Obama’s clever budget proposal has won him the advantage in the coming political showdown. Democratic grousing over limited cuts to discretionary spending will be used to paint the president as a fiscally responsible moderate. The Republican plan will be demonized as a heartless assault on the poor and elderly. Obama will do everything short of sending out an engraved invitation to provoke a GOP-led government shutdown. Whether or not the confrontation goes nuclear, Obama will enjoy the sort of upper hand Clinton had over Gingrich fifteen years ago.
Granted, the coming entitlement meltdown is a far greater threat than anything America faced in 1995. And despite Gingrich’s 1994 victory, there was nothing comparable to the Tea Party in those days. Even so, as the battle is shaping up, Obama is slated to win. The country as a whole fails to grasp the magnitude of the coming fiscal crisis. Advantage, Obama. What to do?
The answer, I think, is to tell a (true) story about Obama’s long-term aims and intentions. If the word socialism makes you uncomfortable, try “unaffordable Euro-style welfare state.” Obama is not Bill Clinton, and highlighting that fact is the best way to prevent Obama from assuming the mantle of triangulation. Obama wants to win a shut-down battle, but without “ending welfare as we know it.” In fact, Obama has already gone a far piece down the road of resuscitating and expanding the pre-Clinton welfare state. His budget largely preserves (“freezes”) that achievement. Without filling in the ideological commitments and long-term plans Obama so prudently declines to avow, the GOP will lose this battle.
Tea Party moxie and the shellacking notwithstanding, the GOP establishment remains reluctant to highlight Obama’s radicalism. I understand the reasons for this, and they are by no means trivial. While Obama’s policies are opposed by many, he remains personally popular. It seems disrespectful to attribute an ideology to the president that he himself won’t own up to. Words like “radical,” much less “socialist,” sound impolite. Yet, without defining the president in a way that happens to be not only politically advantageous, but true, I doubt Obama can be stopped. Telling the truth about this president is how we shellacked him to begin with.
Silly theories like birtherism and the notion that Obama is a committed Muslim have been amplified by a mainstream media eager to discredit legitimate assessments of the president’s transformative ambitions. Nonsensical arguments offered up by the left in the aftermath of Tucson have been used to shut down perfectly fair criticisms of the president.
Obama gains immensely by fudging or simply keeping silent about his ideological commitments and long-term plans. (The imaginary ten-year out projections in the current budget, of course, are a cover for next year’s expansion of government and do not represent the president’s actual long-term plans.) Obama’s every tactical feint to the center frightens a left which will not desert him, but whose criticism makes him seem moderate. Meanwhile, conservatives look disrespectful for filling in the blanks. Even so, that is the way to win. The real disrespect, of course, is Obama’s failure to own up to his own ideology. Yet Republicans have retreated of late from attempts to (accurately) define the president. That is a recipe for failure.
It will not do to chastise Obama’s budget proposal as a simple “refusal to lead,” a “punt,” or a “cynical political maneuver.” Obama isn’t failing to lead. He is very cleverly leading us toward an irreversible expansion of the welfare state. If Obama is reelected and in control when the entitlement crisis finally does hit, he will manage the country toward Euro-style taxes and Euro-style socialism. After all, in the midst of its current fiscal crisis, Obama is pushing Europe to expand spending, not contract it.
I like this post by Lexington Green (h/t Glenn Reynolds), although his vision of permanent Republican meltdown is overdrawn. Lexington rightly rejects the “failure to lead” framing, highlighting Obama’s strategic moves and long-term intentions instead. The notion that Obama plans to use Republican proposals for cuts to kick off a movement of “angry and mobilized” beneficiaries is exactly right. Obama’s 2010 attacks on the Chamber of Commerce and his infamous “punish your enemies” exhortation were efforts to do the same thing. I lay out the rationale behind this intentionally polarizing strategy in the final chapter of Radical-in-Chief. It’s a program deeply rooted in Obama’s past. And in the absence of an honest avowal of his plans and motives in the present, only the past reveals the truth about this president’s vision of the future.
Perhaps I’m wrong and “the president’s abdication of leadership” sound bite will be enough to defeat “the GOP’s heartless cuts.” Even so, as an alternative, I suggest: “Obama’s radical plans are leading us off a cliff.”
Thank you. You are absolutely right. Call it what it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave you ever been interviewed by Michael Medved, Mr. Kurtz? You are the only person whom I think will effectively rebut Mr. Medved's point that Obama is not out to destroy the country (with little evidence other than that he won't do this because he wants to be re-elected). One would think that a $3.5 trillion budget would put this point to rest, but Mr. Medved point is without merit, but only someone who has your intellectual caliber will make him see the error of his thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're missing something in this analysis. Americans also live in states that are broke, that lack the borrowing powers of the federal government.
The "country as a whole" is being sensitized to "the magnitude of the coming fiscal crisis" at the local and state level much more quickly than Obama is counting on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuite simply, it is not 1995 any more. And Obama is not Bill Clinton. And Democrats do not have a monopoly on the media.
The general public is well aware of what is going on and that trillion dollar deficits cannot continue. They will notice that the only people wailing about a government shut down are government union employees -- and Democrat politicians.
