Drew Westen doesn't know what the president believes in either, and thinks it would nice if he knew himself
>
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh219PkW3QrDbEejl0yJ6eFcGuBjzvtAApOeiq3wHAyzyRFxy-ZOenYwus7IzYkgrqKTrZp3y6vuD1sIm3g1uDeozMj4x3YWi2x7YKVNcUXmZYMaDE6htyqE2WiX9tOkVdIUJjf8A/s400/toles.gif)
Pretty crazy political strategy, right? Unfortunately for us, the R's have the good fortune to be up against a White House political operation that makes them look like geniuses.
"People in the center will follow if you speak to their values, address their ambivalence (because by definition, on a wide range of issues, they're torn between the right and left), and act on what you believe. FDR did it. LBJ did it. Reagan did it. Even George W. Bush did it, although I wish he hadn't.
"But you have to believe something.
"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is "liberalism," and they don't like what they see. I don't, either.
"What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."
-- Drew Westen, in "Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator," on HuffPost
by Ken
When it comes to understanding (a) policy issues, (b) what the public is thinking, and ( c) how you create interaction between the two, I trust Drew Westen. On Nov. 2 HuffPost published a piece of his called "Leadership, Obama Style," about which I wrote here at some length, starting off with this quote:
Genuine leadership means setting the agenda. It means taking tough stands. It means telling people the truth forcefully and evocatively in a way that makes them want to listen and act. It means drawing lines in the sand when you must, and refusing to compromise your values even if you have to compromise on some of the policies born of those values when you have no other choice. It means fighting for what you believe in and taking on powerful vested interests when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. And it means looking backward at the past so you don't make the same mistakes, looking sideways at alternatives so you know your options, and using that vision to move the nation forward.
Leadership is a quality Barack Obama showed on the campaign trail. It is a quality he has failed to show as president.
Now Drew is back, expanding from that perspective to sound an alarm for this presidency. As he points out,
"Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry).
Obviously I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes in the White House, and it may be unfair to single out Master Rahm Emanuel for responsibility, simply because we know what a sleazy hack he is -- well, that and the fact that the ineptitude in defining policy goals, the uninterrupted fellating of Big Money interests, the knife-to-the-ribs coercion applied to political allies. the political ineptitude of treating voters as morons to be hornswoggled, this is pretty much the Political Gospel According to Master Rahm. I don't know what David Axelrod and all those other geniuses with access to the Oval Office are advising the president. But I do know that it's both crappy politics and crappy policy.
And one thing that sets Drew Westen's thinking apart from that of the Obama brain trust is that Drew insists that good (and bad) politics and policy are actually connected! He makes a spectacular example of the immigration issue:
Joe Wilson yells, "You lie." So instead of acting like a man and going after Wilson on the spot (the man just attacked him in front of the entire nation in a joint session of Congress), he accepts his apology the next day, and a day later rewards Wilson for his incivility and bigotry by tightening the rules so that illegal immigrants can't even buy insurance themselves on the health care exchange the Democrats are creating sometime between 2013 and 2025 (depending on how many seats they lose in the meantime, and hence how long, if ever, it takes for the exchange to get set up).
Good policy? No. Not only is it inhumane -- can you imagine being really sick or in terrible pain but being too afraid even to go to a clinic because you might be deported? -- but it's a public health hazard for sick people not to get care and spread their illnesses, a drain on American taxpayers as illegal immigrants who finally have no choice but to find their way, when they're incredibly ill, to emergency rooms or public clinics, and a despicable policy toward their children, many of whom are American citizens, but who in either case shouldn't have to be sick, in pain, and without preventive care as their bodies and minds are developing, no matter where their parents come from.
Is it good politics? No. During the election I tested messages on just this issue, and a strong progressive message beat the most convincing anti-immigrant message we could throw at it by 10 points. Two weeks ago, I tested messages on just this issue as it applied to health care, and that margin had doubled.
If you just talk sensibly with Americans, they are sensible people. But ask them one-dimensional polling questions like, "Do you think illegal immigrants should get health care?" and you'll entirely miss the art of the possible.
The Obama advisers are making believe, or maybe, Incredibly, actually believe, that the president's political problems are caused by nattering leftists, and we assume that they vilify us so freely in the belief that this will win the allegiance of the "center" they're so enamored of. As Drew points out, it can't be us lefties causing their problems, because amazingly in less than a year this administration has managed to lose the confidence of the center as well as the left.
What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.
What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.
