Obama on polarization: I failed, we will succeed

I found the first half or so of Obama's final SOTU pretty anodyne, and I did not like the scalp-waving -- 'just ask Osama,' etc.  But there were two points on which I thought he got intensely real -- both involving the dangers of what we as a country might do to ourselves.

The first was putting the threat from ISIS and other terrorist networks (current and future) in its place:

But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands.  Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped.  But they do not threaten our national existence.  That’s the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit.  We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, nor do we need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is representative of one of the world’s largest religions.  We just need to call them what they are – killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.

In effect: this is the Barbary Pirates, not World War III.

The second was an extended warning about the road to oligarchy -- paved with polarization, campaign finance gone wild, voter suppression and demagoguery. There were two parts to it: the emotion of dysfunction, and the machinery of it. First, the emotion:

Attention, Barney Frank: Obama was the partisan warrior when it counted most

Scott Lemieux does a nice job rebutting Barney Frank's contention that health care reform was an inevitable loser for Democrats (and strategic error for Obama) because "When you tell [people with health insurance] that you’re going to extend health care to people who don’t now have it, they don’t see how you can do that without hurting them." So Frank told  Jason Zegerle in a long debriefing published this week. Lemieux, bemused that the normally combative and often courageous Frank would avoid that heavy lift, retorts:

This is – uncharacteristically — essentially an argument against most progressive change. Anything that challenges privilege and disrupts the status quo carries risk and disrupts people’s sensitivities.

Frank's anomalous pusillanimity with respect to health reform was evident at the crisis hour when Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in January 2010, ending the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority and thereby endangering reconciliation of the passed House and Senate versions of what became the Affordable Care Act.  Frank led the cut-and-run chorus, putting out  this statement on January 19:

Attention, Tomasky: Obama always links prosperity to fairness

Michael Tomasky warns that there's a missing link in Obama's newfound populism: while he is talking to the American people about fairness, Republicans keep talking (misleadingly) about growth.  Democrats need to win the argument about growth, because growth means jobs. And that means arguing explicitly that their policies will lead not just to shared prosperity, but to more prosperity:

What Obama needs to do more forcefully is make the next step of the argument by answering the questions: Why must fairness be restored? What will it lead to? To liberals, it’s enough that it will lead to a fairer society. Therefore, it doesn’t even occur to many liberals that the “What will it lead to?” question even needs to be answered. A fairer society is enough. But for many Americans, it’s not enough. A fairer society is fine, they think, if we can afford it. But what these Americans want is a society where there are lots of good jobs. A prosperous society. So what Obama and his speechwriters should be hoping people summarizing his speeches would say is something like: he’s for building up the middle class and making the rich pay more because things are out of whack and unfair, and because doing so will create a more prosperous society. That’s the missing piece.

I'm afraid that the missing piece is a chimera. Democrats cannot get it out of their heads that Obama just is not saying the right things. Perhaps he and his administration don't drive them home with the right sound bytes or repetitiveness -- or perhaps a populace just will not hear when unemployment is north of 8%.  Perhaps, too, Obama went semi-mute for a few months in 2011 (May to September at most) on the broad economic themes he's been repeating throughout his career on the national stage. But as long as I've been listening to the man (and reading his books and speeches), Obama has insisted that fairness and prosperity are hand-in-glove -- and that prosperity that is not broadly shared, that accrues mainly to a wealthy minority, has repeatedly (1890s, 1920s, noughties) proved unsustainable.

The liberal Reagan was...

by the standards of today's GOP, Ronald.

It's often pointed out that in the wake of his signature tax cuts, Reagan raised taxes six or seven times, notably in the social security bargain that raised payroll taxes on everybody. I've been looking at Reagan's State of the Union address of 1983, which led off with a victory lap in celebration of that grand bipartisan bargain:

Just 10 days ago, after months of debate and deadlock, the bipartisan Commission on Social Security accomplished the seemingly impossible. Social security, as some of us had warned for so long, faced disaster...

