Bob Shrum: Can Obama reverse the tide? President is speaking like a Democrat and sounds pretty good

The Week ^ | September 9, 2010 | Robert Shrum

[2ndDivisionVet]

Written off for November. Bad polls and bleak news even in usually reliable Blue states. Among the herd of prognosticators and analysts, an overwhelming consensus for a GOP takeover. To borrow the recent verdict of the Associated Press, “Time has all but run out for [the president] and his party.”

But what this also describes isn’t recent. The time was 1948 and the President was Harry Truman. It was 1 AM in the morning when he addressed a dispirited Democratic Convention, where the panic was almost palpable: Do we really have to run with this guy?

The most famous part of the speech was in fact just the predicate for Truman’s larger, more salient message. He scorned the “do-nothing” Republicans in Congress just as Barack Obama now assails “the party of no.” But then Truman drew the dividing line on which he would wage his party’s entire campaign, from the Convention to whistle-stops across America. “The Democratic Party is the people’s party and the Republican Party is the party of special interest, “ he said as the suddenly roused delegates roared to their feet.

He described the GOP as a “citadel of privilege and greed”—and proved it by damning their “rich man’s tax bill” as a “rotten” thing that “sticks a knife in the back” of ordinary Americans. Democrats had a different view rooted in very different values: “Tax relief…ought to go to those who need it most, not those who need it least.” He then announced he was calling Congress back into session, a move which would starkly reinforce the case he was making—which he concluded could “save this country…from misrule from now on.”

The more things change, the more they stay the same. President Obama doesn’t have to call the members of Congress back into session; they’re already there. But the issue once again is tax breaks for the people or for the privileged—and the natural battle lines are the same today as they were in 1948.

This week, this Democratic President summoned his party to that battle. Predictably his language was less salty than his predecessor’s—more Harvard than Harry—but he was unequivocal. Tax cuts for those making under $250,000 shouldn’t be held “hostage” to the Republican demand to extend the Bush “tax breaks for the wealthy”—which “economists don’t think…would do much to boost the economy.”

He even made a tax credit for research development and investment sound compelling. Voters aren’t exactly propelled to the polls by something like that—and they don’t usually march under a banner of “infrastructure,” Obama’s other new signature proposal. But they will respond when they learn, as the President plainly said, that the GOP opposed such job creating measures because they refuse to close “tax loopholes that incentivize investment in overseas jobs.”

Obama found his voice again this week, and he’ll have to raise it again and again in the next eight weeks. The notion, popular among Blue Dogs, that they can run by running away from the President is a timeworn mirage. Ask those who tried it in 1994 and discovered that to localize the election is to lose the election.

The President is decidedly more popular than the Congress or either party. Republicans, at historic lows, can prevail only as a vehicle for protest. In a craven new world where facts are fungible, they did manage to malign and limit the stimulus and to sell the lie that it hasn’t worked. In fact, the serious economic analyses are unequivocal: The stimulus saved millions of jobs and federal intervention probably averted a depression.

But it’s too late to re-adjudicate the lie in an economy of sluggish job growth and near ten percent unemployment. The President and his party will benefit as the economy does recover. But not this year.

Obama has moved to policy arguments that not only reflect, but powerfully convey whose side each party is on. This is right in terms of Democratic ideals—and it’s smart strategy. The quavering Democrats—who aren’t very Democratic as they trifle with rubberstamping the Bush handouts to the top two percent—apparently aren’t aware that they’re on the wrong side of public opinion as well as principle. There’s no majority virtually anywhere in America for borrowing $700 billion to finance a wrong-way windfall. And repealing tax provisions that reward sending jobs overseas is even more popular.

Here the President holds the high ground politically. From it, he has the best chance to reframe 2010 as a choice, not a referendum—and to achieve the only conceivable success this year, the victory of lesser defeat and continued control of the House and the Senate. Indeed the choice he cast on the issues he chose not only can appeal to independents and moderates, but can energize Democrats who, according to poll after poll, are currently far less likely to cast a ballot in November. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, Republicans hold a nine point lead in the generic congressional ballot among likely voters; among registered voters, the result is a tie. What the President did this week can engage the base and change the composition of the electorate—if he keeps on doing it—and I have no doubt he will.

The frame he set—the people versus the privileged—can and should be broadened to other issues and other constituencies. Obama has broken free of the animus toward Social Security rife in his deficit reduction commission and arraigned the GOP for planning to “privatize” the program. Add to that indictment the prescription of Rep. Paul Ryan—the Republican budget honcho in the House—to voucherize and vaporize Medicare. Pretty soon, if this message is hammered home so it’s heard and heard, more senior citizens, the most likely midterm voters, will decide to turn toward Democrats.

Republican Leader John Boehner’s cynical call to freeze federal spending at 2008 levels offers a similar opportunity. It would cut veterans’ health $13 billion next year alone—and slash education, health research, and environmental protection—all for the sake of that Bush tax cut for the highest earners. By posing this choice, the President can reenlist and re-win millions of voters.

Finally, the message he sent this past week also told a coherent story about his first two years in office. On health reform, the Democrats stood up to the insurance companies—and the GOP stood with them. With financial reform, the Democrats fought to “end taxpayer funded bailouts”; the GOP wanted to let “Wall Street banks…take advantage of taxpayers and consumer.”

The word “narrative” has been overused in recent months; but it’s also something Democrats have underutilized as they pursued and passed a succession of historic changes. Now the President has created a narrative—one explicitly “rooted in my own family’s story”—that gives coherence to his achievements, identifies with the continuing apprehensions and hopes of Americans, and sets out a fundamental choice for the future: “a hand-up for middle class families” or “cut[ting] more taxes for millionaires and cut[ting] more rules for corporations.”

