bush fatigue and the economy imploding at just the right moment and Obama didn't need to be that great a candidate to beat McCain.
Obama viewed himself as a transititonal president. Obama, once in office, tried to carry out his campaign promises. But he got bogged down trying to appease Republicans. He tried to be a president of all the people...a nobel goal. But in a world where the news is no longer fair and balanced. It is political sucide to try to be a president of all the people. What matters most is execution. Given the grave situation the nation was in following the reign of george II and his merry band of Republicans, who would not be overwhelmed? The Obama administration did not just pass stimulus and move on, they have been actively involved in creating jobs and turning the economy around since taking office. But as previously pointed out, they took too long in executing the solution...too long pandering to the right when they had no chance in hell of suceeding with the right wing extremists. Yes they definately failed to deal with the Republican onslaught and they should have expected it. Durring the Clinton presidency, Republicans accused him of everything including murder and spent 40 million dollars of public money trying to dig up smut on the guy. Republicans are only interested in power and without fair and balanced reporting, you can never let you guard down. President Obama expected Republicans to act in good faith and in the interests of the nation...a dream which will never happen. You mean like the ones george II and his merry band of Republicans brought in and caused this crisis? Back to the Republican campaign attacks of 2008 I see. McCain was a bad candidate. I don't think McCain appeared grumpy, but he definately appeared incompentent. He was all over the map on every issues and his answers/policies never made any sense. McCain was trying to appease an increasingly extremist radical party that was rapidly making itself unable to govern should it receive power in 2009. Given the grave situation the nation was in when Obama and his Democrats took power, things have gone extraordinarly well. The nation is no longer loosing almost a million jobs a month as it was when Obama came to the presidency and in fact it is adding private sector jobs - something george II was never able to do. TARP money is getting repaid. The auto industry bailout is getting paid back. So Obama has done much. But it could have been done much better had he expected the extremist Republican onslaught and effectively dealt with it rather than try to appease them. The other problem and perhaps the most important problem is that the key issues the Obama adminstration faces are not issues that are easily solved by the end of the next news cycle. An economic and fiscal crisis of this magnitude is not something that is solved in a month or even a year. Using history as a guide, these recoveries can take upwards of 10 years. That is something the Obama adminstration had little control over. It is going to take years to restore integrity into to the nations public finances. Heatlhcare reform is going to tak 3.5 years to implement. So while Obama has implemented some potent solutions for the nations ills, the cure takes longer than than a day, a week, a month or even years.
Critically essential "Media" profits off of expensive campaigns, constraining the main focus of the governing process to that goal. Catch 22: Campaign funding reform requires a government ALREADY free of campaign funding requirements. This underlying relation to the benefactors of campaign funds, allows special interests to promote both parties simultaneously, making an inefficient party system obsolescent in its redundancy. One can either remove the party system entirely, or restrict profits of entities that have so much profit (to throw around), that they can influence all parties. If there's too much money floating around Washington, somebodies not being taxed enough.
Convincing someone who is ignorant that you know how to run a nuclear power plant is much easier than actually running a nuclear power plant.
And some of those points are appropriate I would go with points 2-4. Part of the problem with the faltering economy, though, is that it ties into so many other things going on. Without serious financial reform, dramatic health care reform, and a massive reduction in our wartime expenditures, we can't really begin to put the economy back on track. Maybe we can put a bandage on the lesion, but the underlying cancer remains. The partisan onslaught is a difficult issue. To the one, yes, the administration should have expected it. But the dignity of office sometimes precludes the cynicism pervading society at large. I still think back to the eighties, when my Republican father lit me up because of things I said about Reagan. Well, it turns out the sort of things you're not supposed to say about "good men trying their best" only apply to Republicans. That is, when a Democrat is in the White House, those rules go out the window. Anyone paying attention should have seen it coming, and the only real question over the long run is largely irrelevant: Why is this sort of shit acceptable? There are definitely personnel problems. Signing on star power like Rahm Emanuel is one thing. Attempting bipartisanship with appointments like former Rep. Ray LaHood (Transportation) or Mary Shapiro (SEC) is one thing. The choice for continuity during wartime, as we saw in the retention of Defense Secretary Robert Gates is one thing. Appointing competent people is quite another. Inside the Beltway we find a strange realm where longevity and job security have nothing to do with competence. That isn't to say that these people are necessarily incompetent, but they are, after a manner of speaking, career bureaucrats with some degree of star power. In Hollywood terms, who had heard of Anna Paquin before she snagged an Academy Award for her performance in The Piano? This is a conundrum of American politics that will probably never find resolution. The people get frustrated at the seasoned professional politicians, but they are afraid of greenhorns who "lack experience". Just what experience do they lack? Okay, yeah, that's kind of obvious: foreign policy, public management, and so on. But concomitant to those skills seem everythng people don't like about experienced politicians. Obama is smart enough that we can say he understood the implications of certain choices he made. The question is whether he is willing to play the role to the hilt, and what he thinks is at stake if he does. In truth, he may go down in history like Carter—a good man, but the wrong man for the time. Then again, had he chosen a bolder route, history might say that he was reckless like Reagan, eccentric like Clinton, or a hamfisted moron like Bush, Jr. When did we last have a truly good president according to the Constitutional outline? Certainly, not during my lifetime. Nixon was corrupt, Ford struggled to keep his head above water, Carter is obscured behind the dusts of disaster, Reagan was snide and either arrogant or simply senile, Poppy Bush weak, Clinton a sideshow unto himself, and Dubya Bush a violative, nearly insidious idiot. Really, of that list, Carter, Bush Sr., and Clinton are the best votes, and there is plenty that crosses them off the list. The problem for the American people, of course, is that they wouldn't recognize a president of truly constitutional dimensions; at best they would ridicule weakness or, more likely, revile it. And, indeed, Obama has thus far failed to adapt to the realities of the American electorate. This may not be a matter of inexperience, but, rather, a stubborn determination to set an example that people are, for myriad reasons, bound to miss.
Here's a sign of how far Obama has fallen, a recent poll in Ohio shows that voters there would prefer to have George W. Bush back as president over Barack Obama by a 50 to 42 margin. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html This may make the Democrats ongoing strategy of blaming Bush a bit of a hard sell.
economic reality has been a hard sell in Ohio for decades now. Not even Wal Mart's gutting of their communities has raised the curtain.
