ChrisWeigant.com

Obama's Last, Best Chance

[ Posted Thursday, January 14th, 2010 – 16:53 UTC ]

For the past week or so, I have been examining President Obama's past year, and what he could make of his second year in office. This has unsurprisingly been a mix of optimism and pessimism. Because while Obama's second year could easily shape up to be better than his first, mostly it depends on Obama himself and what he chooses to do with it.

Let's be blunt -- this coming year may be Obama's last, best chance to have a successful presidency. Or, at the very least, make any progress at all on his agenda. Because, no matter what happens in the House of Representatives, all it is going to take is Democrats losing one or two seats in the Senate for massive legislative gridlock to descend upon the Nation's Capital until 2012.

President Obama will, next Wednesday, be exactly one-fourth of the way through his first term in office. If he fails to get re-elected, this will be one-fourth of his entire term in office. One year down, three to go. But if Democrats lose their supermajority in the Senate, Republicans will likely shut the place down for two solid years. Anyone who doubts this is simply not facing current political reality. So it really should be seen as "one year down, one effective year to go."

Republicans, if they pick up seats in Congress, will read this as justification from the voters to proceed with their "Party of No" tactics until 2012. They may over-read this "mandate" and pay the price for it then, but it's a pretty safe bet what will happen in the two years between the 2010 and 2012 elections: nothing. A whole lot of nothing. Loud and annoying nothing, to be sure, but nothing nonetheless.

Meaning, in essence, Obama may only have the next year to get anything done on Capitol Hill. Which makes it his last chance. But it also makes it his best chance. Because polls from January are worthless in October. Democrats could indeed get some things done (or, at the very least, fight the good fight and lose) which would bring some enthusiasm back to the party and back to President Obama as well.

Conventional inside-the-Beltway wisdom would have to be completely tossed aside in order to achieve this, making it a longshot bet, at best. Ask anyone in Washington, they'll tell you: nothing much happens in Congress during an election year, because incumbents don't want to risk annoying anybody out there, in an effort to hang onto votes.

This is a losing strategy for Democrats this year, and it remains to be seen whether they fully realize it or not. Because, while Obama did get a lot done in the first year, much of it was in the category of "preventing an even bigger disaster." This is fine and good, and was indeed necessary, but it does not result in a positive outcome -- merely the absence of a more negative outcome. And that is a hard thing to campaign on, especially given the American electorate's attention span (which I would peg at roughly two or three weeks). In other words, the old "what have you done for me lately?" problem.

Democrats simply cannot rest on their laurels this year, the way most "in" parties do during an election year. Because those laurels will be forgotten by the time the election rolls around. Instead, Obama should declare that Year Two will be dedicated to "all the stuff we had to put on the back burner as we cleaned up the biggest economic mess since the Great Depression." Obama should charge into this field with the same energy and fervor that he exhibited in the first few months of Year One. Obama, up until the summer's healthcare town halls pushed everything else to the sidelines, actually did a masterful job of throwing so many things at Congress simultaneously that Republicans simply did not have the time or energy to get outraged about each individual item. Meaning a lot of things which -- had the Republicans had enough time to regroup -- got passed fairly easily, without gigantic legislative battles.

President Obama needs to recapture this momentum, and he needs to start it about five seconds after the healthcare reform bill is finally finished. His political operatives already know this, and there's even a term for the upcoming change -- "the pivot." Obama will "pivot" from healthcare to the economy, to jobs, to all the undone things on his list.

The problem, however, is one all presidents face -- there simply is no magic lever in the Oval Office (or in Congress, for that matter) which will increase the number of jobs. The media loves to pretend this lever is hidden behind an Oval Office wall panel, and most of the public also loves their fantasy of this lever, but it simply does not exist in reality. And I say that through Republican administrations and Democratic administrations alike -- it's not a partisan thing with me. I just strongly believe that the economy itself is not something that is attuned to immediate reaction from whatever comes out of Washington.

The economy, of course, is going to determine next year's election more than any other single issue. And it is largely out of the control of politicians to change, at least in the short term. So Democrats should certainly make some noise and pass some window-dressing towards "jobs, jobs, jobs," but their political fortunes are already tied to where the economy will be in late October and nothing much is going to change that. If the economy is seen by the public as getting lots better, Democrats' chances will improve. If it is seen as getting worse, so will Democrats' chances at the ballot box.

