February 27, 2010
History teaches that those presidents who are able to move from the extremes of campaign mode, to governing in a more balanced manner early in their first term, have a better chance of being a two term president. In many instances, this required a departure from the previous administration’s path to something more in line with the American mood. During an interview with Diane Sawyer on January 25th, President Obama stated “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Interesting comment. One could interpret that to mean his current ideology’s policies, unpopular as they are, will remain for the next three years. Will he learn from history? Will he learn from members of his party, recent elections, polling results and the popular mid-term candidates giving incumbents some difficulty? Does he understand the American appetite for less extremes and a path towards the center?
Recently, Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln got a sense of how potentially harmful this “really good one-term president” can be for her 2010 re-election. In step with her own epiphany on the mood of the country, she lamented that it would be best if the President, and his administration, distance themselves from “people who want extremes…and seek to find “common ground” with Republicans. Especially if promoting legislation which provides a “certainty” for jobs creation. Obama responded with “the price of certainty is essentially for us to adapt the exact same proposals that were in place leading up to the biggest economic crisis since The Great Depression…the result is going to be the same.” To Obama, moving to the center where the nation would like its leaders to be means emulating George W. Bush. Apparently, to President Obama, politically, good ole’ “W” was a two-term looser. If President Obama is unable, or unwilling to listen to members of his own party, he may end up a one term mediocre president. He seems not to understand that America would prefer a move to the center. Fifteen months ago he had a 70% approval rating. Recent Gallop Polls show him running even with a theoretical “centrist” (i.e. George W) in a 2012 election bid.
President Obama misses all of this and the reasoning behind his drop in popularity. When taking office after President Bush, he did not take a path that “avoids repeating the failed policies of the past.” He joined in with Pelosi’s Congress and continued the spending he so earnestly attacked “W” for. Only the spending has been exponentially more. The spending, as it was presented, was to prop up the economy. However, Congressional Budget Office reports indicate the majority of the money as discretionary and earmark in design. Where is the departure from the past?
History shows that bold moves by presidents towards the prevailing view of the American people often leads to success. FDR made a bold move from Herbert Hoover’s direction and increased government’s presence in America’s daily business. Ronald Reagan moved away from Jimmy Carter. But in 1982 President Reagan’s approval rating was lower than President Obama’s is now. Simultaneously, the Republicans lost significantly in the mid-term elections. However, by 1984 The Great Communicator won a second term with a 49-state landslide. Ten years later President Clinton overcame a similar scenario.
These presidents listened and learned that the mandate given to them was not their extreme ideological desires, but the populist sentiment Of and For The People. They took off the campaign-mode persona and went to work on the fundamentals of governing FOR The People. As President Reagan was fond of saying: “get the government off the backs of the p
eople”. President Clinton charged up the nation by compromising and accepting Republican initiatives that the populist wanted: balanced budget; tax cuts; welfare reform; etc. And today, the populist sentiment continues the tradition of signaling where it would like its leaders to move. Americans have a theme song they’d like to see Obama download to his I-Pod. The simple, clear, catchy, easy to dance to tune of less spending; less government; less taxes; leave the healthcare system alone.
So far, the song has attracted some impressive results. Virginia Democrats giving way to the Republicans in the top offices of Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. In New Jersey, Chris Christie saw the largest victory for a New Jersey Republican in 25 years by his win over Corzine. And recently, the latest Cinderella story of Mr. Brown defeating Ms. Coakley in Massachusetts. A Quinnipiac poll suggesting a 45% disapproval rating of the President’s governing seems to reflect his fallen “American Idol” status. As the mid-term elections begin to organize, some surprising individuals are making a move down a different path. Inexperienced, but they understand what President Obama and the Washington establishment do not seem to grasp. To name a few: Jim Ward of Arizona (former President of LucasArts); Jon Runyan of South Carolina (Offensive tackle for the San Diego Chargers); Todd Yound of Indiana (Attorney); Stephe
n Fincher of Tennesse (Farmer); Brian Rooney, Michigan (Businessman); Scott Rigell, Virginia (Car Dealership Owner). Six Republicans running in Democrat establishments with notable early results. None of them having held office before.
