You could almost hear the hands rubbing together in glee within Pres. Barack Obama’s political shop at the failure of the congressional supercommittee. How the president’s politicos must welcome a new count in the indictment against the “do-nothing Congress.”
The phrase famously originates from the 1948 presidential election when Harry Truman (who borrowed it from a reporter) used it to lambaste a just-elected Republican Congress and claw his way to an upset reelection victory. Hopeful Democrats think “Give ’em hell, Barry” can use the 1948 template to overcome his poor standing in the polls in another victory over another new, unpopular Republican Congress.
Advertisement
That the Truman campaign is a template at all is a measure of Obama’s desperation, and of his definitive termination of the politics of hope and change. We associate 1948 with the smiling, triumphant Truman holding up a post-election copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune with the erroneous headline dewey defeats truman. That’s because there are no compelling photos of the low demagoguery that fueled his reelection.
In his book The Last Campaign, Zachary Karabell writes: “It was a campaign of us and them, of anger and bitterness, of the haves and have-nots. Truman fought to lead the country for another four years, and to achieve that victory he was willing to sow dissension, stir up fear, and slander his opponents.” In this sense, President Obama is sure to channel the Spirit of ’48.
At his whistle-stops, Truman ranted: “The Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men. And it is their constant aim to put the government of the United States under the control of men like themselves. They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship.” Subtle. This was when he wasn’t comparing Republicans to Hitler and Tojo as threats to democracy.
Obama’s rhetoric isn’t so purple, but his agenda has boiled down to tax increases for the rich, a politically popular wedge issue that Democrats leverage at every opportunity. Want to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years when we’re set to spend roughly another $45 trillion? Sorry, it can’t be done without tax increases on the rich. Want to extend the temporary payroll tax cut? Sorry, it must be paid for with tax increases on the rich. Tax increases on the rich have become the Democrats’ alpha and omega, their sine qua non of government.
Harry Truman, the nasty virtuoso of crude populism, would surely approve. But as Jay Cost pointed out in an essay for The Weekly Standard, Truman benefited in 1948 from conditions that Barack Obama, no matter how vigorous his hell-giving, can only envy.
Truman ran against the backdrop of popular New Deal legislation of recent vintage; Obama’s signature pieces of legislation, the stimulus and Obamacare, stink in the nostrils of the American public. Truman used a brief downturn in the economy toward the end of 1948 to his advantage, winning over the Midwest by blaming Republicans for not doing enough to alleviate falling crop prices; any downtick in this tenuous economy will be a disaster for Obama. Truman ran against a Republican in Thomas Dewey who was reluctant to attack him; Obama’s opponent will happily blast away.
Then there’s the matter of Democratic complicity in Congress doing nothing. Supercommittee Democrats rejected a last-ditch Republican offer of about $600 billion in consensus savings. The GOP wanted to salvage something; the Democrats wanted nothing — at least nothing without a tax increase. If President Obama were so worried about the deficit stalemate, he could publicly offer his own package of specific entitlement savings that would immediately break the logjam. He can’t because his base won’t abide it, and a substantial bipartisan accomplishment would undo his campaign theme.
It’s too cynical by half, but Obama is going to make like Truman: He’ll buckle his chin strap, say anything to win and, if he succeeds, hope history cleans up the ugly affair later.
Actually, I couldn't disagree more with the last sentence. First, Obama is not cynical about what he is trying to accomplish -- he is deadly earnest. What he is cynical about is America itself, or what it used to be. Furthermore, he does NOT hope that history will clear up anything at all -- he doesn't give a horse's rear-end about what history says about his methods, because he believes, as all Leftists do, that the end justifies the means. He doesn't give a hoot about what the nebulous "history" says about his "means" to his end. All he cares about is power, and getting the USA onto its knees, ready for its final smack-down kick-in-the-head. Columnists like Lowry need to take a lesson from Rush Limbaugh -- the President's intentions are NOT benign! He does not give a "d***" about what "history" says.
Person, I think you're partially right, but you've gone a bit overboard in summarizing the Left - and it's what make some radio hosts start to sound a little crazy. I agree with you that the radical left are as destructive as you suggest. But if talk radio heads believe Obama is a power hungry, evil fiend waiting to destroy America because he hates it so much then maybe they should put down the comic books.
Sure, Obama probably hates the philosophy that western civilization was built on. But Obama sincerely believes that he knows better than most Americans what is best for America. And he will push that agenda as much as he can given the constraints he is burdened with (you know, checks and balances the Constitution and other annoyances). But he doesn't want to destroy America. He wants to re-shape America to make it more like a European state in governance, and less exceptional in power. And, for him, America's greatest moment will be to lead the world - or rather go with the world hand-in-hand - into the lofty realms of relativism and sophisticated self-doubt. This would be his greatest achievement. And he believes history will recognize him for that; progressive people in the future will see what he was trying to do. That will be American exceptionalism. Obama is not America's arch enemy seeking her destruction. He is another in a long line of intellectual useful idiots who would undo America by trying to re-do America in his image.
Obama and Biden at the end of the day are not Truman and Barkley, not withstanding the crude populism. However the peddling influence quotient may be comparable.
Zero speaks the truth. That is, whatever he says IS always true - be it false or not. Simply saying something makes it true to the followers of Zero.
A scary prospect indeed. To do as one pleases & ignore what one does not want to confront is an ideal siuation for any little kid. How empowering & deadly this would be if any adult were to ever have this ability, right?
“The Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men. And it is their constant aim to put the government of the United States under the control of men like themselves. They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship.”
Have you considered that maybe the GOP should not make it so easy to make such an argument appealing.
Good point - but not because the GOP-backed policies are the problem. Our ideas are right. But we fail to explain to people WHY free markets are good for society, why limited government is better for the people, and why excessive taxes and regulation hurt everyone, not just the "rich". People unfamiliar with history and human nature still put their hopes and trust in massive government solutions.
Look out Iran, if the President wants to be a true Truman he will have to make a mushroom cloud out of something. (One good side effect from the imitation)
Truman had a sign on his desk "The Buck Stops Here." Try that on obamma, with Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and every other scandal that the media refuse to report on.
Regarding the tax the rich meme, the Democrats are seeking to confiscate essentially the same money three different ways.
First, the President, and Democrats in general, are constantly calling for an increase of current tax rates for the top two brackets to the levels of the Clinton administration. For individuals, the current 33% rate on adjusted gross income between $174,400 and $379,150 would go to 36%, and the current rate of 35% on income above $379,150 would go to 39.6%. For joint filers, the bracket thresholds are $212,300 and $379,150. The figure most widely stated for the increased revenues flowing from this tax hike is $70 billion/year. Yet the Democrats would have you believe that this increase would be sufficient to wipe out a $1,300 billion annual deficit, and even to add new programs to the welfare state.
Second, the President's Jobs Bill -- as best I can understand it -- seeks to change the effect of income tax deductions for individuals with annual income of $200K or more, and joint filers of $250K or more, such that each $1,000 worth of deductions would subtract only $280 from the filer's tax bill. Current law gives them reductions of $330 to $350 for each $1,000 in deductions. I have not seen a simple statement of the increased revenues which would flow from this change. But when you consider that Obama contends that ten years of this new rule, plus ten years worth of revenue from the repeal of the carried interest rule and changes to the deductions for oil wells and private planes, would be sufficient to offset his Jobs Bill's $447 billion price tag, it would seem that the revenue increase would be in the range of $35 to $37 billion per year.
Third, Senate Democrats proposed to swap out the Jobs Bill's revenue measures for a straight 5.6% surtax on all income above $1 million/year. We heard Sen. Durbin floating this same proposal just this week on Fox News Sunday. So it would appear that Senate Democrats continue to consider this 5.6% surtax to be a useful political football. Again based on the fact that ten years of this measure is supposed to offset the Jobs Bill's $447 billion price tag, it would seem that this surtax would increase revenues by about $44.7 billion per year.
Not only have the Democrats spent the same money three different ways, as you can see the dollar amounts of their proposals -- $45 to $70 billion/year -- are insignificant in comparison to annual budgets of nearly $4,000 billion, and annual deficits of more than $1,000 billion. This is why I call Obama's re-election campaign The Big Lie campaign, based as it is on the Big Lie that tax hikes on earners in the top two brackets would be the cure to all that ails us. That sales pitch is, very simply, a lie.
I'm a bit shocked at Lowry's subtitle "nasty crude populism". Mr. Truman was a farmer with a high school education who educated himself further by, as he told it, reading every book in the Independence Public Library, particularly histories. More than that, he knew what it meant to work for a living; he was a WW I combat veteran, Captain of an Artillery Battery, very much respected by the men under his command. He was not a narcissist as is his modern day "copy cat", Mr. Obama. One of Mr. Truman's observations was "you can count on the people to spot a counterfeit every time." The word counterfeit describes Mr. Obama to a "T". He'll not get far trying to pass himself off as the modern day Truman. If Mr. Truman were here to react to the notion that Mr. Obama and he are kindred spirits his response would be so filled with expletives (similar to his assessment of Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark) as to be unprintable. Fat chance with that plan, Mr. President.
Who do you think can beat Obama ? Short answer:
Not Republicans.
The only reason Obama would lose is if Blacks did not vote.
Now that he is in the "White" House, (big house for those of you still wearing the white sheets), we intend to do everything and anything possible to keep him there.
I don't know that I have ever read such a racists comment on this board before today. And that explains the zeal with which Cain is being smeared. Cain would split the Black racist vote.
Lonnae -- There are several words that fit your not all that subtle attempt to paint Republicans as racists or Klansmen. One is libelous. Two is inappropriate. Three is lame. Find a new excuse for your incompetent candidate for re-election, because the ones you used are getting old and they aren't fooling anyone.
Robert,
Nothing libelous, inappropriate or lame in any of my words. And nothing incompetent in Obama or anything that he's done or tried to do. What is inappropriate, is for people like you who try to blame the country's woes on Obama. Who put us here ?
Certainly not Obama. Excuses? If the sheet fits........
Oh, and one last parting gift:
Obama re-election success would depends on two things:
1. The state of the economy
2. Who is going to face.
On point 1, I do not see the economy massively improving by next year, in fact it may get worse, so Obama is a huge loser on this front.
On point 2, if we make the mistake and nominate the CEO of Bain Capital Mitt Romney then even with a bad economy a majority of voters still would not vote for literally a Wall Street financial guy like Romney because even though it is not fair, a majority of voters despise Wall Street more than Obama. Also on this point we have only two candidates with great record who can beat Obama. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Choose wisely folks, choose wisely.
I would like to see a well publicized comparison of the relative progressivity of income and payroll taxes before the Bush tax cuts and now. We've heard "Bush tax cuts for the rich" so often that it's hard to imagine the first three words without the last three, but it's a fact that the Bush tax cuts were proportionately larger for low-income taxpayers. Plus we have increased exemption amounts and growth in tax credits as well as the alternative minimum tax and the payroll tax holiday, all of which make real tax rates more progressive. If Americans actually knew the tax burden on a family of four making 300K vs. one making 75K, I don't think the demand to soak the rich would resonate so well. Many would realize that high earners already pay more than their fair share. But as it is, Americans get nothing but demonization of millionaires and billionaires and Warren Buffett's claim that he pays a lower rate than his secretary.
Follow
