93.3 F
College Station
Wednesday, June 16, 2021

CATEGORY

National

Further Notes on Obama’s Failures

President Obama talks in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., May 20, 2010. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) When I wrote that Obama failed as president of the United States, I meant that he failed on his own terms. This past weekend, I wrote a piece about why Barack Obama’s presidency failed. The best criticism of that essay that I’ve read over the last few days is that I begged the question. I didn’t clearly articulate a criterion of success or failure by which to judge the Obama presidency. I was more focused on the personal shortcomings he exhibited as a statesman, which got in the way of his achieving success in office. I didn’t define the success that he fell short of. Allow me to remedy that mistake here. When I wrote that Obama failed as president of the United States, I meant that he failed on his own terms. During the 2008 presidential race and the early years of his administration, Obama made it clear that he wanted to be the same kind of transformational president that Ronald Reagan was during the 1980s. On the stump, he fantasized about a political realignment in America brought about by an electoral tidal wave of “Obama Republicans,” his own answer to the Reagan Democrats of old. He repeated the same ambition during primary debates with Hillary Clinton and even confessed his admiration for Reagan’s political talent during a meeting with historians at the White House in the Spring of 2010. Michael Duffy and Michael Scherer, writing about this meeting for Time magazine, explained that as the conversation progressed, it became clear to several in the room that Obama seemed less interested in talking about Lincoln’s team of rivals or Kennedy’s Camelot than the accomplishments of an amiable conservative named Ronald Reagan, who had sparked a revolution three decades earlier when he arrived in the Oval Office. Obama and Reagan share a number of gifts but virtually no priorities. And yet Obama was clearly impressed by the way Reagan had transformed Americans’ attitude about government. The 44th President regarded the 40th, said one participant, as a vital “point of reference.” Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s diaries and attended the May dinner, left with a clear impression that Obama had found a role model. “There are policies, and there is persona, and a lot can be told by persona,” he says. “Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion.” Obama wanted his presidency to alter the center of gravity in American politics in the way that Reagan’s did. Unlike his successor, he understood that lasting success in democratic politics comes not from bringing one’s own party closer into line with one’s own positions, but from bringing the other party closer into line with one’s own positions. Reagan’s popularity frightened the Democratic Party to so great an extent that they felt the need to nominate the relatively conservative Bill Clinton in order to win back the White House. An even more dramatic transformation occurred almost simultaneously in the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher’s electoral invincibility during the ’80s forced the British Labour Party to turn themselves from the unreconstructed socialist party of Michael Foot into the neoliberal market-friendly party of Tony Blair. Both Reagan and Thatcher achieved a level of popularity among the public so great that their rivals were compelled to imitate them. This is what Obama aspired to during the last decade. He wanted so to bestride the narrow world of American politics that the Republican Party would have to become more progressive in order to stay competitive at the polls. It was precisely in this respect that Obama failed. He did, in fact, enjoy this kind of universal acclaim at the start of his first term. So beloved was he among the electorate that the Republican leadership in Washington would studiously avoid criticizing him by name in the early months of 2009. But whereas Reagan’s popularity only gained momentum during his first term, culminating in a 49-state blowout reelection, Obama’s lasted all of a few months. Already by the 2010 midterms it had become politically advantageous for Republican politicians to denounce the president in the most strenuous terms. The aftershock of the Reagan revolution carried Reagan’s anointed successor into office, who was then in turn succeeded by a Democratic president doing his best Reagan impression on the campaign circuit and leading a Democratic Party remade to a great extent in Reagan’s image, at least on economic questions. By way of contrast, Obama’s anointed successor lost in 2016 to a man who was, in almost every imaginable respect, Obama’s polar opposite. It’s true that Obama’s VP is in the White House today and that Obama himself dearly hopes that his old running mate will “finish the job.” But no political job can ever be finished without forcing the other party to acknowledge the policy disputes in question as settled. The permanence of the New Deal was only settled once the Republican Party under Eisenhower decided to leave it alone. Does any one of us really believe that the next Republican president will feel compelled by electoral necessity to let the Obama-Biden legislative legacy stand? Or is more likely that he or she will resume the now time-honored Republican tradition of ripping Obama’s darling policies merrily to shreds on Day One? The answer is obvious. Obama’s failure was that he sent Republicans running away from him and his agenda instead of colonizing that portion of the GOP most amenable to his program, as he intended to do and as Reagan did to the Democrats during the ’80s. The federal government’s 44th chief executive left office with the GOP electorate less disposed to support him, not more. It is, in many ways, the same failing that Donald Trump exhibited with regard to the winnable Democratic voters he drove away with his own, more flagrant and egregious shortcomings as a statesman. For an analysis of the (very different) shortcomings that left Obama’s legacy in a similarly precarious position, I direct you back to this past weekend’s essay.