But even admitting this, there will still remain the "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic voters and Republican voters this fall. Republicans are fired up and ready to vote. Democrats just aren't. Which leads to the following political equation -- if Democrats lose seats in the Senate, then they can kiss the next two years goodbye, in terms of getting their agenda passed; and the only way to make Democratic voters so enthusiastic that they prevent this from happening is for Democratic officeholders to show some enthusiasm themselves in passing big chunks of that agenda in the next year.

In other words, political timidity this year -- the "conventional wisdom" for an election year -- is a prescription for suicidal disaster at the polls in November.

I am not one of those, I should point out, who consider Obama (or Obama's agenda) to be a lost cause. I think history will look at Obama's first year in office a lot differently than we do now. Obama came to office with a lot on his plate, and he has done an admirable job of taking care of the biggest "house on fire" items first. His priorities were basically in order, in my opinion, during his first year.

But his second year simply must be different. Because now that the decks have been largely cleared of conflagrations, it is time for Obama to go back and reread one of his old campaign speeches, and (drawing from it) make a list of his priorities for the upcoming year. And then fight for ones that matter to people on Main Street, as opposed to Wall Street.

A year is a long time. Just look back at where we all were last year if you don't believe this. And admit that nobody knows where we'll be a year from now. But one thing that is fairly certain is that if Obama squanders his political opportunities in the upcoming year, and is not seen as being out front leading a few fights during it, then he will indeed have lost his last, best chance at being a truly transformative president.

 

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

23 Comments on “Obama's Last, Best Chance”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    They may over-read this "mandate" and pay the price for it then,

    You mean like Democrats did in the 2008 elections? :D

    Democrats simply cannot rest on their laurels this year, the way most "in" parties do during an election year.

    Simply because Democrats have no laurels to rest on.

    The economy, of course, is going to determine next year's election more than any other single issue.

    If there is another successful 9/11, the economy won't mean diddley squat to voters.. The American public will turn to the party who they think can best protect them.

    And guess who that's going to be?

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    fstanley wrote:

    It is very difficult to get anything done in government - an object at rest etc....

    It is especially difficult when a large part of the object (the GOP) is digging it's heals in against everything. There is no goodwill on the part of the republicans, they do not seem to care about the people they are supposed to represent - President Obama might as well be banging his head against a brick wall for all the good his overtures to the GOP have done him.

    ...Stan

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Do you think that President Obama needs to replace his treasury secretary before the mid-term elections?

    That seems to be the conventional wisdom - around the blogosphere, at least.

  4. [4] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What I don't understand is why Democrats are so scared of a filibuster?

    Sometimes you have to call a bluff. It's a lot easier to make Republicans look like obstructionists if they do nothing but filibuster. I'd make 'em do it for 2 years if I had to. See how popular they'd be after that.

    The trouble is that Democrats give away too much power by acknowledging that they need 60 votes. How is Republicans managed to get votes through when they didn't not have 60 votes?

    They took their case to the media and demanded a straight up or down vote.

    Unfortunately, this leads me to wonder how much interest they have in passing any real reform.
    -Dave

  5. [5] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Crap. It's late and I can't type. "How is it Republicans managed to get votes through when they didn't have 60 votes?"

    :)

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Dave!

    Yeah, it's late and all is forgiven :)

    But, what are your thoughts on Secretary Geithner? Do you think he needs to go away?

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    How is it Republicans managed to get votes through when they didn't have 60 votes?

    Because the GOP has the strength of will and the discipline to further their agenda.

    Democrats do not.

    It's really that simple.

    Unfortunately, this leads me to wonder how much interest they have in passing any real reform.

    Could you point to anything that Democrats have put out to date that is anything close to "real" reform??

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Oh please. You make the GOP sound noble when they just have a much easier job.

    When you've got most of corporate America supporting your agenda and when all the monied interests can spend their time going after Democrats, it's easy. How hard is it to be a corporate shill?

    Trying to pass something that benefits people who aren't your big donors is much more difficult. Pass it w/o donor approval and you risk pissing of some big money. This is the situation Democrats are in.

    Republicans can be much more straightforward because they've already admitted that their primary goal is to help the wealthy (i.e. "trickle down" theory)

    -David

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh please. You make the GOP sound noble when they just have a much easier job.

