Category Archives: Barack Obama

“A nation fully settled by government”

Posted on by | No Comments

Peggy Noonan wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago called “There Is No New Frontier” that I’ve been mulling for a while now.  The core of her argument is an analysis of the differing contexts of FDR’s expansion of government in the 1930s and Barack Obama’s efforts to do the same. It’s more of an analogical analysis than a logical one, but I think it holds pretty well:

A big part of opposition to the health-care plan is a sense of historical context. People actually have a sense of the history they’re living in and the history their country has recently lived through. They understand the moment we’re in.

In the days of the New Deal, in the 1930s, government growth was virgin territory. It was like pushing west through a continent that seemed new and empty. There was plenty of room to move. The federal government was still small and relatively lean, the income tax was still new. America pushed on, creating what it created: federal programs, departments and initiatives, Social Security. In the mid-1960s, with the Great Society, more or less the same thing. Government hadn’t claimed new territory in a generation, and it pushed on—creating Medicare, Medicaid, new domestic programs of all kinds, the expansion of welfare and the safety net.

Now the national terrain is thick with federal programs, and with state, county, city and town entities and programs, from coast to coast. It’s not virgin territory anymore, it’s crowded. We are a nation fully settled by government. We are well into the age of the welfare state, the age of government. We know its weight, heft and demands, know its costs both in terms of money and autonomy, even as we know it has made many of our lives more secure, and helped many to feel encouragement.

But we know the price now. This is the historical context. The White House often seems disappointed that the big center, the voters in the middle of the spectrum, aren’t all that excited about following them on their bold new journey. But it’s a world America has been to. It isn’t new to us. And we don’t have too many illusions about it.

Her argument rests less on propositions than on metaphor, on the image she invokes; but it’s a powerful image, and if it’s a valid one—which I believe it is—then I think her argument holds. The President and his administration think they have an opportunity to bring about another major expansion of government, and are determined not to let the crisis go to waste (to use Rahm Emanuel’s language)—but the context isn’t what they think it is, and the parallels they think they see with President Roosevelt don’t actually apply, because the popular attitude toward government isn’t the same now as it was then. They’re failing to factor in the reality that those past interventions have had their own effects, and have changed the board in some important ways.

Americans of FDR’s time could be persuaded that government could do a better job and fix all their problems, because it hadn’t really been tried much before. Americans of our time know better. The New Deal has already been tried, and the Great Frontier, and pushed to the point that another president could stand up and declare, “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem”; that bell cannot be unrung. While President Obama may well in the end get his government-bloating agenda through, for the powers of the Executive Branch are great, one thing he cannot be is another President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; that opportunity has passed, and ours is a different world.

The anti-transparency administration

Posted on by | 3 Comments

Despite the President’s bold initial words, that’s what his administration is turning out to be. It shouldn’t be a surprise, given the assault on the First Amendment conducted by his campaign in an effort to silence uncomfortable questions before the candidate had to face them; it shouldn’t startle us at all that his response to being challenged by a media organization would be to try to shut that organization down. As Charles Krauthammer writes,

there’s a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they’re engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There’s nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.

Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties.” They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other—and an otherwise imperious government.

The problem is, we have an amazingly thin-skinned administration, one that can’t seem to take criticism, or even significant differences of opinion, with any sort of grace; which is all of a piece, I think, with the fact that they also can’t seem to take a joke. As such, they don’t roll with the tough questions, they don’t rise to the challenge of being argued with, and they don’t laugh at themselves—or even just let it pass when someone else does. Instead, whenever anyone messes with them, their collective instinct is to get out the biggest hammer they can find and try to smash them.

(Well, whenever any of their American opponents messes with them, anyway . . . if it’s a foreign country like Iran or China or Russia, their instinct is rather different, to say the least.)

Obama media strategy: control the message

Posted on by | No Comments

This is an absolutely fascinating presentation by Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director, on the media strategy of the Obama campaign—and by extension, the Obama administration. Her analysis is, I think, critically important for anyone who wants to understand the relationship between politics and the media in the current environment, and the approaches that politicians who want to be successful will need to adopt going forward.

