The last time a news show begun by giving a countdown of the number of days in a particular crisis was in 1979 when what we know now as Nightline first named America Held Hostage, was spawned by the taking of American Hostages in Iran. Not many in my generation will ever forget the raw images of American impotency as Ted Koppel provided nightly commentary on an event that many viewed as something that could never happen to a country as strong as powerful as ours. I think of that crisis and its coverage, and I am reminded of the current crisis in the gulf. Today, many observers especially those whose historical or political POV is either too stunted or too slanted to have perspective, rushed in to call the crisis in the gulf - President Obama’s Katrina. In either case whether shunted or slanted, the Katrina analogy is erroneous and for Obama supporters a dangerous miss-reading of history. It was the 22nd amendment, not Hurricane Katrina that ended the reign of George Bush. Now to be sure, President Bush was unpopular in 2008, as the Obama election was ultimately a referendum of the Bush government and the images of Katrina became an unseemly albatross around John McCain’s neck. Yet the expectations for George Bush were never high as he was viewed by many as an incompetent puppet.
Conversely, Barack Obama’s campaign spoke of a man of intelligence, cool under fire, brimming with confidence, and the capacity to deliver change – the Obama Administration would represent a sea change from Bush Administration on many levels, most importantly in the area of management, governance and competence. Hence, on the eve of the 2008 election General Colin Powell endorsed Candidate Obama on Meet the Press stating that Barack Obama possessed the “intellectual vigor” to lead the nation. I agreed with Colin Powell’s assessment, yet I also understood that then Senator Joe Biden was right, the next President would be tested, thus in my piece Why Obama I wrote:
“No American President will be able to inoculate themselves from the unknown and unforeseen threats whether they are foreign, domestic, or natural.”
Only time will tell if the best work of the Obama Administration will be able to inoculate him from the wrath of America which now obsesses over the gulf spill in the gulf. The vitriol stemming from this event leaves little doubt in my mind that as this crisis grows it could ultimately undermine the Obama Presidency. Already the Obama narrative of competence is threatened. The fortunes of American Presidents in times of crisis are often dependant on how America reacts in those moments. Two useful barometers to gauge the tenor and tone of our respond are our national psyche and the political climate as each crisis unfolds. For example, William Jefferson Clinton’s narrow escape from being convicted – let’s we forget he was impeached - lay in the fact Bill Clinton’s administration made us feel good as a country, the dot.com boom was in full swing, Wall Street was reaching dizzying new heights, and “Bubba” was charming, engaging - and human. Therefore we were willing to view his impeachment trial as a political witch hunt and not a “cancer” on the Presidency. Our obsession over the Lewinsky scandal was due more to our natural voyeuristic impulses than anything else.
Other Presidents have not been so fortunate. In March of 1968 after being humiliated in the New Hampshire Primary by an anti war candidate from his own party, Eugene McCarthy, and the ever present threat of a Robert Kennedy candidacy, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek his party’s nomination. The role of the media was critical in framing the debate. By the late sixties, the national media was no longer a benign political partner of the status quo, as whether by design or by accident, they became an instrument of peace. Americans were bombarded nightly as evening news continued to show images of American soldiers coming home in caskets. For young men and women to die in a far away country, in an undeclared war was too much for a proud nation to bear. And when the unimpeachable voice of them most “trusted” man in America Walter Conkrite turned on the Johnson Administration, it became clear that President Johnson’s prosecution of the Vietnam War challenged his capacity to lead so much so, that not even the domestic success of the Great Society could not save him.
While Afghanistan always has the potential to be President Obama’s Vietnam, yet, when I think of this current crisis facing the Obama Administration I am reminded not of Katrina or Vietnam but of the Iranian crisis that brought down the Carter Administration. American in 1979 was still wounded by Vietnam and Watergate. That pervasive sense of doom and gloom, coupled with yet another blow to our national ego, and our inability to resolve the issue confirmed for many that the well intended, and highly intelligent President Jimmy Carter was simply in over his head. As such three days after the Iranian Hostage crisis began Jimmy Carter, like the embattled Lyndon Johnson in 1968 faced an insurgent threat within his own party by the name of Teddy Kennedy. Jimmy Carter ultimately garnered his party’s nomination, but the damage was done, as in November of 1980, America turned to Ronald Reagan in hopes of restoring national pride.
