How Obama can reset his presidency

How Obama can reset his presidency
By Clive Crook
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010
Published: January 24 2010 20:25 | Last updated: January 24 2010 20:25
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5e086c1e-0925-11df-ba88-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1


One year into his presidency, Barack Obama has come to a defining moment. He needs to reset, and Wednesday’s state of the union address is the place to begin.

Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts was an astonishing rebuke. It is difficult, still, to take in: one of the most liberal states in the union sent a conservative Republican to succeed Edward Kennedy in the Senate. A few weeks before, this was scarcely imaginable, even allowing for the Democratic candidate’s impressive incompetence.

For Mr Obama to carry on as though nothing had happened would be a gross mistake. But overreacting would be as bad. Going populist in a way that is false to his character would be one such error. Abandoning his ambitions for his presidency, occupying the office with no purpose except to keep it, would be another.

The Obama presidency is not dead yet. The midterm elections are 10 months away, and a lot can happen. If the economy revives, voters will come round. Mr Obama can still recover – but he must show he understands what has gone wrong. Early signs are that he does not.

He says that the same force which put him in the White House carried Mr Brown to victory: anger and frustration, “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years”. In other words, the blame for the election of a Republican in Massachusetts rests with George W. Bush. This was laughable. Worse, it suggested Mr Obama saw no need to change.

Of course, even while blaming Mr Bush for Massachusetts, the president did alter his approach – in a bad way, by pivoting towards a more populist economic policy. His new proposals on bank regulation are largely irrelevant, in my view, but for the moment put substance to one side and consider the tone. The tone, after all, was the point. Suddenly Mr Obama is a zealous bank-basher, spoiling for a fight and channelling the “bring it on” machismo of his predecessor. Much as Americans are furious at the banks, leftist populism is a long-term losing strategy in a country that turns out to be more conservative than Democrats had supposed.

Worse, on this president, the brawling posture looks false. This is not the “No Drama Obama” the US elected and – an important thing to bear in mind – still likes. A new poll shows that clear majorities still find Mr Obama “easygoing and likeable”, and “inspirational and exciting”; nearly 60 per cent praise his “leadership qualities”. Voters rate him lower, however, on job performance. They have it exactly right. Mr Obama had, and despite everything still has, plenty of political capital. But he has spent the past year trying in vain to hoard it. In 2010, the watchword will be: “Use it or lose it.”

What the middle of the electorate wanted from Mr Obama was, above all, a change in the way Washington works – and that was exactly what he promised. Congress is cordially loathed by a solid majority of US voters. They see Capitol Hill as intent on its own feuds and perquisites rather than on serving the public interest. They see both houses locked in a semi-permanent state of thrashing incapacity, interrupted by moments of frightening excess as one side or the other gets the upper hand. This is the dysfunction Mr Obama promised to address, and voters believed him.

Swing voters prize bipartisanship not just because it implies more centrist policies, but also because it checks zeal with pragmatism. Mr Obama seemed to embody that preference. It was plausible to hope that, while not dictating every detail of policies such as healthcare, he would insist both sides were heard.

What did he then do? He outsourced political leadership to Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives and Harry Reid in the Senate – leaders determined to press home their advantage and shut out the Republican enemy.

On healthcare reform, Mr Obama simply stood aside, telling the Democratic majorities that he would sign whatever they came up with. Efforts at outreach to Republicans were perfunctory. The moderating influence on the bills came not from them, or from the White House, but from dissenting conservative Democrats, fearing an electoral backlash. Deal-making to secure their support was as squalid as ever, with billions of dollars to be spent on bribes for their states.

Despite all that, the Senate bill was worth passing. But the process was revolting: congressional sausage-making at its worst. The public recoiled in disgust and confusion, while Mr Obama looked on placidly. This is the dynamic that accounts for the flight of independents from Mr Obama, and for the rout in Massachusetts.

It is not too late for healthcare reform, or for this administration. Mr Obama does not need a personality change, or a new ideology. But he does need to remember that he is the president of all Americans, not the passive facilitator of the Democratic party in Congress.

He must start leading. He must stop apologising to the progressive left, and find partners in the centre and the moderate right. With luck, the Republicans’ 41st seat in the Senate will force him to do this – but he should never have needed forcing. Yes, Republicans scenting victory will try to rebuff him. But if Mr Obama makes his efforts persistent enough and public enough, he can make them pay a price for that. The alternative for his party come November, and himself in 2012, could be ugly.

clive.crook@gmail.com
More columns at www.ft.com/clivecrook