From what I’ve seen, most of the blogospheric reaction has followed the tone of this WorldNet Daily piece:

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.”Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

Though that presentation is not inaccurate, it’s designed to support the title of the piece:

White House boasts: We ‘control’ news media

and that title is inaccurate, in two ways. In the first place, Dunn nowhere claims to control the media; what she’s actually talking about is manipulating the media to control the message, to set things up in such a way that the story they have to report is the story you want them to report, so that your message gets out the way that you want it to get out. It’s not about controlling the media but using them for your purposes. (This was, of course, made a lot easier for them by the generally lap-doggish attitude of the major media toward Barack Obama.) And in the second place—and this is more important than it sounds—Dunn wasn’t boasting. She was simply reporting: “This is what we did, this is why we did it, and this is why it produced the result we wanted.”

What Dunn is essentially talking about here is the ways in which the development of the Internet has weakened and is eliminating the long-held power of the legacy media to filter reality, to decide what the culture in general will be broadly aware of—and the ways in which, in consequence, politicians can use that development to control their message. Indeed, she’s laying out a blueprint for doing so, and explaining why it was essential to her campaign’s success.

The fact that the Obama campaign understood this intuitively, and thus was able to use that intuitive understanding to do just that to an unprecedented degree, while the McCain campaign was completely clueless is one of the reasons Barack Obama is now sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The fact that Sarah Palin understands this, and in consequence has turned her Facebook page into a potent political weapon, is one of the reasons she is in my judgment the most important and effective political force in the Republican Party at this moment despite the best efforts of the legacy media to filter her right into impotence and irrelevance. Anyone who wants to compete with them in the future on anything approaching a level playing field is going to need to be smart enough and tuned-in enough to do likewise.

That is the real meaning and significance of Dunn’s presentation; rather than mistaking it for hubris on the part of the Obama administration and using it as one more cudgel with which to beat on the President, the Right needs to recognize her analysis of the political-media landscape as correct and her prescription as essential, and learn to go and do likewise. And the media had best do the same, and figure out how to adapt and respond, lest their current posture of lap-doggish servitude be institutionalized and rendered permanent.

HT: Janet McGregor Dunn

(Cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin)

Short-term stimulus

Posted on by | 2 Comments

There have been a lot of claims made about jobs “saved or created” by the so-called “stimulus” (and how you measure a job “saved” when you don’t know the might-have-beens, I have no idea); but has it occurred to you to wonder how long those jobs have lasted? Apparently, not very long in some cases:

How much are politicians straining to convince people that the government is stimulating the economy? In Oregon, where lawmakers are spending $176 million to supplement the federal stimulus, Democrats are taking credit for a remarkable feat: creating 3,236 new jobs in the program’s first three months.

But those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours, or about one work week. After that, those workers were effectively back unemployed, according to an Associated Press analysis of state spending and hiring data. By the state’s accounting, a job is a job, whether it lasts three hours, three days, three months, or a lifetime. . . .

At the federal level, President Barack Obama has said the federal stimulus has created 150,000 jobs, a number based on a misused formula and which is so murky it can’t be verified.

When even the AP is noticing that Democratic politicians are playing games with the numbers, you know it’s hard to ignore. (Though it’s worth noting that the AP appears to be trying to hide the story, judging by the fact that this link is down.) It should of course be pointed out that Oregon’s behavior here is uniquely egregious:

Oregon’s accounting practices would not be allowed as part of the $787 billion federal stimulus. While the White House has made the unverifiable promise that 3.5 million jobs will be saved or created by the end of next year, when accountants actually begin taking head counts this fall, there are rules intended to guard against exactly what Oregon is doing.

The White House requires states to report numbers in terms of full-time, yearlong jobs. That means a part-time mechanic counts as half a job. A full-time construction worker who has a three-month paving contract counts as one-fourth of a job.