If the Republicans engage on ideas and stick to their guns they will prevail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Obama offering America a choice of "accept socialism or I'll ruin you?" He may not grasp that socialism is a form of ruin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are vast swaths of the federal government that should be shut down. Mithc Daniels had a line in his great CPAC speech to the effect of, "You'd be surprised how much government you'd never miss."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is it that our side is still stuck on politics and optics?Mr. Kurtz, the people are far smarter now then they were the 1995. The argument that the president punted or failed to show leadership can definitely win. Not with the left but certainly with the middle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps Mr. Kurtz has been neutered by bogus calls for "civility" used to quash criticism of Obama as "radical" or "reckless", but millions of Americans tossed Democrats from office precisely because they recognize the POTUS for what he is: radical and reckless. They and their Tea Party allies won't be so easily silenced --- especially after having the president and his party continually "disrespect"...them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe republicans should approach the showdown on two fronts, one being the rhetorical stance advocated by Mr. Kurtz.
The other is that in fact we need to have yet more at stake. The nation will wonder why the government is being shut down over a measly $100 billion rounding error. This suggests to them multiple future shutdowns, which they will rightly resist.
Add a modest entitlement reform, ideally means testing social security, but for the rich only, with a very high bar. This will force the Dems to argue "Hands off the rich, becuase the middle class may be next!" And will let the nation see the fight as worth the candle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you're giving the Obama Whitehouse more credit than it deserves. Taxes won't be nearly enough to cover the government's promises and we're closer to our debt limit than many care to realize since the accounting for our obligations uses, shall we say, rose colored glasses ('fraud' would be a less kind way to put it).
No, Obama's proposed budget is cluelessness on an epic scale. We're talking Louis the 16th clueless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChris,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the answer to your question depends on what your definition of "destroy" is. To Obama, a country with less income inequality, with more money spread around, and completely equal life outcomes would not fit that definition, but it might fit mine, and if I may presume, yours too.
I think Mr. Kurtz makes some extremely good points about the president's agenda. I've been listening to all of the dire reports about how the various entitlements will be eating up such a large chunk of the federal budget.
I know that high income wage earners put the most into the Social Security system. So on one level, it does seem fair that they should get more back out of it. But isn't it more important to save the system as a whole than to make sure that the people who put the most into it get the most back? Theoretically, those who have made more during their careers are the ones who will have had more money to cover their bills, pay off their mortgage and save for retirement. That's what my husband and I are trying to do at least. I know that's not always true and there are bad things that can happen like expensive illnesses.
But I still think that it's a good thing to change the way that Social Security benefits are calculated so that the safety net remains in place for the most vulnerable. Those who have put the most money in will no longer get the most money out, but this isn't a savings account. It's a government program. Those who want a higher standard of living during their retirement years need to make good choices during their earning years.
Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I think that this is something both democrats and republicans could get behind. It doesn't raise taxes; it lowers benefits for those best able to afford it. The poorest among us are still protected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusechrisboltssr, Medved is correct about not arguing that Obama is out to destroy the country. That argument suggests that Obama wakes up and goes to bed with MOTIVE to destroy the country. Making that argument of motive is a waste of time with the average voter. I have no problem with making the argument that Obama's policies will RESULT in destroying the country. But that is miles apart from out to destroy. Painting the President (one that earns high personal numbers in polls) as some sort of Manchurian Candidate out to bring down the country is counter-productive.
However, where I imagine I agree with chrisboltssr (and Mr Kurtz) and disagree with Medved is that we should run away from calling Obama a socialist or at the very least a statist. We in fact should not run from this rhetorical fight. The President is one and always has been one and there is a wealth of evidence to support the charge. As Reagan said, Obama believes government is the solution to our nation's problem while we believe government is the problem.
As for a possible government shutdown, I welcome one if it is necessary to cut the budget. I still don't trust voters really have embraced government needing to be reduced to the level that is required to get us out of our fiscal mess. A government shutdown and the public's reaction to it will provide us a test to see how serious voters are about cutting government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting article, Mr. Kurtz.
I believe effinayright has a spot-on analysis of the situation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'effin', your post is a story of two halves. The second half I quite agree with, and I'm not sure where all the "we're doomed, the public loves big government and Obama!" sentiment is coming from. Yes, the 2012 electorate will be different from 2010, but what's to say we can't move more voters to the right to compensate?
But the first part of your comment is hilariously wrong. Kurtz just wrote the field guide to Obama's past and the first word in the title is 'Radical'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStanley: I appreciate what you're saying, and it should be a warning to our side.
At the same time, the coming financial debacle is not going to discrimminate between conservatives and liberals--and even the libs are coming to understand that. What's more, they're scared of what it portends, and some seem to be acting accordingly.
