Analysts have, with varying degrees of accuracy, proffered as culprits 1) the prolonged sense of economic malaise, 2) the relative lack of control over messaging once in office compared to the kind of laser-focused messaging during a campaign, 3) the arrogant agenda of the White House as embodied by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's famous adage (and I paraphrase), "let no crisis go to waste," or conversely 4) the White House did not fight boldly enough for progressive principles. While much of the White House's troubles can be attributed to the difficulties of governing during times of great uncertainty and general voter frustration, I am of the opinion that Explanations 3 and 4 hit a little closer to the mark. This is not to say that I believe Obama exploited the economic crisis beyond what voters empowered him to do. Nor do I share the conviction of many progressives that Obama abandoned them once he took office. Rather, I am skeptical of explanations that treat a White House as a rudderless ship, helpless to navigate dire economic straits during a perfect storm. Certainly, historically poor economic conditions were, and will continue to be, a major constraint on the Obama Administration's political fortunes. Explanation 3, at least, is interesting in that it identifies the administration's missteps as factors in its tumbling popularity. On the other hand, having been alive in America during the 8 years of the Bush Administration, I also know that many of my fellow countrymen can see only the thinnest of lines between "arrogance" and "boldness" in the face of international crisis. Given what we know about Americans' past voting behavior, I think it's safe to say that we have an altogether pretty high tolerance for arrogance in our leaders.
The new administration's legislative agenda was bold: to shift nearly a trillion dollars in government spending towards stimulative reinvestment, to catapult comprehensive health care reform, financial sector reform, and energy reform through veritable fortified fiefdoms in Congress. Yet none of these legislative items were contrary to Obama's platform during his candidacy. Wasn't audacity the very change that Obama promised as a presidential candidate, the very hope that galvanized every segment of the American electorate? The nerve of that man...I mean he promised all these things during the election, and when he became president, he tried to enact them! And consider the Bush Administration's insistence on taking the country to war against Iraq, overruling vehement domestic and international outrage. I certainly believed George W. Bush to be arrogant, but arrogant is in the eye of the beholder, and the people decrying Obama's "big government agenda" are the very same people who praised W. for his gumption for sinking trillions into foreign war. In light of recent history, no one with even a passing familiarity with the events of the past 8 years thinks that Obama is in the midst of an unprecedentedly arrogant power grab. There is nothing relatively excessive about Obama's economic and reform measures, and there is nothing radical about Keynesian deficit-spending.
Explanation 4 is about half right. There were times when Obama should have more resolute, forceful even, in protecting his own skin. Taking office during the worst recession in generations, Obama knew full well that the unemployment rate would be the defining metric of his first term in office. What he might not have known at the time was that public perceptions of his agenda would be inextricably wound up with his two signature budget-busters: the emergency economic stimulus and health care reform. His administration was also tarred by its duty to implement another budget-buster (passed under George W. Bush), TARP, but this last item was unavoidable by the time Obama took office. On the stimulus, which originated within Obama's inner circle, the president could have more boldly seized control of his political destiny. Despite knowing full well that his first term would be judged largely by the unemployment rate, the Obama's first instinct was to make good on his post-partisan veneer by throwing a few bones to (suddenly deficit conscious) Republicans. Even all those long months ago, though, many progressives sensed, I think correctly, that the difference between $700 billion and $1.2 trillion would be lost on the American public. Either figure was large enough to send the media spin cycle into overdrive, but the economic impact of the higher spending would have produced a far more pronounced decline in unemployment. Unfortunately, Obama's concessions consisted of scaling back the size of the stimulus spending and carving out hundreds of billions in tax cuts against the advice of labor economists. In a moment where the White House could have unambiguously staked out a hard push against politically toxic unemployment, it chose a middle road. The White House economic team could only twiddle its thumbs from that day forth, as the unemployment rate flirted with double digits and Obama's poll numbers floated slowly but surely back to earth. And choosing the smaller stimulus did literally nothing to insulate Obama against accusations of exploding the size of government.
But I also find Explanation 4 to be unsatisfying on other counts. From a policy standpoint, Obama essentially gave his liberal supporters what they most wanted on a sizable number of their priorities, and it's simply unrealistic to expect that they would have gotten 100% of what they wanted. Take, for example, comprehensive health care reform, one of the dearest items to the hearts of liberal Democrats and one that had evaded every president since LBJ. A great many Democrats consider the compromises in the bill tantamount to treason. Granted, Obama wavered on the public option and eventually traded it away in exchange for the underlying bill's passage - but that underlying bill provided billions for expanding health coverage to the poor, tax-code changes aimed at disincentivizing the growth of health care costs, and regulatory changes protecting those with pre-existing conditions.
The most overlooked explanations are, as is so often the case, the least sexy. In a word, Obama is not Machiavellian enough. His scrupulous respect for legislative process, and relatedly, his unwillingness to take a more confrontational style and paint his Republican enemies as villains were fatal missteps. If anything, Obama could have compromised far more on the specifics of health care reform, and he could have compromised far more early at that. By handing health care to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Obama allowed legislative sausage-making (*ahem* legislative process) take center stage. Not only did Senator Baucus miss deadline after deadline in search of a compromise, but the Republicans on the committee, who, unlike Obama, had very Machiavellian motivations, managed to water down the bill without having to trade their support for the rollbacks. The result: months of media spotlight on an ugly and protracted legislative deal-making process that turned off everyone. Democrats were loth to compromise and Republicans used the media coverage to drum up opposition to the bill. By the time the bill reached the Senate floor, liberals were incensed that the public option had been sacrificed to secure the support of moderates, and moderates were still hesitant to support the weaker bill after months of climactic buildup.
A final insight: in times of uncertainty and fear, people like to have someone to blame: a villain, be it real or fictional. George W. Bush's inner circle understood this dynamic; they channeled fear into action against Iraq. The genius of the Tea Party is that it tapped into the electorate's need to rage at someone, some imaginary thing who caused their problems... anyone really. Americans were very receptive to their anti-government message - after all, government was in charge, and things were not getting better. Yoked to his post-partisan fantasy, Obama did not come out swinging against Republican failures and ideologies as President. The White House communication team tried belatedly and half-heartedly to lay the blame on George W. Bush, but blaming the past rings hollow; what Obama needed to do was make the case to Americans that Republicans' ideas - which are still very much alive and kicking - are to blame.
On the last day of my freshman year in college, my constitutional law professor read to us a quote from Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington: "Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so far short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is also a hope." The words always stayed with me, and I think they resonate now more than ever. Obama disappointed me very deeply, but I think we are all the more disappointed because he promises so much hope.