VIP Gold Live Chat: Liz Wheeler Joins to Discuss Biden, Putin, Critical Race Theory, and More

On a special episode of RedState’s VIP Gold Live Chat, Liz Wheeler, host of “The Liz Wheeler Show” podcast, will join our Managing Editor,...

Biden Flinched

Well, that escalated quickly. As my colleague Bonchie just reported, President Joe Biden lost it on a reporter asking questions of him after his...

Biden Gives Away the Game and Messes up in Relation to Putin Yet Again at Presser

This European trip has been a disaster for Joe Biden. It is likely to have grievously damaged us around the world in terms of...

Rep. Jim Banks Rakes Admiral Across Smoldering Coals Over Critical Race Theory

During a Tuesday House hearing, Rep. Jim Banks (IN) conducted a scathing interrogation of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday over critical race...

Peter Doocy Muscles Way in to Ask Biden About China, Gets Answer That Should Alarm Everyone

As if Vice President Kamala Harris’ trip to the Northern Triangle last week wasn’t disastrous enough, President Biden’s overseas trip this week for the...

NASA Abandons Actual Space Mission To Focus On Implementing Critical Race Theory

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) unveiled an initiative called “Mission Equity” on Monday that seeks to “streamline its programs, procurements, grants, regulations...

The Fight Continues: EIPCa Appeals its Election Integrity Lawsuit against the State of California to the 9th Circuit

The Election Integrity Project of California, Inc. (EIPCa) is taking its fight against California’s unconstitutional election process to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals....

Putin Deflects Question on Human Rights Record, Rants about U.S. Gun Crime, BLM Riots

Russian President Vladimir Putin seen on screen as he delivers his annual state of the nation address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow, Russia, January 15, 2020. (Maxim Shemetov/Reuters) Asked Wednesday about his dismal human rights record and the jailing of dissident Alexander Navalny, Russian president Vladimir Putin tried to turn the question around by raising the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, the extrajudicial jailing of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Black Lives Matter riots, and the rates of gun crime in American cities. “People are shot and killed every day [in the U.S.]. You don’t have a chance to open your mouth and you’re shot dead,” Putin told reporters at a press conference following his bilateral meeting with President Biden. Responding to a follow up question about Navalny, Putin suggested that the opposition leader and the organizations that support him are being “used” by the U.S. to “contain” Russia. “The U.S. has declared Russia an enemy. My question is which political organizations are going to be supported by the U.S?” Putin asked, suggesting any pro-Democracy groups in his country are simply fronts for U.S. influence. Putin then raised the Black Lives Matter demonstrations that occurred last summer, saying he “sympathizes” with the U.S. but doesn’t wish to see similar demonstrations in Russia, arguing that Navalny and his supporters wish to see such lawlessness in Russian streets. Send a tip to the news team at NR.

The Pulitzer Parody Nominations: What the White House Sips, The AP Pix, and The Prize Gets Picked

Our weekly recognition of less-than meritorious excellence in journalism worthy of Pulitzer consideration. As an extension of a new media-mocking venture at Townhall, Riffed From...