    No, I don't mean they are noble. They are disciplined and not as prone to in-fighting as the Democratic Party is. You have to agree with that.

    As far as the easier job, maybe. Or is it just made easier by the discipline that the GOP seems to exhibit?

    Trying to pass something that benefits people who aren't your big donors is much more difficult. Pass it w/o donor approval and you risk pissing of some big money. This is the situation Democrats are in.

    Yes they are. And it's their own fault because they lack the strength of will to do the right thing, regardless of the cost.

    It's as I always have said. The Democratic Party principles stand in the way of good leadership.

    Really, the only time that the Dem Party succeeds at ANYTHING is when they act like Republicans.

    Now what logical conclusion can be drawn from that inference??

    On another note, I don't know if you are following up the conversation over at the Reid Gaffe commentary. You might want to peruse it and mark the day on your calender... :D

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think I would phrase things differently. Democratic principles stand in the way of a corporate agenda.

    When they support a corporate agenda (act like Republicans), they find it much easier to pass legislation. The lobbyists and the monied interests call off the dogs and bring in the support.

    To me, however, leadership in government is more than just getting things accomplished. It's getting things accomplished that are best for everyone. Striking a balance between Main Street and Wall Street.

    What I don't understand (and I'm curious), is why you see working for corporate interests only is a good thing? Just because you can get stuff done?

    Maybe Democrats need to make a better case about how this balance is good for everyone involved. Such as, if people don't have money to buy things, this is going to hurt our economy. Good jobs and the middle class are what have made our country a great place. This is the same argument Henry Ford made. If he paid his workers well, they could afford his cars.

    Maybe this argument needs to be made more to groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help convince the monied interests to stop fighting for trickle down theory. It's just so much more profitable for them to directly petition the government for handouts.

    -David

    p.s. Trailer for the new Star Trek looks interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ6MDCUfxvY Was hoping to see another movie with the last cast though - the young Kirk/Spock/Bones crew.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    p.s. Trailer for the new Star Trek looks interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ6MDCUfxvY Was hoping to see another movie with the last cast though - the young Kirk/Spock/Bones crew.

    Holy crap, that was a helluva trailer. But that just can't be the new Trek movie. That looks like a fan compilation.

    There were elements of TNG, Voyager and I think I even saw a couple BABYLON 5 ships there.. :D

    While it's probably not the movie trailer it was nonetheless impressive..

    I'll get to the political stuff in a sec..

    Michale..

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Heheh. That was totally fake! I thought the same thing, that it was pretty cool.

    Here's what the guy wrote in the info:

    PLEASE READ:
    This is a fake trailer if you will, most of the battle footage is taken from the brilliant guys who made "Star Wreck" an absolute master piece of skill and talent. The story in Star Wreck was a battle between Star Trek and Babalon 5. There is also parts of other star trek films in this trailer I have made, and some sound additions from the latest Star Trek movie trailer.

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    All I could find on the next film is that it's tentatively set for 2012.

    http://trekmovie.com/2010/01/08/breaking-star-trek-sequel-tentatively-set-for-june-29th-2012/

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    They need to stop calling it Star Trek, because it ain't...

    It's like taking the Confederacy out of GONE WITH THE WIND, yet still calling it GONE WITH THE WIND..

    But, I digest.. I don't want to get accused of hijacking a commentary... Too Late!! :D

    Getting back on track...

    It's the Golden Rule of Politics...

    Whoever has the gold, makes the rules..

    I was hoping that Obama would be the one to break the cycle and get us to a government by the people and for the people..

    But he has proved to be a HUGE disappointment in that regard...

    At least Republicans keep us safe from terrorism...

    Michale....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Latest word has it that President Obama will head to MA on Sunday to try and rescue the Senate seat from those mad, evil Republicans..

    Ya know, he doesn't have a very good track record for riding in at the last minute and saving the day..

    Some might say that this will probably guarantee a GOP victory in MA...

    Won't the fecal matter hit the metal circulating blades if THAT happens, eh??

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Sometimes you're an enigma, Michale, but at least you're honest.

    I have to admit that I'm disappointed in Obama so far as well, but I'm going to keep fighting for a government that serves more than just corporate special interests.

    I think Obama's election proved that our country wants this quite badly. It just may be that the 2-party system is broken. Because honestly, though many people seem to think the two parties are vastly different, the way both govern is very similar.

