Dear Mr. Chait: Wanna bet?

Chait, on "What Obama Is Really Trying to Do in the State of the Union Address":

Everything about Obama’s messaging--the image of vigorous unilateral action, the laser focus on jobs, the small but popular policy initiatives attached to it--serve the goal of patching up the president’s standing and framing the Washington story in the most favorable terms possible. The State of the Union address is not an effort to fundamentally reorient the administration’s strategy. It’s a campaign to mend the political damage from the botched Obamacare launch.

I agree with Chait's final point, for to disagree would be to deny the undeniable. Yet Chait writes approvingly of the administration's non-reorientation strategy, meaning more non-belligerence, and there I'm in violent disagreement.

Not to be too soap operatic, but like sands through the hourglass, Obama's time is being steadily sucked into oblivion. He now has a mere nine months to recapture the electorate's interest in all things governmental--and by that I mean responsible governance--before facing another, and final, two years of the opposition's barbaric depredations. This is it, nine months, a very narrow opportunity to retake the House and fortify the Senate. And touting new EPA regulations, filibuster reform, Dodd-Frank rules or minimum-wage hikes for the federally contracted won't do it. These are not the platforms of popular enthusiasm.    

As godawful as SOTU addresses have been for years, some people do still watch--thus tonight is the night to really blow their minds. Lay into Republicans, which is to say, lay into the problem of irresponsible governance--that which has so alienated the populace, which nonetheless awaits direction on a way out of this mess and still harbors some hope that it can be accomplished. That, after all, is Obama's virtuosity. It's regrettable that he hasn't been playing much lately.  

Regrettable for us, but even more so for Obama in presidential retirement, as he watches President Hillary Clinton get historic credit for presiding over the barbarians' collapse. There will be something profoundly distasteful and even metaphysically unjust about that, for it's Obama who's suffered their depredations and has earned the right to finish them off. But he's got to do it. And he can only do it by laying into them.  

If he takes a pass on this, he'll regret it. History will show that this eight-year president was cooked after two, because he failed to strike back when it mattered the most.

Wanna bet, Jonathan?

 

Comments

[RT]

"Regrettable for us, but even more so for Obama in presidential retirement, as he watches President Hillary Clinton get historic credit for presiding over the barbarians' collapse."

I believe that President Obama, like Moses, will not get to lead us into the Promised Land. I suspect Obama, the master player of the long game, knows it too. I only hope his Joshua will give him proper credit.

[Turgidson]

Agreed. I think Obama is aware that the domestic policy stalemate is unlikely to resolve before 2016 unless the GOP shuts down the government again this year (which even they don't seem stupid enough to do). I also think, being human, it will annoy him that his presidency will have been largely consumed by this interminable trench warfare. Yet, he'll be gratified that he laid the groundwork for a better nation in his first two years, and by defending his achievements and winning reelection, he set the stage for the implosion of the GOP in its current form. And at least some observers will make that connection.

If the seeds Obama planted sprout into full flower under President Hillary Clinton, I don't think he, or anyone else, will be too concerned about who gets credit. Because it probably means we'll get 5 or 6 consecutive Democratic presidential terms (provided Hillary chooses a plausible, but youngish, successor as VP, which I think she would given her age) and hopefully, an end to the regressive GOP and their inflated representation in the House.

Obama has made his share of rhetorical volleys at the insanity of the GOP, but he has not sustained them over the long haul other than to curbstomp Romney, and when he does call the GOP out, the Village Idiots rush to the fainting couches to condemn Obama's divisive talk and fault HIM for his lack of LEEEEAAAADERSHIP. Which of course makes it harder to sustain the message. That doesn't mean he shouldn't try - but it's what he's up against.