Political Animal
Blog
President Obama held a town-hall-style event in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, yesterday, and the change of scenery seemed to do him some good. Jonathan Cohn noted, “It looks like President Obama really has found his inner Harry Truman,” and if so, it comes not a moment too soon.
The video of the event is online and worth watching, but a few things jumped out at me. It was encouraging, for example, to see the president continue to press the line that our politics is broken, while laying out specific measures — payroll tax break, infrastructure investment, etc. — that would help the economy. I’d prefer a more ambitious approach, but at least this shows Obama’s focus is where it should be.
When the discussion turned to health care, the president played a little rhetorical game I hadn’t heard before. In discussing the Affordable Care Act, he noted that some call it “Obamacare,” adding, “Let me tell you, I have no problem with folks saying ‘Obama cares.’ I do care. If the other side wants to be the folks who don’t care, that’s fine with me.”
He also slammed his GOP presidential rivals for rejecting a 10-to-1 deal on debt reduction, suggested Mitt Romney has a case of “amnesia” when it comes to health care, and said, “[O]ne of the most effective ways that we could help the economy is making sure that we’re not seeing more teacher layoffs.” Congress disagrees, but Obama’s right.
But what struck me as especially important is when the president took the time to defend government itself.
“You’ll hear a lot of folks, by the way, say that government is broken. Well, government and politics are two different things. Government is our troops who are fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s government. Government are also those FEMA folks when there’s a flood or a drought or some emergency who come out and are helping people out. That’s government. Government is Social Security. Government are teachers in the classroom. Government are our firefighters and our police officers, and the folks who keep our water clean and our air clean to breathe, and our agricultural workers. And when you go to a national park, and those folks in the hats — that’s government.
“So don’t be confused — as frustrated as you are about politics, don’t buy into this notion that somehow government is what’s holding us back…. [D]on’t buy into this whole notion that somehow government doesn’t do us any good; government is what protects us. The government is what built the Interstate Highway System. Government is what sent a man to the Moon. It’s what invested in the research and development that created innovations all across this country.”
For all the talk about President Obama’s reluctance to establish progressive “stories,” this is a fundamentally liberal message, identifying government activism as a force of social good and national progress. It’s the core of the Democratic Party’s message, and Obama appeared only too pleased to state it explicitly.
Before opening the floor to questions, the president explained, “I want everybody to understand that I’m not here just to enjoy the nice weather. I’m here to enlist you in a fight. We are fighting for the future of our country. And that is a fight that we are going to win. That is a promise that I make with your help.”
The more Obama makes appearances like this one, the more likely it is he’ll see supporters eager to join that fight.
Facebook
Twitter
Ron Byers on August 16, 2011 8:52 AM:
Obama is a gifted professional politician in his element. He has figured out that he needs to run against the Republican congress. He will do well given the little people running against him. Sadly the Democatic party isn't strong or smart enough to take advantage. He will win reelection, but he will lose the Senate. McCaskill for one is going needlessly go down in flames because she is enamoured with the idea she has to tact hard right. There are a lot of other Blue Dogs who are going down because they are infected with the same political illness.
FRP on August 16, 2011 8:54 AM:
A lotta uncertainty ...
Sigh
K in VA on August 16, 2011 8:56 AM:
Yeah, this is good stuff -- but the MSM will largely ignore it, unless there's a TP heckler, who will always make the news.
DiTurno on August 16, 2011 8:59 AM:
Steve writes:
"For all the talk about President Obama's reluctance to establish progressive 'stories,' this is a fundamentally liberal message, identifying government activism as a force of social good and national progress."
Actually, it's a message the vast majority of Americans believed until the 1980's. Also, this is the first time Obama has said anything like that since the inauguration. That's a big problem.
walt on August 16, 2011 9:02 AM:
Obama is not Reagan but he is likeable. I think the right's animus is so over the top that it inadvertently shows off Obama's calmness and moderation. Still, we live in interesting times - the economy is not going back to status quo ante no matter how loudly we clap. Republicans have gone full-tilt crazy, and the utterly decadent MSM seems incapable of mounting any defense for pluralistic democracy. The election will ultimately be a judge of our character more than the candidates themselves. I hope we pass.
c u n d gulag on August 16, 2011 9:03 AM:
YES!
MORE OF THAT!!!
Democrats, are you listening?
Tack away from Wall Street, and start heading back toward Main Street.
And the faster, the better.
Bill on August 16, 2011 9:04 AM:
Heartwarming.
MikeBoyScout on August 16, 2011 9:04 AM:
Being correct and being adament about it is necessary but not sufficient in politics.