It’s a travesty that the Tea Party and then the Republican Party have been able to seed and exploit a perverted populism that would actually serve the few at the expense of the many. Now Barack Obama has articulated a progressive populism that may avert a wave election in 2010—and move the longer and wider tides of politics toward a progressive generation.

The President’s doing it his way, true to his character and temperament. Harry Truman used to “give ‘em hell.” This week, Barack Obama gave ‘em heck. It’s authentically his voice—and I wouldn’t underestimate how it can echo through this election.

[WOSG]

“This 7 time loser forgets that Truman went out on a whistlstop and the American people found him an honest broker.”

And more important Truman was on the ballot and ran hard against a guy who thought he was ahead so didnt try.
And even then Truman barely won.

Obama is not on the ballot. HIS AGENDA IS. AND HE CANT DEFEND IT.

[Chances Are]

Tell us the truth now, Vet - you posted this for comic relief, didn’t you?

CA....

[Verginius Rufus]

I think the jibe against Truman was that he was too ordinary--too much like the average man. Obama is an elitist whose instincts are 180 degrees from the average person's.

Truman served in WWI and did good service in the Senate before being selected as FDR's running mate by the party leaders who kne FDR wouldn't survive another 4 years and needed someone better than Henry Wallace to be the next President. Truman dropped the bombs that ended WWII, saved West Berlin from Stalin, rescued Europe in the Marshall Plan, went to South Korea's rescue (the last was after his victory in 1948). He made a lot of mistakes and was overly partisan, but in no way does his resume resemble Obama's.

[Mr. Mojo]

the President is speaking like a Democrat

Indeed he is -- playing the class warfare card and blaming everything on George Bush.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Is it working? LOL

[Interesting Times]

What he says doesn’t matter.

[LibLieSlayer]

obama has NOTHING left... his mojo is gone... even his staunch supporters have no more tingle. He ran this campaign in 2008... and like a one hit wonder... he only has one hit because somebody else wrote that hit and HE SUCKS! His rhetoric worked in '08... it ain't workin' now!

LLS

[Interesting Times]

What he says doesn’t matter.

[Hildy]

My only problem with all this talk is that if the Republicans have anything less than total obliteration of Dems, the press is going to report it like a failure....Expectations are so high now.

[screaminsunshine]

100% wrong on everything.

[BobP]

Barack Obama now assails “the party of no.”

It's time that we correct him and tell him he is spelling it wrong. We are "the party of know"

We know what a disaster obama and his policy's have been.

-----------------------

The libturds built Zer0 up as their messiah, and now he's looking like a one-term failure who will have a worse reputation than Jimmy Carter.

He lies about every detail that slithers out of his mouth. The form, substance, background, data, interpretation and meaning of every detail. He lies about his birth, his associates, his appointees, his policies, his activities, his thoughts, his family, everything. It's as if he can't speak a word without turning it into a dozen lies. Does anybody truly believe he has been a citizen from birth. Does anybody truly believe that he rejects the venom of Wright, Ayers, Jones, and hundreds of others, including his own spouse? Does anybody truly believe that he loves this country and wants the best for its people?

The 'working man' has been pushed into a corner. His savings are gone, his children's futures are being destroyed for no good reason.

There can be no doubt that what Obama seeks is to overthrow the Constitutional Republic that we have enjoyed for the past 230+ years.

Look at what we have become in 18 months.

He must be thrilled. Time for some hoops. Time for some ice cream. Time for a swim. Up yours America.

Liar = Obama.

Cheater = Feds.

Thief = Congress.

Con artist = Piss-Stream Media.

Throw 'em all out.

[VeniVidiVici]

Not sure if the Democrats can turn the tide. Their most rabid moonbat, Alan Grayson, has his first ad on the tube.

I don’t think it mentions ANYWHERE during the ad that Alan Grayson is a DEMOCRAT. Alan Grayson is a snake so running naked like this is par for the course. However, it sure doesn’t look like he has a whole lot of faith in the brand.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

A valid concern for sure. But they're going to be against us no matter what happens anyway. They'll always be looking to magnify failures and minimize gains.

Some guy named 'booger' on American Spectator summed up the whole race very eloquently (Yes, really!)

The argument that the sand Castle will give the G.O.P. a majority may well be flawed on two points: 1) Considering his lack of Republican principles, what's to prevent his pulling an Arlen Specter (or Charlie Crist or Murkowski) once safely ensconed in the Senate and change sides? 2) 2012 will offer even more pick up chances in the Senate than 2010. If the Republicans do manage a narrow majority in 2010, and then accomodate Obama's agenda due to RINO recalcitrance, it could actually hurt the potential gains of 2012. A prinicpled minority with enough votes to filibuster would be preferable than a go-along-get-along RINO majority.

The first one is a common argument, but the second is really captures the problem. A majority built with guys like Castle will hinder us from getting real things done. We cannot allow ourselves to be in control of the reins and be impotent at the same time. If we do, we'll jeopardize the huge potential gains we have coming our way in the next two elections. Besides, we don't have to totally write it off. We can win with O'Donnell. Stranger things have happened anyway. Frankly, in the anti-politician environment we're in, I think Castle will likely fade at the last minute anyway, since people are tired of his brand of career politician.

[Ann Archy]

Shrum and Obama....LOSERS.

[Diogenesis]

"Bob Shrum: Palin won't be GOP nominee in 2012 (Guess who he thinks will be?)
In presidential politics, Republicans are an orderly party; they're unlikely ever to be comfortable with the spontaneous, erratic performance of Sarah Palin.
They also have a nominee in waiting—Mitt Romney."

[gulfcoast6]

Obama is out of his league!