Memo to America's Middle Class: Obama Is Just Not That Into You
Arianna Huffington

As we head into the stretch run of the 2010 midterms, we're hearing a lot of media chatter about the "enthusiasm gap" plaguing Democrats. There is also a lot of talk about whether progressives -- aka "the professional left" -- should or shouldn't be disappointed in Obama.

Those in the "disappointed" camp maintain that Obama presented himself one way to gain their support during the campaign and then, once he had it, ended up governing another way, turning his energies to winning over Republicans instead of changing the game in Washington.

Those in the "not disappointed" camp claim it's not Obama's fault. He's the same Obama he was during the campaign, they say, and cite a host of logistical and structural reasons for why he had to make all the compromises. Among them: the huge mess left by the Bush administration; the deeper than expected financial crisis; the abuse of the filibuster by Senate Republicans.

The president himself addressed the issue in a speech to labor leaders earlier this month. "I know you are talking to a lot of your locals, I'm sure they are feeling like, 'Boy, change is not happening fast enough,'" he said. "They are frustrated. They have every right to be frustrated."

So which side in the "disappointed/not disappointed" debate is right? And what accounts for this friction?

Well, after two years of seeing a pattern being established, I think I have the answer. Progressives, it's my duty to point something out to you: The president's just not that into you.

Sure, there's no doubting the impact of all the Washington realities that have made Obama's first term a huge challenge. But as real as all that is, it's clear that Obama just doesn't have the fire in his belly that many activists thought he had. And you know what? That's OK. It's not ideal, but it doesn't mean that his first term can't be a success. What it means, however, is that those who voted for transformation can't simply sit back and wait for the man of their dreams to do it for them.

As I argue in "Third World America," what we need is Hope 2.0: the realization that change will not come from Washington or from one man; that real change will only come when enough people outside Washington demand it, and make it politically risky to stick to the status quo.

This is not to say that the list of disappointments isn't every bit as real as the list of roadblocks -- starting with Afghanistan. For this war not to become an albatross around the president's neck, he will have to start seeing the idea of getting out as less risky than the reality of staying in.

The other major issue on which the administration seems to need extra prodding is the economy. The numbers are awful -- including Tuesday's news that bankruptcies have reached the highest level since 2005, with more than 420,000 people and businesses filing for bankruptcy between April and June. From June 2009 to June 2010, there were 1.57 million bankruptcies -- a 20 percent increase over the previous 12 months.

The latest unemployment figures are similarly dismal. The $26 billion jobs bill the president signed into law last week is a good but anemic start. As Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute put it, "The economic case for more government action to create jobs is about as clear as they come."

And this isn't something the Obama administration can dismiss as an idea held only by those on "the professional left." Earlier this month, Charlie Rose had on Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard and former chief economist at the IMF, and David Wessel, the economics editor of the Wall Street Journal.

"Continuing transfers to the states and local government system," said Rogoff, "so they don't have to rein in their jobs too fast, that's, I think, a no-brainer."

"The president needs to speak plainly to Americans about what the game plan is here," said Wessel, "not to pretend that everything is wonderful, which sometimes, frankly, they do."

Obama's economic team likes to point out -- again and again and again -- how the administration avoided a global financial meltdown in the spring of 2009. That's great, but it's no longer enough.

When pressed about making jobs a priority, Obama's response is to plead powerlessness by looking backward at George Bush and forward at the growing deficit. "We're not going to go back to digging the hole," he said of Bush's economic policies in his speech to labor leaders. And, looking forward, his administration has, in practice, made controlling the deficit a higher priority than creating jobs.

But taking on the GOP's deficit hawks by hammering home the idea that job growth outweighs concerns about the deficit is clearly not Obama's natural inclination. So here comes Hope 2.0 -- the people have to make him do it.

If Obama is going to do the right thing for America's middle class by sticking to his promise to start winding down (for real) the war in Afghanistan in July 2011, and by prioritizing jobs over the long-term deficit, the passion is going to have to come from outside the White House.

Available at Amazon.com:

The Feminine Mystique

The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy

The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics

Bush on the Home Front: Domestic Policy Triumphs and Setbacks

The Political Fix: Changing the Game of American Democracy, from the Grassroots to the White House

Read the latest political news.