Last night Rich made a forceful case for his conviction that Obama will triangulate because he must triangulate — if he wants to be reelected. Partly in opposition to my column (Rich’s link to my column was broken: convenient!), he writes:
All that said, as I’ve argued before, I believe Obama is going to do some triangulation because, 1) he has no other option–big left-wing initiatives are closed off for now; 2) he wants to get re-elected. You’ll often hear conservatives say Obama is such a sincere left-winger that he won’t and can’t move to the center. But he was just as sincere a left-winger in 2008, when he campaigned on tax cuts and examining the budget line-by-line and living within our means. It’s basically an axiom of American political life that liberals who want to get elected or re-elected president have to trim their sails. And we can assume that Obama, no matter what he says about how he’s willing to be a righteous one-termer, wants to get reelected.
So he’s going to triangulate. How much is the question. His proposal today for a federal pay freeze is a move to the center in a decidedly minor key. But it’s also relatively painless. If he finds a half-dozen of these kind of moves, he might soften his image as a partisan liberal a bit. Not enough, though, which is why I think he’s going to have to come up with some sort of big proposal for not terribly credible budget reductions. Say, a 10-year plan that generates a fairly large number for savings over that period, but that backloads most of it to year 6 and beyond, when he’ll no longer be in office even if reelected.
Consider yourself warned!
I think Rich makes a good point here. Obama must change his image if he’s going to win reelection. And if that is the definition of triangulation, then I think I was probably wrong and Rich was right. But I’m not sure that an attempted image makeover fully qualifies or will do the trick. If memory serves, much of Clinton’s triangulation was symbolic, superficial or trivial: school uniforms, V-chip, poll-tested vacations. I don’t think any of those things alone would have earned reelection for Clinton in 1996 (particularly against a stronger GOP candidate than Bob Dole).
Many of the foreseeable opportunities for Obama to triangulate reside outside of his control. For instance, as Ramesh noted in the magazine, Clinton’s rehabilitation began with the Oklahoma City bombing. He gave a good speech and then cynically used the tragedy to demonize the GOP and conservative talk radio. Obama certainly can’t plan on something like that and, heaven forbid, should such a tragedy transpire, milking it for political advantage comes with profound risks for Obama.
Moreover, the big kahuna of Clinton’s race to the center was his signing of welfare reform. I’m open to correction, but it seems to me the only major legislation coming down the pike of similar stature and ideological resonance would be the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Will Obama really sign such a thing? I doubt it.
Also, Obama is a much worse salesman than Bill Clinton. There’s still a debate about whether Obama is even a good salesman at all. But if the health-care debate (never mind Copehagen, Seoul, etc.) demonstrated anything, it is that Obama is not nearly the closer his fans thought he was. For a year, the White House said Obama was one more speech away from sealing the deal, and after every speech Obamacare seemed a bit less desirable.
Last, a related point. Forget whether Obama is too ideologically rigid to move to the center. I think he’s too arrogant to admit he was wrong about anything significant. That constrains his options for how to triangulate. He’ll point fingers at Pelosi and the congressional Dems (and since he outsourced his domestic policy to them, he’s got ample ammo), but he won’t admit blame save for weaselly stuff like “I underestimated how evil the Republicans are.” That’s a big liability when you’re trying to convince voters you’ve learned the right lessons from the midterms.
The one area where I think Obama has an advantage over Clinton is that he’s less vulnerable to a primary challenge. The white left will not take responsibility for destroying the reelection chances of the first black president. That’s gives Obama some wiggle room if he knows how to use it.
So yeah, Obama will “triangulate” in some way, but I still don’t think it will do the trick.
With respect, Mr. Lowery and Mr. Goldberg are barking up the wrong tree.
Two years is a long time in politics, and Obama has already redone the relationship between Americans and their government. He has enough of a base to win the 2012 election, and there is no Republican out there who can lie like him, or speak the truth in a way to convince 52% or 53% of the electorate to vote for them, and not Obama.
All he has to do is a few little things to look like he is moderating, while the bureaucrats run us and our country into the ground. He's already won, why change the formula?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I think he’s too arrogant to admit he was wrong about anything significant."
To borrow a stock Goldberg response, "Physician heal thyself."
Though I am tempted to write that this is "nonsense on stilts" or that this is a "stolen base." I'm sticking with "Physician heal thyself"
And scene.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFools rush in! Obama will try to change the perception perhaps. But he can't change the reality. It will be up to the Republicans to break through the perception bubble.
This should prove easy enough, provided the Republicans don't come off as feckless as they did after their heart-to-heart with Obama today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell we all know it's only Republicans that cynically utilize national tragedies for political gain (Cough! 9/11).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI pretty much agree with Jonah's take, and I also think my Paul Lynde analogy from yesterday was apt. Nonsense on stilts, perhaps, but still apt. APT!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the MSM will spin 24/7/365 that Obama is, in fact, triangulating and "moving to compromise" and "showing a new bipartisan spirit" etc etc.
I think 99.9% of that will be spin and spin only.
Bluntly, he's far too arrogant and narcissistic to do anything but pretend (and won't be able to sound sincere when he pretends) to work with people he considers his intellectual inferiors (most of the rest of the planet, but especially Republicans). And, he's just not bright enough. Honestly, why in the world is Rich of all people still overestimating this joker after this train wreck of a first two years in office?
