Obama's September Choice: Charge or Trim?

As Congress returns from its summer recess, President Obama, slipping in the polls, assailed on all sides by the carpers, faces a strategic choice: Lead the charge, rally Democrats, and push forward on his agenda, starting with health care reform or trim his sails and adopt a more cautious course.

David Brooks, the keeper of conservative convention, sounds the call for retreat in his New York Times column. Brooks, who peddles conservative pieties with a soft voice and smile, has packaged himself as the "reasonable" Republican. This has made him the darling of mainstream opinion, a pundit far more prominent than profound. But he is consistent: when he begins ladling out advice to Democrats, he is unerringly in error.

Brooks argues that Obama has gone astray because he joined himself "at the hip to the liberal leadership in Congress." His slide in opinion polls comes from promoting policies that "increase spending and centralize power in Washington." Obama must learn that "fiscal responsibility" is the "animating issue of American moderates." So Obama would be well advised to return to the central values of America: "fiscal restraint, individual choice and decentralized authority."

Well. Few would object to those desirables, but before Brooks' advice congeals into conventional wisdom, it is worth noting that it is truly bunk.

Yes, Obama has suffered a slide in the polls since the afterglow of his election. Much of this was to be expected once he started trying to clean up the devastation left by George Bush. Become president as Americans lose some $13 trillion in assets and see how long your popularity holds up, no matter what course you follow.

But in these ruins, it is hardly "fiscal responsibility" that is the "animating issue" of American politics. Conservatives love to huckster this theme when they are out of power. Since Reagan -- who, as Dick Cheney noted, taught us "deficits don't matter" -- the right has followed a consistent path. In power, they cut top end taxes, explode the military budget, and run up record deficits. Thrown out of power, they suddenly become chastened disciples of fiscal discipline, preaching against licentious spending, renting garments in the name of balanced budgets, looking towards the day when they are returned to power to once more cut top end taxes, explode the military budget and run up record deficits. So Reagan doubles the national debt and runs up unprecedented deficits which conservatives in both parties use to shackle the Clinton presidency. So Bush squanders the Clinton surplus, and bequeaths a trillion dollar deficit to Obama.

But the cynicism of this strategy wouldn't matter much if in fact it were true that voters were fixated on "fiscal responsibility." No question Americans are worried about deficits. How could they not be given the media clamor about $9 trillion dollar deficits, a figure tossed about unhinged from the reality that it represents a 10 year projection during which time the economy will generate over $180 trillion in GDP.

But is it red ink that has soured Americans on Obama's course? Or is that simply a metaphor for growing concerns about his economic policies?

In fact, I'd argue that the two biggest drags on the president's popularity go without mention in the Brooks column. It isn't "fiscal responsibility" in the abstract; it is hundreds of billions going to bail out bankers and speculators who are now back to paying themselves million dollar bonuses -- bonuses about to be approved by the president's compensation czar -- while factories close, homes are lost, hours and wages decline.

Americans conflate the recovery plan, which is actually putting people to work, with the Wall Street bailout which rewards the very people who drove us off the cliff. They aren't angry at "big government" in the abstract (They love Social Security and Medicare, two of the largest big government social programs). They are angry at a big government that spends their money to save Wall Street and not Main Street. Obama pays and will pay a continuing price for the decision to subsidize the banks and not reorganize them, to bail them out without firing those who led us into the mess.

The other policy that will increasingly corrode trust in Obama is also absent from Brooks' column. It comes from dismissing liberals, not following them. That is the misadventure in Afghanistan. Liberal voices have been muted here, hoping against hope that Obama would find a way to extricate us before it's too late. But a significant part of Obama's slide in the polls comes from liberals and Democratic leaning independents. Democratic leaders have always "misunderestimated" the depths of American discomfort with these adventures. Sure, no one wants al Qaeda given a free pass. But this country is in trouble here at home. The vast majority of Obama supporters wants out of Iraq and has no appetite for sending ever more troops to Afghanistan in the futile pursuit of "nation-building." Hell, even conservative George Will has no stomach for that.