When the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and I performed the bipartisan-- or formed the bipartisan Commission on Social Security, pundits and experts predicted that party divisions and conflicting interests would prevent the Commission from agreeing on a plan to save social security. Well, sometimes, even here in Washington, the cynics are wrong. Through compromise and cooperation, the members of the Commission overcame their differences and achieved a fair, workable plan. They proved that, when it comes to the national welfare, Americans can still pull together for the common good.
Tonight, I'm especially pleased to join with the Speaker and the Senate majority leader in urging the Congress to enact this plan by Easter.

There are elements in it, of course, that none of us prefers, but taken together it performs a package that all of us can support. It asks for some sacrifice by all-- the self-employed, beneficiaries, workers, government employees, and the better-off among the retired-- but it imposes an undue burden on none. And, in supporting it, we keep an important pledge to the American people: The integrity of the social security system will be preserved, and no one's payments will be reduced.

The Commission's plan will do the job; indeed, it must do the job. We owe it to today's older Americans and today's younger workers. So, before we go any further, I ask you to join with me in saluting the members of the Commission who are here tonight and Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and Speaker Tip O'Neill for a job well done. I hope and pray the bipartisan spirit that guided you in this endeavor will inspire all of us as we face the challenges of the year ahead.

That major tax hike and deal with the Dem devil was not Reagan's only departure in the 1983 SOTU from current GOP orthodoxy. He did, it's true, propose to hold Federal spending growth to the inflation rate,  freeze pay for Federal workers, find some defense "savings" in the wake of his previous buildup, and slow the growth of  so-called "automatic spending programs," for which his poster item was that easy path to ill-gotten riches, food stamps. But then, apparently not yet aware that he had proven that "deficits don't matter," he worked the other side of the equation:

And fourth, because we must ensure reduction and eventual elimination of deficits over the next several years, I will propose a standby tax, limited to no more than 1 percent of the gross national product, to start in fiscal 1986. It would last no more than 3 years, and it would start only if the Congress has first approved our spending freeze and budget control program. And there are several other conditions also that must be met, all of them in order for this program to be triggered.

Now, you could say that this is an insurance policy for the future, a remedy that will be at hand if needed but only resorted to if absolutely necessary.

Standby tax?  When did you ever read about that one?  It seems to have dropped out of the national consciousness as soon as uttered.  But the patron saint of supply-side economics uttered it.

Further, fond though he was of demonizing "welfare queens" and alleged food stamp cheats, with unemployment topping 10% Reagan had not quite reached the unemployed-are-like-stray-animals level of social Darwinism attained by his acolytes of today:

In SOTU, Obama pushes his "good faith" advantage

A few quick thoughts on the SOTU:

1) Obama began by building on his keynote political strength, which is that voters trust him far more than the Republicans to work in good faith with the opposition.  He came to national prominence by stressing national unity; he reaffirmed his ability to hit that note at highest pitch in the memorial service in Tucson; and he came into the SOTU riding his productive negotiation in the lame duck session. Rolling all that up with a gesture toward the Tucson imperative toward civility,  he in a sense bid to turn the Republicans' electoral success in November against them:

What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

I believe we can. I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all - for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

2.  In light of that initial call to unity and compromise, he cast commitments that have traditionally been regarded as bipartisan -- to education, research and development, and infrastructure -- as linchpins of the country's long-term economic health. In so doing, he reversed the emphasis that many may have expected in the speech: crucial investments first, deficit reduction and the tax reform that would enable it second.  Jobs were not put forward in a vacuum,  but as an outgrowth of the investments he called for. Indeed, he laid surprisingly little emphasis on short-term economic goals.

The advocacy for "investment" is at this point a rearguard defense, a marker laid down against defunding stimulus allocations to infrastructure and education and alternative energy. 

Something was missing in Obama's Oval Office speech...

Everything about Obama's oval office speech about the Gulf oil spill tonight was predictable and effective -- except his call for a new energy bill.