Martha Peck on August 16, 2011 9:05 AM:
I really liked Obama's response to "Obamacare". It was above the fray and yet had a sting to it. It is also two years too late. This would have been an effect rejoinder when the craziness to Healthcare reform started in 2009. In 2011... not so much. This President puzzles me.
Danp on August 16, 2011 9:09 AM:
Also, this is the first time Obama has said anything like that since the inauguration. DiTurno
Actually he has said it many times in many ways. You probably didn't notice it because the pundits are focused on how many times he said "I" or whether he seemed angry or worse, professorial.
Brenna on August 16, 2011 9:10 AM:
I missed that Obama Cares comment. That was good. Whoever thought of that was brilliant.
When you compare Obama's quiet, intelligent style to the loutish Rick Perry or the annoying voice of Michelle Bachman, I think rational people will choose the saner current president.
Ron Byers on August 16, 2011 9:16 AM:
About Obamacare, I was on a non-political site I frequent with conservatives. One of the tea party folks was crowing about the 11th Circuit decision. Other older conservatives jumped him because they like a lot of Obamacare they have seen so far. For some the stupid it burns but for others the bloom is off. Republican crazy doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. These days a lot of natural Republican allies just shake their heads at the mention of the tea party. Ryan's proposal to end medicare and give the savings to the rich was a bridge too far. The anti-union governors in the mid west haven't helped too much either.
If the Democratic party had any gumption or principles it could make real hay next year. Too bad we only have one organized party and they are the crazies.
DAY on August 16, 2011 9:16 AM:
-"the MSM will largely ignore it, unless there's a TP heckler, who will always make the news." K in VA
Because the 30 sec sound bite has shrunk to 10- and only gets played if there is a good "Gotcha!"
We now live in a 140 character world. . .
calling all toasters on August 16, 2011 9:20 AM:
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Postal Service is laying off 120,000 workers. Obama can pose as a Democrat occasionally when campaigning, but when it's time to make policy, the mask comes off. He is doing nothing to stand in the way of a depression.
bdop4 on August 16, 2011 9:31 AM:
I'm listening to the speech as I type. It's good to see him defending the idea of government as an organization formed for the very purpose of acting in the public's interest.
There is no other agent whose sole purpose is to help its citizens. You will not get this kind of commitment from private business.
He needs to step it up, though, and consistently use that argument against the teatards who want to eliminate government altogether and sell every public asset of value to the private sector.
He also needs to articulate a much larger public investment than trade agreements, tax incentives and patent reforms.
Celui on August 16, 2011 9:33 AM:
It IS refreshing to hear our President making comments and positing a positive message in a public arena. Is he on task? Yes, and remember that 'government' is, in and of itself, the composite of message, massage, and means to the public good. We'd like to think that Obama should rise up, challenge ALL comers, call out the miscreants and shout from the rooftops what we think the Progressive agenda should be. Is this the time, or is it too early? Let the TeaPublican field massacre each other, let the 'government is the means to the common good, and here's the actual proof in your own backyard' message continue as background to refute the opposition mantra. Add to this the 'Obama Cares' thread. Demonstrate, show and prove the truth in these messages. Time and again. Facts matter to those who can relate to facts, and that's the majority of Americans. Remind the American voters that demonizing one's opponent is shallow and meaningless (albeit that it makes for a memorable sound bite: "Senator, I knew John Kennedy, and you're no John Kennedy!!" will live forever). Obama is out of DC, and into his element. And, @ Ron Byers: McCaskill for one is going needlessly down in flames because she is enamoured with the idea she has to (tack) hard right. You are so right. Claire is mistaken right now, imagining that the only political inroads she can make is to become a 'DINO in a red state', faced with the traditional rural/urban split in MO. She can gain a lot more traction among voters by abandoning the 'me, too' mentality and following Obama's out front messaging.
AK Liberal on August 16, 2011 9:34 AM:
“It looks like President Obama really has found his inner Harry Truman,”
Um, give 'em hell, Barry?
rrk1 on August 16, 2011 9:34 AM:
Obama as campaigner, and Obama as president are two very different people. Now on the campaign trail again, he will say what the polls say the electorate wants to hear. (I'm not counting the know-nothing crazies as part of the electorate that's listening.) He did that very successfully in 2008, and we responded by projecting onto him an identity of intelligent progressivism that never materialized after he got elected. Should we fall for it again? What choice do we have? And that's the real problem.
