Posted on 11/04/2010 1:00:10 AM PDT by Rashputin
What the Election Was Not About
November 3, 2010 - by Victor Davis Hanson
1. Communication—As If You Would Have Liked My Agenda Had You Just Been More Informed
President Obama’s postmortem press conference was a near disaster. He seemed subdued, but also sometimes petulant—still convinced that we, in fear and distrust, “lashed out” in anger at the doctor rather than the disease. In fact, the same voter furor that turned on him is, he thinks, what earlier elected him: only his failure to channel it properly explains the setback. Finally he did admit that he was “shellacked,” but he believes that partisanship confused us voters into shellacking him.
This common complaint that he failed to communicate just how wonderfully he had done is quite an unhinged Carteresque/Kerryesque exegesis. The problem was not that the American voter did not know about the second stimulus, ObamaCare, the efforts to push cap and trade, card check, and $3 trillion more in debt, but that he knew them all too well. When framed by 10% unemployment, slow growth, record food stamp usage, and home foreclosures, the problem was, again, too much, rather than too little, information. Obama was overexposed, not underexposed. The more he communicated on the campaign trail—“back seat,” “enemies,”“they” don’t want you to vote—the more the jaded voter turned from his cause. I fear very few will now listen to the new Obama in extremis calling for a new civility of the sort he helped destroy with his offensive and polarizing slurs and smears the last month.
2. We Spent Too Little?
Given what we know of the models of Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and California, we should not take seriously another lunatic explanation that we did not borrow enough. Supposedly Obama followed the conservative Japanese route of the 1990s and thus was too fiscally restrained. This is more than insane. Increasing government spending on the way to a planned 40% of the economy, while borrowing $3 trillion was not timid. The real reason Obama turned a recession into a near depression? Let us count the ways: a) He trash-talked business (from the Chrysler creditor mess to the “at some point I do think you’ve made enough money” toss-off) into stasis, and the private sector now sits on the sidelines hoarding trillions of dollars in fear of ObamaCare, more regulation, and government confiscation.
b) His team talked non-stop about raising taxes—income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, health care taxes, even VAT taxes. Psychologically that frightened off investors and entrepreneurs.
c) The government wasted the borrowed stimulus money on pork-barrel projects and spread-the-wealth social programs that produced no real wealth.
d) His advisory team simply quit and left town—Emanuel, Romer, Summers, Orszag—more or less confirming that they did not ever know quite what they were doing.
e) He wasted millions of legislative hours on health care that terrified employers, and very little on incentives to businesses to create jobs. I could go on, but you get the point that Obama supposedly not following the Greek mega-borrowing model was not our problem. (By the way, for all its innate crises, Japan still is in far better shape today than Italy, Spain, and Greece).
3. Obstructionist Republicans
A third explanation often aired is that Republicans are good at destroying noble things like Obamism, but not good at governing. Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and the usual partisan suspects deluded the gullible public. The result is that we still do not appreciate the wonders of ObamaCare (check those rising premiums), and will soon choke without cap and trade, and will applaud Obama for the trivial things like the Government Motors Volt. Yet Obama and the left seem oblivious to the fact that they gave as good as they got. Here in California Jerry Brown’s commercials, as well as Boxer’s, were as vicious as their opponents’, more so in fact. My only surprises are, one, that dozens of Republicans survived the smearing and character destruction, and, two, Obama et al. are now calling for a time-out and “can’t we all get along” brotherhood. Ask yourself this: had Obama enjoyed a 60-seat gain after his “enemies” talk, would he now have called for a new era of political healing and harmony? The notion that stonewalling conservatives derailed a successful president is adolescent.