This time, for me, his familiar riff about the nation's history of rising to major challenges, mustered in support of action to change our energy consumption and production, rang a bit hollow:

The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny – our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how to get there. We know we'll get there.

It rang hollow because, while the echoes of his advocacy for health care reform were striking,  so was a core difference: he did not lay out the "core elements" of the bill he wanted.

Cool whip

Begging your indulgence, dear reader, an updated reposting from earlier this week:
---
Ever since Scott Brown's election on Jan. 19 seemingly blew the Democratic caucus into pieces, Nancy Pelosi has been a rock. While acknowledging some tactical uncertainty in the immediate aftermath, she never wavered in her assurance that Democrats would find a way to pass comprehensive reform.

On Jan. 21, she caused some anguish by acknowledging that she did not have the votes to pass the Senate bill as is. She did glance at the possibility of piecemeal reform. But the dominant chord even then was that a path to meaningful reform would be found. Note the refusal to panic:

"There's a recognition that there's a foundation in that bill [the Senate bill] that's important. So one way or another those areas of agreement that we have will have to be advanced, whether it's by passing the Senate bill with any changes that can be made, or just taking [pieces of it]," Pelosi said.

"We have to get a bill passed -- we know that. That's a predicate that we all subscribe to."

When will that happen? Who knows!

"We're in no rush," Pelosi said.

On Jan. 28, she took heart from Obama's defense of comprehensive reform in the State of the Union address and responded to his call to Congress to get it passed:

“You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.”

How Obama will -- and won't -- lead on health care reform

Steve Benen has the very section of Obama's meeting with Senate Democrats (cut up and elided) that I was struggling to transcribe from the tape:

"All that's changed in the last few weeks is our party has gone from having the largest Senate majority in a generation to the second-largest Senate majority in a generation," Obama said. "If anybody is searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing."

He added, "I know these are tough times to hold public office. The need is great; the anger and anguish are intense." While "the natural political instinct is to tread lightly, keep your head down and play it safe," he said, Democrats should remember the promises they made in their election campaigns.

"So many of us campaigned on the idea that we're going to change this health-care system" Obama said. ..So many of us looked people in the eye who had been denied because of a pre-existing condition, or just didn't have health insurance at all ... and we said we were going to change it..*. "Well, here we are with a chance to change it....I hope we don't lose sight of why we're here. We've got to finish the job on health care."  We've got to finish the job on regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."

Grade for the great test of leadership: Incomplete

In a 7,000-word speech, Obama devoted 500 words to health care, beginning at almost the exact mid-point. So it may seem perverse to assess the whole speech on the basis of the health care portion.  But it's not. Health care remains the fulcrum, the keystone, the hinge, the pivot point, the centerpiece of Obama's domestic agenda, for these reasons:

• He says the deficit keeps him up at night. Well, as he used to remind us frequently, say nine months ago, health care reform is entitlement reform. Bend the health care cost curve, and the Federal government's core commitments are affordable; fail to, and they're not. But those magic seeds of cost control packed into the Senate bill that Atul Gawande catalogued so lovingly will not become law unless the House passes that bill.
  
  
• Obama's core campaign promise, reiterated in an email to supporters following the speech, was "restoring economic security for struggling middle class families."   That cannot be done as long as losing a job means exposure to catastrophic medical cost, or as long as having the wrong job can make insurance an impossible dream, or as long as millions of "insurance" policies leave holders exposed to catastrophic costs. 
  
  
• He said that change is not easy, that he wanted to tackle the hard stuff, . In the health care reform process, Americans got full frontal exposure -- overexposure, according to conventional wisdom -- to the mammoth difficulties and not-always-destructive competitive tradeoffs of moving major legislation through the United States Congress. That leaves Obama with a double message: let's fix the process/let's make the process work. Both messages will spiral to massive fail if a comprehnsive bill does not pass.
  
  

Is it already too late?

It's the height of folly to prognosticate about a high-stakes speech a half hour before it's delivered.  But I have to confess this sick feeling before the event.