Obama may now stop scolding his left flank, or worse, insulting them, which he's done repeatedly since the inauguration, but he knows the obvious: that there's no place for the left flank to go. He has no challenger on his left, and the clown circus on the right will only resonate with the delusional.
The 'election' will hinge on turnout. The Rethugs are working mightily to suppress the groups who vote against them. The Koch brothers, and their ilk, will fund dirty tricks galore. While we hear nothing about the issue anymore, how much more secure are the voting systems in this country than they were in 2000, 2004, and 2008? We witnessed two stolen presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, and many more lower down on the ticket. Computer and compiler hacking changed the results in any number of close elections that the Rethugs wanted to win. Because we no longer hear about any of this, are we to assume that the problems have been solved, and our elections are, for the first time, really honest?
JW on August 16, 2011 9:48 AM:
"Actually, it's a message the vast majority of Americans believed until the 1980's. Also, this is the first time Obama has said anything like that since the inauguration. That's a big problem".
Obama can sling hash with the best of 'em, but he's still a lousy cook. It's not simply his actions of the past three years belie such rhetoric. But great numbers of voters who were inspired by it during 2008 have since been treated with ill disguised contempt by appointees such as Emanuel, as well, of course, by the president himself. What was that blanket term the administration invoked to dismiss all such critics? Was it, "the professional left"? Whatever it was, it was a big middle finger to both his activist base, and the millions more who had-and-have legitimate beefs with the caliber of his decision making.
chopin on August 16, 2011 9:56 AM:
Here,s another one for you Mr President...
Government is stimulus money helping to improve your community and create and retain jobs. Money which Republican politicians complain about while simultaneously taking credit for its effects.
Robert Abbott on August 16, 2011 10:05 AM:
The President's distinction between politics and government was not so much a defense of government as it was an attempt to show the electorate how illogical it is to rely heavily on government for services or a check and then denounce it as the enemy. I think he's trying to educate the electorate about their natural interests since so many voters turned against what they want in the last election. That's why he keeps saying to voters that "you" voted for divided government but not dysfunctional government. He's trying to get them to think about their vote.
PTate in MN on August 16, 2011 10:48 AM:
"Don’t buy into this whole notion that somehow government doesn’t do us any good; government is what protects us.
I am delighted to see Obama start to push back on Reagan's idea that "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." It's about time. And I appreciate his claim that "government is what protects us." Maybe now, with the destructiveness and rot of conservative movement policies on full display, maybe Americans are feeling vulnerable enough to remember what government can--and should--do for them.
dr. bloor on August 16, 2011 10:49 AM:
Before opening the floor to questions, the president explained, “I want everybody to understand that I’m not here just to enjoy the nice weather. I’m here to enlist you in a fight. We are fighting for the future of our country. And that is a fight that we are going to win. That is a promise that I make with your help.”
Nice campaign speech. Pity his approach to governance bears no resemblance.
Texas Aggie on August 16, 2011 10:57 AM:
And where has this "inner Harry Truman" been for the last three years? If it had manifested itself three years ago, we wouldn't be facing near the problems we are facing now. Goodhair wouldn't even be thinking of running for president, and we'd still be stuck with him. Bachmann would wondering why she lost her seat in Congress and McConnell, Cantor, Boehner and the rest of the Toilet Papers would be relegated to the cheap seats.
Trollop on August 16, 2011 11:07 AM:
"Good Government" is troops not occupying other countries as a land base for spook wars in neighboring countries!
Although, I must say I like the direction of the rhetoric, the proof lies in the pudding and this pudding tastes like horseshit.. Leave Afghanistan, Close Guantanamo, now... Anyone who thinks that troops fighting no win wars are "good government" is a deranged and immoral asshole.
Mark on August 16, 2011 11:08 AM:
Obama and the other Democrat politicians show how much they care by taking the money people earned away from them and giving it away to their political supporters. So, in a sense, they do care. They care about getting re-elected and keeping their cushy government jobs.
ekd on August 16, 2011 11:18 AM:
good policy is good politics. bad policy is bad politics. obama equals horrible policies and politics. his rhetoric is boilerplate and insincere. is anybody other than the obamas better off today then they were three years ago. bailed out wall street but not main street. banksters still have their jobs, do you? health insurance premiums (at least mine) up 40 percent. home values (at least mine) down 20 percent. stock portfolio (at least mine) down 30 percent. gas prices doubled. food prices through the roof. raising medicare eligibility instead of lowering it. not a dime's worth of difference between obama and a repuke.
Alli on August 16, 2011 11:21 AM:
@DiTUrno: BUDDY YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG! Obama has made this case a number of times and each time some prominent liberal points out that IT was a great defense of government and liberalism.