At the beginning of the Obama Presidency there were comparisons to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. In making those comparisons, I wonder if we overlooked a more natural comparison to another outsider – James Earl Carter. Like Barack Obama, the country inherited by Jimmy Carter was still reeling from the malfeasance of prior administrations, a Middle East tinderbox and growing dependence on foreign oil. Like President Obama, Jimmy Carter brought to Washington a combination of insiders – holdovers from prior Democratic administrations, as well as many of his cronies from Georgia. Like Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter’s centrist approach angered liberals hankering for a reversal of Republican policies. Like Barack Obama, President Carter, was viewed as an intelligent, thoughtful alternative to his bumbling predecessor.
Yet what should set off alarm bells within the Obama White House, is that President Carter was undone by events outside of his control, and a perception that the office was too big for him. In the summer of 1979 President Carter gave a televised speech given from the Oval Office, a national address now maligned as the “Malaise” speech. Rather than inspiring confidence, President Carter’s words exacerbated the country’s declining self confidence. If that was not bad enough, on November 4th, 1979 the events that ultimately brought down the Carter Presidency took place far away in Tehran Iran. Inspired by the Iranian Holy man Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian students stormed the American embassy, holding several Americans hostage for 444 days. Those hostages were not released until Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn in January 20, 1981. The fact that the current oil spill crises draws parallels to a crisis which captivated a nation, became an incendiary national obsession, and created the impression of an impotent commander and chief should give President Barack Obama more than pause.
Like the daily images of the blindfolded hostages, that seared in the American psyche, the images of oil spewing from the gulf, and oil slicked wildlife, are creating a huge problem for Barack Obama. As in the times of President Carter, America is suffering through a major crisis of confidence. Beset by high unemployment, a shrinking middle class, the specter of the 21st century being dominated by Asia, massive debt and with a deteriorating ecosystem, fear abounds. In addition to natural fears that stem from an uncertain future, the combination of a toxic political system and unrelenting 24 hour media cycle makes it almost impossible for the Obama administration to stay ahead of the news curve and abate the negativity. Part of the tough sledding that team Obama faces is the reality that being President is worlds apart from running for it. They are learning what every President has to learn - the cheers of the campaign trail quickly give way to the tough world of real time governance. As such, the pace of governing is like the pace of campaigning on steroids. Never more so than in this new media world order, where news is dispensed at a rapid fire pace, and where rationality often gives way to paranoia. To be sure this barrage of criticism toward President Obama is in some ways unfair. Barack Obama inherited an oil regulatory system from a pro oil administration, as a result oil companies like BP were given free rein to do business with little threat of any serious government oversight. In addition, President Obama took office with a cornucopia of issues that included two wars, an economic meltdown, an automobile industry on life support, and a bevy of campaign promises to keep.
With all that realistically the best that President Obama could hope for was that his Energy and Interior Cabinets secretaries ran their shop efficiently, cleaned house from the largess of the prior administration, and by doing so – protect their principal. Now it is tragically clear the pace of change within those areas was not quick enough, and the scope of change not wide enough to prevent the BP disaster. In hindsight even a complete overhaul may not have stopped the oil spill from happening, unfortunately for President Obama the wisdom of hindsight usually comes too late to salvage damaged Presidencies.
Ironically in today’s inflamed current political climate, the country that rejected the cowboy tendencies of George Bush and John McCain seem to long for those days of shoot first and ask questions later. President Obama’s approach to many seemed tepid, and ineffective. His approach to have the “smartest guys” in the room to resolve the issue has gone over with the same impact of BP’s “top kill” strategy. The only concession that President Obama’s critics offer they don’t expect him to personally “go down there” and plug the leak. Beyond that back handed concession, the criticisms are wide and varied. First there are those who say his Administration acted to slowly, or that they trusted BP too much, or how the Obama Administration has consistently ignored assistance that was offered, or rejected advice from local gulf leaders, and finally President Obama was not mad enough. In short President Obama is failing to exercise leadership. Conversely when President Obama has acted, he was criticized for “shaking down” the oil companies, or that he is doing more harm than good with his moratorium on new deep water drilling, and when he gave his first Oval Office speech, and he was lambasted for lacking specificity. All complaints, deservedly or not, right or wrong, rational or irrational this underscores the danger that his administration faces.
