Democracy

President Barack Obama: There is Method to his Madness

As Will Milberg anticipated, President Obama gave a speech last night that did not just involve political positioning. It was a serious Address to a Joint Session of Congress about our economic problems, proposing significant solutions. The address was also politically astute, and will be consequential. Obama was on his game again, revealing the method to his madness.

His game is not properly appreciated, as I have argued already here. He has a long term strategy, and doesn’t allow short term tactics to get in the way. He additionally understands that politics is not only about ends, but also means.

Many of his supporters and critics from the left, including me, have been seriously concerned about how he handled himself in the debt ceiling crisis. He apparently compromised too readily, negotiated weakly, another instance of a recurring pattern. In the first stimulus, healthcare reform, and the lame duck budget agreement, it seemed that he settled for less, could have got more, was too soft. But, of course, this is not for sure. I find that my friends who supported Hillary Clinton look at me, as an early and committed Obama supporter, differently now and express more open skepticism about Obama these days. But I think, as was revealed last night, that Obama’s failures have been greatly exaggerated. (Today only about political economic issues)

A worldwide depression was averted. The principle of universal health care for all Americans is now part of our law, the most significant extension of what T. H. Marshall called social citizenship since the New Deal. And, a completely unnecessary American induced global crisis did not occur. None of this was pretty. The President had to gain the support of conservative Democrats (so called moderates) and Republicans for these achievements. But it was consequential. In my judgment, despite complete, and not really loyal, Republican opposition to every move he has made, he has governed effectively, steering the ship of state in the right direction, despite extremely difficult challenges.

And during his political battles, he has maintained a civil respect for his opponents, never treating them as enemies, his soft touch, which is greatly criticized by the base. From serious economic critics, such as Paul Krugman, to his African-American celebrity critics, such as Tavis Smiley and Cornell West, there is a sense that he has not fought hard enough.  But hard is not always the most effective. This was revealed last night.

His speech was part of his overall strategy to address the primary economic challenge of our day and to do so without abandoning a commitment to social justice. There is a broad consensus among economists and serious policy analysts that the American economy requires two things: short term stimulus and long term deficit control, and that a key to this long term goal is controlling the costs of health care in America. Sober, politically wise analysts also recognize that pursuit of perfect solutions should not get in the way of politically possible solutions. It’s better to move in the right direction than to not move at all, or to move in the wrong direction. This requires that people who don’t agree on everything to manage to act together on some things. It requires compromise, persistent effort. Obama is on to this. He does it as a matter of principle, not simply as a tactic. He clearly wants to find a common ground. Every move he makes he tries to include Republicans and their ideas, conservative as well as liberal Democrats. He is a principled centrist.

But last night he revealed that he is not pursuing a center just because he likes to be in the middle. As I have maintained before, he is a centrist working to move the center left. He understands the conservative criticism of statism, but still thinks the state has an important role to play. He is centrally focused on social justice, as he works to make a concern for social justice a matter of centrist concern.

The speech presented his American Jobs Act, a bill that utilizes the two primary means to address the great danger of a double-dip recession that Milberg highlighted in his post: payroll tax cuts for employees and employers, and an increase in infrastructure investment. There was also special focus in the speech and in the proposed legislation on those who are suffering most directly from the recession: the unemployed, the poor and the young.

And he managed to do this by proposing actions that have all had bipartisan support in the past. He is identifying a center, which will enable common action.

“Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.  Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for.  And every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities.”

But he is still committed to central principles:

“But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.  (Applause.)  I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety.  I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients.  I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. “

Things are adding up. Stimulus, health care, deficit control, more stimulus. He is building on his past, even if flawed achievements. He is pushing hard for a big stimulus package. It is a package that the Republicans can refuse, but at their peril. He has taken the initiative.

3 comments to President Barack Obama: There is Method to his Madness

  • Anonymous

    I am not sure that the speech reveals a method so much as proof that he is listening to the right people on what needs to be done, and, again, we are all hoping he continues to do so and to do so forcefully—- to keep on top of the economy and the politics of image (or perception). He has to be forceful and be seen as forceful— not because I personally think he is weak but because Americans tend to confuse graciousness with weakness and the refusal to engage with having nothing to say. I like that he refuses to be provoked, but it does not follow from that that he refuse to really take on the opposition and force them to speak about issues on his (our) terms. I like your point that he is a centrist (it is better than what I call him— a pragmatist)— and I like the idea that he is pulling the country to the left. I am not sure he is, or at least we do not know yet— but I do think he could pull harder so that when he gets any give from the other side he is standing far enough to the left for the resolution to land on the left side of the aisle. And, I really, really, really hope that he never stops pointing out the obstructionism. If he cannot be engaged on the level we operate on in our politics, at least let him continue to call a spade a spade until enough people see it— because only enough people seeing that he is constantly blocked is going to lead to an end, or at least a lessening, of the obstructionism.

  • I like to think of Obama as a superb Go player. A simplistic metaphor compared to your analysis, but a convenient one, I think. He is playing with a handicap – a rabid opposition and an ineffectual support base in Congress. When you have a handicap, playing the correct moves leads to defeat. You can only win if the the other side makes an error. Faced with a very bad position, he is inviting the opponent to overextend, so as to attack their unconnected stones – the indefensible pieces of the conservative agenda.

    From the economic point of view, Krugman’s criticism (shared by all competent and honest economists) is of course correct. But strategically, all that the conservatives would need to do it would be to defeat it in Congress, and let the president suffer the consequences. Perhaps last week’s speech was the deciding move that ties his game together: Republican opposition to anything that would help the economy may no longer be feasible. If something passes and the economy improves, Obama won. If Republicans continue their Leninist strategy of trying to provoke a depression, they lose.

  • I have just jotted down a few paragraphs commenting on the fact that the US is no longer a high-labor-cost country. (I believe it is a fact; would take a good statistician to do the comparisons correctly.) The point: it’s a way of looking at recent US events that ties together many perspectives. I am sure economists have noted it, but it gets drowned out in the public debate. I’m not an economist, a sociologist, or a political scientist. I can’t write a paper on the subject, so I wrote a blog post (in English). If you are interested, O blog do Pait: Rabbits in New England http://j.mp/nEmmnN

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>