That said, the response from the state to that criticism is telling:

Oregon’s House speaker, Dave Hunt, called that measurement unfair, though nearly every other state that has passed a stimulus package already uses or plans to use it.

“This stimulus plan was intentionally designed for short-term projects to pump needed jobs and income into families, businesses and communities struggling to get by,” Hunt said in a statement. “No one ever said these would be full-time jobs for months at a time.”

But wasn’t that the implication? After all, when the President talked about “3.5 million jobs saved or created,” he didn’t add the caveat “but only for a little while”; an extra week’s worth of work is not nothing, to be sure—I’ve been a temp, I know the drill—but if that’s the best the government can do, your job hasn’t been saved, your job loss has just been delayed a bit. And when most people talk about “job creation,” temp work is most certainly not what they have in mind.

The truth is, this story from Oregon highlights how fuzzy and dubious these job claims are even when the politicians aren’t playing games with them. As the Reason Foundation’s Anthony Randazzo points out,

The problem remains that there is still no good way of counting exactly the number of jobs that wouldn’t have been lost because of the savings, and there is no way the government is going to track the number of jobs that have been lost because of stimulus spending (such as lost jobs in traditional energy because of green spending).

Put another way, all such claims depend on a knowledge of the might-have-beens—if we hadn’t done this, what other things might we have done instead, and what results would they have produced? And what would have happened if we hadn’t done anything at all?—and that’s knowledge we don’t actually have in any reliable way in most cases, and particularly when you’re talking something as complex and interconnected as the national economy.

HT: David Riddle

The presidency and self-definition

Posted on by | 2 Comments

A couple weeks ago, I noted Sarah Palin’s pointed comment in her RNC speech that “the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of ‘personal discovery,’” and spent a while musing in light of that comment on our enigmatic President. A few days later, the Anchoress added a few comments of her own on that, which I’ve been mulling since:

The Office of the Presidency can either make a man great, or break him, but it will not allow him to coast and remain undefined.

But a lack of definition is what Obama has cultivated throughout adult life. From what little we know of his college days to his Inaugural speech, others have defined Obama for him, going mostly by what they saw—which was usually a reflection of themselves. He has kept himself safely tucked away, voting “present,” both early and often.

The forced definition of the American Presidency is sitting very uncomfortably with Barack Obama. There is nowhere to hide; there are no further personae to be invented and presented. The Jekyll and Hyde who has been singing endless encores of “This is the Moment” to America for nearly three years, has finally come upon a real moment, an authentic crossroad: he must now materialize into a defined entity with a known vector. Will that entity choose to define himself by a willingness to help a nation of free and energetic dreamers sustain the most exceptional and productive dream in history? Or will it choose to remain the poorly-marked outline of an aching, light-consuming void, delivering nothing but silence?

Until Barak Obama decides who he is, we cannot know him, and he cannot know America. And until he knows America, he cannot begin to understand the good-faith majority of us, who are longing not for a god, not for a king, but for a president worthy of our trust.

Whatever you may think about the Anchoress’ analysis of our President, what she says about the presidency is spot-on; and as regards Barack Obama, her main point (that he has largely made his way through life by letting others see in him what they want to see) is not a new or stunning observation. I don’t know that we can conclude from that that he himself doesn’t know who he is—one could also see his lack of public definition as a deliberate (and effective) political tactic, and simply ascribe it (as Shelby Steele did) to “a lack of strong political convictions”—but it’s certainly one possible interpretation; and it’s one which does seem perfectly possible in light of his rather unanchored childhood, as it’s the sort of approach to life which a child who has to keep fitting in with changing circumstances, places, and groups of people would be likely to cultivate as a defense and coping mechanism.

If the Anchoress’ read is correct, the President has a major personal transition ahead of him which he’ll have to make if he wants to do well by himself and his country during his time in office; if so, for his sake and all of ours, here’s hoping he’s able to do so.