He has neither the skill nor the will to pull this off. That said, he *still* may get re-elected, but that will be because of the Republican Party doing what it does best, not from anything Obama manages to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith respect to the President's arrogance, what President has ever admitted he was wrong on a major issue? Remember when the left was all up in arms about Bush being so arrogant that he couldn't admit he was wrong on Iraq? This strikes me as the same thing. I think it requires an immense amount of arrogance to think you are qualified to be President. So we shouldn't be at all surprised when that arrogance is on display front and center. Just my take.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's difficult to predict with confidence what a man entirely devoid of a conscience will do. But whatever it is, and however the media spin it, let's hope voters don't believe him the second time around! I doubt they will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Dr. PalinIPresume, using the Oklahoma City Bombing to attack the GOP and conservative radio as not only the fuel for the bombing, but as responsible, at least in part, for it is the same as what Bush did after 9-11? I do not recall President Bush suggesting that the New York Times or MSNBC was responsible, in any way, for 9-11. I may be wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMan, are you guys counting chickens or what? Triangulate. Don't triangulate. Jam amnesty down our throats a la Obamacare. Whatever. It doesn't matter. The man can do just about anything over the next two years and still get re-elected... if Republicans are dumb enough to nominate another dud to run against him. Yes, too many people bought into his schtick, and should have been much smarter. Yes, the economy killed us. Yes, it was the perfect storm. But it would have been much closer and might have gone the other way if the Republican candidate(s) hadn't been so easily marginalized. I don't give a rip whose "turn" it is in 2012, our candidate needs to be able to refute the lies and communicate a positive vision to conservatives and independents. If we don't have that, incumbency rules the day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll make pretty much the same comment here I always make about this fascination with Democrat "Triagulation".
It doesn't matter how much they triangulate. It hasn't worked for them in a long time. Ah you say....Clinton did it and won! Rubbish I say...Clinton won because of Ross Perot BOTH times. Obama won while running as a far lefty anyway. He won because his base was enthusiastic and we were not. Palin got us some of the way there but she just couldn't get McCain any further into anybody's heart.
Let him triangulate. I hope he does...it will only weaken his standing with his base which can only help us...at least as long as Ross Perot doesn't run again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama will look for Gridlock with the New Congress. It will only weaken him further.
Just as Democrat Advisors preached that they lost the 90's House due to the failure of HillaryCare to pass they also preach that the "Great Shutdown" was a part of Clinton's Salvation as it showed the obstinancy of the Republicans.
Obamcare devestated the Democrat House. The Obama Shutdown will make him beatable by a competent opponent as it will make clear to one and all his inability to listen to the electorate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Obama is a thoroughly incompetent President who can't lead homing pigeons, there are no successes he can boast about, he is too arrogant to admit his faults, of which there are many, and he can't be challenged by his own party because he is black! Wow, whooopeeee, roll on 2012, bring it on! I don't know who the Republican candidate will be in 2012 (Marco Rubio, please put your hand up) but he is going to have a dream run to the White House. It won't get any easier than this. Obama is a dead duck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI always amaze at the almost fetish-like obsession with political triangulation with respect to Pres. Obama's action or inaction. My question is: what will he triangulate to achieve? Once the tax issue is resolved, there will not be any big issue to "triangulate." Immigration reform? DOA. Social Security reform? Not a chance! Obamacare repeal? A certain veto. Spending cut, balance the budget? Forget about it! When was the last time the US Govt. cut spending? Gitmo prisoners issue? No way. Obama's true ideological conviction in this particular issue and his doctrinaire AG will not yield. Hence I agree with Jonah; I don't see any issue down the line for Barack Obama to triangulate even if he wants to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as an image makeover, the whole Obama image is a marketing brand. He's "The One," "sort of like God." Now why would "God" need a make over and how is one going about to do a make over of "The One"? Because if "the One" needs a new image, it means he will morph into "the Two?"
With respect to Pres. Obama'relection, it wholly depends on 2 things: 1. His competition, 2. An unknown and unforeseen event near election time. If his competition is another Bob Dole, John McCain's likeness for Republican nominee, then Obama will coast to his re-election. No question.
I've ranked them in descending order, given his current behavior:
1. never admit you're wrong
2. win a 2nd term
He'll realize that he made the wrong choice late on Election night 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth Jonah and Rich alluded to this in their respective opinions but I thought I'd underscore it - mid-term Clinton had a huge advantage that Obama does not, ie, the internet/tech boom that started in 1995 AND the peace dividend he inherited from Reagan/Bush(I) essentially winning the cold war.
The world of 1995/96 was a far, far different place than it is today with both internal damage to fix (unemployment over 9% for the past 18 months) and external threats developing (not enough room between these parentheses to list them all)...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs the math question required to post a comment here to keep the liberal trolls out?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince we're talking about the 2012 election, I'd like to throw out the idea of fielding a Green / Commie / Socialist "independent" candidate to further suck Democrat votes away from Obama. I'm not sure there are further left candidates, but I'd like a good crunchy liberal stalking horse candidate. Not knowing the liberal landscape, maybe some other readers could throw out some viable candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegdub makes a great point. Republicans have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating after the Gulf War. We never, never, never, never should have lost in 92.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso the terrain has changed since Clinton Triangulated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Lame Stream Media has lost influence to the alternative media, and bad news comes quicker and at the same time can be recalled off the Web to a much greater extent. For a comparable acheivement:
External Link