One of the pluses of being an Obot. WE listen to almost all of his speeches.
CDW on August 16, 2011 11:31 AM:
This was as excellent speech. But it simply underscores exactly how Obama has failed since he took office. This should not be just a campaign speech, carefully calibrated to the polls. It should have been his mantra for the last 3 years, repeated time and time and time again.
Ron Byers mentions Claire McCaskill and her weasley capitulation above. If Obama had been standing up for Party core beliefs it would have given McCaskill and others like her cover. Maybe she would be the same, who knows? But that's what I and I imagine others like me have been wanting when we say Obama isn't a leader, or more kindly maybe, hasn't demonstrated leadership since he took office.
Am I glad he said it? Sure. Do I think it means anything when it comes to action? Sadly, no.
apm on August 16, 2011 11:53 AM:
It should have been his mantra for the last 3 years, repeated time and time and time again.
God damn it - it fucking was. You can argue that strategy/policy did not live up to message. You can argue that the message wasn't reverentially repeated on Fox News. But if you don't know that it has been a constant message from the admin, you are part of the problem.
Zach W. on August 16, 2011 11:59 AM:
Steve, I agree that it is refreshing to hear Obama talk in those ways. Now I would like to see him us that talk during actual policy debates rather than campaign stops, and use his bully-pulpit to at least shame those who stand in the way of his agenda.
This post also reminds me how toxic the right-wing rhetoric has been over the last 30 years in their efforts to demonize government. I can't think of more than a handful of my friends/acquaintances today that don't spew some "government is the problem" line. There is almost zero trust in the government to do its job effectively and efficiently, even though in a lot of cases it does. I want to see a similar campaign led by the left to reverse that thinking... I can dream can't I?
Danny on August 16, 2011 12:08 PM:
Fact is that Obama taking on Reagans vision of Government as a "problem" has been a mainstay of pretty much all his messaging for the last three years, starting with the campaign in 08. Anyone who missed that wasn't paying attention. Now he seems to be doing what some among the netroots have been asking for: being more vocal in calling the Republicans out. Let's now watch carefully how the critics react. Those who are encouraged were being earnest, those who pivot to complain about other stuff are playing a whole different game.
tori on August 16, 2011 12:12 PM:
Obama's defended government, labor, progressive ideology plenty of times. But it's rare to see it written up, even by many progressives who should want to highlight this.
Glad to see it highlighted here.
Now the question is that now that there's a message out there... will progressives and Democrats echo it? Anyone who has lectured Obama on messaging but doesn't understand the importance of many people repeating a message, perhaps should stop lecturing anyone on message.
CDW on August 16, 2011 12:49 PM:
@apm
Do you have links, apm? If Obama repeated the wonderful things he said in the speech time and time and time again, I haven't heard them and would really like to know when and where he said them. I'm perfectly willing to admit I was wrong and I'll even shed my cynicism, or at least keep it to myself.
emjayay on August 16, 2011 12:50 PM:
Re: calling all toasters at 9:20 AM
The USPS isn't a make-work organization. It is a semi-independent business. Obviously the world of mail/communications has changed a bit over the years. Mail volume is down 20% in the past two years alone. Should the cost of stamps go to paying thousands of people to stand around doing nothing?
Anonymous on August 16, 2011 12:52 PM:
The clueless liberals here all think that Obama saying how wonderful government is will make people think it's true, despite what people can see. People can see that the more government does and the bigger it gets, the poorer this country becomes. People who want to redistribute wealth always go too far and kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We'll either reverse course or have an economic collapse. If there's a collapse, Obama will still be saying "Government is wonderful. Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?".
jjm on August 16, 2011 1:59 PM:
Thanks for reporting on this work by Obama.
No one has, to my knowledge, even mentioned what you cited above about 'government' in Obama's talk.
Really the press is so hot for everyone but Obama he HAS to make his case pretty directly to the people. I wonder if he'll get any voice.
I noticed the trick in the NYT this morning: Perry given a front view, full face picture same size as Obama. But Obama's picture is taken from the back.
Nice going.
As for the stupid trope of 'big' government: you tell me, Anonymous above, who expanded government enormously to give all the money it rakes in to the wealthy? And Obama isn't talking about BIG versus LITTLE government: he's talking literally about government as a form of living in common with others whereas the GOP is talking about anarchy, no government (except for the salaries, perks and tax money it redistributes to the already wealthy). Perry, for example, like Bachmann, issues utterly anarchical ideas. "Immediately call a moratorium on all regulation."