Brooks suggests that it would be "suicidal" for the president and Democrats to press forward with health care reform without Republican support. In fact, the reverse is surely true. Democrats learned in 1994 that Americans will hold them responsible if they fail to produce. Republicans get this -- that's why they have committed themselves to trying to "break" the Obama presidency by uniting to obstruct any reform.

The president can't escape this test. Can he rally the disputatious Democratic Senators to unite against the Republican filibuster, pass cloture with 60 votes, and then pass a health care plan through both Houses of Congress with majority support? If Democrats unite against the filibuster, several so-called moderate Republicans (truly exotic birds) are likely to join in the supporting the final bill -- but not until then. And Democrats -- if they pass a decent bill -- will benefit greatly in 2010. Alternatively they can follow Brooks' advice and run in the bi-election with double digit unemployment and failed health care reform. Good luck.

In the end, Brooks lives in a conservative fantasy world. Americans are suspicious of centralized government, he says, because "This is a country that has just lived through an economic trauma caused by excessive spending and debt." More accurately, this is a country that has lived through an economic trauma caused by catastrophic financial deregulation and speculation, fueled by top end tax cuts, a costly war of choice, a middle class holding on only by taking on greater debt, and an unsustainable global economic strategy based on borrowing $2 billion a day from abroad. Conservative policies and ideas drove us off the cliff.

Getting the diagnosis wrong leads Brooks to the wrong prescription: "fiscal responsibility, individual choice and decentralized authority." Bravo. But in the current situation, this translates into cutting spending, which would increase unemployment and deepen the recession, and foregoing re-regulation, which would allow Wall Street to go where they are already headed -- back to gambling, now with taxpayers' guaranteeing their losses.

Obama's problem isn't that he's tied himself to "liberal leadership" in the Congress (surely an oxymoron in the Senate). It is that he appears to be straying from the promise that swept him into office. His great genius was to run a campaign that understood how much Americans wanted change. He presented himself as an outsider who would challenge the old ways of doing business, sweep the money changers from the temple, and take on the entrenched corporate lobbies. He pledged to get us out of Iraq, and to bring the money home to invest in America.

Is he suffering because he has followed that course? Or are doubts growing because he appears to be wavering, cowed by Wall Street, waltzing with the drug companies, getting rolled by oil and coal interests, squandering more resources and lives abroad, while talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security?

Americans want this president to succeed. The majority that elected him want Washington changed. They want him to take on the entrenched special interests. They will punish those -- particularly Democrats -- who stand in his way. But they increasingly wonder if he is the champion they elected. Obama's leadership strategy -- which is to emphasize compromise, elevate bipartisanship, put everyone at the table, blur lines of disagreement -- does little to dispel these doubts.

So as the president meets with his advisors this fall, he should remind them of what got him to the White House. He would benefit greatly from hewing not to Brooks' wrong headed advice to trim his sails, but by boldly unfurling the principles and priorities that inspired the movement that swept him into office and stands ready to fight with him today.

Comments

[Susan Lipp]

Fiscal responsibility?
When a company is in debt, they reduce their staff and workers.
Government should do the same.

Proposal:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.

Reduce Senate from 100 to 50 (one per State). Reduce their staff by 25%.

Gains:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork. jobs that are gone. Total government pork earmarks $15 Billion/yr.
The remaining would work smarter and improve efficiencies.
Smaller committees are more efficient.
Congress took a holiday, dispite our economic problems.

Summary:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. 8-BILLION

Big business does these types of cuts/reductions all the time.

If Congress was required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) to collect retirement, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

[LHB58]

Why doesn't someone ask David Broder exactly how "fiscal responsibility" would positively effect his life? It's about as animating an issue right now as a corpse.