Drew goes on to break look at these three areas (regions?) of failure, with especially illuminating reference to what he takes to be the president's preference, in exercising leadership, for the lowest common denominator. While I'm urging you to read the whole piece, because with Drew Westen the brilliance is in the details, this section I really have to reproduce intact:
That means you don't really have to fight, you don't have to take anybody on, you don't take any risks. You just find what the public is so upset about that even the Republicans would stipulate to it if forced to (e.g., that excluding people from health care because they have "pre-existing conditions" is something we can't continue to tolerate) and build it into whatever plan the special interests can hammer out around it.
Unfortunately, what Democrats just can't seem to understand is that the politics of the lowest common denominator is always a losing politics. It sends a meta-message that you're weak -- nothing more, nothing less -- and that's the cross the Democrats have had to bear since they "lost China" 60 years ago. And in fact, it is weak.
Want health care reform? Let Congress work it out, and whatever comes out, call it a victory. It's telling that when the Senate triumphantly announced that it had the 60 votes for cloture on Friday, insurance stocks hit a 52-year peak.
Energy? Okay, if you don't really want to mess with the oil and coal industries, let the caps slip higher and higher and industry will cut pollution around the edges. It won't really solve the problem, but it's the golden mean between the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do, which is the essence of Obampromise. It also hamstrings you in Copenhagen, but oh well, they could use a little global warming there this time of year anyway. Have you noticed it's cold as hell over there?
Financial regulation? The president's all for the good stuff: regulating derivatives and other fancy financial products no one but the people making bundles off of them who crashed the economy (and now run it) understand. Tell bankers the days of wine and roses are over. But if we have to have half-reform so Goldman Sachs is willing to keep sending its best and brightest through the revolving door at Treasury, that's okay; the Dow is up. So jobs are bleak and the average American is enraged that Wall Street had a bumper year -- with record bonuses -- as they're losing their homes. But you know the old adage about a half a loaf.
That's in fact what the health care debate is over. We shouldn't have had to settle for half a loaf. If the president had simply placed appropriate blame on the health insurance industry for its pre-existing conditions, it's cutting off care for breast cancer victims in the middle of treatment, and its doubling our premiums and co-pays during the Bush years, he would have harnessed populist anger and pushed this bill through six months ago, and it would have looked like the change we were told to believe in. But if you cut backroom deals with every special interest who is part of the problem and offer the American people no coherent message while the other side is messaging straight out of the messaging memo written by Frank Luntz ("government takeover," "a bureaucrat between you and your doctor"), you can expect half a loaf. And the other half will be paid for by middle class taxpayers, as in the Senate bill, which includes provisions like taxing good middle class tax plans like PPOs, which will disappear as soon as insurance companies and big businesses have the excuse of the missing tax break. Remind me, when we've just had the largest transfer of wealth to the upper 1 percent of the country from working and middle class Americans in a century, why it would be such a terrible thing instead, as in the House bill, to ask people who make over a million dollars a year to pony up for the health care of their (and their friends') housekeepers, instead of taking away health care plans union workers traded for salary increases?
The president's biggest success has been on the international stage: He's not George W. Bush, and he's eloquent to boot. He's done a great deal with that eloquence to speak to Muslims around the world and to make clear to others in the international community that America is back -- mostly. But that international community is just starting to learn that his eloquence doesn't always have much behind it.
I've already quoted Drew's conclusion, at the start of this piece. I'm going to draw my ending from the middle, with this remarkable paragraph:
The problem with the president's strategic team is that they don't understand the difference between compromising on policy and compromising on core values. When it comes to policies, listen all you want to the Stones: "You can't always get what you want" (although it would be nice if the administration tried sometime). But on issues of principle -- like allowing regressive abortion amendments to be tacked onto a health care reform bill -- get some stones. Make your case to the American people, make it evocatively, and draw the line in the sand. That's how you earn people's respect. That's the only thing that will bring Independents back.
Is anyone in the White House listening?
STOP THE PRESSES! THE PRESIDENT THINKS
HE'S REALLY DELIVERING
For the record, President Obama disagrees that he has compromised too much. The Washington Post's Scott Wilson reports:
What the president means, of course, is that many things he mentioned in the campaign are mentioned in the bill. Like "the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage." Note that these are the reporter's words, not the president's. I'd be very surprised if the president actually said that those 30 million people are going to "receive" coverage, because, as we know, they are going to be forced to buy coverage -- hideously crappy coverage at preposterous prices, which most of them can't afford.
So yes, those uninsured folk are sort of addressed in the bill, but possibly not in a way they might have expected from candidate Obama's campaign promises.
#
Labels: Barack Obama, Drew Westen, Obama's leadership
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home