So the GOP is not asking for small government. They are asking for people to be victimized by anyone who pleases to harm them and go scot free for it.
The label "BIG" government is a hackneyed meaningless term and should be banned from all further discussions of the role of government. Government is supposed to act like a pump, priming where things should get flowing again.
Mitch on August 16, 2011 1:59 PM:
@Anonymous @ 12:52pm
"People can see that the more government does and the bigger it gets, the poorer this country becomes."
Prove it. History is against you on this one. Compare taxation and the size of the governement over the past 100 years with the health of the nation and the economy.
You sound like my father, a dyed-in-the-wool Tea Bagger, who goes on and on about how things should be like they were in the "good old days" like the 1950's.
Well in the '50s the Government was quite a bit larger than now, unions employed a greater percentage of the population, and taxation on the rich was MUCH MUCH higher than now.
Hell we've been shrinking the government for decades now yet things just seem to get worse and worse, don't they? We've been giving the top 1% larger and larger tax breaks for decades, but I sure as hell haven't seen anything trickle down. Have you? Quite the opposite, the richest of the rich now have a much larger portion of the nations wealth sitting in their banks, while the middle class (the REAL "job creators") is shrinking more and more each day.
So keep repeating your nonsense, go right ahead. But facts are against you, history is against you,
Danny on August 16, 2011 2:31 PM:
@CDW
What in particular do you want a cite for? Obama's speech was 1 h+ and if I go search through the internet to document what you should already know (had you paid attention) you'll have to be specific about what from the speech you thought was a break from routine. The only change from what the President's been saying for 3 years was a sharpening of some contrasts, but he's been consistent in talking up the good government does and forwarding a progressive vision of america.
low-tech cyclist on August 16, 2011 3:46 PM:
But what struck me as especially important is when the president took the time to defend government itself.
This is a task he set himself back when he was running for President: to start bending the curve in people's attitudes towards government.
And that's one of the reasons I feel I have legitimate grounds for my frustration with him as a President.
You can't make people believe that government's a good thing by saying you're going to make big cuts in government, but not quite as big as the other guys wanted to do.
All that tells people is everybody who matters agrees that government's largely bad, and that we have too much of it.
He can make speech after speech trying to change people's minds about government, but unless he proposes and fights for a plan to put people back to work, why should anyone listen?
anonymous on August 16, 2011 3:55 PM:
Mitch, where are you getting that government was bigger in the fifties? Please site some specific sources because I'd like to see them. I did a quick google search
for government spending as a percentage of gdp. At usgovernmentspending.com it shows 23.95% in 1950 and 39.97% in 2010. According to the wikipedia article on the U.S. economy, household income went up 55% from 1946 to 1973 and only 10% from 1973 to the present. As government spending has increased, growth has slowed. Jjm, I don't think the purpose of government is to redistribute money to the wealthy either. I think it would be more accurate to say, though, that money is currently redistributed to anyone with political connections. It goes to anyone who can provide votes, like unions, or campaign contributions, like wealthy people. It's the little guy who works a non-unionized job or owns a small business and who has no political connections who gets screwed.
Doug on August 16, 2011 10:12 PM:
Anonymous @ 3:55 PM -
You may want to look into tax rates over the periods you mentioned. Between 1946 and 1970 the highest marginal rates ranged from 90% down to, I believe, 70%. Between 1970 and 2010 marginal rates were done away with. Today, few if any corporations or rich individuals pay even the maximum 35%.
Strange, isn't it. When there were high marginal rates, jobs seemed to be created, well, as if by magic. Cut, or do away with those marginal rates, and the economy starts declining.
You might also want to find the figures for "household incomes" from 1940 to 1945, when the Federal government was spending 30+ to 50+ percent of the GDP. WWII, you say? So, it's STILL the Federal government spending a large proportion of the GDP and should have seen a decline, if not in the economy, then at least in household income.
Anonymous on August 17, 2011 8:43 AM:
Doug,
You need to do a little more research before you spout off. As Michael Boskin pointed out in the July 18th Wall Street Journal, when the top rate was 70% it applied to a much smaller percentage of taxpayers than todays top rate. It's not the top rate that's important, it's how many people have to pay the top rate. Also, the burden on taxpayers isn't just current taxes. The burden is total government spending because the money that's currently borrowed is going to have to be repaid with future taxes. Doug, if we keep borrowing and don't cut spending eventually everyone is going to have to pay a 70% tax rate, not just rich people.
rtyecript on August 25, 2011 6:42 AM:
I really liked the article, and the very cool blog