[bakbayray]

I don't know whether anyone on Obama's staff reads these blogs, but I certainly hope so. I spent a term as an elected official and quickly learned to vote my conscience, after carefully studying the issues in front of me. As a result, I said "NO" a lot to developers who had to get city coundil approval to do anything. They then put a lot of money into a new and unknown candidate when I ran for reelection and I could not compete with all those dollars. So, I lost. But, I tried to do the right thing and I can live with myself.
Obama needs to remember what it is that we voted for and risk the possibility that he might lose his bid for reelection by doing what he surely knows is the "right" thing. But, I believe a majority of us are with him and know what the right thing is. We all need to FAX him with our thoughts and do it prior to his big speech of next week--a speech which ought to be highly crucial to his and our future.

[DenverGator]

Mr. Borasage is dead on. The mindboggling myth that republicans continue to speak for fiscal responsibility, or care about the middle class at all except as vote manipulation fodder, is finally being faced even by those who love a big bad military and a lot of false noise about family values as they lose their jobs and their homes. (Sorry for the long sentence but it just sort of gushes).
Obama is at the crossroads. He can be waffling back and forth McClellan and go down and history as the pretty guy that couldn't, or he can be a Grant and change history. The biggest loss to America however is not simply health care, the economy or the killing of the planet. The real loss will be that intelligence and not-for-hire leaders will once again become disassociated from our system of government as we reach for the decisive but incompetent action figures like Regan and Bush.

[KarenHurtz]

It's worth repeating:

"It isn't 'fiscal responsibility' in the abstract [that has soured Americans on Obama's course]; it is hundreds of billions going to bail out bankers and speculators who are now back to paying themselves million dollar bonuses -- bonuses about to be approved by the president's compensation czar -- while factories close, homes are lost, hours and wages decline."

Endless wars are also worth mentioning - even if they are mostly paid contractors.

Still, I submit that both issues are directly related to clumsy efforts aimed at speeding-up the globalization of governments (i.e. trade), and that corruption and insider fraud are the biggest obstacles to representative government.

Oh yes.... David Brooks...

If America elected a man that would listen to David Brooks for policy guidance, then unfortunately, that's what they will get. I can see it now... History of the World, Part II by David Brooks.

[privateerX]

I agree.... Perhaps one of our media professionals... (lol)... would like to pick up the point of noting each night at the end of their broadcast with... XXX many days Obama has been in office and "STILL" no one is in jail for collapsing the worlds economy, the Wall street executives and bankers who endorsed, promoted and caused it are still in power, manipulating our elected officials and getting bonuses as desert for all their hard work! I think the word for this is... Sociopaths not Socialism!

Call me nuts... but isn't this strangely similar to how the french revolution started... or for that matter just about every revolution history has to tell of?

[MyrtleJune]

Spot on. Every single word. This presidency is turning into what we would have gotten with clinton and I have to wonder if he is keeping their counsel here. Because he shouldn't. And i'm questioning Axelrod's connection to the Health care industry and perhaps not giving the best advice. And of course Rahm.... bad advice I'm certain.

So, what is Obama going to do here. Surely he or someone in his counsel can frame the decision as clearly as Mr. Borosage. The people that elected him of all parties want this country to break the stranglehold of the failed conservative policies. The choice is obvious. I hope he makes it.

[privateerX]

I completely agree.... This presidency has turned into exactly what we would have gotten had we elected Clinton !!! Washington Politics as usual ...

[DenverGator]

Myrtle, I think we would have gotten a lot more action with Hillary. She is decisive (a relative term with all politicans of course), knows the enemy well and has mostly the right ideas. We dems switched over to Obama because we wanted less fighting and more accomplishments. As it turns out we got more fighting but without the accomplishments as yet.

[MyrtleJune]

Are you kidding? Under Hillary it would have been TONS more fighting and Farrrrrrrrrr more vitiriol. I mean she inspires like no other. IN FACT, we'd be sayin' President McCain if people hadn't had enough of our DEMOCRATS moving the right to appease our captors. Obama is THE best chance and Americans made the right decision. I worry that the counsel he is receiving is to go right and that's NOT how he got there. He got there clearly by going and staying left, hard left back to CENTER. Now the CENTER elected Obama with full support for the public option. The ONLY problem he faces here is the smear from the right claiming it is farrrrr left when it is CENTER. It is far left for them because they reside at the edge of their flat earth, but for the majority and sane Americans the public option and Obama are CENTER. Single Payer is left of that and that's why it is off the table.