The stakes have been eloquently framed by the TNR editors, Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Klein, and House members and Senators literally crying out for leadership.  What bothers me is that a failure of leadership from Obama has already occurred. It's not irreversible -- many have said that a powerful appeal for comprehensive health care reform in the State of the Union address would be enough to stiffen Democrats' resolve to pass the Senate bill in the House and negotiate fixes through the reconciliation process. But I don't see that happening. I see Obama trying to thread a rhetorical needle -- expressing "commitment" to "comprehensive" reform without saying how, or when.  Here's an excerpt from his speech released by the White House:

By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Co-pays will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans. And neither should the people in this chamber.

That is by way of fleshing out an earlier promise from Dan Pfeiffer:

“There will be additional details that he will share tonight, and he will make it clear that his commitment to addressing this challenge in a comprehensive way is as strong today as it was when he stood in the same spot in September to address the nation on health care.”

I am not reassured.  As Ezra Klein points out, Obama's own statements since the Massachusetts debacle have pulled in two directions, probably reflecting a divided White House. He suggested in one interview that Democrats might have to go back to the Republicans once more to see what elements of the reform package might win bipartisan agreement -- and then stated eloquently -- in the same interview -- that the core elements of reform -- community rating, individual mandate, subsidies, cost control -- cannot be pulled apart.  What that spells to me, given the vagueness of Pfeiffer's reassurance, is a gesture toward trying to find bipartisan consensus, followed by a belated effort to go with the so-called "Plan B" -- passing the Senate bill and adding reconciliation fixes.  That would mean trimming tonight -- not saying what Democrats have literally been crying out for him to say. And not striking before the iron shatters into a hundred pieces.

What unambivalent supporters of reform want Obama to say is really quite simple: both the House and Senate passed strong, comprehensive bills, either of which would vastly improve the nation's health care system. The task before Congress now is the same task they were focused on before the Massachusetts election: combining the best elements of both bills. The logistics of doing so are now much harder -- but passage of an end product is assured if Democrats can muster the will.  And this is circular: they would muster the will if the message from the White House was clear were clear and strong.  So far it hasn't been. If that changes tonight, I'll be delightedly surprised.

UPDATE 9:55: Could have been worse. He defended the broad outlines of the bill eloquently, and per preview, said he would not walk away and that Congress has to find a way. But he did not say how. There was the gesture/invitation to bipartisanship I anticipated, but it seemed designed merely to put Republicans on the defensive. His prescription pointed toward the House passing the Senate bill without calling for it. Will he now help to drive Democrats that way?  Jury's still out.

As a case for the HCR bills already passed addressed to the American people it was effective.  To move the needle in Congress, he will need to do more.

Update 10:05: In context of "changing our politics," an oblique swipe at Democratic panic on health care (which he's done nothing to stanch): "People expect you to solve problems, not run for the hills."
 
In peroration: "Remember this - I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone." Yes, but how about leading for change -- in Congress, by insisting that Democrats pass the damn bill?

I think in retrospect that supporters of health care reform set impossible expectations for the health care portion of the speech. There was no way, while speaking to the entire nation, that he was about to tell Democrats to "pass the damn bill." You don't talk about "reconciliation" (of the technical legislative variety) in a SOTU address. The time to do that was before -- and after.  He defended the bill's basic architecture and said that the task would get done. That was all he could do in this forum. The test of leadership continues.

Then too, his calm, humor and perspective may ease the panic a bit.

Incidentally, I thought it was a nice touch for Obama to explain that his budget freeze would not kick in until next year, when the recession will presumably be over. He ad-libbed a bit of humor into the prepared remarks below, paraphrased  from memory in brackets. This is emblematic of the needles he has to thread, both in policy and politics -- making a down payment on deficit reduction while continuing stimulus to combat 10% unemployment.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting.  I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. [That's how a budget works.]

----
Postscript: My own Congressman, Bill Pascrell, D-NJ (8th District) is working to kill comprehensive health care reform. My message to fellow Pascrell constituents is here, on South Orange Patch.