Is President Obama not funny?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

In response to my previous post, cyberfriend Doug Hagler suggested a couple reasons why late-night hosts haven’t done much with Barack Obama up until he was (startlingly) awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. One, Joe Biden, I agree with; the VP is a walking punch line, giving them plenty of material to work with all by himself. Doug’s right to call him a “comedic sacrificial lamb.” He also has a point in noting that we’re not that far into the Obama administration, though if you look back eight years, I think you’ll find that that didn’t slow the likes of Jay Leno much in going after George W. Bush.His other suggestion, though, I think is off: that the President is “an articulate public figure” who doesn’t give comedians many opportunities to poke fun at him. You know, the guy gives a good speech, but get him off his teleprompter and he’s startlingly mortal—even Bush-like. Here’s a few examples:

Austrian is a language?

Halting the rise of privacy?

When TOTUS fails:

Thinking on his feet:

57 of 59 states, one left to go:

None of this is to imply that the President is stupid, because he isn’t; but were these lines all attributable to George W. Bush, they would have been fed right into the Bush-as-drooling-clown meme, and the jokes would have come cascading down. When Barack Obama says them? Crickets from the big guns of the media. Clearly, something’s uneven here.

Now, I don’t blame this on bias on the part of late-night hosts. I do think they’re biased to some degree—because who isn’t?—but I don’t think bias drives their routines much at all; for those guys, the driver is getting a laugh, and they’ll do anything within reason to get a laugh out of their audience. (And for Letterman—who’s either the most biased of the group, I think, or just the meanest—maybe not just within reason.) They’ve tried telling Obama jokes, and studio audiences haven’t responded. They don’t want to tell jokes that leave the audience cold, and you can’t blame them for that.

Part of this is that the President started off with such an elevated mood, with such elevated expectations, that many people didn’t want to diminish that any by laughing at him; part of it is that over the course of the campaign, Barack Obama became increasingly unable to laugh at himself, and so far he’s been running an administration that really can’t seem to take a joke. That doesn’t encourage public levity. It will be interesting to see if the laughter over the Nobel is an indication that public attitudes—as represented by talk-show studio audiences—are starting to change, or if it’s just a blip. If it’s the former, then the President had best relearn to take a joke, because as JibJab has known all along, he’s plenty vulnerable to satire.

The Nobel Prize for laughter

Posted on by | 5 Comments

I have to say, the thing that has surprised me the most about Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize has been all the laughter. Sure, I expected some people to laugh, but I wouldn’t have thought to see anyone literally doubled over and out of breath from laughter, and I have seen that. I would have expected more support from the decision around the world, instead of the incredulity that seems to be the general response from major global political figures. After all, someone argued that those who expected Copenhagen to hurt the President’s international prestige should similarly expect the news from Oslo to boost it, and that made a certain amount of sense; but it doesn’t seem to be playing out that way. And I thought that the Left would be pleased by the award, but so far, they haven’t been supporting it either.

Indeed, the late-night jokesters appear to have decided that this is something about President Obama that they can safely mock; and mock they have, with gusto. Here’s Jay Leno, for instance:

Congratulations to Barack Obama—he has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Apparently, the Nobel committee wanted to recognize the president’s fine work in bringing peace to a black professor and a white cop through the strategic use of beer.

President Obama said he was humbled to win the prize. Not as humble as he was when Rio got the Olympics. But still humble.

That’s pretty amazing, winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far . . . winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Obama won another Nobel Prize today. This time in medicine for pretending to give up smoking.

The Nobel Peace Prize also comes with a cash award of $1.4 million. Apparently, this is President Obama’s plan to finance healthcare reform.

And Conan O’Brien:

Today, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee said they gave it to Obama partly for his idealism and commitment to global cooperation, but mostly for calling Kanye West a jackass.

It’s a great honor for America that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, our economy is so bad, Obama’s already been forced to trade the medal in at “Cash 4 Gold.”

The Nobel Committee is saying the reason they gave Obama the Peace Prize is for reducing tension around the world. So, the runners-up for this year’s Nobel Prize were “red wine” and ”the Brookstone 3-Speed Massaging Recliner.”

