The Obama Problem: Too Much And Not Enough

By almost any historical measurement, President Barack Obama's first two years in office have been a resounding legislative success. Health Care Reform, Finance Reform, and the passage of the Stimulus were all major accomplishments. When you throw in the auto bail out, the administering of the bank bail out, the expansion of stem cell research, the investment in green technology, the ending of combat missions in Iraq, as well as the Lilly Ledbetter act, it's clear that this President has excelled in getting things done.

Yet here we are on the precipice of the mid-term elections, and the electorate appears ready to turn the house and possibly the senate back over to the republican opposition.

With the President's approval ratings mired in the mid 40's, it's worth pondering how we got here.

Of course, it's no surprise that conservatives would take issue with the President's agenda. They have called him a socialist, anti-business, and in the case of the Tea Party--who have energized the base like nobody's business--they have called him Kenyan, Communist, and Anti-Christ.

Now, the socialist argument is pretty weak to begin with. Let's not forget that the bank bailout was created under Bush's watch. Yes, then Senator Obama (along with McCain) voted for it's passage, but the bill originated from the Bush White House. But here's the under publicized story: It worked. Nearly every economist worth his salt has stated that the propping up of the banks saved us from a second great depression. And while many argued that it would add an unmanageable burden on the backs of future generations, that 750 billion dollar bill has recouped all but 50 billion dollars. A lot of money to be sure, but if someone told you that we could save the economy from total free fall for 50 billion wouldn't you take it?

Oddly enough, the auto bailout was perhaps even more unpopular. While I find it surprising that more Americans would take offense to the saving of blue collar jobs over the the rescue of white collar bankers, that appears to be the case. However, if you take a closer look at the current state of the auto bail out, you will find that the auto makers have started to show a profit and have begun to pay back the treasury. So, it may have worked too.

Now I ask you, if the President is so anti-business, then why would he take part in saving both the banking and auto industries?

I believe that much of the Obama anti-business sentiment comes from the passage of the Finance Reform Bill.

But even that bill allowed banks to largely operate the way they have been, only with more oversight and regulation. Of course, bankers (and republicans) hate regulation, but isn't that a small price to pay after the government and the tax payers saved your ass?

The response on the right to Health Care Reform was even more incendiary. Who can forget "death panels," "government takeover," and the summer of the town hall criers? But was the bill really so radical? No single-payer, no public option, and no "death panels." In fact, the bill that passed looked a whole lot like the Bob Dole authored alternative to the Clinton plan in 1992 and even more like the Mitt Romney signed bill that is currently the law of the land in Massachusetts. Does anyone recall ever hearing Dole or Romney being referred to as socialists? I think not.

Then of course, we have the Stimulus bill. It may be hard to remember now, but few on either side of the aisle thought that we didn't need a stimulus. Even so, with unemployment hovering near 10%, the bill is roundly characterized as a failure. The problem the President has here is the difficulty in proving a negative. How do you sell people on the idea that without the stimulus things would actually be worse? But they most assuredly would be. There would definitely be fewer cops on the street, firemen dousing flames, and teachers in the classroom. In fact, if anything, republicans weakened the stimulus by insisting on 40% of it being tax cuts as opposed to say, more investment in infrastructure. Without that concession, Obama would have never gotten the votes necessary to pass the bill.

As I said before, conservatives taking issue with Obama's governing philosophy is no surprise. But what has to be particularly perplexing to the President is the hammering he's taking from the liberal base of the Democratic Party. In the case of the left, they don't take issue with the President going to far, they think he hasn't gone nearly far enough.

Looking again at the Financial Reform Bill, the Health Care Reform Bill, the left has found the President's measures to be no better than half of what they should have been.

In regards to the Financial Reform Bill, the left wing wanted nothing less than a break up of the banks. They wanted the Glass-Steagall provision reinstated to disallow retail banks from also being investment firms. In short, they wanted a complete end to "too big to fail." And I have no doubt that's what the President wanted too. But the votes simply weren't there.

As steamed as liberals and progressives may have been about the Finance Bill, they we re even more livid about Health Care Reform. They didn't believe that the President fought hard enough for a public option and didn't think he fought at all for single-payer. But I have to wonder, does anyone really believe that single-payer would have passed? And while there was a brief period of time when it looked like the public option had a shot, I think it's important to remember why it failed. The answer is two words: Joe freaking Lieberman. Ok, that's two words and a marginal expletive, but you get the idea.

Now, one might think that if the President had both the right and the left up in arms over his policies, that the middle might be with him. Wrong again. There are two basic reasons for this, the economy and loudness.

Obviously, when the unemployment rate is high and the pace of recovery slow, then the patience of the electorate is sorely tested. People simply aren't feeling an improvement in their lives even though the free fall has found it's bottom floor. The anxiety created by job insecurity is palpable. And any President would have a tough time with today's economic data.

So that's the economy, but what about the loudness? Well, the loudness I'm referring to is the deliberate and willful spread of misinformation and the media's fawning coverage of such.

This is the year of "You Lie!" And in the year of "You Lie!" it's awfully hard to find your way to the facts. The reporting of news has become entertainment. MSNBC and FOX run 6 hours of opinion based journalism from 5pm on. And CNN? Well, paradoxically, CNN has managed to make the reporting of actual news about as interesting as chewing on bark. While MSNBC and FOX court the extremes, CNN just flounders. And that's a shame, because we need a good CNN more than ever.

In this environment it's pretty hard to convince people on the merits of Health Care Reform, Finance Reform, and the Stimulus even if the evidence is on your side. And this is where you can say this President has truly failed.

Messaging.

How is it that a President who could galvanize so many with his ability to communicate during the election run a White House seemingly so incapable of telling their story? And make no mistake, they have a story to tell. One of the fascinating things about the health care debate is that while close to 60% of Americans are against it, when you explain what's in it (the ending of such risible practices as pre-existing conditions, dropping people from coverage, etc.), the approval rate spikes to over 60% in favor. Clearly, the White House's communication people are not doing anywhere near a good enough job of serving their President.

In fact, you could probably argue that the President's biggest problem is the lack of a surrogate with the heft and charisma to relay a positive message to the populous. The President is a bit like Lebron James with the Cleveland Cavaliers. He has to pour his own water and carry it too. No wonder James left the Cadavers, er, Cavaliers to join The Heat. He must have been exhausted. And every time I see our President in front of the camera with his rapidly greying hair, I get the feeling that he could use a Dwayne Wade too.

All of this information leads me to the conclusion that for the bulk of the country, Barack Obama is either too much, or not enough. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Why in the hell would anyone want this job?

Sumo-Pop
October 22, 2010