Wall Street Journal
* _OPINION_
(http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type={Commentary+(U.S.)}&HEADER_TEXT=commentary+(u.s.)
* NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 6:57 P.M. ET
Why Obama Isn't Changing Washington
There is no way he can grow the government without attracting more
lobbyists and more political acrimony.
By _FRED BARNES_
(http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=FRED+BARNES&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)
One insight distinguished Barack Obama from the other presidential
candidates last year. While he lacked experience or a special grasp of issues,
Mr.
Obama said he uniquely understood what ails Washington, and what was
causing the endless squabbling and bitter stalemate on important issues. If
elected, he said he would change the way business is done in Washington, end
the
partisan deadlock and the ideological polarization.
"Change must come to Washington," Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. "I
have consistently said when it comes to solving problems," he told Jake
Tapper of ABC News that same month, "I don't approach this from a partisan or
ideological perspective."
Mr. Obama also decried the prominent role played by lobbyists. "Lobbyists
aren't just a part of the system in Washington, they're part of the
problem," Mr. Obama said in a May 2008 campaign speech.
I was reminded of this last statement by a recent headline on the front
page of USA Today. It read: "Health care fight swells lobbying. Number of
organizations hiring firms doubles in '09." The article suggested that what Mr.
Obama had promised to fix had only gotten worse.
Indeed that's the case. Washington is more partisan than ever, and more
polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on
health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes),
every
Republican the other (no).
With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats
draft bills with no input from Republicans. In return, Republicans vote in
lockstep against Democratic legislation. Every House Republican voted against
the stimulus, all but one against liberal health-care reform, and all but
eight against cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House earlier this
year.
Why has the president's publicly expressed vision of a kinder, gentler
Washington failed to materialize? I think Mr. Obama—while hardly the only
person at fault—is chiefly responsible.
He might have spawned a different Washington, a less divided town with
Democrats firmly in charge but Republicans actively involved. The bonus for Mr.
Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in
2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakes—
or, really, misreadings of the political landscape—and they've come back to
haunt him and his party.
First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn't a
mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an
ideological triumph of liberalism. Yet Mr. Obama, his aides and Democratic
leaders in Congress have treated it as a mandate to radically change policy
directions in this country. They are pushing forward one liberal initiative
after another. As a result, Mr. Obama's approval rating has dropped along with
the popularity of his agenda.
Mr. Obama should have known better. The evidence that America remains a
center-right country was right there in the national exit poll on Election
Day. When asked about their political beliefs, 34% identified themselves as
conservative, 22% as liberal, and a whopping 44% as moderate.
As Mr. Obama has unveiled his policies, the country has tilted more to the
right. A Gallup Poll on Oct. 21 found the country to be 40% conservative,
36% moderate, and 20% liberal.
Nearly every Obama policy has thrilled either the president's base in the
Democratic Party or a liberal interest group but practically no one else.
Nearly every policy is unpopular with a majority or large plurality of
Americans. The $787 billion economic stimulus was enacted in February with
strong
public support. But it has long since lost favor.
It should have been no surprise the public gave a thumbs down to Mr. Obama
policies. The decision to close the prison in Guantanamo, the takeover of
General Motors and Chrysler, the bailout of banks and financial institutions
(begun under President George W. Bush), the trillion-dollar deficits, cap
and trade, the surge in the size and scope of the federal government—these
were out of sync with the country's right-of-center majority.
Mr. Obama argued in his Feb. 24 address to Congress that health-care
reform, billions in new education spending, and cap and trade to reduce carbon
emissions were necessary to revive the economy. This was a clever attempt to
exploit the recession to pass unrelated liberal policies. It was too
clever. It didn't work.
Second, Mr. Obama misread his own ability to sway the public. He is a glib,
cool, likeable speaker whose sentences have subjects and verbs. During the
campaign, he gave dazzling speeches about hope and change that excited
voters. His late-night speech at a Democratic dinner in Des Moines on Nov. 10,
2007, prior to the Iowa caucuses, convinced me he'd win the presidential
nomination.
But campaign speeches don't have to be specific, and candidates aren't
accountable. Presidential speeches are different. The object is to persuade
voters to back a certain policy, and it turns out Mr. Obama is not good at
this. He failed to stop the steady decline in support for any of his policies,
most notably health care.
The president spent much of the summer and early fall touting his
health-care initiative. He spoke at town halls, appeared on five Sunday talk
shows
the same day (Sept. 20), turned up on "The Late Show with David Letterman"
and on "60 Minutes." All the while, support for ObamaCare fell. His address
to Congress on health care on Sept. 9 is now remembered only for Republican
Rep. Joe Wilson's shouted accusation, "You lie!"
Third, Mr. Obama misread Republicans. They felt weak and vulnerable after
losing two straight congressional elections and watching John McCain's
presidential bid fall flat. They were afraid to criticize the newly elected
president. If he had offered them minimal concessions, many of them would have
jumped aboard his policies. If that had happened, the president could have
boasted of achieving bipartisan compromise on the stimulus and other
policies. He let the chance slip away.
By March, tea parties had begun cropping up across the country to protest
spending in Washington. Over the summer, independents moved away from Mr.
Obama when they learned of the soaring cost of his policies. By late summer,
Republicans emerged as a full-blown opposition with growing public backing.
The point in all this is Mr. Obama could have given a little and gained a
lot. To change Washington, he would have had to corral congressional
Democrats, who weren't interested in bipartisanship or compromise. He would
have
had to disappoint his base and, at times, anger liberal interest groups. Mr.
Obama wasn't willing to go that route.
In Washington it's business as usual, except for one thing. The bigger the
role of government, the more lobbyists flock to town. By pushing for his
policies, the president effectively put up a welcome sign to lobbyists.
Despite promising to keep them out of his administration, he has even hired a
few. So nothing has changed, except maybe that Washington is now more
acrimonious than it has been.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on
Fox News Channel.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