President Obama has walked a political tightrope since his election in, as his centrist approach angered many on the left from the beginning – and from the right, and he has faced nothing short of obstructionism. As President Obama pushed forward with his agenda items often his change message failed to compete with the scare tactics from the right, and as the tea party movement grew, many independents begin to have second thoughts about their 2008 support for President Obama. Now comes the gulf oil crisis. In 1979 Jimmy Carter spoke to a nation looking for a confidence boost, they came away feeling more diminished, and eighteen months later he was “one and done”.
During the 2008 campaign Barack Obama worked extremely hard to combat the perception that he was unfit, too inexperienced, and too cerebral to be an effective leader. They were effective in turning that "weakness" on its head. By contrasting the "cool hand Luke persona of Barack Obama to the petulant impatient John McCain; the Obama campaign got a lot of currency on the issue of temperament. In the financial meltdown crisis that came in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse in what Colin Powell called the “final exam” candidate Obama’s nuanced approach was contrasted to what seemed to be “erratic” behavior by Senator John McCain. Now what worked in 2008, seems to be losing its appeal as the oil continues to gush. Barack Hussein Obama entered the Presidency with the winds of change at his sails, now he faces a crisis of confidence in his leadership, with unemployment numbers most certainly to be troublesome in 2012, unless Barack Obama generates a change in America’s perception of him, like James Earl Carter in 1980, Barack Hussein Obama may be headed for a “one and done” Presidency.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NEXT SPEECH
In 2008 with questions surrounding the Obama candidacy regarding the touchy issue of race, then candidate Barack Obama stirred a nation, with a defining speech in Philadelphia that for all practical purposes defused race as a potential wedge issue. The speech spoke to several audiences, but most importantly it energized his base and put to rest any thoughts that Mr. Obama would not be able to address a controversy head on. Fast forward to 2010, as President Obama’s first term has been marked with a series of crisis large and small, along with an emerging extremist “neo-neo” con movement whose vitriol is aimed at incumbent politicians, but also what they feel is a government that has grown too large. This anger predominantly from white Americans many who ironically are suffering due in large measure from the policies of the Bush Administration that many of them supported for eight years. This anger seemed to reach a boiling point late in 2008 during the closing days of the presidential campaign as Republican presidential nominee John McCain was forced to confront many angry supporters and remind them that Barack Obama a patriot and not a terrorist. Both the Republican Party, and those appalled by the prospect of a black man sitting in the oval office seemed to be chastened by President Obama’s historic election. Many commentators noted the scope of the election, which included the coalescing of coalition I labeled “Browner, Younger and Smarter”, and opined the Republican party was in the worse shape since the post Watergate days in the mid seventies.
Facing grim prospects, an aging and narrowing base, and three events would alter Republican strategy and breathe new life into the Grand Old Party. First the Obama Administration made the political risky decision to infuse billions of tax payer dollars to resuscitate the automobile industry with unprecedented tax dollars. Secondly, the Obama administration also made good on its campaign promise to provide relief via tax cuts and through the Economic Recovery Act of 2010, initiated several measures to provide relief via tax cuts, and stimulus payments aimed at assisting several states on the verge of bankruptcy. Third, in March of 2009 President Obama made good on another campaign promise as he embarked on the arduous journey to reform health care. During the summer of 2009 latent anger from the 2008 Presidential campaign found new life and a new targets, bailouts, and health care - as the opponents of health care both inside the Republican Party and within the insurance industry were more successful than the Obama Administration and the Democrats were in crafting the debate. As a result what evolved for the GOP and their right wing alter ego – The Tea Party was a strategy designed to break President Obama with their eyes on first 2010, but ultimately 2012. The foundation of that strategy was distrust for Washington, and the excessive size of government.
The irony of their position is it ignored the fact that much of the spending done by President Obama was needed to reverse the malfeasance of the prior administration - for example – they seem to ignore the dismantling of the Clinton surplus by the Bush Administration, and “born again” fiscal Conservatives in the Republican party seemed to forget their support for the Bush tax cuts and the Prescription Drug Bill that added to the debt, as well as the Bush Administration’s deception that led us into a costly war in Iraq. In addition they seem to be ignoring that much of the government’s loans have been repaid – with interest. Yet those on the right, selective amnesia notwithstanding have been successful in framing this debate which has had a deleterious effect on policy making in Washington. And as the mid-term elections got closer, the chasm between political parties have been exacerbated, fueled by the emerging Tea Party, and many moderate politicians from both parties, have been caught in the crossfire.
