I don't wish to pick on Jonathan Chait, whose writing I always admire and whose analysis I usually find flawless. But his post-SOTU piece picks up in casual error where his pre-SOTU piece left off, and I can't let it silently pass. Here's Chait's gist:
President Obama devoted his State of the Union address to the economy for a simple reason: Americans think he needs to spend more time talking about the economy. They think that because they lack a detailed understanding of the situation in Washington. Obamaβs speech was an extended attempt to humor their naivete.
A completely honest Obama speech about the economy would concede that he is nearly helpless to spur economic growth given the need to obtain consent from a Congressional party whose political interest lies in thwarting it. But he would be an idiot to say that. Americans tend to hold Obama accountable even for the actions of Congressional Republicans that lie beyond his control....
Obamaβs greatest political puzzle, for the entire duration of his presidency, has been the ability of conservatives in Congress to block recovery proposals while foisting the blame for the consequences onto him. Heβs tried to crack this many times, with little success. The main solution available to him is for the economy to recover without much help from Washington. In the meantime, his best course of action is simply to talk about plans to help the economy as much as he can.
Where to start. How about with Americans' "lack [of] a detailed understanding of the situation in Washington"? They don't need one. For the situation is witheringly simple, straightforward and unidimensional: Republicans are screwing Obama and everyone else but themselves.
That's the kind of "complete honesty" from the president that is most needed. Yes, some progress was made in economic recovery via the early stimulus package, which was monolithically opposed by Republicans, and some progress persists due to the natural upswings of a post-recessionary recovery. But drags on that recovery (and Chait reviews all of this) have been maliciously imposed by Republican pols feathering their little red nests, and they don't give a damn how many Americans it hurts. In fact, others' pain makes their day. Just an honest observation.
I note with interest that "Obama's greatest political puzzle" is the one Republicans long ago solved for themselves. There's no magic involved here; they have rather simply pounded away at Obama's weak recovery. Franklin Roosevelt was confronted with the selfsame malicious negativity and hypocritical hogwash, yet he more or less sustained public approval by never letting the electorate forget just who the problem-solvers were--and who the problem-creators were. FDR delighted in such reminders, as did the populace.
Old-fashioned, old-school politics. That's what FDR practiced. And it worked. In any sport, one must remember the fundamentals.
Yet the only fundamental now fashionable among many of Obama's more ardent defenders is that the most powerful man on earth--a man with the world's largest megaphone and a stable of speechwriters and a veritable army of political hitmen at his disposal--is somehow helpless against a scattering of ... Louie Gohmerts.
I happen to be one of Obama's more ardent defenders myself. But I don't buy into the above sort of victimhood. Obama has nine months to scrap and fight and be "completely honest" with every potential voter who doesn't yet comprehend "the situation in Washington." It's that, or the end of his presidency.
This is his call, not the GOP's.