Latest news

Autopsy Report: Taxpayers to Reluctantly Continue to Fund Lobbyists

The 87th legislative session has reached its conclusion and though several bills were filed to ban the practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying, ultimately none of...

Ron DeSantis Sends Florida Law Enforcement To Aid Texas, Arizona At Southern Border

Gov. Ron DeSantis pledged to send Florida law enforcement to the southern border in response to calls for help from Texas and Arizona as...

Ten GOP Senators Announce Support for Infrastructure Compromise

(rarrarorro/Getty Images) A bipartisan group of 20 senators, including ten Republicans, announced their support for a compromise framework on infrastructure on Wednesday. Details of the framework were not immediately available, although the cost of the potential bill would be $1.2 trillion over eight years, according to CNN. The backing of ten GOP senators could give the potential bill a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, if all 50 Democrats vote in favor. “We support this bipartisan framework that provides an historic investment in our nation’s core infrastructure needs without raising taxes,” the group said in a statement. “We look forward to working with our Republican and Democratic colleagues to develop legislation based on this framework to address America’s critical infrastructure challenges.” Twenty senators from both parties announce support for $1.2T, eight-year bipartisan infrastructure outline pic.twitter.com/0aTxnBGwzM — Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 16, 2021 #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c905d .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta label { font-size: 1.2rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #000000; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c905d .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta p { font-size: 1.05rem; line-height: 1.45rem; color: #000000; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c905d { background-color: #ffffff; border-width: 1px; border-color: #cccccc; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c905d .inline-newsletter-subscribe__email-submit { border-color: #e92131; background-color: #e92131; color: #ffffff; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9471 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta label { font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.7rem; color: #000000; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9471 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta p { font-size: 1.05rem; line-height: 1.45rem; color: #000000; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9471 { background-color: #ffffff; border-width: 1px; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9471 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__email-submit { border-color: #eba605; background-color: #eba605; color: #ffffff; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c96a3 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta label { font-size: 1.3rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #dd9933; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c96a3 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta p { font-size: 1.05rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #2d2d2d; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c96a3 { background-color: #ffffff; border-width: 1px; border-color: #999999; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c96a3 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__email-submit { border-color: #dd9933; background-color: #dd9933; color: #ffffff; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9845 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta label { font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.7rem; color: #0f733c; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9845 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta p { font-size: 1.05rem; line-height: 1.45rem; color: #2d2d2d; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9845 { background-color: #ffffff; border-width: 1px; border-color: #cccccc; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c9845 .inline-newsletter-subscribe__email-submit { border-color: #0f733c; background-color: #0f733c; color: #ffffff; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c999e .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta label { font-size: 1.3rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #0f733c; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c999e .inline-newsletter-subscribe__cta p { font-size: 1.05rem; line-height: 1.45rem; color: #2d2d2d; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c999e { background-color: #ffffff; border-width: 1px; border-color: #999999; } #inline-newsletter-nloptin-60ca7567c999e .inline-newsletter-subscribe__email-submit { border-color: #0f733c; background-color: #0f733c; color: #ffffff; } President Biden initially proposed a $2 trillion infrastructure plan that includes funding for bridges, roads, and railways, and a national network of charging stations for electric vehicles, among other provisions. Republicans have attempted to lower the price tag on the bill and have insisted that legislation not include tax increases. Additionally, the GOP senators have strived to keep former President Trump’s 2017 tax reform measures in place. Democrats have explored options for passing an infrastructure bill via budget reconciliation rules, which allow certain pieces of legislation to pass the Senate via a simple majority vote instead of a filibuster-proof 60 votes. However, Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) cautioned against using budget reconciliation to pass an infrastructure bill in comments to NBC earlier this month. “Are you ready to go it alone with just Democrats?” reporter Garrett Haake asked Manchin. “No. I don’t think we should. I really don’t,” Manchin responded. “Right now, basically, we need to be bipartisan.” Send a tip to the news team at NR.
- Advertisement -