I was almost tempted not to comment on the president's state of the union address, except to point out that we know by now that a Barack Obama speech doesn't actually do anything.
Obama's speeches have received such frequent and exaggerated praise for their supposed eloquence that it is easy to miss the fact that they do not actually persuade voters or change calculations in Congress. Consider his last address to a joint session of Congress, in which he argued for his health care bill. The speech produce a small bump in the polls—which lasted about four days, after which the public's approval for the bill continued to slide and support in Congress remained anemic.
Wednesday night's speech was no different. Afterwards, centrist Democrats in Congress declared that he had done nothing to change their stand on the health care bill. As for the public, RCP's Sean Trende describes a television focus group's reaction:
CNN as always had its focus group with their “magic dials,” where the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans could register their feelings toward the president. CNN showed a clip where the president began talking about health care reform. He was going along at about what looked like 50% with R's and I's, and 90% among D's. The second the words “health care” came out of his mouth, the numbers among R's and I's dipped about 10 points. This suggests that he hasn't made much progress in turning around the public's views of health care reform.
Moreover, the speech went on: “Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.”
During this segment, the dials for Independents and Republicans plummeted. Republicans were around 20%, while Independents were actually around 0%.
It's amazing how quickly Obama has faded from political phenom to someone who enjoys zero support from independent voters on his central legislative priority. I don't think Trende quite understands the reason for this total rejection of Obama by independents. He blames it on Obama being too informal and "folksy." In fact, the line "Now let's clear a few things up" was not delivered in a folksy or self-deprecating manner. (When has Obama ever been either of those things?) It doesn't come across as clearly in print as it did in its actual delivery on television, but I thought the line sounded testy, impatient, condescending. The basic attitude was: you people are too stupid or venal to understand what I said the first ten times I said it, so let me lecture you once more.
That was the overall tone of the speech, and it is why this speech just might do something: it will make independent voters hate Barack Obama for his insufferable paternalist attitude.
Obama's paternalism begins with his view of what the American people want from government. "I know the anxieties that are out there right now…. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children—asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work." That's his view of the American people: we are like children, writing in to supplicate him for jobs and other goodies to be delivered from Washington. We are "hurting" and "need help," Obama tells us, and because the help isn't coming fast enough, we are "frustrated" and "angry."
In Obama's alternate universe, this is his diagnosis of the voters' swing against the Democrats, seen most clearly last week in Massachusetts. It is not the outrage of adults who are expressing their refusal to be made dependent on the state; it is a temper tantrum delivered by children who are frustrated that Washington isn't doing enough to provide for their needs.
Most of all, Obama regards us as children in our mental functioning. Why is the health-care bill failing? According to Obama, it is because it is "a complex issue" and he has not done a better job of "explaining it more clearly" to us. Perhaps he should use smaller words next time, to fit our limited vocabularies and short attention spans.
But he assures us that "health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo." I had to rewind my DVR and listen to that line again when I heard it. Did the president of the United States just ask the American people to revise their opinion of his health care bill by deferring to the authority of "experts"? The ultimate political power in this country is not wielded, thankfully, by "experts." It is wielded by the American people themselves, who undertake their own effort to understand and evaluate legislation. And it should be obvious by now that they have heard plenty of the president's explanations; he's been on television endlessly touting the bill for the better part of a year. The problem for the president is that the American people have already educated themselves on this bill, and they have arrived at their conclusion.
The American people are not as stupid as Obama assumes. When he boasts that "we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person," they know that the Democrats have increased spending by a trillion dollars and proposed to do so by a trillion more—and that the American people will eventually have to pay for it.
Or consider the reaction to his bogus "freeze" on government spending, which would only limit about 14% of the budget, letting the rest of it grow like mad. When Obama added that this proposal wouldn't even take effect until 2011, spontaneous laughter burst out in the chamber. In an ad-libbed response, Obama swiveled his head toward the Republicans, narrowed his eyes in contempt, and shot back, "That's how budgeting works."
He was referring to the fact that Congress passes each year's official budget in the previous year, so that the budget passed this year will be the budget for 2011. But the people remember that a Democratic Congress had no trouble throwing out the official budget when it came time to spend $700 billion on the TARP bailout, or another $800 billion on the "stimulus." The American people understand "how budgeting works" because they manage their own budgets, and when the downturn came, they didn't have the luxury of waiting until next year to cut back. That's why they laughed at Obama's "Lord give me chastity, but not yet" approach to fiscal restraint. And his sarcastic response just lets them know that he isn't listening to them and doesn't think they have anything worthwhile to say.
That brings us to the speech's most stunning expression of contempt for the American voter: "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know." Let him know? How do you suppose we ought to let the president know what we think? Perhaps we should all show up at town hall meetings, or hold giant rallies across the nation and on the DC mall. Perhaps pollsters could fan out across the country to ask us our opinions. Perhaps Republicans in Congress could propose alternative legislation. Perhaps we could even hold an election—let's make it easy for the president and hold it in left-leaning Massachusetts—that would serve as a referendum on health care. Of course, we did all of those things, and the president made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a damn what we have to say.
