Querying Obama's Troubled Success

Yesterday Politico called it a "mystery." This morning the New York Times called it a "paradox." I call it democratic s.o.p., resulting in s.n.a.f.u., the "f.u." of which is nearly always b.a.r.

What is "it"? The fact, said the Times, that President Obama "has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: ... He has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers." But, "while he may be winning on Capitol Hill, he is losing with voters."

Similarly, from Politico: "You can argue over whether Obama’s achievements are good or bad on the merits. But ... you can’t argue that Obama is not getting things done. [H]e has ... covered the uninsured, tightened regulations, started to wind down the war in Iraq and shifted focus and resources to Afghanistan, injected more competition into the education system and edged closer to a big energy bill." Yet, "the mystery remains: ... Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency."

Observed, in the way of partial explanation, an Obama advisor: "It’s very frustrating that it’s not breaking through, when you look at these things and their scale. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had achieved even one of these? Part of it is because we are divided ... And part of it is the culture of immediate gratification."

That's two parts -- two huge ones. But what of others? asked Politico's John Harris and Jim VandeHei. And they came up with this reasonably comprehensive list as to "why Obama is perceived as failing to win over the public, even though by most conventional measures he is clearly succeeding."

1) "The flight of independents" -- a fickle yet moderately conservative crowd, a critical point, to which we'll obliquely return. For now, just know that "A recent poll by Democrat Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps found that 57 percent of likely voters regard Obama as 'too liberal.' "

2) "The ideology conundrum" -- "[His] tactical improvisation leaves even many Obama supporters saying they 'don’t know what he really stands for' -- as though there could somehow be a mystery as to where he stands after nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending and two landmark pieces of legislation passed within 18 months." See s.n.a.f.u.

3) "The likability factor" -- or rather unlikability, which radiates on Capitol Hill as an unloved feeling. "Many Democrats on the Hill don’t much like Obama ... [and] think the White House makes them take tough votes, but doesn’t care that much about the problems those votes leave politicians facing in tough races in 2010."

Which, to this outsider looking in, is mildly astounding, since Obama has attempted to mitigate at least some of those problems, whenever possible. What, for instance, did they think Obama's recent comments of deficit hawkishness were all about, if not to share his false pain and thus schmooze a bit with the hawkish, swing-district homefolks? But it's not just Hill Dems who seem to lack an understanding of political "make nice"; the blindness of some high-profile commentators, too, is appalling, such as that of Cenk Uygur, who, while guest-hosting on MSNBC the other day, railed against Obama's deficit comments as traitorously Reaganesque. Oh, for heaven's sake, get a grip. Obama was only trying to protect his Democratic majority coming from deficit-panicked districts.

Added Politico, "many reporters don’t much like Obama," either. "They accurately perceive the contempt with which they are held by his White House." But let's put it this way: The only folks really happy with the media these days are Fox viewers and Limbaugh listeners.

4) "His West Wing is unsteady" -- "A common gripe on the Hill ... is that [Obama's] communications team isn’t great at communicating." Yep. No argument here. Keep griping.

5) "Numbers matter" -- "No politician can escape the gravitational pull of bad employment numbers and economic figures in real-time ... But, even while Obama doesn’t directly control the economy, he has not been a disciplined or effective communicator about the state of the economy and his prescriptions for it." See #4.

6) "The liberal echo chamber" -- "Polls show most self-described liberals still strongly support Obama. But an elite group of commentators on the left -- many of whom are unhappy with him and are rewarded with more attention by being critical of a fellow Democrat -- has a disproportionate influence on perceptions." (See #3, Uygur.)

The transcendent irony is that most liberals don't much care what their "elite group" -- "marked," as Politico noted with ferocious accuracy, "by immaturity and impetuousness" -- is saying. By and large the rank-and-file left comprehends that the high-profile left's complaints are "unhinged from historical context or contemporary political realities." We move from amusing irony to real electoral harm, however, when swing-voting independents hear the vocal left's sinfully self-righteous and self-serving kvetching and mistake it for Obama having lost even his base. Which just ain't so.

Finally #7, "The BP cam" -- which has "produced an indelible image played 24-7 on cable that highlighted how ineffectual Obama [has been] for two months in stopping this catastrophe," even though he possessed no preternatural powers to stop it. That's life.

And there it is, Politico's list. Why, you might ask yourself, did Politico not reference the troublesome right-wing media? For a moment I stopped and asked that myself, until I realized that, in this Q&A context, it makes no difference as to Obama's troubles, since the right's propaganda machine kicks into overdrive no matter what Democrat is ever elected; they're all Hitlerian-Leninist socialists out to murder your grandmother and enslave your children.

There was, though, one other item omitted by Politico, likely because it would stray from straight reporting and enter the realm of opinion, although this particular matter appears less debatable each day and more that of incontrovertible reality: Obama's election was largely a reaction against the wildly pseudoconservative Bush & Co., not for Obama.

In an overwhelmingly centrist and center-right nation represented (surprise!) by an overwhelmingly centrist and center-right Congress it is scarcely shocking that Obama has had to cut corners and compromise to achieve core progressive victories; what is indeed shocking is that Obama has achieved them at all. Yet it's within this fundamental ideological collision that his troubles have mostly arisen.