    That's why I donate to groups and individual candidates rather than either party.

    -David

    p.s. What's not "Star Trek"? The new cast? I'm confused. Don't tell me you didn't like the last movie ;)

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sometimes you're an enigma, Michale, but at least you're honest.

    Predictable is boring. :D

    I have to admit that I'm disappointed in Obama so far as well, but I'm going to keep fighting for a government that serves more than just corporate special interests.

    As will I.. But I don't see how getting more Democrats into office will achieve our goals.

    For example, you are on record as being opposed to this so-called health care "reform". It was you, after all, who coined the term "CrapCare".. :D

    Such being the case, you can see how voting for Brown in MA would be the best thing for the country, no??

    Sometimes the best person to vote for IS a Republican.

    I think Obama's election proved that our country wants this quite badly. It just may be that the 2-party system is broken. Because honestly, though many people seem to think the two parties are vastly different, the way both govern is very similar.

    Truer words were never spoken..

    p.s. What's not "Star Trek"? The new cast? I'm confused. Don't tell me you didn't like the last movie ;)

    Basically, the movie totally destroyed 40 years of Star Trek. The Trek we know, the Trek we grew up with doesn't exist anymore..

    As an action Sci-Fi movie, Trek 2009 was an awesome slamfest of action and technology.

    But, because they wanted to make more money, the slapped the STAR TREK label on it. The could have made an awesome SciFi movie based in the Star Trek universe and still leave the heroes of the Trek we know intact..

    Why, oh why, did they have to kill 6 billion Vulcans??

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I might vote for someone who would kill the health care bill for the right reasons. Someone who would fight for a public option. Maybe that should be Coakley's message.

    Imagine for a second if she came out and said she would vote against health care reform because it didn't include a competitive option.

    Would she energize Massachusetts liberals? Would the Democratic party desert her? Might she improve her odds with independents?

    I think the Democratic party is underestimating the current dissatisfaction from a lot of people who voted for Obama.

    -David

    p.s. But I still wouldn't vote for Brown because we share different principles. Sure, he might kill health care, but then we've got him for 4 years.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I might vote for someone who would kill the health care bill for the right reasons. Someone who would fight for a public option. Maybe that should be Coakley's message.

    Imagine for a second if she came out and said she would vote against health care reform because it didn't include a competitive option.

    Hell, if she did that, *I* would vote for her if I was in MA... :D

    I think the Democratic party is underestimating the current dissatisfaction from a lot of people who voted for Obama.

    I think you are dead on ballz accurate with that statement.

    Even if Coakley wins, but it's only by a few points, it should be a MAJOR wake up call for the Democratic Party..

    9 will get you 10, the wakeup call goes unheeded...

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    it should be a MAJOR wake up call for the Democratic Party..

    * fingers crossed *

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't it so kewl how we agree on so much? :D

    On another note, when I posted the "why oh why did they have to kill 6 billion Vulcans" it made me think of exactly why this NuTrek is not really Trek.

    The writers of NuTrek just figured that there were 6 billion people on planet Earth, so that was a good number to have as population of the planet Vulcan.

    The REAL Trek would have calculated the size of the Earth compared to the size of Vulcan and extrapolated the comparative population centers of both planets creating an algorithm to allow for the disparity in the different ecological and terrain idiosyncrasies and come up with a population number for Vulcan that was REALISTIC.

    NuTrek just said, "Oh, the Earth's population is 6 billion so we'll say that Vulcan's population is the same." :^/

    Star Trek is and always has been a THINKING person's SciFi. With minor exceptions here and there ( {{{cough}}}Wesley Crusher{{{cough}}} ) Star Trek has always been cerebral and on the cutting edge of societal issues of the day.

    NuTrek is all about seeing Orion girls in bikinis...

    Don't get me wrong.. I **LOVE** seeing Orion girls in bikinis! :D And so does the wife... :D :D

    But it's not Trek...

    OK, I think I got that outta my system..

    Back to Democrats and Republicans and the sorry state of the union.. :D

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "You look quite well for a man that's been 'utterly destroyed', Mr. Spock." -- Kirk

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You look quite well for a man that's been 'utterly destroyed', Mr. Spock." -- Kirk

    PATTERNS OF FORCE

    One of the Top 5 Star Trek episodes, in my not so humble opinion.. :D

    Michale......

Comments for this article are closed.