4. Race
Oh yes, race. I mention that because on election day Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post has already played that preemptory card to explain the repudiation of the Obama agenda. Here’s why that is also crazy:
a) The anger is against the Obama agenda and those who promote it. A Nancy Pelosi is as unpopular, or more unpopular, than Barack Obama. Lots of white-male entrenched incumbents lost not because they supported a black man, but because they oversaw the government takeover of health care, borrowed $3 trillion in 21 months, perpetuated the “culture of corruption,” and saw unemployment rise to 10%.
b) The Tea Party zealots backed all sorts of candidates, women like Sharron Angle, Hispanics like Mario Rubio, blacks like Allen West, and Asians like Van Tran. Contrary to Robinson’s charges, race or gender was incidental — not essential — to their support.
c) Barack Obama has encountered no more venom—and in fact much less—than what George Bush or Bill Clinton endured. As of yet, thank God, we have not seen an Alfred Knopf novel like Checkpoint aimed at Obama, or anything like the 2006 Toronto prize-winning film Death of a President, which imagined the shooting of George Bush. I don’t recall Robinson at the time suggesting that such sick, unhinged hatred of Bush was either untoward or motivated by nefarious forces.
d) By 2001 the two highest foreign policy officials of the U.S. government—Secretary of State and National Security Advisor—were both African-Americans—and appointed by George Bush. There was some racism directed at them, but it came mostly from the anti-war Left (cf. the despicable comments of a Harry Belafonte)— and especially from abroad, as in the case of the sick, anti-Rice cartoons that appeared in the Palestinian papers. Again, I don’t recall outrage from Robinson over that overt racism.
e) To the degree racial divisiveness is more apparent after 2008, it is largely due to the Obama administration. The president himself called for Latinos to see Republicans as “enemies.” He appealed to racial groups to vote on the basis that the Republicans did not wish them to. He used racially loaded imagery to suggest that the Republicans should sit in the back of the car. He suggested that the Cambridge police, on no evidence, had engaged in stereotyping and had acted stupidly. His attorney general called Americans “cowards” for not wishing to talk about race on his terms. No need to repeat the past racist rants of Van Jones. His Supreme Court nominee gave reasons why a “wise Latina” intrinsically would make a better judge than a white counterpart. And all this came after the 2008 mess with the overt racist Rev. Wright, the “typical white person” slur, and the condescending put-down of the white clingers of Pennsylvania. To the degree racial polarization has surfaced, it has been due entirely to Barack Obama’s modus operandi, saying different things to different audiences, predicated on their race — and whether the comments are thought to remain private and not for public dissemination.
f) One thing has changed, however. The near obsessive use of the slur “racist” in lieu of an argument has now so inflated the currency of that charge that it has been rendered meaningless — and, in fact, tells us far more about the character of the accuser than of the intended target.
So What Was Tuesday?
The truth is always the simplest explanation. Here it goes in simple language from the beginning: Obama was elected largely because of public furor over Bush/Iraq. The fawning media hid his socialist background. He ran as a centrist. The Wall Street meltdown wiped away the small McCain/Palin lead. Obama in his hubris took that flukish set of events and reinvented them into proof that he could deliver to the left a once-in-a-century EU-style socialist makeover of America. That effort polarized the country, stalled the recovery, and terrified the private sector into stasis. Obama, who was always himself given something (take your pick—Harvard admission, Harvard Law Review billet, Chicago Law School tenure offer, Noble Peace Prize, etc.) without requisite achievement, is thus stunned that the economy is not an animate Law dean whom he can hope and change into compliance. So naturally he is angry and has turned to almost everything in the past that worked: the race card, the get-out-the-minority vote card, the enemy Republican bad actors, the greedy rich takers, etc.. But now none of the old “them” bogeymen work; the more that tactic is tried, the more the economy stalls and the people get angry. It’s that simple. He can talk all he wishes, but until he offers fiscal responsibility, private sector encouragement, reassurance of adhering to singular American capitalism, and pro-jobs tax policies, he will continue more of these Orwellian, thinking-out-loud press conferences.
He is always petulant!
O is “dysfunctional” in the classic sense.
He is incapable of honesty with himself or with others....so he lives in a world of fantasy and can’t fathom why reality is so harsh.
He appears to hate the job and that makes him even more distant from his duties.
