WHAT EXACTLY is Obama's angle? This question has been on the minds of some of President Obama's strongest supporters, and students on Grounds are no exception. The question is worth asking: The president not only has backed down from a number of promises, but also has given sizeable concessions to congressional Republicans since even before his party lost its solid majorities in both houses during the 2010 midterms. Why is this undoubtedly capable, Harvard-educated legal scholar unable to negotiate effectively? Perhaps the most plausible theory is that Obama is getting exactly what he wants.
The health care reform battle is most illustrative of this theory. In 2009, Obama said, "It's time to give every American quality health care at an affordable cost." The implication of a type of universal health care, probably a "public option," was clear to those on the left and right. The left and a fair share of moderate voters were quick to embrace the idea, while the right decried it in terms that were sometimes, to be modest, detached from reality. Even with the wide Democratic majorities that seemed to spell the end of the Bush era, however, no substantial action was taken on pushing through the public option that was a major promise of the president's successful campaign for office.
Supporters of this move away from the public option claimed that the proposal never would attract the "All-Important Bipartisan Support" it needed to pass the Senate. A convenient excuse, it seems, to go back on a promise that later was determined to be politically infeasible. In the end, the bill signed into law was without a public option and received zero Republican votes in the Senate - so much for bipartisanship. So instead of a law providing Medicare to all who need it, Americans received incredibly moderate reform that requires all citizens to purchase care from existing entities in the health care industry. These companies are known to donate millions to supportive candidates during election seasons, and many saw their stock prices leap following the law's enactment.
Regardless, Obama came out of the whole affair looking like a dignified moderate capable of forging vital compromises.
Supporters and detractors alike may object and say that this episode is not reflective of Obama's typical mode of operation, though they will disagree about what "typical" is. After all, one man's "progressive reformer" is another man's "radical, anti-business statist." The evidence to support either of these descriptions is slim, however.
Obama's extension of the massive Bush tax cuts for the wealthy last year does not adhere to either suggested role. Neither does the lack of meaningful financial regulation. Both praise and criticism therefore seem off target, as do the exasperated groans of the president's backers who feel that he is giving in to his opponents too easily.
What, then, remains as an explanation? One possible, time-tested answer is triangulation. Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996 by using this strategy to position himself as someone who was neither left nor right," but rather a synthesis of the two. He co-opted Republican talking points, stated that "the era of big government is over" and claimed the lion's share of moderates. Compared to the idealistic strategy of the previous Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, triangulation seemed like a sound policy for Clinton to win votes at the expense of some favored policies. Obama's embrace of the conservative worldview, noted by liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, seems to be his way of triangulating and ensuring re-election in 2012.
Most supporters seem unwilling to entertain the notion that Obama is playing the part of a centrist to dominate the moderate vote in his upcoming election. As someone who canvassed on Obama's behalf in 2008, I know I would not have felt as fired up to go knock on doors and face verbal abuse from less-than-interested neighbors if I thought I were supporting someone who would not only extend existing conservative policies, but also adopt new ones for the sake of a re-election. Sadly, this seems to be what Obama is doing.
Many other members of "the base" doubtless feel this way, but their concerns almost always can be rebutted by asking, "Who better are you going to vote for?" Reminded of Tim Pawlenty's dullness or the absurdity of Donald Trump or Sarah Palin, formerly eager Obama supporters have their positive energy sapped and replaced by the uninspiring fear of a far worse president.
In 2008, Obama had legions of dedicated youth working across the nation to build up support on his behalf. Since then, they have been more or less dismissed in favor of direct appeals to the nation's moderate herds. Will the gambit of triangulation succeed? It seems it almost certainly will, but this success likely will cause far less excitement among students on Grounds than did the campaign that made many say, "Yes, we did."
Sam Carrigan is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