He also made it clear, more subtly, that he isn't really talking to us anyway. Here is how Obama described people's discontent with his administration: "I campaigned on the promise of change—change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change—or at least, that I can deliver it. But remember this—I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone." This is not addressed to the general public or to independent voters. They have not been concerned about his failure to deliver "change"; they've been concerned that he wants the wrong kind of change. So who is the audience for this speech? He's talking to his "base" on the left, trying to shore up their support. And he's talking to Democrats in Congress: "I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." So his main recommendation is that the left should band together to overrule the verdict of the voters and shove the health care bill through anyway.
I don't think he'll succeed. But he will persist long enough to expose his contempt for the American people and thoroughly repel them.
This is what I predicted back in July of 2008, at the height of Obamamania, in a TIA Daily item titled, "Why We Will Hate Barack Obama." As I wrote then, "we will all grow to hate Obama, on a personal, visceral level, if he is ever allowed to control the levers of power. The reason is that he is one of the most high-handed, self-aggrandizing, arrogant political leaders we have ever seen…. Once we have to deal with Obama's sense of personal entitlement every day, boy is it going to grate on our nerves."
Is it grating on yours yet? I thought so.
Postscript:
I also wanted to say a few words about the Republican response to Obama's speech, delivered by newly sworn-in Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
What struck me about McDonnell's speech is how it reflects the tension between the Republican establishment and the tea party movement. Reflecting the cautiously moderate, Pragmatist establishment, the speech was filled with vague altruist bromides. But peeking out occasionally, and somewhat incongruously, were a few elements of the ideas driving the tea party movement—serious, radical ideas about the nature and role of government.
Here is the usual "moderate" statist mush: "All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it…. [B]ringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration." And here is glimpse of the tea party ideas:
It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "a wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ...and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." He was right….
The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level. Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.
Restoring the "proper, limited role of government" in opposition to a government that "threatens our very liberty"? Where did he get those ideas?
But these were just a few lines, and overall it was the centrist bromides (mostly about "equality of opportunity") that won out.
Republicans love to talk about the example of Reagan, and they all remember the famous televised speech on the choice between liberty and statism that launched Reagan's national political career. But they hardly ever actually draw from that example. Reagan certainly was "folksy" and connected to the American people—but not through such trivialities as McDonnell's opening reference to his sons watching SportsCenter. Reagan didn't connect to the American people by showing that he shared their interest in sports. He did it by showing them that he shared their interest in liberty.
That's what the Republicans need today, and it's a shame they couldn't produce it now, when the time is so ripe for it.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
Obama's speeches have received such frequent and exaggerated praise for their supposed eloquence that it is easy to miss the fact that they do not actually persuade voters or change calculations in Congress. Consider his last address to a joint session of Congress, in which he argued for his health care bill. The speech produce a small bump in the polls—which lasted about four days, after which the public's approval for the bill continued to slide and support in Congress remained anemic.
Wednesday night's speech was no different. Afterwards, centrist Democrats in Congress declared that he had done nothing to change their stand on the health care bill. As for the public, RCP's Sean Trende describes a television focus group's reaction:
CNN as always had its focus group with their “magic dials,” where the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans could register their feelings toward the president. CNN showed a clip where the president began talking about health care reform. He was going along at about what looked like 50% with R's and I's, and 90% among D's. The second the words “health care” came out of his mouth, the numbers among R's and I's dipped about 10 points. This suggests that he hasn't made much progress in turning around the public's views of health care reform.
Moreover, the speech went on: “Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.”
During this segment, the dials for Independents and Republicans plummeted. Republicans were around 20%, while Independents were actually around 0%.
It's amazing how quickly Obama has faded from political phenom to someone who enjoys zero support from independent voters on his central legislative priority. I don't think Trende quite understands the reason for this total rejection of Obama by independents. He blames it on Obama being too informal and "folksy." In fact, the line "Now let's clear a few things up" was not delivered in a folksy or self-deprecating manner. (When has Obama ever been either of those things?) It doesn't come across as clearly in print as it did in its actual delivery on television, but I thought the line sounded testy, impatient, condescending. The basic attitude was: you people are too stupid or venal to understand what I said the first ten times I said it, so let me lecture you once more.
That was the overall tone of the speech, and it is why this speech just might do something: it will make independent voters hate Barack Obama for his insufferable paternalist attitude.
Obama's paternalism begins with his view of what the American people want from government. "I know the anxieties that are out there right now…. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children—asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work." That's his view of the American people: we are like children, writing in to supplicate him for jobs and other goodies to be delivered from Washington. We are "hurting" and "need help," Obama tells us, and because the help isn't coming fast enough, we are "frustrated" and "angry."
In Obama's alternate universe, this is his diagnosis of the voters' swing against the Democrats, seen most clearly last week in Massachusetts. It is not the outrage of adults who are expressing their refusal to be made dependent on the state; it is a temper tantrum delivered by children who are frustrated that Washington isn't doing enough to provide for their needs.
