UTW Summer Brewsurbatulsaclassifiedsbutton
  TULSA METRO'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWSWEEKLY
UTW Reader Comments  |  Has Something Made You Mad? Tell Us!    
Home » Columns » Rant 'N' Rall
  RSS XML

The Obama Postmortem

An autopsy of a political suicide


BY TED RALL

It's the day after the Republican sweep we all knew was coming. If Obama had any dignity, if he was honest with himself and with us, he would resign. It's abundantly clear that he isn't up to the job.

But you don't become president by being honest or dignified. So now it's wound-licking time. The President and his cronies are comforting each other. "It's not your fault the economy sucks," a Yes Man reassures Obama, sinking his heels into the new Oval Office carpet. "It was like that when we got here."

Do they scratch him behind his ears? They should. It feels nice.

"It was the poor economy -- not the wisdom of the Republicans' ideas or the brilliance of their tactics -- that assured they would retake control of the House," coos MarketWatch's Rex Nutting. Which is true. And doesn't matter.

Democrats are taking solace in history. It's the midterms! The party that holds the White House always loses seats in Congress. Look at Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. They suffered midterm defeats, then roared back to landslide reelection wins two years later. Not to worry! The voters will vote against the other party next time! Which is also true. And also doesn't matter.

In the broken-down shambles of the excuse for a political system we have in the United States, there's only one stage of grief: denial.

Barack Obama may well be reelected in 2012.

Considering that the current GOP frontrunners are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, the odds favor him. But the Obama experiment is effectively dead. There will be no change, and so there is no hope.

Remember what happened to Clinton after the "Republican Revolution" sweep of 1994? He spent 1995 locked in a bizarre "co-presidency" with House Speaker Newt Gingrich before figuring out that his "partner" was more interested in obstructionist sabotage than bipartisanship.

Obama is heading down the same bloody path with John Boehner.

But Clinton did get that second term. During which he accomplished many things, such as ... um ... well, he did get impeached. Does that count?

I don't understand why presidents want to get reelected. No president since FDR has gotten much done after his first term. Must be an ego thing. Either that, or it's cool to have your own chef.

If Obama was going to shine, it was going to be during 2009. Elected by a sizable margin with an undeniable, media-backed mandate for change during a severe economic crisis he could exploit to push through his agenda, Obama also enjoyed the rare luxury of a Democratic House of Representatives and a nearly filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.

So what does he have to show for that marvelous gift? Three major items:

One: a healthcare overhaul that increases premiums and insurance company profits, and doesn't include the public option he and everyone else said was absolutely essential. The good news is, the Republicans will probably repeal or defund this monster before it takes effect.

Two: a financial reform package no one knows about. Which is just as well, since it doesn't crack down on the banksters.

Three: more dead Afghans.

They're not much, but I hope Obama is proud of them. That's as good as he's going to get from now on.

What killed the Obama presidency? Political suicide. There were several death blows:

First and foremost, the economy. 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans told exit pollsters that the lack of jobs was their number-one issue. Obama never proposed a jobs program. He gave trillions of taxdollars to thieving banksters who ought to have been arrested instead, then tried to pass off this outrageous giveaway as economic stimulus. To make things worse, he stuck with an impossibly absurd argument: more people would have lost their jobs without it.

Even if the phony stimulus stopped things from getting worse -- and it didn't -- people don't care. They want the 20 percent of Americans who already lost their jobs -- their friends, spouses, children and parents -- to find new ones. Obama never addressed that.

He didn't even try.

Second, he alienated his base. He didn't even know who his base was.

Obama's campaign was a potent mix of vague pabulum ("hope," "change") and, when he deigned to specify, center-right specifics (stop torture but expand the war against Afghanistan, bipartisan cooperation with the Republicans, no gay marriage, etc.). The problem was that the vagueness that helped him cobble together a winning coalition of leftist and independent voters made it impossible for him govern. Leftists got turned off when he doubled down in Afghanistan and refused to close Guantánamo; independents are notoriously fickle anyway.