Hillary is hardly decisive is my point here. I cite the war vote for one..... Sorry but Obama was and IS the BEST choice. Let's hope he shuts out the poor counsel of pretend Democrats.

[ejga]

I agree with everything said in this article. The only question that remains is whether Obama is now showing us who he really is - a slightly right of center cerntrist - and just did (lied to us) what he needed to do to win election, whether he's been co-opted by political/financial forces that have him leaning in a direction that isn't who he is and that he has somehow innocently lost his way, or whether this is just how American politics and culture goes and whoever is in power always answers to the real powers that be - the industrila/military/financial complex and the rest of us eternally suffer as a consequence.

I'm choosing the latter, which also reflects upon the first choice as well. I would welcome being pleasantly surprised and find out he has lost his way and rights his floundering ship - but I'm not holding my breath on that.

[privateerX]

I agree... Good Article .... There is a lot going on in our country, but right now I am seeing more negotiating by Obama than leadership. Sadly the negotiating is with the corporate influences over and within our own government.

Mr. Obama, I voted for you and even represented you as a delegate at the state level... You promised an end to lobbyists and special interest groups ruling our government... yet they are the very ones you are negotiating with... as well as enabling big business & Wall Street by not putting these men in jail for what they have done.

I am giving you one year to begin starting to right these wrongs and hold to your promises... or I for one am going to start looking for an Independent candidate to support in 2012 and vote you out .... I'm tired of the corporate pandering B.S. that goes on... which you promised to put an end to on National TV just a week before the election in FLA.... Remember???

[mariah793]

The administration is either inept or never wanted reform in the first place. Communicating, one way or another, that health care reform would be partially funded by cuts in Medicare is about the dumbest move I've ever seen. That equates to opposition from one of his key bases: the over-65 group. Then putting up the key component, the public option, as the 'give-away' has lost him his core base: the progressives. If the NYT is correct, what we'll end up with is 1) mandated coverage, through private insurance, of children and 2) regulation of insurance companies so they can't deny coverage. That sounds like one great pay-off to the insurance companies. The rates will go through the roof. And the administration will have lost its key supporters.

Lordy, I hope I'm wrong. This weakness is sending people to their deaths.

[oscar19]

"They are angry at a big government that spends their money to save Wall Street and not Main Street. Obama pays and will pay a continuing price for the decision to subsidize the banks and not reorganize them, to bail them out without firing those who led us into the mess."

You hit the nail on the head.

[jefflorida]

and not only is it immoral and impolitic, it is impractical. pouring money into the treasuries of the financial sector does little to detoxify the assets that underlie the crisis: mortgages greater than the value of the real estate that secures them. that is where the money, political capital and, yes, investor pain should be concentrated. why are bank bondholders' asset positions sacrosanct? the essence of capitalism is to put wealth AT RISK for the possibility of profit, always with the understanding that losses may be the result. detroit's union workers and homeowners nationwide are scalped while the financial sector (save goldman sach's erstwhile competitor lehman brothers) doesn't even get a trim?

[capitaldysfunction]

Nothing will tell us more about the direction of this administration than the President's upcoming speech before congress. If it is about comforting the comfortable; about a health care system that primarily benefits the investor class; about tweaking the private health insurers around the edge, than Obama has lost his message of change and hope.
Make no mistake: dropping the public option or putting a trigger on the public option is not hope or change. It is a retreat. And it should not be tolerated by the Democratic party. Unfurl the message of hope and change, of being a voice for the voiceless my fellow Democrats, or step off the stage and let the party of Death Panels run the show.