As this anti Washington narrative gains traction it could well pose a serious threat to the Obama re-election hopes. Assuming President Obama is able to secure his base, the key to an Obama re- election will be independent voters, who now, according to many polls have retreated toward the Republican Party. While many of those independent voters are dissatisfied to some degree with the Obama administration is not clear that a great majority of them have warmed to the Tea Party and/or those in the media on the extreme right who support them. If Barack Obama wants to win a second term, it will be those independent voters that he will need to woo. Wooing them will include changing the trajectory of the debate. Therefore, President Obama needs to have an open and frank discussion with the American public on his views with respect to the role of government in an increasingly complex world while at the same time out lining a clear vision on reducing the deficit.
But in this age where the ones who shout the loudest, gets America’s ear, Mr. Obama needs to go beyond defining the role of government; he needs to expose those in the shadows who are financially backing this anti government fervor. Since Barack Obama was sworn in he has inherited and/or been handed several major domestic crises. Yet if one traces the roots of these crises from the Wall Street meltdown, to the massive oil spill in the gulf – the common thread was lack of regulations which set in motion a series of events that have had negative implications for this country. Those who support the anti government agenda have long been in bed with major corporate interests, so it stands to reason they have a vested interest in confusing the debate. Those supporting corporate interests realize one of the implications of a smaller government is less regulations. And while President Obama probably won’t mention it publically, the fact that many news reports link the wealthy Koch Family, owners of Koch industries and long time supporter of right wing causes as major investors in the tea party should give more than pause. These allegations are not just the whisperings of left leaning bloggers, in August of 2009, The Washington Post reported those presumably “ad hoc” protests over health care were funded by big business supported coalition whose interests included thwarting health care, and banking reform. To say these many angry tea partiers are mere pawns in a chess game beyond their depth would be a colossus understatement.
The danger that the Obama Presidency faces is that for most of us perception is reality, and to allow a narrative that his Administration is fiscally irresponsible to go unchecked, may render Barack Obama a one term President. Therefore now more than ever President Obama needs to speak to the public and redirect this debate, in a manner that will serve him and his party well politically, but also serve to prepare America for a serious debate on what most certainly will be the most fundamental challenge of his next administration, and for administrations to follow. In addition, Mr. Obama needs to lay out the real hard data, for example according to the Congressional Budget Office, two thirds of the spending in the 2010 budget have the fingerprints of the Bush administration, meaning programs started by President Bush or started by President Bush and continued by President Obama, leaving only one third of the spending solely on the plate of President Obama. Yet more importantly, the pie chart of “mandatory spending” according to the Office of Management and Budget reveals most of the mandatory spending comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest piece of discretionary spending is on defense Mr. Obama should challenge those opposing big government by asking them is that where do they want the budget ax to start falling. In addition, in the aftermath of the Arizona immigration law many in that same anti government crowd want to blame the federal government for not developing a comprehensive immigration plan, so do they think the oversight of a complex bureaucracy tasked to do several things including managing the laws which will govern twelve million people can be done on the cheap?
The next few years will be decisive the role of government will be debated on several fronts, and the future of the next generation will be decided by the actions taken today. President Obama must lead that debate, and elevate the narrative to the plane of common sense, vision, and with clarity. To be clear, many on the far right are too far gone to embrace the truth about their cause, but for those Democrats running in the fall, President Obama’s words could become usable campaign talking points, and for those teetering independent voters, a dose of reason in a debate gone wild may be a deal maker or deal breaker for President Obama in 2012.
Facing grim prospects, an aging and narrowing base, and three events would alter Republican strategy and breathe new life into the Grand Old Party. First the Obama Administration made the political risky decision to infuse billions of tax payer dollars to resuscitate the automobile industry with unprecedented tax dollars. Secondly, the Obama administration also made good on its campaign promise to provide relief via tax cuts and through the Economic Recovery Act of 2010, initiated several measures to provide relief via tax cuts, and stimulus payments aimed at assisting several states on the verge of bankruptcy. Third, in March of 2009 President Obama made good on another campaign promise as he embarked on the arduous journey to reform health care. During the summer of 2009 latent anger from the 2008 Presidential campaign found new life and a new targets, bailouts, and health care - as the opponents of health care both inside the Republican Party and within the insurance industry were more successful than the Obama Administration and the Democrats were in crafting the debate. As a result what evolved for the GOP and their right wing alter ego – The Tea Party was a strategy designed to break President Obama with their eyes on first 2010, but ultimately 2012. The foundation of that strategy was distrust for Washington, and the excessive size of government.