If Obama's advisors had been smart, they would have recognized two truths, one old and one new. The old truth is that the safest time to deliver to your base is the first year of a presidency; the passage of time allows the anger of the moderates to cool in time for the next election. The new truth for Obama was that his base comprised liberals who actually disagreed with much of what he stood for but had paid more attention to the "hope" and "change" posters than to his platform. He didn't understand that.

Moreover, the world changed between September and November of 2008. Global capitalism collapsed. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes during the next year. Wall Street, bankers, big business, the golden boys of the previous century, were discredited -- but unpunished for their countless sins. By mid-2009 America had become a left-wing country, not in the media but among the citizenry, telling polls that their preferred economic system was socialism.

Team Obama didn't understand that. They still don't.

The inarticulate rage of the inchoate Tea Party caught the president by surprise. Neither Obama nor the political clones that form his center-right cabinet can see that in a binary political culture anger gravitates to the opposite pole. If Obama were Republican, the Tea Party would be identified with the left.

The takeaway is anger, not ideology. People are pissed. They hate the bailouts, but the bailouts aren't the main point. More than anything else, the American people are angry that their government doesn't even pretend to give a damn about them.


Share this article:
 
Google Bookmarks  digg  Del.icio.us  reddit  Yahoo My Web  Newsvine  MySpace 

COMMENTS
2 comments posted for this article
toddkreigh
 11/11/2010 - 9:39am
   Compared to Rall's usual fare, this column shimmers with truth. There are the usual clangers - stop torturing terrorists and start torturing bankers, capitalism is dead, etc.
   
   I was rooting for him all the way up to the end, like a halfback breaking for the goal line who trips over his own feet and goes down at the 3-yard line: "By mid-2009 America had become a left-wing country, not in the media but among the citizenry, telling polls that their preferred economic system was socialism."
   
   Um, no. That's not what the citizenry was trying to tell the polls. By mid-2009, we had a Tea Party. The Tea Party - contrary to Rall's and the Leftmedia's belief - is not a bunch of whack jobs seething with rage, but mainly polite, middle-aged and elderly people whose mission statement seems to be "excuse us please, but we'd like our country back."
   
   What the Tea Party would like - and the majority of us who work for a living, pay taxes, and produce things of value without dependence on public funds - is lower taxes, freedom to produce, invest, build wealth, and in the end be able to pass that wealth to our children, not have it confiscated by government that can't pay for itself.
   
   It's too much to expect that Rall - or any other leftist - is going to ever be able to grasp that argument. They're too mired in statist groupthink "for the greater good".
Report this comment
bikeric
 11/10/2010 - 4:23pm
   Wow!! As a first time reader of the RANT'n'RALL I was very impressed with your opening arguments. You were correct that the time for change was 2009. President Obama had the mandate of the election with both Houses of Congress to work the magic hope machine. The gear teeth of the mechanizations, however, began to shear in early 2009 when the populous found out what Obama really meant by "Change".
   You may remember the boisterous Town Hall meetings nationwide. It was then that the people removed the Obama mandate and informed their elected officials where the real power resides, with the people.
   We "simple folk" know when a politician is blowing smoke, it tickles the taint. The Obama/Pelosi claim that Americans were spending too much on Health Care (14% GDP) and we needed this bill to balance the budget was simply a lie. Everyone who paid for Health Insurance before the bill now has to pay more for less coverage. Those who did not have Health Insurance before passage still do not have it. What was the real purpose. We all know, and yes Ted, my taint is tickling. The citizenry does NOT prefer a socialist economic system as you stated. I hope you can pull your head out of the deep, dark warm place it has been stored. BTW, if Obama was doing this as a Republican (i.e. McCain) the Tea Party would still exist and would still be "Right Wing".
   It's called Liberty Ted. Get used to it because more is on the way.
Report this comment

Post a comment




MORE BY TED RALL
War and Wordplay
Not-so-secret "secret bombings" [May 15, 2013]
Why Closing Guantánamo is Easy
Obama doesn't need Congress, he needs Travelocity [May 8, 2013]
Whys and Wherefores
When you ask "Why?" mean it [May 1, 2013]
My Profile | My Settings

Subscriptions Available at $124/yr.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.

We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.

If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150

Name:
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:

 

Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions

Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2013, Urban Tulsa Weekly   RSS