Even before all the votes were counted in Scott Brown's special election victory over the Democrat machine's Senate candidate in Massachusetts, some Senate Democrats who value their political survival more than Barack Obama's ideological agenda ran for the middle. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania signaled a desire to turn away from the toxic issue of healthcare and towards jobs creation in order to appeal to independents like those who voted heavily for Scott Brown. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland expressed similar sentiments, suggesting that Congress should move on to more do-able issues with clearly defined "finish lines."
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh was blunter than most. He famously said that "if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.” Bayh also worried some in his party would be in denial about the results, which would "lead to even further catastrophe" for the Democrats.
For a minue and a half I worried that the Obama Administration, Democrat strategists and Congressional leaders might heed the warnings of Bayh, et al. and plot a "course correction," as the pundits call it. I knew that in the run up to the Massachusetts election administration insiders promised that whatever the results Obama would "double down" and move his agenda forward. But I figured that was political posturing designed to buck up their voter base, and that in the cold light of day Obama's advisers would be channeling Dick Morris, the godfather of Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy of 1995-96.
I needn't have worried. Even as the squishy moderate Democrats headed for the hills, other voices called for a "damn the torpedoes" strategy. South Carolina Democrat Party Chair Carol Fowler called for a greater effort to"hold Republicans accountable for objecting to the Democrats plans." The Democrat governor of Delaware cited a failure on the Democrat's part to "be responsive," and called for the party to "do something." Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell--typecast by the media as a pragmatist--called those claiming that the loss of the Ted Kennedy seat was a defeat for the President's agenda as "just wrong." Oh happy day, I thought, they are this stupid.
The piece de resistance was President Obama himself telling ABC's George Stephanopolous the night after the election that what swept Scott Brown into office was the same populist anger that swept him--Obama--into office a year earlier. According to the president, anger at what has been happening to the country the past eight years--that would be the Bush years--accounted for the Republican victory in Massachusetts. Get it?
Within days a meme developed among the liberal chattering classes. The problem isn't Obama's policies, they said, it's his style and demeanor. Words like "narrative" and "messaging" began to appear with remarkable frequency and consistency. John Heilemann in New York magazine suggested that Obama failed to "provide a compelling explanatory framework" for his ambitious policy agenda. If only the White House had produced an "overarching argument at once coherent and compelling" to the American public, all would be coming up roses today.
Columnist E.J. Dionne asserted that by failing to offer a "coherent Democrat narrative" independents were "confused" by Republican mischaracterizations of Obama's goals. Obama's "soothing pragmatism" is in direct contradiction to his desire for sweeping political change. Dionne's prescription for undoing the damage is for Obama to resolve his inner contradictions and "come out fighting."
Other liberals took up the populist "fight" cudgel. William Greider of the leftist magazine "The Nation," advised Obama, among other things to "clear out the cobwebs" of his policy aspirations and take on the establishment. Go toe-to-toe with the political forces opposing you, lectured Greider, and urge the people to join you in "the fight."
By Friday of last week, Obama had swallowed this line of reasoning whole. In Ohio, striking a defiant "no retreat, no surrender" tone, according to the Seattle Times, he promised to "never stop fighting" for his domestic agenda of jobs, homes, education, and banking overhaul. He acknowledged the "fear and anxiety" that his healthcare legislation had created, but insisted that it has to pass nonetheless.
And on Sunday, Obama sent three of his top officials to the Sunday talk shows to demonstrate to the American people just how out of touch the president is. Robert Gibbs, the press spokesman, insisted that we ignore the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate race and instead look at exit polls that suggest Obama's agenda is still popular. David Axelrod, the strategist, asserted that the voters of Massachusetts "don't want us to walk away from health care" and want Scott Brown to not be obstructionist." Valerie Jarrett, the president's close pal from Chicago, said that the Massachusetts results show not that the president needs to change his priorities but that people are "sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them."
Its not yet been a week since the political earthquake in Massachusetts rocked the nation's entire political calculus. It is possible that Team Obama's new faux populism will soon fade to conciliation and compromise once the political fallout settles. But all signs suggest that the Obama administration will only increase the pressure on Congress to pass his radical agenda, even if this means turning his guns on members of his own party.
If Obama pursues this course he will become increasingly isolated from the rank and file of his own party, who will pay for his hubris at the ballot box this November. As even Nancy Pelosi is signaling, Members don't have the stomach for more death-defying feats of sausage-making after Massachusetts. The question is how Obama will react when he cannot persuade a recalcitrant Congress to pass any significant items of his agenda.
Some predict he will finally capitulate and adopt a more centrist governing strategy to save his party from ruin in November, but I am not convinced. Barack Obama is petulant, arrogant and shallow, and I think he will lash out at those--especially fellow Democrats- who stand in the way of progress, as he understands it. He will attempt to obtain by fiat what he cannot achieve through consensus, testing the limits of executive power.
This will throw Democrats into an even deeper crisis than they are in now, which is obviously good news for Republican electoral prospects. But it may also do real damage to the country in the process, which is not good news for the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment