WASHINGTON — For President Obama, these are the days of never hearing an encouraging word. Not since his own supporters were losing faith in his presidential campaign in the summer of 2007 has Obama confronted so many bad reviews and such widespread frustration and angry criticism from his own side.
Now, the censure is reinforced by terrible tidings from the outside in the form of wildly swinging stock markets, persistent unemployment and divisions in the nation’s capital so deep that they make the period around President Clinton’s impeachment look like an era of good feelings.
For Obama’s lieutenants, his comeback from the ’07 summer doldrums provided an overlearned lesson that encouraged them to ignore external criticism and cruise along with complete confidence in their man’s almost magical powers of restoration.
The president’s loyalists still have faith in him and still love to criticize media narratives they think underestimate him. But this time, both he and they are expressing a level of frustration that may be the healthiest thing happening to Obama in what is an otherwise dismal moment in his presidency. A White House crowd often too sure of itself is fully aware of the ferocious fight Obama faces and the seriousness of the problems he confronts. Their mood and past experience suggests that a new Obama — or, in many ways, the old Obama of 2008 — is about to reappear.
The biggest factor is the end of the default threat. Make no mistake: The administration was petrified that conservatives in Congress really would push the country over the cliff in the debt-ceiling fight. GOP leaders may have realized the dangers involved, but Obama worried that if he miscalculated, House Republicans might not muster a majority to prevent the worst from happening.
Obama’s aides say he understood liberal anger over the Republicans’ irresponsibility in using the default threat to strengthen their own bargaining position. But while progressives wanted the White House to call the right wing’s bluff, Obama insisted that this was not a risk a president could take. He preferred to escape this box with the best flawed deal he could get, provided he could take the lethal debt-ceiling weapon out of Republican hands.
Having done so, the White House now sounds liberated. Even a government shutdown would be a day in springtime compared with the economic Armageddon that default might have let loose. Obama has a margin for maneuver and action he didn’t have before.
Then there is Obama’s own character. He is both conflict-averse and highly competitive. On the one hand, he believes his old speech declaring there is neither a red America nor a blue America, and he trusted his own capacity to bring left and right together — an imprudent presumption, given the nature of the current GOP.
Allowing this side of himself a much longer run than seems reasonable is what unleashed all the recent commentary describing him as weak and indecisive. But no sane human being (and sanity is still an Obama hallmark) can pretend anymore that today’s Republicans remain the party of Bob Dole or Howard Baker.
The proof came in last week’s Republican presidential debate when every candidate on stage raised a hand to declare unacceptable even a deficit deal involving 10 times as many spending cuts as revenue increases. This provides a handy new definition of extremism: When 90.9091 percent purity is not good enough.
Obama knows he’s reaching the end of the line on negotiating. Now he has to win. This brings out his competitive side. The rules of an election are similar to those of the sporting contests Obama so enjoys. Candidates are expected to be tough, to go after their opponents, to push and shove and throw them off balance. If you doubt Obama can do this, ask Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
The president’s speech last Thursday in Holland, Mich., was the first sign that the competitive Obama is re-emerging. His target, like Harry Truman’s in 1948, was an obstructionist Republican Congress. He condemned “the refusal of some folks in Congress to put the country ahead of party” and urged that it “start passing some bills that we all know will help our economy right now.”
With Obama, there is always the danger of a relapse into the passive, we’re-all-reasonable-people style. The fighting Obama has briefly appeared before, only to go back into hibernation. This time, the evidence suggests he’ll stick with it — and, in truth, he has no other choice.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group
Dionne — [snicker]
Does he actually laud the demagogic, P.T. Barnum sucker-appeal campaign circus-act speeches Obama gives?
And to people like Dionne, truly Acceptable Republicans include former Congress members Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter, and today’s-still Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, etc. They’re Rs that should be Ds, and who should become Ds before the Republican Party is ideally outlawed and only the Democratic Party is legal, someday. [chuckle]
If you could get away with outlawing the GOP, of course you should. They would outlaw the DNC if they calculated they would get away with it.
Right, because single-party governing systems that ban all opposition parties have always been such wonderful promoters of individual liberty and social justice.
Well, “social justice” (which is neither) as well as “peace and harmony” would certainly be promoted by banning all but the Democratic Party (in particular, “just” by banning the Republican Party). The next step to reduce disharmony would be to end elections, since the Democratic Party and its interests always know best. Controversy and disagreement as well as criticism could then be defined as treason or subversion, to further it more. (If there was enlightenment, the Green Party could be officially sanctioned, to promote diversity of political opinion and better promote voter satisfaction, perhaps given seized GOP assets nation-wide to boost their capabilities from the start, and give the people Choices until the eventual end of elections.)
I’ll add a note that I posted elsewhere, that some still long for the Obama groupie days, when they worshiped the man and dreamed of really getting those Magic Ponies and everything else they felt was only moments away after he was elected. The photograph Shaun Mullen selected for his thread is worth viewing and thinking of — it’s the Old Obama, when he was the Quintessence of Cool and a PC Democrat, making everyone (who worshiped him) Feel Good, what to them (and to Obama, in the good old days and even now) what the Presidency is about. Not just our parent, but a juvenile’s idea of a Cool Parent in the White House.
There is little question Dionne is right about the extreme nature of today’s republicans, and the 10 to 1 scenario he mentions is just one window into that disturbed nature. When it comes to Obama though (who is no liberal, who is in fact someone who has worked to bring highly disparate elements together from a center position) and his “competitive” nature, well yes, this is true and has been demonstrated on occasion. What he needs to do though is demonstrate it consistently, not only when campaigning or at the 11th hour of a crisis. I haven’t given up on him yet, but his redemption (so to speak) will require more than competitive rhetoric.
The GOP literally came out and said what they were going to do, hold up every single one of Obama’s agendas and hope the public was stupid enough to blame the President. That making sure Obama only had 1 term in office was their primary goal. Not leading, not balancing the budget or ending our wars or finding Osama Bin Laden, taking down their political opposition. From where I sit they appear to have followed the fairly craven political agenda to a ‘T’, and it seems all the articles are talking about how the President is weak and can’t get anything done. Apparently the old adage that no one ever lost a bet gambling on the stupidity of the public has ever lost is quite true.