[jedthekidd]

I can't wait for Obama to be the candidate I voted for and not the bipartisan seeking president he has been trying to be. He still has the support for change that he always had, we just need him to lead. I have grown to have a real dislike for republicans in my midlife. I can't remember ever disliking the republicans this much, I guess it started with the Bush years. The politics of fear I find disgusting. The pure desperation that republicans feel when they are not in power is alot like borrowing money from your frugal Uncle. You know the one, always broke yet you know he's lying, just hates to share. I really can't believe the lengths the republican party will go to, scaring grandma? Shame doesn't seem to play a part of their thought process. I worry about the security of our president. That's awfull after a past like we've had in this country. Extreme bipartisanship no matter the cost seems very dangerous. I hope Obama can lead us out of it, I'll support him till the end. On the Afganistan issue I think we are eight years too late and would just assume bring our troops home. It's been a long fight in the wrong country. I just don't see the benefit of fighting in a country that doesn't like us and has a corrupt government. Bring the troops home and regroup. Then pick our battles in the future with actual intelligence.

[jimmyaj]

I keep thinking that one morning I'll wake up to find that Obama has taken this bi-partisan business too far and he's joined the Republicans.

[katermc]

You are absolutely right. Thanks for your sanity.

[marcywrite]

President Obama's choice is as clear as a bell: LEAD THE CHARGE FOR CHANGE!

[TruthQuest2010]

Obama's September choice, is whether to continue to lie and make secret deals with Big Pharma and Big Insurers, or STICK TO THE FACTS, TELL US THE TRUTH, AND LEAD THE PATH TOWARD TRUE, BIPARTISAN REFORM that will benefit ALL the American People!!!

Let's start with telling the truth on the number of uninsured: 22 Million, NOT 46 Million. Read it for yourselves here http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/31/the-real-story-on-the-uninsured/

THE DEBATE SHOULD BE ABOUT HOW TO HELP THE 22 MILLION US CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS THAT TRULY NEED HELP (WHICH INCLUDES THE TEMPORARILY UNINSURED IN-BETWEEN JOBS) OBTAIN OR RETAIN COVERAGE, NOT HOW TO DESTROY THE EXISTING SYSTEM UNDER FALSE PREMISES, A SYSTEM WHICH 85% OF US STATE TO BE SATISFIED WITH!

According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s The Uninsured in America, 1996-2008: Estimates for the U.S. Civilian Non-institutionalized Population under Age 65 (Statistical Brief #259) the number of non-elderly individuals in 2007 was 39.9 million, including 5.9 million children who are either in families wealthy enough to afford health insurance or are already eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). And the remaining 34 million uninsured include 12 million illegal aliens.
Most uninsured become insured. Per the CDC’s Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey (CDC, Table 25), nearly one quarter of currently uninsured individuals was due to change in employment.

[themainpoint]

"THE DEBATE SHOULD BE ABOUT HOW TO HELP THE 22 MILLION US CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS THAT TRULY NEED HELP (WHICH INCLUDES THE TEMPORARILY UNINSURED IN-BETWEEN JOBS) OBTAIN OR RETAIN COVERAGE, NOT HOW TO DESTROY THE EXISTING SYSTEM UNDER FALSE PREMISES, A SYSTEM WHICH 85% OF US STATE TO BE SATISFIED WITH!"

Sounds good at first glance, but I disagree. The people who are happy with their health insurance include many who have never been sick enough to find out what the health insurance they have is like when they need is most.. And I doubt one American with the facts believes that they should continue to be overcharged more than twice the going rate for health care in advanced countries due to a corrupt system that is full of giveaways to medical industry interests.

The center of this debate should be about getting rid of the artificial inflation and bringing the prices down to reasonable, fair and sustainable levels so we can cover every American at the going rate. Otherwise, it will still be a disaster waiting to happen and just kicking the can down the road.

[Elephantinroom]

Why can't we purchase insurance policies across state lines? THAT would immediately add competition, and lower costs, WITHOUT costing the taxpayer any money.
Tort reform would also lower healthcare costs without costing the taxpayer ANY money.
Canada has a malpractice cap of $300,000.

[jefflorida]

the u.s. spends twice what canada, europe, etc. do on healthcare and gets worse results.