The irony of their position is it ignored the fact that much of the spending done by President Obama was needed to reverse the malfeasance of the prior administration - for example – they seem to ignore the dismantling of the Clinton surplus by the Bush Administration, and “born again” fiscal Conservatives in the Republican party seemed to forget their support for the Bush tax cuts and the Prescription Drug Bill that added to the debt, as well as the Bush Administration’s deception that led us into a costly war in Iraq. In addition they seem to be ignoring that much of the government’s loans have been repaid – with interest. Yet those on the right, selective amnesia notwithstanding have been successful in framing this debate which has had a deleterious effect on policy making in Washington. And as the mid-term elections got closer, the chasm between political parties have been exacerbated, fueled by the emerging Tea Party, and many moderate politicians from both parties, have been caught in the crossfire.
As this anti Washington narrative gains traction it could well pose a serious threat to the Obama re-election hopes. Assuming President Obama is able to secure his base, the key to an Obama re- election will be independent voters, who now, according to many polls have retreated toward the Republican Party. While many of those independent voters are dissatisfied to some degree with the Obama administration is not clear that a great majority of them have warmed to the Tea Party and/or those in the media on the extreme right who support them. If Barack Obama wants to win a second term, it will be those independent voters that he will need to woo. Wooing them will include changing the trajectory of the debate. Therefore, President Obama needs to have an open and frank discussion with the American public on his views with respect to the role of government in an increasingly complex world while at the same time out lining a clear vision on reducing the deficit.
But in this age where the ones who shout the loudest, gets America’s ear, Mr. Obama needs to go beyond defining the role of government; he needs to expose those in the shadows who are financially backing this anti government fervor. Since Barack Obama was sworn in he has inherited and/or been handed several major domestic crises. Yet if one traces the roots of these crises from the Wall Street meltdown, to the massive oil spill in the gulf – the common thread was lack of regulations which set in motion a series of events that have had negative implications for this country. Those who support the anti government agenda have long been in bed with major corporate interests, so it stands to reason they have a vested interest in confusing the debate. Those supporting corporate interests realize one of the implications of a smaller government is less regulations. And while President Obama probably won’t mention it publically, the fact that many news reports link the wealthy Koch Family, owners of Koch industries and long time supporter of right wing causes as major investors in the tea party should give more than pause. These allegations are not just the whisperings of left leaning bloggers, in August of 2009, The Washington Post reported those presumably “ad hoc” protests over health care were funded by big business supported coalition whose interests included thwarting health care, and banking reform. To say these many angry tea partiers are mere pawns in a chess game beyond their depth would be a colossus understatement.
The danger that the Obama Presidency faces is that for most of us perception is reality, and to allow a narrative that his Administration is fiscally irresponsible to go unchecked, may render Barack Obama a one term President. Therefore now more than ever President Obama needs to speak to the public and redirect this debate, in a manner that will serve him and his party well politically, but also serve to prepare America for a serious debate on what most certainly will be the most fundamental challenge of his next administration, and for administrations to follow. In addition, Mr. Obama needs to lay out the real hard data, for example according to the Congressional Budget Office, two thirds of the spending in the 2010 budget have the fingerprints of the Bush administration, meaning programs started by President Bush or started by President Bush and continued by President Obama, leaving only one third of the spending solely on the plate of President Obama. Yet more importantly, the pie chart of “mandatory spending” according to the Office of Management and Budget reveals most of the mandatory spending comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest piece of discretionary spending is on defense Mr. Obama should challenge those opposing big government by asking them is that where do they want the budget ax to start falling. In addition, in the aftermath of the Arizona immigration law many in that same anti government crowd want to blame the federal government for not developing a comprehensive immigration plan, so do they think the oversight of a complex bureaucracy tasked to do several things including managing the laws which will govern twelve million people can be done on the cheap?
The next few years will be decisive the role of government will be debated on several fronts, and the future of the next generation will be decided by the actions taken today. President Obama must lead that debate, and elevate the narrative to the plane of common sense, vision, and with clarity. To be clear, many on the far right are too far gone to embrace the truth about their cause, but for those Democrats running in the fall, President Obama’s words could become usable campaign talking points, and for those teetering independent voters, a dose of reason in a debate gone wild may be a deal maker or deal breaker for President Obama in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
