by Kenneth T. Walsh

President Obama State of the Union Address
President Obama

Strategists say President Obama needs to clarify his vision and explain his rationale

President Obama gave a solid State of the Union address, emphasizing the government's role in creating jobs and strengthening the economy. And there were some impressive rhetorical flourishes. But he failed to accomplish what should have been his main goal: clarifying his vision and explaining the rationale of his presidency in a compelling way, something he has failed to do all along.

Pollsters and strategists of both parties say that after more than a year, the narrative of the Obama presidency remains unclear.

Is it bringing change to Washington? That hasn't worked very well. Achieving bipartisanship? Another failure. Taking on Wall Street and other special interests? Lots of talk, not enough action to satisfy angry Americans. Serving as an international peacemaker after running as an antiwar candidate? Despite winning the Nobel Prize last year, Obama lacks credibility as he escalates the war in Afghanistan.

So far, the Obama narrative strikes many Americans as a confusing mishmash. "On the whole, the speech was workmanlike and comprehensive but less than memorable," says political scientist Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. "While not quite a laundry list, its thematic and narrative thrust was not prominent, and its length may have diminished its force somewhat . . . . It remains to be seen whether the speech will achieve its principal political objectives--namely, rallying Democrats, stemming the exodus of independents from the president's coalition, and regaining the people's trust and confidence."

In a recent interview, a senior White House official said, "We are not starry-eyed believers in the notion that simply running on a message of change and inspiring excitement in a lot of people meant it would be any easier to govern. The people he surrounds himself with are not naifs. They, and the president himself, understand the reality of how things are and not just how things should be. They always recognized that change was going to be hard and that there were going to be peaks and valleys. This is clearly a valley."

Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who advised the Obama campaign in 2008, says that over the long run, Obama needs a better message. Belcher argues that the administration has focused too much on the intricacies of legislation and not enough on vision and unifying ideas. The current theme, he says, "has no values framework, and it draws no narrative that appeals to the American people." Belcher adds, "Economic anxiety is high, and voters don't think enough has been done about it." One message from the Democrats, Belcher suggests, should be that "we have to empower people and protect people from runaway corporate greed and the predatory instincts that are out there preying on middle-class working families." Under this scenario, the Democrats would hit more aggressively at big special interests, including lenders that improperly foreclose home mortgages, banks that impose exorbitant credit card fees, and health insurers that treat consumers unfairly.

Another senior Obama adviser has a similar take: "No one in the White House disputes that the anger and frustration people feel is real," he says. "People are impatient. In the eyes of the great American middle, we haven't delivered yet. People are saying, 'I voted for you. Where's my change?' And saying, 'It could have been worse,' is not a good bumper sticker." Nevertheless, that's exactly what Obama has been doing in arguing that while the economy is bad now, it would have been catastrophic had he failed to intervene aggressively to save the financial industry last year.

Just as important, Obama seems a bit tone-deaf to the morale problems in his Democratic Party, which has lost three big contests in the past year--the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia and a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Yet Obama told ABC News last week that he might end up as a one-term president because his policies are so unpopular, a prospect that didn't seem to bother him very much. "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," he said, adding, "I don't want to look back on my time here and say to myself all I was interested in was nurturing my own popularity."

But Democratic strategists say it seems a bit early for the president to be talking about being a one-termer or a lame duck. Such a negative message could further depress a party that is already reeling as it prepares for midterm elections this fall.

Available at Amazon.com:

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

 

Receive our political analysis by email by subscribing here



Obama's Presidency Lacks a Strong Narrative | Kenneth T. Walsh

© Tribune Media Services