History teaches that those presidents who are able to move from the extremes of campaign mode, to governing in a more balanced manner early in their first term, have a better chance of being a two term president. In many instances, this required a departure from the previous administration’s path to something more in line with the American mood. During an interview with Diane Sawyer on January 25th, President Obama stated “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Interesting comment. One could interpret that to mean his current ideology’s policies, unpopular as they are, will remain for the next three years. Will he learn from history? Will he learn from members of his party, recent elections, polling results and the popular mid-term candidates giving incumbents some difficulty? Does he understand the American appetite for less extremes and a path towards the center?
Recently, Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln got a sense of how potentially harmful this “really good one-term president” can be for her 2010 re-election. In step with her own epiphany on the mood of the country, she lamented that it would be best if the President, and his administration, distance themselves from “people who want extremes…and seek to find “common ground” with Republicans. Especially if promoting legislation which provides a “certainty” for jobs creation. Obama responded with “the price of certainty is essentially for us to adapt the exact same proposals that were in place leading up to the biggest economic crisis since The Great Depression…the result is going to be the same.” To Obama, moving to the center where the nation would like its leaders to be means emulating George W. Bush. Apparently, to President Obama, politically, good ole’ “W” was a two-term looser. If President Obama is unable, or unwilling to listen to members of his own party, he may end up a one term mediocre president. He seems not to understand that America would prefer a move to the center. Fifteen months ago he had a 70% approval rating. Recent Gallop Polls show him running even with a theoretical “centrist” (i.e. George W) in a 2012 election bid.
President Obama misses all of this and the reasoning behind his drop in popularity. When taking office after President Bush, he did not take a path that “avoids repeating the failed policies of the past.” He joined in with Pelosi’s Congress and continued the spending he so earnestly attacked “W” for. Only the spending has been exponentially more. The spending, as it was presented, was to prop up the economy. However, Congressional Budget Office reports indicate the majority of the money as discretionary and earmark in design. Where is the departure from the past?
History shows that bold moves by presidents towards the prevailing view of the American people often leads to success. FDR made a bold move from Herbert Hoover’s direction and increased government’s presence in America’s daily business. Ronald Reagan moved away from Jimmy Carter. But in 1982 President Reagan’s approval rating was lower than President Obama’s is now. Simultaneously, the Republicans lost significantly in the mid-term elections. However, by 1984 The Great Communicator won a second term with a 49-state landslide. Ten years later President Clinton overcame a similar scenario.
These presidents listened and learned that the mandate given to them was not their extreme ideological desires, but the populist sentiment Of and For The People. They took off the campaign-mode persona and went to work on the fundamentals of governing FOR The People. As President Reagan was fond of saying: “get the government off the backs of the p
eople”. President Clinton charged up the nation by compromising and accepting Republican initiatives that the populist wanted: balanced budget; tax cuts; welfare reform; etc. And today, the populist sentiment continues the tradition of signaling where it would like its leaders to move. Americans have a theme song they’d like to see Obama download to his I-Pod. The simple, clear, catchy, easy to dance to tune of less spending; less government; less taxes; leave the healthcare system alone.So far, the song has attracted some impressive results. Virginia Democrats giving way to the Republicans in the top offices of Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. In New Jersey, Chris Christie saw the largest victory for a New Jersey Republican in 25 years by his win over Corzine. And recently, the latest Cinderella story of Mr. Brown defeating Ms. Coakley in Massachusetts. A Quinnipiac poll suggesting a 45% disapproval rating of the President’s governing seems to reflect his fallen “American Idol” status. As the mid-term elections begin to organize, some surprising individuals are making a move down a different path. Inexperienced, but they understand what President Obama and the Washington establishment do not seem to grasp. To name a few: Jim Ward of Arizona (former President of LucasArts); Jon Runyan of South Carolina (Offensive tackle for the San Diego Chargers); Todd Yound of Indiana (Attorney); Stephe
n Fincher of Tennesse (Farmer); Brian Rooney, Michigan (Businessman); Scott Rigell, Virginia (Car Dealership Owner). Six Republicans running in Democrat establishments with notable early results. None of them having held office before. They’re singing what President Obama’s I-Pod won’t play…Americans seeking distance from his extremes. We await Barack Obama’s mark on Presidential history.
Publius
No comments:
Post a Comment