Thursday, June 07, 2012
Barack Obama lately has been accusing presumptive rival
Mitt Romney of not waging his campaign in the nice (but losing) manner of John
McCain in 2008. But a more marked difference can be seen in Obama himself,
whose style and record bear no resemblance to his glory days of four years ago.
Purportedly, the president has recently been reassuring
Democratic donors that his signature achievement, Obamacare, could be
readjusted in his second term — something Republicans have promised to do for
the last two years. What an evolution: The president has gone from telling us
we would love Obamacare, to granting favored companies exemptions from it, to
giving private assurances to modify it after reelection — all before it has
even been fully implemented.
Obama’s calls for a new civility four years ago are
apparently inoperative. The vow to “punish our enemies” and the intimidation of
Romney-campaign donors are a long way from the soaring speech at Berlin’s
Victory Column and “Yes, we can.” Obama once called for a focus on issues
rather than personal invective. But now we mysteriously hear again of Romney’s
dog, his great-grandfather’s wives, and a roughhousing incident some 50 years
ago in prep school.
The “hope and change” slogan for a new unity gave way to
a new “us versus them” divide. “Us” now means all sorts of identity groups like
African-Americans for Obama, Latinos for Obama, gays for Obamas, greens for
Obama, and students for Obama. “Them,” in contrast, means almost everyone who
cannot claim hyphenation or be counted on as a single-cause constituency. In
2008, the Obama strategy was supposedly to unite disparate groups with a common
vision; in 2012, it is to rally special interests through attacks on common
enemies.
Remember the Obama who promised an end to the revolving
door of lobbyists and special-interest money? Then came the likes of Peter
Orszag, who went from overseeing the Obama budget to being a Citigroup grandee,
and financial pirate Jon Corzine, who cannot account for more than $1.5 billion
of investors’ money but can bundle cash for Obama’s reelection. If you had told
fervent supporters in 2008 that by early 2012 Obama would set a record for the
most meet-and-greet fundraisers in presidential history, they would have
thought it blasphemy.
Obama is said to go over every name on his Predator-drone
targeted-assassination list — a kill tally that is now seven times larger in
less than four years than what George W. Bush piled up in eight. Guantanamo is
just as open now as it was in 2008. If former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh
was once accusing President Bush of being “torturer in chief,” he is now an
Obama insider arguing that bombing Libya is not really war and that taking out
an American citizen and terrorist suspect in Yemen is perfectly legal.
Previously bad renditions, preventive detentions, and military tribunals are
now all good.
Some disgruntled conservatives jumped ship in 2008 for
the supposedly tightfisted Obama when he called for halving the deficit in four
years and derided George Bush as “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the
national debt. Yet Obama already has exceeded all the Bush borrowing in less
than four years.
What accounts for the radical change in mood from four
years ago?
The blue-state model of large government, increased
entitlements, and high taxes may be good rhetoric, but it is unsound reality.
Redistribution does not serve static, aging populations in a competitive global
world — as we are seeing from California to southern Europe. “Hope and change”
was a slogan in 2008; it has since been supplanted by the reality of 40
straight months of 8 percent–plus unemployment and record deficits — despite $5
billion in borrowed priming, near-zero interest rates, and vast increases in
entitlement spending.
Obama’s bragging that the United States is drilling more
oil despite, rather than because of, his efforts is supposed to be a clever
appeal to both greens and business. Private-equity firms are good for campaign
donations but bad when a Republican rival runs them. “Romney would do worse,”
rather than “I have done well,” is the implicit Obama campaign theme of 2012.
To be reelected, a now-polarizing Obama believes that he
must stoke the fears of some of us rather than appeal to all of our hopes by
defending a successful record, and that he must smear with the old politics
rather than inspiring with the new. That cynical calculation and the constant
hedging and flip-flopping may be normal for politicians, but eventually they
prove disastrous for the ones who posed as messianic prophets.
No comments:
Post a Comment