His FAILURE as a PRESIDENT will now become even more obvious as time passes.
I fear that he may do things that are dangerous and perhaps, outright evil.
4. Race
f). Maine and New Hampshire, with the huge flips at the state level, are now shown to be the most racist part of the country. Who knew?
I'd bet $10,000 he's out of here in two years, to be remembered as a failed president, like his spiritual godfather Carter. He doesn't have the strength or knowledge to "triangulate", as Clinton did in this situation.
“I fear that he may do things that are dangerous and perhaps, outright evil.”
As opposed to his actions to date.
_resident has been most evil in office in my lifetime, bar none.
A-hole _resident has done everything in his power to take down this great nation
And I have no doubt that he will continue until he is removed from power.
I pray for the day that he is removed from elected office and barred from any office in the future
Great points. I am so sick of adolescent national leaders.
I’m sending this to everyone on my contacts list...the author has really captured some important insights here.
Perhaps we will discover the limits of the Executive Order now. EPA is already implementing the foundation for Cap&Trade.
The Republicans can’t repeal the Kenyan Medicine law because they can’t sustain a veto. After two years the feeling of necessity will have receded and the then Old Pols will see the utility for vote buying of tweaking and adjusting it for the benefit of this group and that group. This 20th Century Rationalist has not been defeated and his changes are not likely to be defeated. The acceleration leftward has been stopped but not the direction or the motion. Like it or not we are on a downward slide to Europe and way past. Europe can only be prosperous because of the American economy and the American military and control of the seas, the air, and near space.
He wasted millions of legislative hours on health care that terrified employers, and very little on incentives to businesses to create jobs.
Here is another example of not denying the premise. The author seems to accept and argue around the idea that it's the Federal Government's job to create jobs. I reject the idea that it is ANY business of the Federal Government to create incentives to businesses to create jobs. It's just not any of the Fed's business. Their business is to stay on the sidelines of a fair playing field and throw penalty flags when things get out of hand.
Point two, I don't buy the notion that Obama was elected based on voter anger over the Iraq/Afghanistan war. I say he was elected because Conservatives didn't have an option on the ballot. Only leftists were upset about the war enough to vote in a blank sheet of paper with no vetting. 'Cain was vetted and found lacking. Palin was the only reason many of us got out and voted.
Good article though!
4. Race
f). Obama is an affirmative action president. He had no useful real-world experience. He had no paper trail to back up his PR. His “autobiograpy” was a fake investigated by none in the media. White Americans in large numbers were willing to ignore all of this because they thought “the time had come” for a black man to become president, no matter what reservations they might have in the back of their minds.
So for anyone to call “racism” the cause of the shellacking, if racism really were in charge, Obama never would have even gotten the nomination of the party. He would have remained an “eloquent” Senator who voted “present” on the important issues, and possibly one who was voted out yesterday.
BTTT
Good one as usual from VDH.
"Fiscal responsibility" is a near useless term with two very different meanings: to the right it primarily means spending cuts, to the left it primarily means raising taxes. The left is adamant that Obama has offered all kinds of "fiscal responsibility".
Obummer is not going to have any more press conferences. The State Controlled media will oblige him by falling into lockstep with his wishes.
well then we must make sure Obama doesnt get a second term. executive orders can be revoked you know. Obama revoked a few of Bush’s as soon as he got in office
5. Too many Americans are bitter clingers (guns & religion).
Excellent point. The Republicans now control the House, and that is where spending bills originate. The GOP needs to preach this message non-stop: We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. That's what a trillion dollar deficit means -- you're spending too much. The House needs to clamp down on the spending and force the government to be fiscally responsible. Yes, that term has had two meanings, but now the only meaning that matters is our meaning.
Unlike more careful private spending, 50% of government spending is permanently destroyed feeding the government beast. Leftists believe $1 trillion in government spending is the same exact thing as adding $1 trillion to the GDP. Actually it damages the true GDP $3 for every $1 spent. We should call it government wealth destruction, not spending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.