Even WaPo this morning has come out sharply critical of the President's irresponsibility, echoing the "punter" imagery of Rep. Ryan. Maybe we should be wary of such editorials, too (indeed we should be). But on the whole, it's at least possible that the leaders of the liberal super-culture, fearful for the first time that they too will not be spared in the coming collapse, have concluded that this is not the time for their usual cheerleading to support their man in office. And that's another difference between 2011 and 1995.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@chrisboltssr - I have noticed Medved's refusal to deal with Radical In Chief, lumping it in with what he considers "unhelpful crackpot stuff" like Dinesh D'Souza's The Roots of Obama's Rage, which unlike RIC does have a stink of long-distance armchair psychiatry to it. (It's like Bill Maher spewing that Dubya was no different than Islamic jihadists because he's a kooky Christian who wants to trigger the Rapture.)
Medved embodies the frightened and timid Republican mindset that fears coming off as too strident and scaring off potential votes, thus his support for John McCain and intolerance for those who favor strong border enforcement because it will alienate Hispanic voters needed to win. IOW, it's better to Hispander than have principles.
However, Medved's timidity illustrates what Kurtz is alluding to in this piece in that Obama has a Kevlar-Teflon shell around him and his agenda. Any and all criticism will be characterized as being founded in racism, intolerance, partisanship, incivility, meanness, and general bad will toward the needs of a nation laid low by eight years of Dubya's illegal wars and giveaways to the very richest at the expense of the proletariat.
Yeah, it's all bovine excrement, but folks like us who hang out in places like this are outnumbered by those too busy with their lives to inform themselves as to what's REALLY going on and how it affects them. The desire to go along and get along and not seem mean is strong in those with weak wills. If you hear someone bleating about how "both sides are too extreme and no one is speaking for people like me in the middle" you know that you've got someone content to be a serf as long as the beer remains reasonably priced and the game is on the telly.
The GOP is so frightened of appearing "extreme" to these detached marshmallows who get their "news" from the Big Three JournoList-allied channels that they're paralyzed. Remember, for the 2-3 million people who may watch a Fox News show, there are over 300 million people getting their misinformation from the very ideological allies who put Obama on the throne in the first place.
Medved's blind spot to Obama's socialism is based on the strict dictionary definition of the word and his misinterpretation of his Cabinet being stock with crony capitalist insiders and tax-dodging fat cats as a sign that he's not adverse to capitalism. He also thinks that calling Obama a socialist will sound mean and not convince anyone to support our side; Kurtz suggests there is merit to that. Medved also can't seem to understand that Obama's entire life has been spent steeping in nothing but toxic swamps of radicalism and anti-Americanism in academe and while "community organizing" and thus he probably holds deep animus and contempt for the country he now rules.
So, we have a situation where what's happening and what's driving these country-killing decisions is in fairly plain sight and the opposition is too scared to say anything against it. Obama sat for 20 years in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's hate church and has fraternized with domestic terrorists; he spent the first two years of his term flying around the world and bowing to every tyrant and potentate he could find while making the Dixie Chicks sound like Lee Greenwood; he has exploded the debt and size of government and his own budget projects nothing but more debt and expansion while he claims in Orwellian fashion that he's saving money and this is all Dubya's fault anyway; and through it all, the GOP is unable to speak the facts, even amongst themselves.
In 2008 I wonder how people couldn't see that Obama clearly didn't like the country he sought to rule, but Stanley Kurtz hadn't written RIC, though he was clearly onto something then. Now that we have the arsenal of smoking guns regarding Obama's ideology, how will anyone be able to feign surprise when he's re-elected? It's going to be like discovering Mein Kampf in 1946 and wondering why no one bothered to read this BEFORE that guy who didn't get into art school become such a bother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlong with Mr. Kurtz's suggested rhetorical stance, we need to put more on the table than a mere $100 billion rounding error. The nation will wonder why we need to go through a shutdown for so small a gain.
Adding minor entitlement reform having broad appeal, such as very limited means testing for social security - means testing the rich - might fill the bill. Let the dems shut down the government in order to protect the rich.
High noon is coming, and we're bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama will only win if the Tea Parties from 2009/10 do not erupt again in 2011/12. If, on Apr 15, the Tea Parties decide, "Hey,we won in Nov", Obama will win. If they turn out in force outside the White House to not just support, but demand, a "government shutdown", we will win.
We won the Healthcare debate, but lost due to an exercise in raw, anti-democratic, political power. Obama won't win this time. But We The People have to show up!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot sure that calling out Obama and his plans as "radical" is much of a strategy. The independents, who are the crucial voters, think bi-partisanship is wonderful. And 40% of the country want (or thinks that they want) a "Euro-style welfare state."
Trust by the voters is what the current GOP lacks. Clearly, the public remembers that good ol' boy Republicans of the W era had a lot to do with our current mess. Yet, last November, the voters clearly sent a message that they trust Obama less than they do the GOP.
The strategy has to get people to trust the Republicans more than the new, "moderate" Obama. Cuts to federal functions and programs with corresponding block grants to the states (at 70-80% of what the Feds were spending) could hack away at the budget without touching entitlements just yet, but all the while educating the public and making the case for entitlement reform. A "devolve power to states and localities" message could be a rallying cry in these next 2 years of divided government.
Then once trust has been restored, people will be more willing to trust the GOP to take on entitlement reform.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse