Essential reading from Edward Luce at the Financial Times:
Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] painâ€, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.
Hat tip: Steve Clemons who adds:
But one thing essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists — including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) — would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang’s tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.
The ability to manage an election campaign is not indicative of an ability to manage, generally.
One danger is that the Obama Administration is becoming embroiled in the same sort of crony capitalism of which the Bush Administration was accused, viz. the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger:
For followers of politics as practiced in Chicago, it is hard not to suspect some successful influence peddling. In addition to employing the most high-powered Democratic lobbyists in Washington, Live Nation’s board members include Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff and former North Side congressman, while Ticketmaster’s board of directors included the president’s Harvard classmate and transition team leader Julius Genachowski, until he resigned to become chairman of the FCC.
During the campaign, Obama pointed to his Chicago roots to claim that he would be tough enough to pass his agenda. Since then it seemed like a lot of progressives bought into this idea of Obama as an Al Capone of the Left.
As an outsider to Chicago politics, this always seemed somewhat delusional. Chicago politics from where I stand is operationally conservative and primarily about retaining power. It’s not about risks and framing large ideological battles. If Obama uses his Chicago skills he will be a two-termer; I don’t know how the Democrats in Congress would fair.
The Luce article was very good and it seems to be the most likely explanation for the administration’s missteps over the last year.
Yeah, I thought it was great, too. Generally speaking, I find the FT the best source for analysis of American politics which is sort of a sad commentary. That and The Economist.
“The ability to manage an election campaign is not indicative of an ability to manage, generally.”
Almost invariably one I would raise the issue of Obama’s inexperience during the campaign someone would retort: “well, he’s running a beautiful campaign.” Now, as you note, the two have nothing to do with each other.
Concerning the merger, that’s a fascinating example. In 2009 my firm found itself in a pitched battle with the FTC over a similar merger issue, and to a man lawyers both in and outside of the department reported that anti-merger sentiment under the Obama administration had been heightened dramatically. Now in the face of very vocal opposition we see a complete about face. Crony capitalism indeed.
Paging Michael Reynolds, Michael Reynolds please copy and paste your stock response here on what a wonderful job President Obama is doing.
Sarcasm aside, I agree that Obama just doesn’t seem ready to be President. He passed on taking leadership with regards to health care. I can only surmise it was a political calculation. He saw what happened with Clinton in his first term and decided not to go that route. So he handed it off to Congress so that if things go wrong he can point the finger at Congress. Maybe that was politically smart, but from the stand point of getting the reform we needed it was a horrible idea.
On the economy Obama has been particularly bad as well, in part because of his failures on health care. But to that we can add cap-and-trade for global warming and his other various policies. Even TARP and the stimulus could be problematic when you look at the entire picture. There you are mid sized businessman. You are rich. You are weathering the recession reasonably well. Now we have health care reform, cap-and-trade, the stimulus….and Medicare an Social Security threatening to blow a hole in the budget. What does that mean?
Higher taxes, and with Obama higher taxes on our mid-sized business owner. And very likely higher interest rates down the road as well. After all, interest rates aren’t going to stay this low forever as the recession wont last forever and Team Obama’s spending could also play a significant role in pumping up interest rates. That is a nice one-two punch that many business owners might not want to subject themselves to anymore than they have too. Who wants to take on extra work and extra risk just to see it largely wiped out by higher taxes and/or higher interest rates? Maybe it is instead time to relax a bit and enjoy life.
Now we get a nice dose of what, at the very least, appears to be crony-capitalism and what is that mid-sized business man to think? “I don’t have anyone working for me that is a brother of Rahm Emanuel, I don’t have a former classmate of the President. All I got are some people who need to eat and pay their rent.”
Steve-
Don’t worry Steve Michael is already informed us that all these businessmen will simply work harder, sort of like Eloi in the time machine movie.
It’s the permanent election cycle again. And now it’s not enough for the President to focus on his own campaign when the year before re-election year comes around – he’s got to be helping all the Senate and House Democrats fight their election campaigns every two years, because the media will say “This was a referendum on President Obama’s agenda, blah, blah, blah”.
I mean, simply keeping his advisors close is not really surprising – Bush kept Rove close until after the 2006 elections.
I did the math. 180 billion given to AIG alone could have meant $450,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in America! This bailout is obscene. The money should have been given to the American people. (Based on pop. of 400 million).
Steve- Daschle, in his book, recommended that HCR had to be done by Congress. He also recommended that it be done quickly. I think that was the plan all along. How would he have passed it through otherwise?
Defending the mid-sized businessman? Ok, what specific taxes have been proposed for the mid-sized businessman?
Steve
Redo your math.
Steve
I’d be willing to bet that alot of those guys fall in the $250,000 or more/year catagory. They are getting an automatic tax increase at the end of this year.
Merry Christmas.
As someone who works with midsize businessmen for a living, and setting aside for the moment the canard that those making less than $250,000 a year will not receive tax increases, I can tell you that this class of businessmen routinely makes more than $250,000 a year and is squarely in the sights of the Obama tax machine.
To deny it is absurd.
And just to be clear, I’m not here defending the poor beleagured mid-sized businessman because his taxes on his rather nice income is going up. What I’m pointing out is that this can be a source of significant job creation at the end of a recession. Making them turtle up is probably not a winning solution.
Then decide if you want to end the recession or start working on the debt. The right has been scoring points by playing both sides of the issue. Since we are talking about a return to tax rates the same as under Clinton, a modest increase, I dont see it making a huge difference in how much people are going to work and it will bring in some more revenue. Since this group benefitted disproportionately the last 30 years and now hold much more of our wealth, they will of course be taxed more. I will agree with Drew’s implication that eventually everyone will pay more. With deficits this high, there are not enough passable spending cuts available.
Steve-
That is just it, after decades of mismanagement by both parties we simply can’t. We can’t start working on the debt, nor can we start working on the economy. If we start working on the debt, then the economic recovery will likely be extremely weak if not slipping back into recession. If we work on the economy then we’ll likely never get a handle on the debt.
Really? You want to continue as we have been for the last year? Tepid growth and extremely slow recovery in unemployment/employment? Why did we even do the stimulus if you are going to allow tax increases to rise and wipe it out?
Yes, lower growth and higher unemployment. Not the end of the world stuff, but with Medicare’s shortfall rushing at us….not good either.