Most of all, Obama regards us as children in our mental functioning. Why is the health-care bill failing? According to Obama, it is because it is "a complex issue" and he has not done a better job of "explaining it more clearly" to us. Perhaps he should use smaller words next time, to fit our limited vocabularies and short attention spans.
But he assures us that "health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo." I had to rewind my DVR and listen to that line again when I heard it. Did the president of the United States just ask the American people to revise their opinion of his health care bill by deferring to the authority of "experts"? The ultimate political power in this country is not wielded, thankfully, by "experts." It is wielded by the American people themselves, who undertake their own effort to understand and evaluate legislation. And it should be obvious by now that they have heard plenty of the president's explanations; he's been on television endlessly touting the bill for the better part of a year. The problem for the president is that the American people have already educated themselves on this bill, and they have arrived at their conclusion.
The American people are not as stupid as Obama assumes. When he boasts that "we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person," they know that the Democrats have increased spending by a trillion dollars and proposed to do so by a trillion more—and that the American people will eventually have to pay for it.
Or consider the reaction to his bogus "freeze" on government spending, which would only limit about 14% of the budget, letting the rest of it grow like mad. When Obama added that this proposal wouldn't even take effect until 2011, spontaneous laughter burst out in the chamber. In an ad-libbed response, Obama swiveled his head toward the Republicans, narrowed his eyes in contempt, and shot back, "That's how budgeting works."
He was referring to the fact that Congress passes each year's official budget in the previous year, so that the budget passed this year will be the budget for 2011. But the people remember that a Democratic Congress had no trouble throwing out the official budget when it came time to spend $700 billion on the TARP bailout, or another $800 billion on the "stimulus." The American people understand "how budgeting works" because they manage their own budgets, and when the downturn came, they didn't have the luxury of waiting until next year to cut back. That's why they laughed at Obama's "Lord give me chastity, but not yet" approach to fiscal restraint. And his sarcastic response just lets them know that he isn't listening to them and doesn't think they have anything worthwhile to say.
That brings us to the speech's most stunning expression of contempt for the American voter: "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know." Let him know? How do you suppose we ought to let the president know what we think? Perhaps we should all show up at town hall meetings, or hold giant rallies across the nation and on the DC mall. Perhaps pollsters could fan out across the country to ask us our opinions. Perhaps Republicans in Congress could propose alternative legislation. Perhaps we could even hold an election—let's make it easy for the president and hold it in left-leaning Massachusetts—that would serve as a referendum on health care. Of course, we did all of those things, and the president made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a damn what we have to say.
He also made it clear, more subtly, that he isn't really talking to us anyway. Here is how Obama described people's discontent with his administration: "I campaigned on the promise of change—change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change—or at least, that I can deliver it. But remember this—I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone." This is not addressed to the general public or to independent voters. They have not been concerned about his failure to deliver "change"; they've been concerned that he wants the wrong kind of change. So who is the audience for this speech? He's talking to his "base" on the left, trying to shore up their support. And he's talking to Democrats in Congress: "I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." So his main recommendation is that the left should band together to overrule the verdict of the voters and shove the health care bill through anyway.
I don't think he'll succeed. But he will persist long enough to expose his contempt for the American people and thoroughly repel them.
This is what I predicted back in July of 2008, at the height of Obamamania, in a TIA Daily item titled, "Why We Will Hate Barack Obama." As I wrote then, "we will all grow to hate Obama, on a personal, visceral level, if he is ever allowed to control the levers of power. The reason is that he is one of the most high-handed, self-aggrandizing, arrogant political leaders we have ever seen…. Once we have to deal with Obama's sense of personal entitlement every day, boy is it going to grate on our nerves."
Is it grating on yours yet? I thought so.
Postscript:
I also wanted to say a few words about the Republican response to Obama's speech, delivered by newly sworn-in Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
What struck me about McDonnell's speech is how it reflects the tension between the Republican establishment and the tea party movement. Reflecting the cautiously moderate, Pragmatist establishment, the speech was filled with vague altruist bromides. But peeking out occasionally, and somewhat incongruously, were a few elements of the ideas driving the tea party movement—serious, radical ideas about the nature and role of government.
Here is the usual "moderate" statist mush: "All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it…. [B]ringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration." And here is glimpse of the tea party ideas:
It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "a wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ...and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." He was right….
The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level. Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.
Restoring the "proper, limited role of government" in opposition to a government that "threatens our very liberty"? Where did he get those ideas?
But these were just a few lines, and overall it was the centrist bromides (mostly about "equality of opportunity") that won out.
Republicans love to talk about the example of Reagan, and they all remember the famous televised speech on the choice between liberty and statism that launched Reagan's national political career. But they hardly ever actually draw from that example. Reagan certainly was "folksy" and connected to the American people—but not through such trivialities as McDonnell's opening reference to his sons watching SportsCenter. Reagan didn't connect to the American people by showing that he shared their interest in sports. He did it by showing them that he shared their interest in liberty.
That's what the Republicans need today, and it's a shame they couldn't produce it now, when the time is so ripe for it.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
0 comments:
Post a Comment