Jimmy Fallon took the opportunity to skewer a rival:

Congratulations to President Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. That’s quite an accomplishment. I’m sure he’ll pick it up as soon as he’s finished fighting two wars.

Along with the Nobel Peace Prize President Obama also gets $1.4 million. Usually to get a check that big you need to blackmail David Letterman.

Jimmy Kimmel added a shot at the VP:

A day after declaring war on the moon, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Vice President Biden was awarded the Nobel Hair-Piece Prize.

And Craig Ferguson got off the best line at the expense of America’s best-loved losers:

The Chicago Cubs are filing for bankruptcy. They’re from Chicago; they’ve spent millions of dollars they don’t have . . . I smell Nobel Peace Prize.

I’m not sure if this means the President’s media honeymoon is wearing off, or just that the funnymen are that happy to have a “safe” way to get laughs out of him.

A benefit to the Obama victory I hadn’t considered

Posted on by | 3 Comments

If you’re familiar with the history of Hawaii, I’d think you’d likely agree that the annexation of the islands wasn’t exactly America’s finest hour. On a rational level, one could debate whether Hawaiians are better off as a part of the USA than they would be as an independent nation, but national pride and the sense of national identity doesn’t operate on a rational level, or at least not only so; there’s still a lot of resentment among many Hawaiians that the US didn’t play fair back in the 1890s, and many who would rather have had their independence back in 1959 than statehood. Of course, tourism is a major part of the Hawaiian economy, and tourist economies tend to generate a lot of resentment of the tourists anyway, and those two things no doubt work to reinforce each other.

Apparently, though, that’s being mitigated somewhat by Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency, as having a Hawaiian in the White House—even if he hasn’t lived there full-time in many years—has created a lot of pride. My in-laws just returned from a trip, and one of the points that really struck them was how every place President Obama lived, went to school, etc. was pointed out to them; from the comments people made, it sounds like his election has given many in his home state a new sense of ownership in America, a new sense of being Americans as well as Hawaiians. That can only be a good thing. I tend to think the US government ought to offer Hawaii the chance to regain its independence if the Hawaiian people want it—no doubt the feds would insist on retaining military installations, but one imagines a deal could be worked out, if a constitutional means for such a plebiscite could be found—but given the unlikelihood of such an act, it is well that Hawaiians at least have more reason to feel like they belong to the country of which they are legally a part.

So much for the post-racial presidency

Posted on by | 2 Comments

From America’s most accurate pollster, Scott Rasmussen:

Just 60% of U.S. voters now say that American society is generally fair and decent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s down nine points since late August and the lowest measure since President Obama took office in January, fueled in large part by growing unhappiness among African-American voters.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of all voters say U.S. society is basically unfair and discriminatory, up six points from late August and the highest level measured since December.

Only 14% of African-Americans now feel society is fair and decent. That number has dropped 41 points from 55% a month after Obama took office. Sixty-six percent (66%) of black voters think society is unfair and discriminatory, up 26 points since early February.

The majority of white voters (65%) say society is fair and decent. Seventy-two percent (72%) of all other voters agree.

John Hinderaker comments,

It’s interesting that Latinos and Asians evidently have a higher opinion of the decency of American society than whites. But the main point here, obviously, is the dramatic shift among African-Americans. What could have caused it?

The only possible answer is that many Americans have opposed President Obama’s policies. But why would that cause African-Americans to think that our society is “discriminatory” rather than “decent”? No mystery there: in a well-coordinated campaign, the Democratic Party has relentlessly portrayed all disagreement with the Obama administration’s policies as “racist.” That contemptible and divisive tactic had seemed to produce no results, but we now see that it had one consequence: alienating African-Americans from their country.

Some “post-racial President.”

As I noted a week or so ago, drawing on a post by Cornell law professor William Jacobson, and as I touched on again a few days ago, using the accusation of racism to demonize anyone who dares disagree with the President’s agenda is a toxic tactic that will only sicken this nation. I think Rasmussen’s polling is picking up the first symptoms of that illness.