When White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel told us to “never allow a crisis to go to waste” last November, it’s unlikely he imagined that he would do just that.
Emmanuel explained at the time that such moments are “opportunities to do big things.” But by trying to do too much, too fast, he and President Obama have quite seriously damaged the prospects for their most far-reaching agenda items and Obama’s own approval ratings.
How did the new president get to the point where many (on both sides of the aisle) are suddenly indulging the possibility that the 2010 midterm elections might see Republican gains similar to those of 1994?
Let’s start from the beginning. A wise early agenda for any new administration would be tempered by circumstance, rooted in a responsible skepticism towards the conditions that brought victory. “Mandates” are what parties and politicians concoct to justify policies that voters never actually voted to support. In this case, certainly yes, deep frustration with the Bush presidency likely played a role in bringing Democrats victory in 2008. And Obama himself presented a compelling persona to the American public.
But ultimately, Obama won the election with the significant help of a faltering economy. Remember that as of mid-September 2008, McCain led Obama by an average of three points in most political tracking polls. It was when Lehman Brothers collapsed that tracking polls swung 10 points in Obama’s favor—leaving him with a seven point lead that was his ultimate margin of victory.
One would think, then, that shepherding economic recovery would be the primary focus of the early Obama presidency. Instead, economic recovery has seemed a necessary but unpleasant chore. Rather than crafting a strategic plan for economic recovery himself, Obama delegated—and over-delegated—the writing of his administration’s economic stimulus plan to Congressional committee chairs.
This strategy continues to prove itself a serious miscalculation. Perhaps the Obama administration thought that empowering Congress to craft the stimulus would be perceived as a show of good faith, or would shield him from accountability for the inevitable abuses that would find their way into the $800 billion legislation. In reality, the opposite has happened. As the stimulus has stimulated little other than key political interest groups, the American public grows rightly distrustful of the new president’s agenda.
Obama’s presidency thusfar is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of his “mandate.” To the extent he has one, it is utterly unrelated to nationalizing the U.S. health care system, and certainly not on a party-line vote. Where cap-and-trade global warming policies enter the picture is equally unclear. President Obama has spread himself quite thin. These first eight months of the Obama presidency seem to suggest that the new president thought he could set the agenda for the American public as much as the public could set the agenda for him.
Ironically, in seeking to pass its entire legislative agenda at once, the Obama administration seems stricken by the very hubris it accused its predecessor of committing.
Although Obama’s approval ratings seem to be stabilizing in the low fifties, Gallup data indicates that his approval ratings at this point in his administration are tied for the second-lowest of the last 10 administrations—hardly a good position to be in. As he pursues a course correction, the president should remember what he was elected to do.
Obama can start by recognizing that in spurring recovery, less is more. By trying to do too much, Obama continues to dilute his brand and compromise the very legislative goals he seeks.
Although the conventional wisdom seems to be that Obama is primarily losing support from independents, there is evidence to suggest that even among youth, his enthusiasm is beginning to wilt. Anecdotally, many former Obama enthusiasts I know have expressed frustration with his handling of the energy and health care debates and are growing disillusioned with him. Gallup polling showed Obama’s support among the 18 to 29 age group dropping off from 71 percent in mid-July to 60 percent last week.
Unfortunately, there is more on the line than Obama’s political future. The nation’s economic recovery may be undercut by new attempts at state-led economic micromanagement of the health care and energy sectors. If Obama wants lasting legislative change—not just policies which will be rolled back under the next Republican administration—he would be wise to court the support of conservative members of Congress and the constituents they represent. True reform will require the support of allies who will not vote to overturn it when the political tides inevitably turn.
Hope turns to hubris when politicians, caught up in the fervor of electoral triumph, over-read the prospects for transformative action. And that, Mr. Emmanuel, is when “crises go to waste.” We should be grateful for as much.
Vikram Srinivasan is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.